House of Commons

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 8 January 2020

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that voting in the election for the Deputy Speakers is taking place today in Committee Room 8 until 1.30 pm. May I also remind Members that the private Members’ Bill ballot book is open in the No Lobby until the rise of the House? The book will be available for Members to sign in the No Lobby until 6 pm, at which point it will be taken to the Public Bill Office and remain open for signatures until the rise of the House. The ballot draw will be held at 9 am tomorrow in the Wilson Room.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the 2016 fiscal framework agreement between the Government and the Scottish Government.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

I welcome you to your new role, Mr Speaker, and give you my very best wishes for 2020.

The UK Government continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to implement the fiscal framework agreed in February 2016. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who played his part in that agreement. A review of the arrangements is due in 2021.

[Greg Hands]

I also welcome you to your position, Mr Speaker, and the new Secretary of State to his. One of the interesting features of the negotiations was that the venue alternated between London and Edinburgh, which might be an idea for other negotiations that are about to start. The fiscal framework, combined with the Scotland Act 2016, helped create possibly the most powerful devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. Could the Secretary of State tell us, however, what the consequences of fiscal devolution have been for Scottish taxpayers?

[Mr Jack]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Scottish Parliament is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, and with those tax powers it is much more accountable than was previously the case. However, I regret its decision to make Scotland the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

May I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State and the Minister to their positions?

The 2016 framework was established before we knew what the impact of Brexit would be. The world has changed. Consideration will now have to be given to what powers pass from Brussels not just to Whitehall and Westminster but to Holyrood. This gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to reach out, cross-party, and to establish a proper future framework on what powers should rightly be with the Scottish Parliament and Government. He also has to take responsibility for ensuring that a financial package goes with those new powers.

[Mr Jack]

In the spending round, there is an extra £1.2 billion for Scotland. That is quite clear. Discussions on frameworks are ongoing and are proving to be successful. Not a single power is being taken away from the Scottish Parliament as we come out of the European Union. If anyone can think of one, they should write and tell me because, on the contrary, the Scottish Parliament will have more powers after we leave the European Union.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to support the Scottish fishing industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

This is my first opportunity to say what a privilege it is to have been re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Moray, representing my home area, and to now work in the Scotland Office. May I also wish you a very happy new year, Mr Speaker? As we say in Scotland, lang may yer lum reek.

Leaving the European Union will afford the fishing industry in Scotland, and across the United Kingdom, many opportunities. We will no longer be shackled to the common fisheries policy, and we will control who catches what, where and when in our waters. This Government will work tirelessly to that aim with our fishermen and coastal communities across Scotland.

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is fantastic to see him in his place and I congratulate him on his new role. Scotland has a proud history of fishing the finest seafood, and the same is true of local fishermen in Selsey in my constituency. There is great concern, however, that the next generation are not entering the industry, and the situation is made more urgent given the growth we expect in UK fishing once we leave the EU. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with colleagues to develop an industry pipeline for future fishermen and women?

[Douglas Ross]

I accept that for many years, the fishing industry has not offered attractive job opportunities for young people in Scotland or across the UK. I strongly believe that when we leave the European Union, there is a bright future for this industry. I hope that that will encourage more people to look to fishing as an area where they can have a successful career. My hon. Friend has been a great champion for the fishing industry in Selsey, and I know that she will continue to promote her constituency and its strong links with the fishing industry during this Parliament.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

When the Minister was a Back Bencher, he understood full well the need for non-European economic area crews to come into Scottish waters, particularly on the west coast. What will he and his Front-Bench colleagues do to make sure that can happen? Or will they demonstrate their powerlessness, ensuring that nothing happens, as has been the case for years?

[Douglas Ross]

To prove what will happen, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait for question 8 from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is about exactly that. I will answer that point then, and I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will be encouraged by the response.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

3. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Scottish Government’s publication entitled “Scotland’s Right to Choose”.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

6. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Scottish Government’s publication entitled “Scotland’s Right to Choose”.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

7. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Scottish Government’s publication entitled “Scotland’s Right to Choose”.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

9. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Scottish Government’s publication entitled “Scotland’s Right to Choose”.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

13. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Scottish Government’s publication entitled “Scotland’s Right to Choose”.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

I will answer these questions together. There is no independence of thought in the questions.

The Prime Minister has received the First Minister’s correspondence, which contains the Scottish Government publication, and he will respond in due course.

[Chris Law]

The Secretary of State repeatedly said to the people of Scotland during the general election campaign that every vote for the Conservatives is a vote to “say no to indyref2”. That went well for them, didn’t it? It saw them lose over half their seats and left them with barely a rump of MPs. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the people of Scotland, as reflected by the 80% of seats won by the SNP, and support their expressed democratic will to choose their own future?

[Mr Jack]

Some 45% of Scots voted for the SNP in the 2019 election, and 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. The numbers simply have not changed. Further, in 2014 the independence referendum came on the back of something called the Edinburgh agreement, which was signed by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, the then deputy leader. The Edinburgh agreement stated that both parties would respect the outcome of the referendum, and that has not happened.

[Drew Hendry]

A good new year to you, Mr Speaker. The Scottish Secretary has anticipated that the Scottish Parliament will refuse legislative consent for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. He said:

“that’s something we understand and respect because their position is that they don’t support Brexit.”

When consent is refused today, how will the UK Government demonstrate that respect?

[Mr Jack]

What we are respecting is the democratic outcome of referendums, which the SNP does not respect. The referendum in 2016 was a United Kingdom referendum, and we voted to leave the European Union. We are respecting that. Under the Sewel convention, we have provision for what is known as “not normal”. This is a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters are reserved, and they are not normally under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. We are delivering what the 2016 referendum requested us to deliver.

[Amy Callaghan]

This Tory Government are claiming that their 43% of the vote in the last general election provides them with an overwhelming mandate to implement Brexit. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain the absolutely blinding contradiction of his own position when he says that the 45% vote for the SNP, providing 80% of Scottish seats in this very House, does not equate to a mandate for the people of Scotland to choose our own future?

[Mr Jack]

It was a referendum three years ago. We are speaking for the majority of Scots. The majority of voters voted in 2016 to leave the European Union. We are respecting that decision, whereas the SNP is not respecting it and wants to tear up the United Kingdom.

[Neil Gray]

The Secretary of State’s performance thus far highlights just how untenable the Government’s position is on this matter. He has completely failed to answer my colleagues’ questions, so I remind him that his party enjoys 43% of the vote to deliver Brexit yet denies the SNP, with its 45% of the vote in Scotland, its right to give the people of Scotland their say. What is his democratic case for denying the people of Scotland their right to choose their own future?

[Mr Jack]

The First Minister has asked for the right to set and decide the context for future referendums. We are very clear that constitutional matters are reserved. It would be completely wrong for us to hand over those powers to the Scottish Parliament because we would end up with a series of neverendums, which would be bad for the Scottish economy and bad for Scottish jobs. It would reduce tax income and therefore damage already failing public services.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The UK Government have ignored Scottish people’s voices and votes in every election and referendum since 2016, careering on with both Brexit and austerity. What precise electoral event would convince the Secretary of State that Scotland’s people should have the right to choose their own future?

[Mr Jack]

First, on austerity, the Scottish Government’s own independence figures show that there would be a £12.6 billion hole in the Scottish finances, which would mean real austerity. On when the time will be right, both Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond said at the time of the referendum that it was a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-lifetime decision. I do not feel that either a generation or a lifetime has passed.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this document is just another expensive and time-wasting stunt by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP? The people of Scotland chose decisively in 2014 to remain in the United Kingdom, and it is time that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP accepted that and moved on.

[Mr Jack]

May I start by thanking my predecessor for his four years as Secretary of State for Scotland and, prior to that, five years as Under-Secretary and four years as a shadow spokesman? In all, he spent 13 years as a spokesman on Scottish affairs in this House, and I think the last person to do so for that length of time was Willie Ross under Harold Wilson. I thank him for all the hard work and service he has given to the people of Scotland.

It is quite clear that the Scottish Government constantly harp on about independence and separation because they want to deflect from the main issue, which is that they are failing on our school standards and failing our NHS.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I welcome the new ministerial team to the Scotland Office. In Scotland, education standards are falling and the NHS is failing patients with missed waiting-time targets. Does the Secretary of State share my embarrassment that the First Minister of Scotland, rather than sorting out these important issues, is obsessing with independence?

[Mr Jack]

Yes.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP has every right to continue making the case for independence, and to do so with passion and force, but that what it does not have the right to do is to keep dragging the people of Scotland and Scottish businesses around the same mountain time and time again to try to get the answer it did not get the first time?

[Mr Jack]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. What Scotland needs now is a period of peace and tranquillity, not division and rancour. We need to take the opportunities that Brexit will bring us, not least on the common fisheries policy and other great trade deals, and make 2020 a year of optimism and growth.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

The NHS is a precious asset that is just as important to people in Scotland as it is to my constituents in Redditch. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government’s obsessive attraction to independence detracts from their focus on the NHS? They should focus first on the people of Scotland who are missing the 12-week treatment target, which the Scottish Government have never met.

[Mr Jack]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Today’s The Herald highlights the fact that accident and emergency waiting times have deteriorated in Scotland to a record low, with record numbers of patients now waiting more than 12 hours to be treated.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the block grant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

Ministers and officials have regular discussions with the Scottish Government on many issues, including the block grant. The latest spending round gave the biggest funding settlement for the Scottish Government in a decade, with an extra £1.2 billion to help grow the economy and invest in our vital public services across Scotland.

[Mel Stride]

Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that, at the upcoming Budget, Scotland will receive its fair share of funding through the Barnett formula and, further, that the commitments made by the previous Government on the eight city and regional deals will be honoured in full?

[Douglas Ross]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that Scotland will receive fair funding thanks to the block grant and the Barnett formula, and that will continue. On city and growth deals, we are already investing £1.4 billion across Scotland and we are committed to a deal in every part of the country, including in my own area of Moray, where we agreed to £32.5 million from the UK Government matched by the Scottish Government, making this the highest funded growth deal per head of population anywhere in the country. That is a sign to constituents across Scotland of what Scotland’s two Governments can do when they work together.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

First, I want to commend the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) did in this role before me. He did a sterling job and could not have set a better example. Yesterday, my colleagues asked the Chancellor for an explanation as to why the UK is delaying its Budget until 11 March, despite the fact that the Scottish Government must pass their budget by 1 April and that 11 March is the legal deadline by which Scottish councils must set their budgets and their council tax levels. No explanation was given yesterday and I doubt I will get one now, so instead I want to ask: if and when did the Secretary of State raise this issue with the Cabinet? If he did raise it, what answers was he given?

[Douglas Ross]

Let me begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her position as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, following the reshuffle by the Scottish National party recently, and by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East for the work he did in that role previously to her. The Chancellor made it clear to the new SNP shadow Chancellor that there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Government from setting their budget ahead of the UK Government setting theirs, and the UK Government have already shared estimates of tax and welfare block grant adjustments, based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts in December, to aid the Scottish Government in these preparations.

[Mhairi Black]

It is ridiculous for the Scottish Parliament to be expected to know what money it is going to be getting, given that the UK Government have not told it yet; I am very quickly realising why many believe that this Department is utterly obsolete. Scotland is needing to wait on this place getting its act together and to wait for permission to be told what we can spend money on. Will the Minister at least concede that none of this would be happening if Scotland instead had the full fiscal powers of an independent and competent nation, in order to let us get on with the job properly?

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Lady is asking for “us” to be allowed to get on with the job, but the “us” is the SNP Scottish Government in Holyrood, who are letting down our health service and education service, and overseeing cuts to local government, which are affecting every local authority in Scotland. Perhaps this is not about the amount of money that Scotland gets from this UK Government, which is the highest level in a decade, but about the way it is spent—or, in many cases, misspent—by the Scottish Government in Holyrood.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Those answers are simply not good enough. The Scottish Government in Holyrood and the Scottish local authorities are entitled to know what the block grant is so that they can plan their future. Anybody who has tried to set a budget dependent on UK central Government funding knows that delay in this makes it almost impossible to manage. When will the Scottish Government be given certainty about what that block grant is, so that they can begin to plan their future?

[Douglas Ross]

I hope that some certainty was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, when he gave the commitment and the understanding that there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Parliament from passing a budget before the UK Parliament does. We shared the estimates on tax and the welfare block grant with the Scottish Government in December last year, and we will continue to engage with them going forward.

[Tony Lloyd]

Again, it is simply not good enough. Not only can the Scottish Government not set a budget, but Scottish councils cannot. That affects non-governmental organisations, businesses and services. What the Minister is doing is a measure of incompetence. When will the Secretary of State say to the Chancellor that he has to do more? There must be certainty; we cannot wait till March.

[Douglas Ross]

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes his seat, I am sure he is listening to these discussions, and he answered the points made by the SNP representative yesterday. Before I first entered this place, I was a local councillor for 10 years on Moray Council, so I know the council’s important role in setting its budget. In recent years, that has been made more difficult by the greater cuts the council has received from the SNP Scottish Government in Holyrood, which are affecting local services in Moray and throughout Scotland.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to ensure that all parts of Scotland benefit from a growth deal.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

To date, the UK Government have committed over £1.4 billion in Scotland through the city region and growth deal programme, which will be rolled out to all the other regions of Scotland very shortly.

[Mark Logan]

I fully support our Government’s ambitious plans to make sure that every part of Scotland benefits from a growth deal. Does the Secretary of State agree that the £1.4 billion that the UK Government have already invested in city and growth deals is another fine example of how Scotland benefits from being in a strong United Kingdom?

[Mr Jack]

I do agree, and that is just one example of how Scotland benefits from being in a strong United Kingdom. Another example is the Union dividend, which is worth more than £2,000 per annum to every man, woman and child in Scotland. I should add that the Prime Minister has announced a further £300 million to complete the growth deals throughout all the regions of Scotland, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland. In October, I was pleased to announce the quantum for Argyll and Bute, and I shall soon announce the quantum for both Falkirk and the islands.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his being reappointed to the Cabinet.

Growth deals are of course important, but have the Government had any conversations with the Scottish Government on how the latter plan to plug their 8% fiscal deficit to meet the European Union’s 3% fiscal deficit rule so that they could enter the European Union in the event of there being an independent Scotland?

[Mr Jack]

The hon Gentleman makes a good point. Were separation to happen, for an independent Scotland to join the European Union, under the Maastricht criteria its fiscal deficit would have to be 3% of GDP or less. That simply is not the case—Scotland’s fiscal deficit currently runs at more than 7%—so as things stand the economics are pure fantasy.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

The borderlands growth initiative has proven to be very popular in the borderlands region, and the initiatives in it will be implemented in the next year or two. [Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State commit to a second growth deal for the borderlands?

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I missed the end of his question because our Prime Minister was being cheered by colleagues. I think that my hon. Friend asked me to commit to the delivery of the borderlands growth deal. We have announced the quantum and we will have the heads of terms very soon.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State put to one side his fluffy rhetoric and answer this? When he considers the regional growth deal for Edinburgh and the Lothians, will he look into the mess that his Government have made in respect of the closure of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office in Livingston and the move to Edinburgh? Will he do as his predecessor did and come to Livingston and West Lothian, speak to my constituents, the workers, the unions and the elected representatives, and look into what can be done to fill the gap and sort out the mess made by his Government?

[Mr Jack]

I am happy to speak to the hon. Lady outside the Chamber about her concerns.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On the subject of the quantum for the islands’ deal, to which the Secretary of State has already referred, will he confirm that he will pursue with the Treasury a basis that is different from the per capita funding of other deals, because otherwise the deal for the islands will never be a meaningful one?

[Mr Jack]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. Previously, these deals have been done on a per capita basis, but we recognise that the islands is a huge geographical area and that per capita would bring a very low outcome. We are in discussions with the Treasury about raising the quantum.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 January.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I should begin by saying that, of course, we condemn the attack on Iraqi military bases hosting coalition forces. Iran should not repeat these reckless and dangerous attacks, but must instead pursue urgent de-escalation.

I know that the thoughts of the House are also with our friends in Australia, as they tackle the bushfires, and with the families of those killed in the Ukrainian air crash.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Andrew Lewer]

Motor neurone disease is a terrible terminal illness, with a third of people dying within a year and more than half within two years of diagnosis. The last thing that terminally ill people and their families should be worrying about are their finances. The Scrap 6 Months campaign by the Motor Neurone Disease Association, which is based in my constituency of Northampton, South, has managed to bring the important issue of payments to those with terminal illnesses to the fore. I welcome the Department for Work and Pensions review of the special rules for terminal illness announced last July, but may I ask the Prime Minister to join me in pressing the DWP to complete its review and to scrap six months?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing for those suffering from motor neurone disease, which is indeed a terrible illness. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that the welfare system works for sufferers of that illness. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions is indeed looking at how it can change the way that we help people nearing the end of their life with the most severe conditions, including motor neurone disease. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be only too happy to meet my hon. Friend at the earliest opportunity.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I wish to start by paying tribute to Andrew Miller, the former Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who sadly died on Christmas eve. He is a sad loss to this place. He spent more than 20 years here, was an expert on science and technology, and made an enormous contribution to this House. Our thoughts are with his family and friends. He is deeply mourned by Labour Members because of the great contribution that he made.

I join the Prime Minister in sending sympathy and support to our friends in Australia, where the fires have claimed the lives of more than 20 people. Along with the loss of human life, hundreds of millions of animals have also been destroyed as a result of the fires. This is a warning about global warming and what it does to us all, and we must take the threat of climate change very seriously.

I also join the Prime Minister in sending our thoughts to the friends and families of those who sadly died in the Ukrainian plane that crashed in Tehran last night.

Following last night’s attack on the United States bases in Iraq, will the Prime Minister confirm that, in this situation, he opposes any further retaliation or escalation in violence, as the region is at real risk of going into a full-scale war?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I can confirm that. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom has been working solidly since the crisis began to bring together our European allies in particular in their response. The House will have noted the E3 declaration that was issued by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in which we drew particular attention to the baleful role played in the region for a very long time by Qasem Soleimani. That is a collective European view, but it is a view that does not yet appear to be shared by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been interested that, in all his commentary, he has not yet raised that matter.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Following the Government’s support for the United States over the assassination of General Soleimani, is the Prime Minister confident that United Kingdom troops and civilians are not at further risk in the region and beyond?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an important question. I can confirm that, as far as we can tell, no casualties were sustained last night by the US and no British personnel were injured in the attacks. We are of course doing everything we can to protect UK interests in the region, with HMS Defender and HMS Montrose operating in an enhanced state of readiness to protect shipping in the Gulf. As the House heard yesterday from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we have relocated non-essential personnel from Baghdad to Taji, and we will do everything we can to prevent an escalation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Government have said that they are sympathetic to the assassination of General Soleimani. What evidence has the Prime Minister got to suggest that this attack on General Soleimani, and his death, was not an illegal act by the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, the strict issue of legality is not for the UK to determine, since it was not our operation. I think that most reasonable people would accept that the United States has a right to protect its bases and its personnel. I remind the House that the individual concerned—General Qasem Soleimani—was, among other things, responsible over many years for arming the Houthis with missiles with which they attacked innocent civilians; arming Hezbollah with missiles, which again they used to attack innocent civilians; sustaining the Assad regime in Syria, which is one of the most brutal and barbaric regimes in the world; and, of course, supplying improvised explosive devices to terrorists who, I am afraid, killed and maimed British troops. That man had the blood of British troops on his hands.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

If we stand by international law, as I am sure the Government do and would want to, surely killing somebody in a foreign territory is an illegal act and should be condemned as such. If we believe in international law, it should be the solution to the problems in the world. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, could the Government say what representations have been made to ensure that the Iranian officials who want to attend the Security Council to try to bring about a resolution to the very dangerous situation in the region will be allowed to attend? In the event of the US Administration blocking them, what representations will the Prime Minister personally make to President Trump to ensure that the UN can operate in the way in which it should and must be able to?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is probably well aware that the United States has a duty under international law to allow people to visit the UN, and that is indeed the position that the UK supports.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution calling for foreign troops to leave its country. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the British Government will respect any decision made by a sovereign Parliament and Government in Iraq that may make such a request in the future and will respect the sovereignty of Iraq as a nation?

[The Prime Minister]

As the House can imagine, I have spoken extensively to our friends around the world, including our friends in Baghdad and Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi, who, like many people in Iraq, has come to rely and depend on the support of coalition forces, not least from the UK. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a very significant NATO mission in Iraq at the moment, helping in the fight against Daesh. It is my wish and the wish of this Government—and it should be the wish of this House—that we do everything we can to support the security and integrity of Iraq and the Iraqi people.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My question was whether the Government would respect the sovereignty of Iraq, its Parliament and its Government, and the Prime Minister did not answer that question.

The actions of the United States have undoubtedly escalated the risk of a dangerous conflict in an already destabilised region, putting civilians, UK troops and nationals at risk and leaving the Iran nuclear deal in danger of being dead in the water. This Government’s response is not putting the interests of this country first but instead seems more interested in prioritising the Prime Minister’s relationship with President Trump over the security of the region and of this country. Is not the truth that this Prime Minister is unable to stand up to President Trump because he has hitched his wagon to a trade deal with the United States, and that takes priority over everything else that he ought to be considering?

[The Prime Minister]

I was waiting for the little green men thing to come out at the end about the trade deal. This is absolute fiction.

But what I will say is that the UK will continue to work for de-escalation in the region. I think we are having a great deal of success in bringing together a European response and in bridging the European response with that, of course, of our American friends, and working both with the Iranians and with the Iraqis to dial this thing down. The right hon. Gentleman should be in absolutely no doubt—this is, of course, a Leader of the Opposition who has famously received £10,000 from the Iranian Press TV—that we are determined to guarantee with everything that we can the safety and security of the people of Iraq, whereas he, of course, would disband NATO. It is this Government who will continue to stick up for the people across the middle east who have suffered at the hands of Qasem Soleimani and the Iranian revolutionary guard Quds force that he has led and whose terrorism he has promoted. I am very surprised at the end of these exchanges that the right hon. Gentleman has yet to condemn the activities of Qasem Soleimani and the revolutionary guard.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Q2. In the past 10 years, there have been volumes of reports, independent reviews and recommendations calling for an end to inappropriate in-patient care for people with learning difficulties or challenging behaviour. In the wake of the Winterbourne View scandal alone, there were seven such reports. As we start a new decade, would my right hon. Friend state how many people are still trapped in inappropriate care settings and instruct the Department of Health to act on those recommendations and the asks of families of campaigners so that these very vulnerable people can get the care they need and deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the passionate campaign that she wages. I can tell her that the current number is 2,190, which is patently unacceptable, but it is moving down. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary tells me that the number is coming down rapidly. We have a pledge to reduce it by 50%, and I am sure that he will meet her very shortly.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I welcome you to your place, Mr Speaker, and wish you, all Members and staff a good new year?

I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister for our friends in Australia and on the tragedy of the Ukrainian airline crash. We want to see a resumption of democracy in Iraq. We want to see a return to peace, and of course we support all measures to make sure that diplomatic efforts can get us to a better place.

Prime Minister, who should determine the future of Scotland—the Prime Minister or the people who live in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the answer is very clear—it is the people of Scotland who voted decisively only four or five years ago to stay members of the most successful political partnership in history by a decisive majority in a once-in-a-generation choice.

[Ian Blackford]

This is about democracy. In 2016, the people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union, yet they are being dragged out of Europe against their will by this Prime Minister. In 2019, the people of Scotland elected a majority of SNP MPs to Westminster. The Scottish National party won the election on the premise of Scotland’s right to choose its own future, rejecting the Prime Minister who lost more than half his seats in Scotland. Today, the Scottish Parliament will decline legislative consent to the EU withdrawal Bill that we are deliberating later today. Why are this Conservative Government dismissing the will of the people of Scotland, ignoring their voice and disregarding our Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the real question is, why do the SNP keep going on about breaking up the most successful union in history? It is to distract from their abundant failures in government. In spite of getting £9 billion a year from the UK Exchequer, which of course they would lose if they were so foolish as to break away, they are mismanaging their healthcare. It is not the fault of Scottish pupils, but we are seeing Scottish schools falling behind in educational standards. Concentrate on what you are doing and stop going on about breaking up the Union.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Q9. Does the Prime Minister agree that at the heart of our one nation Government is our manifesto commitment that“A strong society needs strong families”?After last week’s £165 million boost to extend the troubled families programme, will he outline how the Government will additionally fulfil our manifesto pledge to champion family hubs, to“serve vulnerable families with the intensive, integrated support they need to care for children”?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that she has done to campaign for families. It was thanks to her, I think, that we put family hubs in the manifesto, so she should be in no doubt that we are working with local authorities to champion and deliver family hubs.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q3. Finally, it appears that some action is being taken against Northern Rail. Will the Prime Minister commit to stripping it of its franchise and to devolving the power and money to the regions, so that local people have the power over their local transport and never have to suffer the appalling catalogue of delays, overcrowding, cancellations and disruptions that have gone on far too long?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that I share her outrage, and I understand what she says. We are developing contingency plans for a replacement for Northern Rail. We are also looking at the whole way that the franchising system operates, and she will have seen Keith Williams’s very valuable report on that.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Q10. My right hon. Friend has always been a vocal advocate of localism, so what advice can he give to my constituents who are concerned about the local Lib Dem council’s unwanted housing plan in Eastleigh, which would lead to even more overdevelopment without securing the vital infrastructure that Eastleigh needs?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend says about the cavalier behaviour of the Lib Dem council in Eastleigh. We will ensure that, in so far as we need to build many more homes, which we do, we will supply the infrastructure necessary and do it on brownfield sites.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Q4. The Prime Minister is a man of vision, apparently. What is his vision for the constitutional relationship between Wales and England in the event of Irish reunification and Scottish independence?

[The Prime Minister]

Our relationship, like the relationship of the whole United Kingdom, will go from strength to strength.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Q13. American company Wheelabrator has a track record of breaching environmental legislation in the USA and now seeks to build a massive incinerator in the beautiful Test Valley. Local residents are looking to this Government because of their concerns about emissions levels and are seeking reassurance from my right hon. Friend that regulations on emissions from incineration will be further enhanced and greener alternatives encouraged.

[The Prime Minister]

I see my right hon. Friend’s point with great concern. As we move to a net zero economy by 2050 under this groundbreaking Conservative Government, it is vital that we tackle those kinds of emissions. That is why we are establishing the Office for Environmental Protection, and I will chair a new Cabinet Committee to drive forward action on climate change across the whole of Government.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Q5. Happy new year to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker, and everyone in the House. The Prime Minister knows that his “Get Brexit done” slogan was vacuous. He also knows that it is not even the end of the beginning, with no deal firmly back on the table. Will he now acknowledge that any job lost and any impact on British industry as a result of his Brexit policy is firmly at his door?

[The Prime Minister]

Contrary to the predictions of the gloomsters, unemployment is at a record low—we have put on about 800,000 jobs since the referendum—and we will indeed get Brexit done by 31 January.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Q15. For social justice, for life chances, for opportunities for the next generation, education is the key, and that is why the Prime Minister’s pledge for additional funding is so welcome, especially for historically underfunded areas such as Dorset and Poole; but equally important are discipline and standards. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a continued focus on the most disadvantaged, especially when it comes to vital literacy and numeracy skills?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed I will. I pay tribute, by the way, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb)—where is he?—who campaigned for so long for synthetic phonics, which has done such a huge amount to help kids to read in this country. This is the only country in the G7 where the reading performance of disadvantaged pupils has actually improved since 2009. We need to do more, and as my hon. Friend says, that is why we are investing more now—record sums—in education.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q6. Margaret Thatcher— Hurrah! Order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Margaret Thatcher, John Major and the right hon. Gentleman’s immediate predecessor all accepted that the Union of the United Kingdom can only be maintained by consent. Yet despite winning three elections seeking to test that consent, the Prime Minister insists that the SNP Government do not have a mandate to hold another independence referendum, so could he tell me exactly what mechanism is available to the Scottish people to give their consent or otherwise for maintaining this Union, and how they should go about exercising that?

[The Prime Minister]

I can only repeat my point, which is that the Scottish people do have a mechanism. They used it in 2014: it is a referendum. It took place, and as I think SNP Members all confirmed, it was a once-in-a-generation event.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you, being a northern MP like myself, would welcome the news that more money is going to be spent in the north of England. I want to reiterate that Morecambe needs the Eden Project. Would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister like to come to Morecambe to see me and the Eden team about getting the Eden Project back in Morecambe again, to make Morecambe the best place on the face of this earth?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed, the Eden of Britain—[Interruption.] I have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that he does indeed: the House should know that the Eden Project is now, thanks to the Chancellor, very likely to come to Morecambe.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Q7. For more than two years, I have been campaigning on behalf of my constituents in Harthill and 4,000 other low-income Roadchef workers across the UK who have waited more than 20 years to receive share ownership money that is rightfully theirs. In 2018 there was a breakthrough, when Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs agreed to repay millions of pounds in wrongfully paid tax. However, I understand that it is trying now to recoup tax on every penny possible from those low-income workers. Given that the trust was set up as a non-tax employee ownership scheme, does the Prime Minister think it is fair that HMRC would seek to run roughshod over that, and will he now meet me to discuss this projected saga?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course. I make a general point that we have done a huge amount to lift the burden of taxation on the low-paid, and we are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever increase, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will welcome the opportunity to discuss the particular matter that the hon. Gentleman raises in person.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In the period 2018 to 2019, overseas companies investing in Northern Ireland created nearly 1,500 new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Stormont were to be up and running again, then this year that number would be considerably higher, and that it is important that no stone is left unturned in efforts by the Northern Ireland parties to seek agreement so that the Northern Ireland Assembly can be properly functioning again?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud to say that the UK is now the third highest recipient of foreign investment in the world, but Northern Ireland could get even more than it currently does if, as my hon. Friend rightly says, people took their responsibilities and got Stormont up and running again.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Q8. In the twilight of the last Parliament both the Scottish Affairs and Health Select Committees produced reports on the drugs crisis. Both reports drew on international evidence and recommended a change in the law to allow vulnerable addicts to be able to consume substances in secure facilities under medical supervision. I know this is a complex and controversial area and I am not expecting the Prime Minister to make policy on the hoof, but I want to ask him whether he will consider, on a pilot basis, the establishment of overdose prevention centres in order to gather evidence as to whether that could help prevent deaths in this country, as it has in other countries.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a very important issue and a difficult problem. The question is how do we, as it were, introduce consumption rooms without encouraging consumption; that is the challenge we face. As he knows, we are having a drugs summit this year; it will be held in Scotland, and we will be announcing a date shortly.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

My local NHS trust is currently consulting on closing the stroke rehabilitation service at Bishop Auckland hospital. Staff on the ward are rightly very concerned about the proposed closure and the impact it will have on local residents, particularly those in my rural communities, so may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is willing to work with me and the Health Secretary, take this matter seriously and prove to the residents of Bishop Auckland that we are on their side?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting elected, and welcome her, and indeed all new colleagues, to their first edition of Prime Minister’s Question Time. I thank my hon. Friend for raising her concerns with me; I have heard just now from the Health Secretary, passing the ball straight down the line, that he is indeed going to address the matter that she raises as fast as possible. As she knows, we are putting record sums into the NHS and it is our intention to help Bishop Auckland.

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Q11. As in much of the rest of the country, hospital A&E waiting times in Coventry have been under constant pressure, with the latest figures showing that almost a quarter of attendances are waiting four hours or more to be seen. I am aware that the Government have made commitments to invest in the NHS, so will the Prime Minister agree to meet a delegation from Coventry to discuss the prospect of opening a second walk-in centre in the city to alleviate some of the pressure on our overstretched A&E department?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue with me, and if I cannot do it I am sure the Health Secretary can.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about the lack of educational achievement and aspiration among so many of our working-class boys across the country? Will he make it a top priority for his Government to ensure that all schoolchildren throughout the country are given the opportunities to maximise their talents?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes I can; and not only are we investing record sums in primary and secondary education, but we are also setting up a national skills fund to help those who do not necessarily think that they are candidates for university but have a huge amount to offer the economy and need all the help they can get—they have massive, massive potential.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q12. May I wish a happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and everyone else in the Chamber? Can the Prime Minister detail what steps he has taken, working in concert with Germany and France, in helping to restore the Iran nuclear deal since he was appointed Prime Minister in July?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. As he knows, it is our view that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action remains the best way of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran—it is the best way of encouraging the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon—and we think that after this crisis has abated, which of course we sincerely hope it will, that way forward will remain. It is a shell that has currently been voided, but it remains a shell into which we can put substance again.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

In recent months, the performance of West Midlands Trains for my constituents and for constituents across the region has been absolutely woeful. Does the Prime Minister agree with Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands, that if it does not shape up by the end of January, it too should have an inspection by the Secretary of State for Transport and potentially have its franchise taken away?

[The Prime Minister]

The House will have heard what I had to say to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) about the performance of various franchise holders across our rail network. We are looking at the whole issue and the bell is tolling for West Midlands rail, if I hear my hon. Friend correctly.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

Q14. During the festive season, I was thinking about the Prime Minister basking in his hammock in Mustique, maybe contemplating his mandate. But that mandate is absolutely nothing compared to the mandate won in Scotland by my colleagues on the SNP Benches. Winning 45% of the popular vote and 80% of the seats, our mandate is unassailable. The Prime Minister’s holidays are over and it is now time to deliver on that mandate. The Scottish Government have an oven-ready Edinburgh agreement 2.0. When will discussions begin?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I have given this answer a couple of times already. The people of Scotland had the chance to decide, and they decided emphatically in favour of remaining in the UK. That decision should be respected.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s continued commitment to invest and level up across our country. This will be particularly welcome in Cornwall, which continues to be one of the poorest parts of the UK. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the people of Cornwall that we will continue to be at the heart of his Government’s plans to invest in the regions of the country?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. I can confirm that. My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue many times. Not only will Cornwall continue to receive all the cash it gets through the shared prosperity fund, but we will do extraordinary things with infrastructure—the A303, you name it—to improve road and rail transport to Cornwall and the NHS. Truro and Penzance and virtually every hospital in Cornwall—and St Austell—will be there.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

In 2005, my constituent Steven Gallant did a bad thing for which he is serving a life sentence in prison. However, on 29 November he was the third man on London Bridge. He wrestled the knife-wielding murderous terrorist to the ground so that police marksmen could shoot him dead. Steven is rightly serving life in prison, but will the Prime Minister congratulate and pay tribute to Steven for his bravery that day, which no doubt saved lives?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for making a very good point, on which I think the whole House would agree. I am lost in admiration for the bravery of Steven Gallant, and indeed of others who went to the assistance of members of the public on that day and fought a very determined terrorist. Obviously, it is not for the Government to decide these things, but it is my hope that that gallantry will in due course be recognised in the proper way.

Points of Order

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

12:33

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. Yesterday, on re-entering the building for the first time after Christmas, I witnessed one of the worst cases of abuse of security staff that I have seen in my time here. One of the Members of the other place, who I will name so as not to incriminate anybody else—Lord Ken Maginnis—had forgotten his pass, something we have all been guilty of. However, instead of taking the advice of the security staff, who as we all know are here for our security and safety, he proceeded to verbally abuse and shout at the member of staff, calling them “crooked” and saying did they not know who he was, that he had been here for 46 years. He refused to take the advice and assistance of myself, the security staff and the police who then attended.

I have reported this incident to the authorities, but I seek your advice. The Member is not elected, so I am interested to know to whom he is accountable, and what can be done to make sure that no member of staff on the estate is ever treated in that way, or abused in the manner that I and others witnessed yesterday.

[Mr Speaker]

No member of staff of either House should have to put up with abuse. We have a policy that runs through all of this Estate, and I always encourage Members to respect the people who are carrying out their duties to make sure that we are safe. Normally, we would not name a Member of either House in this way, but I take it very seriously that staff carrying out their duties should not have to put up with abuse. We are aware of the situation, and I expect those in another place to look into that. I want to reassure those staff that it will not be tolerated and we will ensure that that message goes to all Members of both Houses.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that it will have escaped anybody’s attention—nevertheless, it is worth making the point—that we went through all the names on the Order Paper for Prime Minister’s questions and a number of other colleagues on both sides got in, and we finished at about 12.31 pm and no one had to suffer abuse from the Chair. With that, may I wish you a very happy new year and many more?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to use up the time on that basis, including on a point about me.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Liridon Saliuka, who was originally from Kosovo but had a British passport, and who, before he was arrested and imprisoned at Belmarsh, was resident in the London Borough of Harrow, was recently found dead in his cell. While the prisons and probation ombudsman appears to be investigating, there appear to have been delays in getting a post mortem to take place, according to his family. I wonder what avenues are available to me as a Member of Parliament from the London Borough of Harrow to encourage that autopsy to take place as a matter of urgency.

[Mr Speaker]

The issue has been raised, and the Home Secretary is here in the Chamber. This is not an issue for me personally now, but I am sure that it will be picked up and dealt with.

Bills Presented

Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)

Secretary Priti Patel, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and Kevin Foster, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or a Government Department under, or in connection with, the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 4) with explanatory notes (Bill 4-EN) .

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Robert Buckland, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Robert Jenrick, the Attorney General, Lucy Frazer, Chris Philp, Wendy Morton, Victoria Atkins and Matt Warman, presented a Bill to require the Parole Board to take into account any failure by a prisoner serving a sentence for unlawful killing or for taking or making an indecent image of a child to disclose information about the victim.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 3) with explanatory notes (Bill 3-EN).

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Matt Warman, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Andrea Leadsom, Jesse Norman and Nigel Adams, presented a Bill to amend the electronic communications code set out in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 2) with explanatory notes (Bill 2-EN).

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allotted Day]

Further considered in Committee (Progress reported, 7 January)

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We now embark on the second day of scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement Bill by a Committee of the whole House. I again gently remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has determined that this is not a suitable vehicle for maiden speeches. Any colleagues wishing to make a maiden speech should consult the Table Office, which they will find most helpful.

Clause 18

Main power in connection with other separation issues

12:39

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 38, page 20, line 10, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 39, page 20, line 18, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 47, page 20, leave out lines 25 and 26.

Removing this subsection prevents Ministers from using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation in order to implement the withdrawal agreement.

Clause 18 stand part.

Amendment 40, in clause 19, page 21, line 15, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 41, page 21, line 25, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 42, page 21, line 34, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 43, page 21, line 44, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Clause 19 stand part.

Amendment 24, in clause 20, page 24, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) The payment from the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund to the EU or an EU entity of each sum under section (1) which results from the imposition of any penalty shall be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment is intended to require parliamentary approval for the payment of any fines or penalty under the withdrawal agreement.

Clause 20 stand part.

Amendment 44, in clause 21, page 24, line 37, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 1, page 25, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

“(2) A Minister of the Crown must, on or before 30 June 2020, publish a comprehensive economic impact assessment of the effect of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol and regulations made under subsection (1) on—

(a) the UK’s Internal Market and the access of Northern Ireland goods to Great Britain and Great British goods to Northern Ireland;

(b) the Northern Ireland economy, including levels of imports and exports;

(c) fiscal and regulatory compliance of goods travelling from NI to GB and from GB to NI; and

(d) barriers to entry for third-country goods entering NI and GB from Ireland, the rest of the EU and third countries.

(2A) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—

(a) a copy of each report published under subsection (2) to be laid before each House of Parliament, and conveyed to the Presiding Officer of each devolved legislature, by the end of the day on which it is published;

(b) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report, to be moved in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown; and

(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report to be tabled in the House of Lords and moved by a Minister of the Crown.

(2B) The motions required under subsections (2A)(b) and (c) must be moved in the relevant House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the report is laid before Parliament.

(2C) The Secretary of State shall make a further report under subsection (2) on or before 31 October 2020 and at least every 12 months thereafter.”

This amendment would require the Government to deliver full transparency on the implications of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol including barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 48, page 25, line 2, leave out “(including modifying this Act).”

This amendment would prevent Ministers making regulations under this section to modify the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Amendment 33, page 25, line 2, at end insert “except repealing section 7A.”

This amendment would remove the uncertainty as to whether Ministers could amend or repeal the proposed new section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Amendment 50, page 25, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

In conjunction with Amendment 12, this would require the Government to ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the GB market when it makes regulations implementing the Protocol.

Amendment 12, page 25, line 4, after first “the” insert “unfettered”.

This amendment would require regulations to facilitate unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the market within Great Britain.

Amendment 13, page 25, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision to prevent any direct or indirect commercial discrimination that may arise to the detriment of businesses (including farms) in Northern Ireland as a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.”

This amendment is intended to prevent direct or indirect commercial discrimination against Northern Ireland products.

Amendment 14, page 25, line 16, at end insert—

“(6B) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision to prevent non-tariff barriers being imposed in Great Britain to exclude Northern Ireland products except to the extent strictly required by the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol as long as it remains in force.”

This amendment is intended to prevent a ‘not available in / do not ship to NI’ approach where no sound competitive reasoning is supplied, in order to protect Northern Ireland consumers and businesses.

Amendment 15, page 25, line 16, at end insert—

“(6C) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision to prevent the exclusion of Northern Ireland produce or products from British marketing campaigns or assurance, trade and labelling schemes.”

This amendment is intended to prevent Northern Ireland products being excluded from ‘Red Tractor’ or ‘Buy British’ marketing schemes.

Amendment 10, page 25, line 27, at end insert—

“(8) But regulations under this section may not—

(a) impose or increase taxation or fees,

(b) make retrospective provision,

(c) create a relevant criminal offence,

(d) establish a public authority,

(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it, or

(f) amend or repeal the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 or the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

This amendment would apply the usual restrictions on Ministers’ delegated power to make regulations under the Government’s proposed new section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Clause 21 stand part.

Amendment 45, in clause 22, page 25, line 37, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 46, page 26, line 3, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.

Amendment 51, page 26, line 13, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

In conjunction with Amendment 16, this would require devolved authorities to ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the GB market when making regulations implementing the Protocol.

Amendment 16, page 26, line 14, after first “the” insert “unfettered”.

This amendment would require regulations to facilitate unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the market within Great Britain.

Amendment 17, page 26, line 25, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must include provision to prevent any direct or indirect commercial discrimination that may arise to the detriment of businesses (including farms) in Northern Ireland as a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.”

This amendment is intended to prevent direct or indirect commercial discrimination against Northern Ireland products.

Amendment 18, page 26, line 25, at end insert—

“(6B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must include provision to prevent non-tariff barriers being imposed in Great Britain to exclude Northern Ireland products except to the extent strictly required by the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol as long as it remains in force.”

This amendment is intended to prevent a ‘not available in / do not ship to NI’ approach where no sound competitive reasoning is supplied, in order to protect Northern Ireland consumers and businesses.

Amendment 19, page 26, line 25, at end insert—

“(6C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must include provision to prevent the exclusion of Northern Ireland produce or products from British marketing campaigns or assurance, trade and labelling schemes.”

This amendment is intended to prevent Northern Ireland products being excluded from ‘Red Tractor’ or ‘Buy British’ marketing schemes.

Clause 22 stand part.

Amendment 34, in clause 23, page 28, line 3, at end insert—

“(2) For the avoidance of doubt and without prejudice to the generality of Schedule 3, the reference in Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement) to rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions that as in accordance with the withdrawal agreement are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom, includes Article 2(1) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the withdrawal agreement.”

This amendment would ensure that any person may rely directly on Article 2(1) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland before any courts in the United Kingdom against all public bodies, including UK Ministers, and private bodies, such as employers.

Clause 23 stand part.

Amendment 32, in schedule 3, page 61, line 17, at end insert—

“4A After section 69D insert—

‘69E Notice to be given to Commission

(1) A court or tribunal shall order notice of any issue which affects law or practice relating to the protection of human rights in any proceedings before it to be given to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (unless the Commission is a party to the proceedings).

(2) Where notice is given to the Commission under subsection (1), the court or tribunal shall—

(a) annex a copy of the writ, originating summons or other process by which the proceedings were begun; and

(b) on request from the Commission, provide it with a copy of the pleadings and any decision of the court.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “decision” shall include reasons for a decision; an award of compensation or a determination that one party is required to pay a sum to another; the amount of any relevant compensation or payment; or any order for costs, allowances, preparation time or wasted costs.’”

This amendment would ensure the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is notified of cases relevant to the exercise of its functions under section 69 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, similar to devolution notices provided to the Attorney General; and to ensure coherence with exercise of functions under the new dedicated mechanism provisions.

Amendment 30, page 63, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) A court or tribunal shall order notice of any issue which arises under Article 2(1) of the Protocol on Ireland/ Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement in any proceedings before it to be given to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (unless the Commission is a party to the proceedings).

(4) Where notice is given to the Commission under subsection (3), the court or tribunal shall—

(a) annex a copy of the writ, originating summons or other process by which the proceedings were begun; and

(b) on request from the Commission, provide it with a copy of the pleadings and any decision of the court.

(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘decision’ shall include reasons for a decision; an award of compensation or a determination that one party is required to pay a sum to another; the amount of any relevant compensation or payment; or any order for costs, allowances, preparation time or wasted costs.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a court or tribunal to notify the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission of cases relevant to the dedicated mechanism, similar to devolution issue notification already provided to the Attorney General. The proposal would result in an amendment to new section 78C of the Norther Ireland Act 1998.

Amendment 31, page 63, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) A court or tribunal shall order notice of any issue which arises under Article 2(1) of the Protocol on Ireland/ Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement in any proceedings before it to be given to the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland (unless the Commission is a party to the proceedings).

(4) Where notice is given to the Commission under subsection (3), the court or tribunal shall—

(a) annex a copy of the writ, originating summons or other process by which the proceedings were begun; and

(b) on request from the Commission, provide it with a copy of the pleadings and any decision of the court.

(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘decision’ shall include reasons for a decision; an award of compensation or a determination that one party is required to pay a sum to another; the amount of any relevant compensation or payment; or any order for costs, allowances, preparation time or wasted costs.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a court or tribunal to notify the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland of cases relevant to the dedicated mechanism, similar to devolution issue notification already provided to the Attorney General. The proposal would result in an amendment to new section 78C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 36, in clause 24, page 28, leave out line 15.

This amendment removes the bar on the Joint Committee recommending an alteration in the functions of an existing implementation body under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.

Amendment 49, in clause 26, page 30, leave out lines 9 to 49 on page 30 and lines 1 to 15 on page 31.

This amendment would remove the power of Ministers to specify the circumstances in which lower courts within the domestic legal systems of the UK could depart from the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union after the transition or implementation period.

Clauses 26 to 36 stand part.

Amendment 29, in clause 37, page 37, line 2, leave out from “Europe),” to the end of line 19 and insert

“after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) In seeking to negotiate an agreement under subsection (1), it shall be an over-riding objective of the Minister of the Crown to secure outcomes which match as closely as possible those which applied before exit day under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) in so far as they relate to an application for the UK to take charge of or take back an applicant who is an unaccompanied.’”

This amendment seeks to maintain the status quo for applications for international protection lodged by unaccompanied children who are third-country nationals or stateless persons.

Amendment 26, page 37, line 3, leave out from “Europe)” to the end of line 19 and insert

“the following amendments are made—

‘(a) After subsection (1) insert—

(1A) The Secretary of State must, before IP completion day, make provision to ensure that, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, an unaccompanied child who has made an application for international protection to a member State may, if it is in the child’s best interests, come to the United Kingdom to join a relative who—

(a) is a lawful resident of the United Kingdom, or

(b) has made a protection claim which has not been decided.”

(b) In subsection (2) after “(1)(a)(i)” insert “and (1A)(a)”.

(c) In subsection (3) after “(1)(a)(ii)” insert “and (1A)(b)”.’”

This amendment would require the UK Government to guarantee continued family reunion rights for unaccompanied child refugees, while retaining the requirement on the Government to negotiate an agreement with the EU that protects those rights.

Amendment 4, page 37, line 3, leave out from “Europe)” to the end of the Clause and insert

“after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) If, three months after this Act comes into force, no agreement achieving the objective contained in subsection (1) has been concluded with the European Union, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out—

(a) the steps taken by Her Majesty’s government, and the progress made in negotiations with the European Union, for the purpose of achieving the objective in subsection (1); and

(b) whether in the Minister’s opinion an agreement with the European Union achieving the objective of subsection (1) is likely to be achieved by IP completion day and, if not, setting out the reasons for this.

(3B) Following the making of the first Statement referred to in subsection (2), and until such time as an agreement satisfying the objective contained in subsection (1) is reached with the European Union, the Minister shall, at least as frequently as every 28 days thereafter, make further statements in accordance with sections (3A)(a) and (b).’”

This amendment would protect the right for unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with their family after Brexit.

Amendment 28, page 37, leave out lines 5 to 19 and insert—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within 3 months of this Act coming into force, make provision for take charge requests from unaccompanied minors.

(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must operate in such a way that the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 as they relate to unaccompanied minors are effective in UK domestic law.

(1B) The Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are amended by omitting subparagraph 3(h) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to those Regulations.

(1C) In this section, “take charge requests” and “unaccompanied minor” have the same meaning as under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013.”

This amendment will ensure that the UK continues to accept take charge requests from unaccompanied minors.

Clause 37 stand part.

New clause 1—Parliamentary sovereignty over negotiations for the future relationship—

‘After section 13B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (certain dispute procedures under withdrawal agreement) (for which see section 30 above) insert—

“13C Negotiations for future relationship

(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before the end of the period of 30 Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which exit day falls, make a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU.

(2) A Minister of the Crown may, at any time after the initial statement is made, make a revised statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU.

(3) A Minister of the Crown may not engage in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU unless—

(a) a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU has been approved by the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown that can be amended by the House of Commons so as to change the objectives for the future relationship, and

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been moved in that House.

(4) Prior to the House of Commons’s consideration of a motion under subsection (3)(a), a Minister of the Crown must have consulted with each devolved administration on the negotiating mandate.

(5) In conducting negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, a Minister of the Crown must seek to achieve the objectives set out in the most recent statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU to have been—

(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the subject of a motion of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(b).

(6) The Secretary of State must publish the negotiating text of a proposed future relationship agreement on the same day that they are shared with EU negotiators.

(7) After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must—

(a) lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress made, by the end of the period, in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, including—

(i) the Minister’s assessment of the extent to which the outcome of those negotiations is likely to reflect the most recent statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU to have been approved by the House of Commons, and the subject of a motion in the House of Lords, as mentioned in subsection (3), and

(ii) if the Minister’s assessment is that the future relationship with the EU is, in any respect, not likely to reflect that statement, an explanation of why that is so, and

(b) provide a copy of the report to the Presiding Officer of each of the devolved legislatures and to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) the Welsh Ministers, and

(iii) the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.

(8) Subsections (9) and (10) apply if, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, an agreement in principle has been reached with the EU on a treaty the principal purpose of which is to deal with all or part of the future relationship with the EU.

(9) A Minister of the Crown must, within one week of an agreement outlined in subsection (8), lay before each House of Parliament—

(a) a statement that political agreement has been reached, and

(b) a copy of the negotiated future relationship treaty.

(10) Prior to the laying of the text of the proposed treaty, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the text of the proposed agreement and taken their views into account, with special consideration given to matters relating to devolved competences.

(11) A treaty in the same form, or to substantially the same effect, as the negotiated future relationship treaty may be ratified only if the negotiated future relationship treaty has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown and—

(a) the House of Lords has not resolved, within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the negotiated future relationship treaty is laid before that House, that any treaty resulting from it should not be ratified, or

(b) if the House of Lords has so resolved within that period, a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why.

(12) Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification) does not apply in relation to a treaty if subsection (11) applies in relation to the ratification of that treaty.

(13) In this section—

“devolved legislature” means—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, or

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly;

“future relationship with the EU” means the main arrangements which are designed to govern the security and economic aspects of the long-term relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU after IP completion day and to replace or modify the arrangements which apply during the implementation period, but does not include the withdrawal agreement;

“negotiated future relationship treaty” means a draft of a treaty identified in a statement that political agreement has been reached;

“negotiations” means negotiations the opening of which, on behalf of the EU, has been authorised under Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

“reporting period” means—

(a) the period of three months beginning with the first day on which a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) each subsequent period of one month;

“statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU” means a statement—

(a) made in writing by a Minister of the Crown setting out proposed objectives of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, and

(b) published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate;

“statement that political agreement has been reached” means a statement made in writing by a Minister of the Crown which—

(a) states that, in the Minister’s opinion, an agreement in principle has been reached with the EU on a treaty the principal purpose of which is to deal with all or part of the future relationship with the EU, and

(b) identifies a draft of that treaty which, in the Minister’s opinion, reflects the agreement in principle;

“treaty” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (see section 25(1) and (2) of that Act).”’

This new clause restores the role for Parliament in providing scrutiny and oversight in the negotiations over the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

New clause 6—Parliamentary approval of the future relationship—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not engage in negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU until a Minister of the Crown has laid a draft negotiating mandate before each House of Parliament and—

(a) moved an amendable motion in the House of Commons containing the text of the draft negotiating mandate;

(b) the draft negotiating mandate (as amended) has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and

(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the draft negotiating mandate has been moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The draft negotiating mandate must set out in detail—

(a) the UK’s negotiation objectives,

(b) all fields and sectors to be included in the proposed negotiations,

(c) the principles to underpin the proposed negotiation,

(d) any limits on the proposed negotiations, and

(e) the desired outcomes from the proposed negotiations.

(3) Prior to laying the draft negotiating mandate, a Minister of the Crown must have consulted each devolved administration on the negotiating mandate.

(4) Prior to the House’s consideration of a motion under subsection (1)(b), a Minister of the Crown must lay before both Houses of Parliament a sustainability impact assessment conducted by a credible body independent of government following consultation with—

(a) each devolved administration,

(b) public bodies, businesses, trade unions and non-governmental organisations which, in the opinion of the independent body, have a relevant interest, and

(c) the public.

(5) The assessment shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed trade agreement, including—

(a) social,

(b) economic,

(c) environmental,

(d) gender,

(e) equalities,

(f) climate change,

(g) human rights,

(h) labour,

(i) development, and

(j) regional

impacts.

(6) In conducting negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, a Minister of the Crown must seek to achieve the objectives set out in the negotiating mandate approved under subsection (1)(b).

(7) After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must—

(a) lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress made, by the end of the period, in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, including—

(i) the Minister’s assessment of the extent to which the outcome of those negotiations is likely to reflect the negotiating mandate approved under subsection (1)(b), and

(ii) if the Minister’s assessment is that the future relationship with the EU is, in any respect, not likely to reflect that mandate, an explanation of why that is so, and

(b) lay before each House of Parliament the latest rounds of negotiating texts, by the end of each reporting period, and

(c) provide a copy of the report to the Presiding Officer of each of the devolved legislatures and to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) the Welsh Ministers, and

(iii) the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.

(8) Subsections (9) to (13) apply if, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, an agreement in principle has been reached with the EU on a treaty the principal purpose of which is to deal with all or part of the future relationship with the EU.

(9) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament—

(a) a statement that political agreement has been reached, and

(b) a copy of the negotiated future relationship treaty.

(10) Prior to the laying of the text of the proposed treaty, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the text of the proposed agreement and taken their views into account, with special consideration given to matters relating to devolved competences.

(11) Prior to considering a motion approving the text of the negotiated future relationship treaty, the Government must lay before each House of Parliament a response to any report by a relevant Parliamentary committee (such as the Exiting the EU select committee) containing a recommendation in relation to the ratification of the agreement.

(12) A treaty in the same form, or to substantially the same effect, as the negotiated future relationship treaty may be ratified only if the negotiated future relationship treaty has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on an amendable motion moved by a Minister of the Crown and—

(a) the House of Lords has not resolved, within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the negotiated future relationship treaty is laid before that House, that any treaty resulting from it should not be ratified, or

(b) if the House of Lords has so resolved within that period, a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why.

(13) Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification) does not apply in relation to a treaty if subsection (11) applies in relation to the ratification of that treaty.”

This new clause ensures that MPs get a guaranteed vote with an amendable motion on the EU-UK Future Relationship and negotiating objectives, and sets out scrutiny of the negotiating mandate. It requires a sustainability impact assessment of the future relationship; the regular release of negotiation texts; and engagement with devolved administrations.

Amendment (a) to new clause 6, in line 39, after “(j) regional” insert “(k) health”

New clause 11—Consent and the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol—

“(1) Nothing in this Act affects section 4(5) and 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

(2) Accordingly, if 30 of its members petition the Northern Ireland Assembly expressing their concern about a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly, the vote on that matter shall require cross-community support.

(3) ‘Cross-community support’ in relation to a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly on any matter, means—

(a) the support of a majority of the members voting, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting; or

(b) the support of 60 per cent of the members voting, 40 per cent of the designated Nationalists voting and 40 per cent of the designated Unionists voting.

(4) “Designated Nationalist” means a member designated as a Nationalist in accordance with standing orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly and ‘designated Unionist’ is construed accordingly.”

This new Clause re-states the existing law on the operation of cross-community support in votes of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

New clause 12—Consent and the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (No. 2)—

“(1) Notifying the European Union of the outcome of the democratic consent processes under Article 18 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol is a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

(2) The Government of the United Kingdom must seek to apply any democratic consent process under or in connection with the Withdrawal Agreement in conformity with existing practice on votes requiring cross-community support in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(3) The Government of the United Kingdom must accordingly seek to withdraw and replace any parts of the Declaration of 17 October 2019 by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the Democratic consent in Northern Ireland provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland which conflict with the existing practice on votes of the Northern Ireland Assembly requiring cross-community support.”

Paragraph 3(a) of the Declaration of 17 October 2019 by Her Majesty’s Government concerning the operation of the Democratic consent in Northern Ireland provision of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol requires a threshold of a majority of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly present and voting. This new Clause seeks to replace that threshold with the normal cross-community support process.

New clause 13—UK internal market—

“(1) The Government of the United Kingdom must maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(2) Accordingly it is a priority for the Government of the United Kingdom in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU to reach agreement to supersede any provisions of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol which impede or conflict with the duty in subsection (1).”

This new Clause seeks to replace any provisions of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol which fail to maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

New clause 14—Sovereignty and Northern Ireland—

“(1) Nothing in this Act contradicts Article 6 of the Union with Ireland Act 1800.

(2) Accordingly, Her Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are entitled to the same privileges, and to be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the United Kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, Her Majesty’s subjects of Northern Ireland shall have same the privileges, and be on the same footing as Her Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.”

This new Clause re-states the fundamental constitutional principle of unfettered trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

New clause 15—Sovereignty and Northern Ireland (No.2)—

“(1) Nothing in this Act affects the status of Northern Ireland set out in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

(2) Accordingly, Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

This new Clause re-states the fundamental constitutional principle of Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom, unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote to decide otherwise.

New clause 17—Objectives during negotiations—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not engage in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU unless—

(a) a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU has been approved by the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown,

(c) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales,

(d) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament,

(e) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection 1(e), a Minister of the Crown may engage in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU if the Northern Ireland Assembly has not approved the appointment of a First Minister and deputy First Minister within six weeks of the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would require the Government to seek the consent of all the parliaments of the UK for its objectives during negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

New clause 21—International trade—

“(1) The Government shall, during the implementation period, use its flexibilities under Article 129(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement to negotiate trade agreements with other parties.

(2) The Government shall, from 1 February 2020, and subject to the procedures for participation in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), exercise full rights as an individual member of the WTO and shall seek to—

(a) join any relevant committees and sub-committees that serve the UK‘s national interest, and

(b) speak in the WTO on all matters that serve the UK‘s national interest, notwithstanding the Duty of Sincere Co-operation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and the Common Commercial Policy which are applicable during the implementation period.”

This new clause would mandate the Government to participate actively in the World Trade Organisation to serve the UK’s national interest.

New clause 22—Joint Committee representation from Northern Ireland—

“After section 15B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Ministerial co-chairs of the Joint Committee) (for which see section 34 above) insert—

‘15BA Joint Committee representation from Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom delegation to the Joint Committee must always include representation from Northern Ireland, namely either—

(a) a representative agreed jointly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, or

(b) in period when there is no Northern Ireland Executive, a representative nominated by the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.’”

This new clause would require Northern Ireland to be represented on the Joint Committee.

New clause 23—Joint Committee and the Belfast Agreement—

“After section 15B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Ministerial co-chairs of the Joint Committee) (for which see section 34 above) insert—

‘15BB  Joint Committee and the Belfast Agreement

The United Kingdom representatives on the Joint Committee must have due regard for all aspects of the Belfast Agreement within their work.’”

This new clause would require UK representatives on the Joint Committee to have due regard for all aspects of the 1998 Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement within their work.

New clause 24—Joint Committee and Article 50 phase 1 report—

“After section 15B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Ministerial co-chairs of the Joint Committee) (for which see section 34 above) insert—

‘15BC  Joint Committee and Article 50 phase 1 report

The United Kingdom representatives on the Joint Committee must have due regard within their work to the UK government commitments in the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.’”

This new clause would require UK representatives on the Joint Committee to have due regard within their work to the UK government commitments in the joint report of 8 December 2017 from the negotiators of the EU and the UK on phase 1 of the Article 50 negotiations, including its references to unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

New clause 25—Specialised Committee on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol Group representation from Northern Ireland—

“After section 15B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Ministerial co-chairs of the Joint Committee) (for which see section 34 above) insert—

‘15BD  Specialised Committee on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol Group representation from Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom delegation on the Specialised Committee on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol Group must always include representation from Northern Ireland, either—

(a) agreed jointly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, or

(b) in period when there is no Northern Executive, nominated by the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.’”

This new clause would require Northern Ireland to be represented on the Specialised Committee on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol Group established under Article 14 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

New clause 26—Joint Consultative Working Group representation from Northern Ireland—

“After section 15B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Ministerial co-chairs of the Joint Committee) (for which see section 34 above) insert—

‘15BE  Joint Consultative Working Group representation from Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom representatives on the Joint Consultative Working Group must always include representation from Northern Ireland, either—

(a) agreed jointly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, or

(b) in period when there is no Northern Executive, nominated by the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.’”

This new clause would require Northern Ireland to be represented on the Joint Consultative Working Group established under Article 15 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

New clause 39—Fisheries—

“(1) Ministers of the Crown have as an objective in negotiations with the EU on the future relationship preserving, protecting and promoting the future of the fisheries industry based in Northern Ireland.

(2) In order to promote unfettered access of Northern Ireland fishermen to the UK internal market, Ministers must seek an agreement with the EU that fish caught in compliance with UK fisheries policy by trawlers based in Northern Ireland and landed in UK harbours for the UK internal market will not require after the end of the implementation period any more documentation than was required before exit day.”

This new clause aims to address a specific example of unfettered access in order to avoid an increase in paperwork being required for the Northern Ireland fishing industry after the UK leaves the EU.

New clause 40—State aid—

“(1) The UK Government must exercise its responsibilities for implementing and applying the provisions of Union law under Article 12 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in accordance with this section.

(2) The UK Government must, when exercising its responsibilities with respect to Article 10 of the Protocol (State aid) in relation to a Northern Ireland product, take no account of whether any products originating from Great Britain that are contained in that Northern Ireland product may have received state aid.”

This new clause would provide that any state aid provided to GB products that are included in Northern Ireland products cannot be taken into account when the UK Government assesses the state aid status of those NI products.

New clause 41—Regulatory divergence—

“(1) The Competition and Markets Authority must at intervals of not more than 12 months publish an assessment as to whether the effect of any regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU has been to place Northern Ireland businesses at a competitive disadvantage within the UK internal market that would constitute grounds for the UK to take safeguard measures under paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

(2) The first assessment under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 12 months after the last day of the implementation period.

(3) If the Competition and Markets Authority makes an assessment under subsection (1) that the effect of any regulatory divergence is that there are grounds for the UK to take safeguard measures, the UK Government must within three months of receiving that assessment take safeguard measures under Article 16 of the Protocol that are in its opinion sufficient to remedy the competitive disadvantage.

(4) The Competition and Markets Authority shall report its opinion as to the adequacy and effectiveness of any safeguard measures under subsection (3) when making its next assessment under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require regular assessments by the CMA as to whether regulatory divergence between the UK and the EH has put Northern Ireland businesses at a serious competitive disadvantage, and in the event of such a finding would require the Government to remedy that disadvantage.

New clause 42—Specialised Committees—

“(1) Representatives of the United Kingdom attending specialised committees convened under Article 165 of the Withdrawal Agreement have a duty to represent the interests of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

(2) The United Kingdom Government must make arrangements for the Northern Ireland Executive to nominate at least one representative to the specialised committee on issues related to the implementation of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (see Article 165 (v) of the withdrawal agreement and Article 14 of the Protocol) and to each of the other specialised committees.

(3) In the absence of a Northern Executive, the Secretary of State must nominate representatives under subsection (2) after consulting the political parties comprising Members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This new clause would ensure Northern Ireland representation on the specialised committees established under the Withdrawal Agreement.

New clause 43—Asylum claims after exit day—

“A Minister of the Crown must seek to negotiate, on behalf of the United Kingdom, an agreement with the EU which, after the United Kingdom‘s withdrawal from the EU, secures outcomes matching as closely as possible those which applied before exit day under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third- country national or a stateless person (recast).”

This new clause seeks to maintain the status quo for applications for international protection lodged by a third-country national or a stateless person under the Dublin III process.

New clause 44—Preventing discrimination—

“(1) A power of a Minister of the Crown under the law of England and Wales or of Scotland to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation may not be exercised, on or after IP completion day, in a way that would result in law that treats qualifying NI goods differently from GB good, unless the difference in treatment is justified as mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) A difference in treatment is justified only if it is shown to be necessary and can deliver material benefits for the purposes of—

(a) protecting health of life of humans, animals or plants, or the environment,

(b) protecting national security, or

(c) ensuring that those involved in the production, supply or use of qualifying NI goods are put in a position that is no less favourable overall than those involved in the production, supply or use of GB goods.

(3) Subsection (1) applies to a power whether conferred before, on or after IP completion date.

(4) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations define ‘GB goods’ for the purposes of this section.”

This new clause would prevent a Minister of the Crown under the law of England and Wales or of Scotland using the power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation, on or after IP completion day, in a way that would result in law that treats qualifying NI goods differently from GB goods, unless the difference in treatment is justified as mentioned in subsection (2).

New clause 47—Accountability of the Joint Committee—

“After section 18 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 insert—

‘18A Accountability of the Joint Committee

(1) A motion appointing the United Kingdom’s co-chair of the Joint Committee shall be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The United Kingdom’s co-chair of the Joint Committee shall always request that, unless for reasons of national security, all meetings of the Joint Committee are conducted in public.

(3) As far as is permitted by Rule 10 of Annex VIII to the withdrawal agreement, a Minister of the Crown must publish all decisions and recommendations adopted by the Joint Committee.

(4) Before attending each session of the Joint Committee a Minister of the Crown shall make an oral statement to the House of Commons setting out—

(a) the purpose and agenda of that Joint Committee meeting;

(b) the intended policy to be pursued by the Minister attending that Joint Committee meeting; and

(c) as far as possible the economic, social and environmental impact of any proposition to be determined at the Joint Committee.’”

This new clause requires the UK’s co-chair of the Joint Committee to be approved by Parliament, to ask the EU for Joint Committee meetings to be held in public where possible, for decisions of the Joint Committee to be published, and for a Minister to make a statement to the House of Commons ahead of each Joint Committee meeting.

New clause 52—Meaning of ‘unfettered access’—

“(1) In sections 21 and 22, ‘unfettered access’ for qualifying Northern Ireland goods means that businesses in Northern Ireland must continue to be able to sell their qualifying goods to Great Britain without tariffs, origin requirements, regulatory import controls, dual authorisations or discrimination in the market.

(2) Northern Ireland businesses shall enjoy the rights under subsection (1) regardless of whether they trade directly with Great Britain or trade via Dublin port.”

This new clause defines what ‘unfettered access’ means for the purposes of Amendments 12 and 16.

New clause 53—Duty of consultation when making regulations in connection with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol—

“Before making regulations under sections 21 and 22, the Government and the devolved authorities must consult, and take account of the views of, the Northern Ireland Executive.”

This new clause would require the UK Government and the devolved authorities to consult and take account of the views of the Northern Ireland Executive before making regulations which could affect Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.

New clause 54—Consent for any new trade frictions—

“(1) Regulations that would introduce new requirements on goods traded from Northern Ireland to Great Britain (including, but not restricted to, import customs declarations or origin checks) may not come into force without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(2) No additional official or administrative costs consequent on any such regulations may be recouped from the private sector.”

This new clause would require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly before further trade frictions are imposed from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and would protect Northern Ireland businesses from paying for the administrative costs.

New clause 55—Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market—

“(1) As part of its obligation under Article 6.2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to use its best endeavours to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK, the UK Government must—

(a) publish an assessment at least every 12 months of any negative impacts on businesses and consumers arising from the Protocol on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and vice versa; and

(b) develop mitigations to safeguard the place of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in the UK internal market.

(2) The assessment published under paragraph (1)(a) must include assessment of the impact of any actual or proposed regulatory or trade policy divergence on Northern Ireland’s place in the UK Internal Market.

(3) Any official or administrative costs arising from the duties under subsections (1) and (2) may not be recouped from the private sector.”

New clause 57—Consultation with the British Irish Council—

“The British Irish Council must be consulted prior to any proposed changes in standards relating to food, the environment or employment in the process of negotiations for new trading relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

New clause 58—Consultation with the British Irish Council (No. 2)—

“The British Irish Council must be consulted prior to any proposed changes in the United Kingdom’s devolution settlement as a direct result of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, or any changes to the devolution settlement resulting from future trade agreements.”

New clause 60—Establishment of a mitigation package—

“(1) The United Kingdom Government must guarantee and fund the establishment of a mitigation package for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland.

(2) The impact and success of this fund shall be reviewed by an independent economic body every six months.

(3) The fund must be established in consultation with the devolved administration in Northern Ireland.”

New clause 61—Provision for EU Referendum in Northern Ireland—

“(1) Provision must be made to allow for Northern Ireland with the consent of a majority of people in Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purpose, to remain or (as the case may be) to join the European Union.

(2) If the expressed wish by a majority in such a poll is for Northern Ireland to remain or join the European Union, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as are agreed between Her Majesty‘s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

(3) This section comes into effect only after a Legislative Consent Motion has been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

New clause 63—Border Impact Assessment—

“(1) The United Kingdom Government must work jointly with and commission, alongside the Government of Ireland and the Northern Ireland administration, an economic impact assessment on the border regions between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

(2) This impact assessment must include recommendations on economic support and investment required to aid these regions after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.”

New clause 64—Role of Devolved Administrations in trade negotiations—

“The Northern Ireland administration, alongside other devolved governments and administrations, must have a formal role in all new trade negotiations conducted by the United Kingdom Government.”

New clause 65—Trade Agreement—

“The Northern Ireland Assembly must give legislative consent for any new trade agreement reached by the United Kingdom Government before new trading rules and standards are enacted.”

New clause 66—Maintaining EU Alignment—

“The United Kingdom Government must provide an annual analysis to the devolved administrations and governments as to what measures they can enact to ensure maximum regulatory alignment with the European Union standards as the EU’s laws are updated and enhanced.”

[Joanna Cherry]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I rise to speak to amendments 38 to 49, which stand in my name and those of some of my colleagues; to amendment 10, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and some of my other colleagues; and to amendments 28 and 29 and new clause 43, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).

We heard a lot yesterday from those on the Government Benches about the desire of the British people to get on with Brexit, so I would like to begin today by reminding them that the UK at present consists of four constituent parts, and that two out of four of them—Scotland and Northern Ireland—have voted to remain in the EU on every occasion they have been given, including the EU referendum in 2016 and thereafter.

I acknowledge and respect the fact that the Prime Minister and his party won a majority of the seats in England, but I ask those on the Government Benches to pause and consider that the Prime Minister did not win a majority of the seats in Wales, did not win any seats in Northern Ireland—indeed, remain parties won the majority of seats there—and that in Scotland, standing on a manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit and prevent a second independence referendum, the Conservative and Unionist party was reduced to a rump of six MPs, with the Scottish National party winning the election emphatically.

I ask then that this afternoon not be another session of “Scotland get back in your box” but that there is some respectful recognition of the democratic desire of my constituents and the majority of constituents in Scotland to remain in the EU. Rather than lectures about delivering the will of the British people, let us seriously consider that it is the role of the Opposition to scrutinise Bills. I realise that, inevitably, Brexit will now happen—I hope and believe that Scotland will find a way around that for Scotland—but that does not mean there are not legitimate concerns about the way in which the Government are seeking to deliver Brexit.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. and learned Lady further accept that 16.5 million people voted for parties either supporting remain or a public vote on the deal versus 14.5 million who voted for the oven-ready Brexit? There is still a democratic mandate, therefore, for putting the deal to the people?

[Joanna Cherry]

I have to say that I think the ship has sailed on that, because of the outcome of the election in England, but the ship has not sailed on Scotland’s constitutional future, because, like it or not, the Conservative party was reduced to a rump of representation in Scotland at the general election and my party won 47 of the 59 seats. It is surely a matter of concern in a democracy that is not a unitary state but consists of several nations that no matter how many amendments I and my colleagues table to the Bill, and probably every other Bill in this Session, we are unlikely to achieve a single amendment.

Rather than the braying and jeering that occurred when the leader of my group, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), got up to ask his questions this afternoon, I suggest to those on the Government Benches that if they really believe in preserving the Union of the United Kingdom they might want to show a little more respect, not necessarily to me or my right hon. Friend, but to those who sent us here to advocate what the majority of people in Scotland want—and, whether those on the Government Benches like it or not, the majority of people in Scotland do not want to leave the European Union but want a second opportunity to look at Scotland’s constitutional future in the light of England’s decision to leave the European Union. I defy any democrat to say that that is not a reasonable position. I gently suggest to those on the Government Benches that jeering at the representatives of voters in Scotland, shouting us down and rubbishing our legitimate concerns is not a sustainable position for the next five years.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I am a Unionist, but I share the hon. and learned Lady’s view that the voices from the various and diverse parts of the United Kingdom need to be heard. She is right to say that the Government are unlikely to accept any of the amendments that represent legitimate concerns, not least among those of us who represent Northern Ireland. Indeed, all the main parties have come together in an unprecedented way to back many of these amendments. I hope that, post the withdrawal agreement, there will be more consultation and discussion that will include the representatives of the various parts of the United Kingdom.

12:45

[Joanna Cherry]

There is not much on which the right hon. Gentleman and I will agree, but we can agree on this point. There needs to be a recognition, along with the triumphalism of members of the Conservative and Unionist party about their win in England—which I understand, because we feel pretty triumphal about our win in Scotland—that, if theirs really is a Unionist party, they must engage properly with the representatives of the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Before I deal with the amendments in this group, let me raise again with Ministers the points that I made yesterday about the sweeping powers that the Government are taking to themselves in clauses 3, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21 and 27 to table delegated legislation making provision for areas of devolved policy. The Secretary of State tried to rubbish my interventions yesterday, but if he had time to read the independent report of the Scottish Parliament Information Centre overnight he will know that this is not some SNP party political diatribe, and that careful analysis of the Bill makes clear that it is a matter of fact that the Government are taking to themselves the right of British Ministers, acting alone, to produce delegated legislation in relation to devolved areas. That shows that the paragraph about which the SNP has complained on a number of occasions will actually be included.

The Secretary of State tried to deflect me yesterday, first by saying that the power related to reserved matters. That was simply not correct, as it clearly relates to devolved matters. He then suggested that the power that the Government were taking was merely technical. He will, of course, know that the Sewel convention does not apply to delegated legislation, although it probably would not matter if it did, because the Government are now prepared to drive a coach and horses through it. Interestingly, the Government’s delegated powers memorandum to the Bill states that UK Ministers “will not normally” make regulations in relation to devolved areas

“without the agreement of the relevant devolved administration.”

That is what the Sewel convention says, but we know that it has lately been more honoured in the breach than the observance.

Let me ask the Secretary of State again to revisit the remarks that he made yesterday. Will he acknowledge, for the record—and these are matters on which there may be litigation in the future, so the record might be quite important—that the clauses to which I have referred give UK Ministers the power to make delegated legislation in relation to devolved matters? Will he acknowledge, for the record, that that constitutes an incursion into devolved policy that rightly causes concern not just to the Scottish National party but to all who believe in the devolved settlement?

I know that it is history, but 22 years ago 75% of the people of Scotland voted for that devolved settlement. It is worth remembering that the background against which they did so was years and years of Scotland voting Labour but getting a Conservative Government. Now they are seeing years and years of Scotland voting SNP but getting a Conservative Government. I think it reasonable to draw a lesson from that history: there probably will be another constitutional referendum in Scotland soon, because the tension that now exists is similar to the tension that existed in the 1990s. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State later today an acknowledgement of the power that is being taken by the British Government.

Overall, I would say that this Bill is about the Executive taking as much power to themselves as possible, not just from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly but from this Parliament, with their swingeing use of delegated legislation and, in relation to clause 26, which I will come to in a moment, from the judiciary.

The Conservative and Unionist party’s manifesto revealed that the Government’s aim was to change the balance between Government, Parliament and the courts and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said yesterday, we see in this Bill the beginning of the changing of that balance. We also see a continued attack on rights, not just the undermining of EU citizens’ rights, as we heard yesterday, and not just the undermining of workers’ rights, which we will come to later today, but the rights of child refugees.

It is fair to say that it is the proposal in the part of the Bill that we are discussing that has excited the most public comment. I have certainly received many communications from constituents who are worried about this, and in that connection I wish to speak to the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—new clause 43, amendment 28 and amendment 29—and at least to address them at this stage, whether or not they are made, which is perhaps a matter for later.

Across Europe, thousands of unaccompanied children are living in the most desperate circumstances, many of whom are separated from their families. Legal family reunion is a lifeline to those children, who would otherwise risk their lives in dinghies or in the back of lorries to reach a place of safety with their families. We have seen some pretty awful evidence recently of what can happen when refugees resort to dinghies or the backs of lorries.

In 2018, in recognition of that fact, a cross-party coalition in this House, including prominent Members of all parties, including the Conservative and Unionist party, recognised the humanitarian need for family reunion to continue and secured a legal commitment from the then Government to negotiate a replacement for the current rules when we leave the European Union. For the Government now to seek to remove those protections risks causing panic among refugee families currently separated in Europe, with potentially tragic consequences. It is also deeply unacceptable to the constituents of many MPs in this House.

The Government say that they are going to continue with refugee family reunion, so it is not clear to me why they are going to the trouble of taking that commitment out of this Bill, unless they want to hedge their bets a bit. Based on experience, that is what I suspect they are up to. Without this obligation in the Bill, there will be no obligation on the Government to ensure that family reunion continues beyond the very restrictive rules in United Kingdom law.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I was one of the supporters of the original family reunification amendments. I trust the Government and that this commitment will be stuck to in the appropriate place—an immigration Bill. Does the hon. and learned Lady acknowledge, however, that post-Dublin III there is a potential problem with the full extent of those family members who qualify for family reunification, and that that needs to be sorted out? There is also a problem with the rate at which potential applicants are processed in places such as Greece and Italy, which is not working well, and with the cost of applications. The whole scheme needs to be properly overhauled, and just bunging it into this Bill is not necessarily the best way of getting the best result that we all want.

[Joanna Cherry]

The answer to that is that the whole scheme is not being bunged into this Bill. The obligation to maintain certain minimum-level requirements is being taken out by the Bill, although it was agreed by cross-party Members, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), in the last Parliament.

The UK’s immigration rules as they stand—apart from some very limited circumstances—allow children to reunite only with parents, not with other relatives, in the UK. Under the EU Dublin III regulation, children have a legal route to reunite with other family members such as siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and 95% of children that the charity Safe Passage supports to reunite with family safely and legally would be ineligible under the current UK rules. The consequence of this is that they would be forced to remain alone, separated from their families. There is a legitimate concern that taking out this previous commitment, through the Bill, is the beginning of a move towards an absolutely minimalist approach by the Government to their rights and duties.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to put on record in Hansard that lots of people have contacted me by email about the issue that the hon. and learned Lady is referring to. There are many churches and many individuals in my constituency that want to see what she has asked for enshrined in legislation. I had thought that the Government were committed to doing that, and it is disappointing if they are not. If the Government want to reflect public opinion out in the street and mostly reflect public opinion in the constituency of Strangford and elsewhere, they should listen to the voices of the churches, the community groups and the individuals who want to see this happening. With that in mind, I will support the hon. and learned Lady.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, with which I entirely agree.

Among the amendments that have been crafted by the SNP, new clause 43 is designed to oblige the Government to negotiate an agreement so that Dublin III as a whole continues as closely as possible to the current arrangements. So far as we can make out, it is different from other Opposition amendments, which focus only on children with family here. Our purpose is to challenge the Government to explain why the broader Dublin III system is not worth saving.

Amendment 28 relates specifically to children. Again, so far as we can see, it is the only Opposition amendment that goes beyond seeking an agreement and requires Ministers to put in place a scheme so that we keep accepting take-charge requests from unaccompanied minors. We in the SNP ask why that should be negotiated away. If we believe that children seeking international protection are best placed with their families, let us allow that to happen in the United Kingdom. If we get an agreement that the arrangement is mutual with the EU, that would be great, but why wait? Are we seriously saying that, in the unlikely event that the European Union decides to play bad cop, global Britain will not take these children?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am following carefully the argument that the hon. and learned Lady is making. Does she not agree that the obligation the Government already have, under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to protect the best interests of children would be an essential factor in considering exactly the amendments that she is discussing, and that if they are refusing to accept those amendments, they are undermining that legislation and the intention behind it?

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree with that point.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Does the hon. and learned Lady also find it troubling that the Government have chosen to remove the obligations in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that everyone had accepted? They had been supported by Government Ministers and by this House as a sensible objective to negotiate an agreement to ensure that some of those vulnerable children could be reunited with their families. It was the most innocuous element of that Act, and it is therefore inexplicable that Government Ministers should suddenly decide that they want to take it away.

[Joanna Cherry]

I agree. It is inexplicable, unless Government Ministers want to take the advantage of the majority they have secured from the English electorate to renege on an important humanitarian commitment, which, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, represents the best about what people across these islands hold dear in their Christian faith, their other faiths or their humanitarianism. It is incumbent on the Government to tell us what they are really up to.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I want to make a bit of progress now.

I want to deal briefly with amendment 29, which is similar to ones advanced by other Opposition parties. It simply puts back in the Bill the obligation to negotiate an agreement for unaccompanied children. We see that very much as a fall-back, and we would like the House to go further than that.

I want to move quickly on to deal with my amendment 38 and those that follow it, which relate to the extent to which the Bill resorts to delegated powers in order for the Government to change the law in ways they feel are appropriate—not necessary, but appropriate—in relation to our withdrawal from the European Union. The Bill enables the Government to make potentially huge changes to the law through secondary legislation that cannot possibly enjoy the same level of scrutiny by this Parliament that one might expect in a properly functioning constitutional democracy that is contemplating such significant change as this Parliament seems determined to embark upon.

13:04

In the previous Parliament, I pressed Ministers to explain why the determining factor for the use of extensive delegated powers was whether they felt them to be appropriate, rather than necessary. “Appropriate” sets a very low and subjective threshold, enabling Ministers to implement a wide range of legislative measures without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Many independent bodies, such as the Law Society of England and Wales and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, have suggested, as my amendments do, that the test should be narrowed to an objective test of necessity. If the role of Parliament in scrutinising delegated legislation will be reduced, the only other mechanism to scrutinise it will be through judicial review, and that puts quite a heavy burden on the individual.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point. I sat on many Delegated Legislation Committees in the previous Parliament, and their ability to amend anything is nil. Does she agree that that is a woefully inadequate process, because while there is some degree of scrutiny, there is certainly no ability to change anything?

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reality is that if this discretion will be scrutinised only in the courts after individuals have raised concerns about the impact of delegated legislation on their rights, then the breadth of discretion that the judiciary has to determine whether something is appropriate rather than necessary could be quite problematic. Indeed, that was reflected in the previous Parliament by judicial concerns about the breadth of discretion afforded by the word “appropriate.” I tried on numerous occasions in the previous Parliament to get Ministers to explain why they must have “appropriate” rather than “necessary,” but I am not a quitter, so I will try again today, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Moving on to amendment 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, I believe that she will speak about it later or may wish to intervene on me, but I will just deal with it fairly briefly, because it is important. Others will obviously speak about Northern Ireland at length this afternoon, but amendment 10 deals with powers in relation to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. As my hon. Friend said yesterday, the arrangements in relation to the protocol are pretty sketchy, with almost everything left to the Joint Committee to work out and then to be enacted, again, through delegated powers.

However, a significant difference exists between the restrictions on the powers afforded under proposed new section 8C and those under previous similar sections, such as section 8B(5) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because there is no restriction on the powers, for example, in relation to their ability to impinge on the devolved settlements of Scotland and Wales. Of course, concerns exist about the extent to which business organisations, the food and drink industry and, particularly, inshore fishing, as we heard yesterday, could be impacted upon in Scotland by the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

This obviously also relates to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and is of concern, perhaps in this Chamber, in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998. Looking at what proposed new section 8C would replace, the 2018 Act contains limitations that had become relatively standard, so I find it suspicious that they are missing. There is no sunset clause, no restriction on taxes or new offences and, in particular, no protection for the devolved Administrations or the Human Rights Act. That is really worrying, because we are being asked to sign up to something when we have no idea of the long-term ramifications.

[Joanna Cherry]

As, I think, a Committee of the House of Lords pointed out, it is unusual for restrictions in relation to the Human Rights Act, the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 not to appear in relation to delegated powers, so I am interested in hearing why those restrictions do not appear and in learning how the Government think the implementation of the Northern Irish protocol will impact upon the Scotland Act. Indeed, I am in interested in the impact on the Government of Wales Act and the Human Rights Act, and why the Government want to take delegated powers to interfere with the Human Rights Act and the devolved settlement in Scotland.

Turning quickly to clause 26 and my amendment 49, they relate to the concern expressed by many that the Government are amending section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—the original provision being that the Supreme Court for the whole of the UK or, in relation to criminal matters, the High Court of Justiciary were not bound by retained EU case law and could depart from that case law in the same way that those Supreme Courts would depart from their own case law. However, in an almost—I think I am correct in saying—unprecedented use of delegated legislation, in clause 26 the Government intend to take the power to pass regulations specifying additional courts or tribunals that could depart from EU law. That is a most unusual approach, and I am wondering what has prompted it.

I am interested in the justification for clause 26. Is it an act of revenge on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Supreme Court of Scotland for daring to defy the previous Conservative Government by ruling their unlawful Prorogation out of order, or is there some other rationale? I would be interested to hear what it is, because their lordships were taking a close interest in this clause. Even if I am not able to move the SNP amendment to the clause today, which would revert to the status quo in the previous Act, I am sure it will be moved in the House of Lords, because there is a real concern that the aim here is to impact upon the independence of the judiciary, and that different regulations applying to different courts about the extent to which EU law was overruled or could be applied will interfere with the important principle of legal certainty. In some ways, this is a probing amendment, but it is an amendment which, if not moved in this House, will be moved elsewhere, so it would be interesting to hear from the Government exactly why they consider it necessary to diverge so radically from the previous a course of action upon which they were determined.

Before I conclude, I want to say a few brief things about a number of important amendments tabled by the other parties. The SNP would be inclined to support the official Opposition’s amendment 4 on child refugees if they move it, although we would like to go a bit further than that, as I indicated earlier. We are also keen to support amendments from the official Opposition relating to transparency on the arrangements for Northern Ireland and on general scrutiny and oversight. We also give our wholehearted support to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and to new clause 17 from our friends in Plaid Cymru.

It is, of course, a great pleasure, particularly for myself and my colleagues in the SNP, to have the company of Irish nationalists once more in this Chamber. While I totally respect and understand Sinn Féin’s historical reasons for abstentionism, it is good that we will again hear the voice of Irish nationalism on the Floor of this House and the voice of a significant part of the community in Northern Ireland. It is good to be reminded that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, voted to remain in the European Union. We will be keen to lend our support to the amendments tabled by the Social Democratic and Labour party.

In conclusion, I am certain that not one single amendment sponsored by the Scottish National party will pass in relation to this Bill, just as not a single amendment sponsored by the Scottish National party passed in relation to the Scotland Bill back in 2015, despite the fact that we had 56 out of the 59 MPs in Scotland and now have 48 out of 59.

It is worth remembering that the devolution settlement, which this Bill will undermine, was predicated on the idea expressed in the claim of right for Scotland, which asserts that it is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. Of course, on 4 July 2018 the previous Parliament unanimously endorsed that principle in the claim of right. The previous British Parliament accepted that it is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. That means that this House has itself recognised, explicitly and unanimously, the principle of self-determination for Scotland. I look forward to seeing whether the Government have any proposals to reverse that in this Parliament.

To return to what I said at the opening of my remarks, I say to the Government that the day is coming when the people of Scotland will once again vote on whether Scotland should regain its former status as an independent nation state. The hubris, insouciance and lack of respect for democracy embodied in this Bill will hasten that date and ensure victory for the independence movement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. For clarification, and as the hon. and learned Lady indicated, although a considerable number of amendments and new clauses have been grouped for debate under this group, only the lead amendment at this stage is moved, so the Question is that amendment 38 be made. It gives me pleasure to call, for what will be his maiden speech in his capacity as a knight of the realm, Sir Robert Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I do not share her political analysis, but I do have sympathy with some of the legal points she raises, which I will address.

I will start with the interpretation of retained EU law, which raises an important issue. As the hon. and learned Lady has said, concerns have been raised by many lawyers, regardless of their political views. I speak as someone who supported the Bill’s Second Reading, who will support it on Report and on Third Reading, and who stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the Bill. The lawyer in me, however, says that it is particularly important that we get this detail right. That is why I hope I can press Ministers for a little more detail and explanation as to why they have chosen a particular course to achieve their objectives.

I accept that there will be circumstances in which it will be necessary for courts to depart from EU law once we have left the European Union. I have no problem at all with that. I am concerned, however, that the Government’s chosen formulation for clause 26 has the potential to upset the well-established hierarchy and system of binding precedent that has characterised English common law and, to a greater or lesser degree, that of the other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The system of binding precedent is important because we have always regarded it as a benchmark of English law that gives certainty, in that lower courts cannot depart from the decisions of higher courts. That has served us well for centuries and is not something from which we should lightly depart.

It is going to be important for the future, too. If we are to advance Britain’s position as an international legal centre and an international financial and business centre—as I hope and am confident we will—certainty of law is important. I am a little concerned, however, that, without more explanation, the Government might risk getting to a stage where—inadvertently, I have no doubt, and perhaps for the sake of speed—they may undermine that valuable asset. That would have perhaps two consequences, which I will touch on.

Judgments made over the years by the European Court of Justice have been embedded in domestic judgments of our courts, including those of the Supreme Court. It seems odd that power should be given to a lower court to, on the face of it, depart from a Supreme Court judgment interpreting the European law as it then was. On the face of it, and without more explanation, that seems to me to upset the doctrine of binding precedent and risks driving a coach and horses through a fundamental part of our system. That is not something we should undertake lightly. Will the Minister explain the rationale behind it and precisely how the Government will go about it? Why is it necessary?

13:15

People who will seek to litigate or enter into contracts during the EU withdrawal period, or immediately after—many commercial contracts will run over that period—will want to do so in the knowledge that they will have certainty as to what the law is likely to be. If the law is likely to be disapplied, that will be done either by an Act of Parliament, which is fair enough, or by a judgment of the High Court or, if appropriate, the Supreme Court, working through the usual hierarchy of precedence. It would be bizarre to allow an employment tribunal or even a High Court judge sitting at first instance to, on the face of it, have the power to disapply EU law in a way that might not be consistent with the ruling of the higher court in previous cases. I am sure that that is not the intention, but the wording as it stands, without more being said, seems to open up the risk that that could happen. I hope the Minister will help us and explain how that will be avoided, because I am sure it cannot be what the Government want.

There is a second risk, though also unintended, I am sure. As well as being embodied in judgments, previous ECJ decisions in EU law have been embedded in policy decisions, which have been made sometimes in this House by primary or secondary legislation, and sometimes through the executive actions of Ministers and other executive bodies and agencies. If one is inviting a lower court to depart from EU law on those matters—and, perhaps, to overturn some of those decisions—we run the risk, as the Law Society fairly points out, of, ironically, dragging our courts into areas of potential political controversy. I cannot believe that the Government wish to do that. Moreover, given that in recent months people in some circles have been critical of the UK’s higher courts for their judicial activism—personally speaking, I think that is unfair—it would be a little ironic and odd if we were to encourage judicial activism by the lower courts. I cannot possibly think that that is what the Government want to do. Without an explanation or refinement of the wording of the clause—I do not expect the Minister to do that now, because he will have time to do so—it seems to open up another risk. I hope he will explain the thinking behind it and how we might avoid that unintended and, I am sure we would all agree, undesirable consequence.

The European Union withdrawal agreement dealt with that subject by saying that only the Supreme Court could depart from EU case law. That makes absolute sense, in accordance with acceptance of our binding hierarchy of courts and the precedent of judgments delivered by the courts. Can the Minister be more specific as to precisely why it is that the Government have chosen to depart from that principle in this case? If the issue is one of time, that should be reflected in the urgency with which we address the negotiations and in the resources given, including to the courts, to deal properly with such matters. I am not saying that I do not want appropriate decisions in relation to EU law to be made, but I do not think we should imperil a much broader system for the sake of expediency in relation to a narrow point. I am sure the Minister knows that I approach the issue from a constructive point of view. I hope he will give us more detail and reflect on the matter.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am alive to my hon. Friend’s concerns—indeed, I share them—but does not clause 26 provide protection by giving the Minister the power to make regulations that will have to go through this House? That is a statutory intervention, albeit not an Act of Parliament. It is by the will of this House that those intrusions would be made.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I say to my right hon. Friend: yes, up to a point, Lord Copper. Although it may be by the will of the House, I urge the Committee to be cautious in going down such a route, which profoundly changes the centuries-old approach to English common law. Secondly —this is a point that I will make in a moment—there is an issue with the way in which we scrutinise regulations that the Committee may be asked to make. That relates to clause 18, to which I will return briefly. It is about getting those two bits right.

I am conscious that elsewhere in the legislation, there is an obligation upon Ministers to consult the senior judiciary when making some of those regulations. I welcome that important safeguard—it must be a very full consideration. With every respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), I do not think that we have a complete answer as yet. In particular, we need an explanation about the departure from the position as it was in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West alluded to, there is a concern that we run the risk of an increase in judicial review were there a deficiency or uncertainty in the way in which we deal with those matters.

I hope the Minister will confirm that, as well as the commitment to consult the judiciary, there will be very wide and early consultation under the provisions of clause 26. That should obviously include the senior judiciary throughout the UK, but I hope it will also take on board the broader concerns of legal practitioners to find the right formula. For example, it could include experts like those who serve on the Law Society’s Brexit law committee—that is fundamental to the workings of our financial services—and who work for other such organisations. By pressing the Minister in this way, I seek to make sure that we get that right.

That brings me to my second and final point, which relates to clause 18 and the way in which we consider delegated legislation. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West hinted that amendment 39 is a probing amendment, and I am glad of that. I have some sympathy with it, but I accept that the Minister might want to reconsider, between now and the passage of the Bill through the other place, how best to deal with the issue. On the face of it, it is surprising to substitute an objective test with a subjective one when dealing with matters of such importance.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

When dealing with issues of interpretation of European law in the context of our own previous methods of judicial interpretation, those of us who are familiar with Maxwell as compared to Craies know what the differences are. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should be moving towards the stare decisis system—in other words, a system based on precedent—rather than to purposive interpretation, which is the basis on which European law currently operates? Professor Richard Ekins of Oxford University and others are very conscious of that. He has written a very interesting paper.

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is indeed a very interesting paper. Having been brought up as a common lawyer myself, my preference is inevitably to move towards a stare decisis approach. I think that that is something that we all wish to move back to as we reconstruct our statute book and legal texts thereafter. My hon. Friend and I will be entirely in accord on that.

The question is really about the route that we choose to get there and ensuring that we have proper scrutiny of that route, because any deficiencies in regulations would likely result in a judicial review. That is another irony: I am sure that the Government would not want greater risk of judicial review of their actions than is absolutely necessary. It would be a funny Government who made work for lawyers in relation to judicial review. That might be interesting for some of us, but I am sure that it is not something that the Government wish to do. However, without more explanation as to why we are going down that route, that is the risk.

First, I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider whether we move to a “necessary” as opposed to “appropriate” test—an objective test—which is much more likely to withstand challenge in the courts, because it is more likely to be readily evidenced and, I would have thought therefore, to the Government’s advantage. If the Government get their ducks in a row early when making regulations and have evidence to back the objective test, they are much more likely to withstand legal challenge.

Secondly, the Government would be much less likely to face challenges and we would get better scrutiny if we moved—certainly for the majority of policy considerations —to using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. That would perhaps be a fair balance in the House. We will not necessarily be able to do primary legislation for all of our withdrawal, because there is too much of it. Sensible use of secondary legislation, to remove references to the European Union or something of that kind, can of course be done by the negative procedure. When policy considerations are involved, however, the use of the affirmative procedure would be consistent with the Government’s objective of bringing back control to the House, and with the movement towards our traditional UK approach to legal matters. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he responds.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger, and I look forward to serving under your guidance. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who has given the Treasury Bench much to think about on the difference between subjective and objective tests, which I will bear in mind in my remarks.

I rise to speak to the official Oppositions’s amendments in this group. Amendment 1 relates to full transparency on the implications of the Northern Ireland-Ireland protocol. Amendment 4 would restore the clauses from the previous version of the Bill that related to negotiating arrangements for the protection of unaccompanied child refugees. New clause 1 would restore to the Bill the process of parliamentary scrutiny—it has been removed since the previous version of the Bill—over the process and outcome of negotiating the future relationship with the EU after we leave. I am sure that you will tell me if I stray from the topic of debate, Sir Roger.

The Opposition have tabled amendment 1 because the Government appear to be incapable of clarity about the implications of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol on the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, their jobs, their businesses and their way of life. That is too important to leave to chance. The people of Northern Ireland, and the people of the whole United Kingdom, need and deserve the transparency and accountability that the amendment proposes.

This part of the withdrawal agreement and the Bill have to be considered in the light of the historical context. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was an extraordinary moment in the history of these islands and an awe-inspiring achievement of the incoming Labour Government of 1997 and of the latter period of the Major Government. Nobody my age could have thought that we would see peace in Northern Ireland in our lifetimes. The change to our way of life and the benefits to the people of Northern Ireland were unimaginable before the agreement. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement brought in a new era of peace and reconciliation.

The people of Northern Ireland, as well as its politicians across political and other divides, deserve our respect and admiration for how they have built the peace, worked to build united communities and created a way of life that seemed impossible a quarter of a century ago. Surely, no politician of any affiliation would want to destabilise that achievement—I am sure that that includes the Minister, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is nodding. I am sure he needs no reminding—I will remind him anyway—that the Government have a legal obligation to adhere to the terms of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That means no opt-outs, no wiggling and nothing other than solid, uncompromising adherence to and support for the spirit and the letter of the agreement, no matter how hard that may be. Too many people have sacrificed too much for peace for the Government to do otherwise.

These are no small matters, so it is troubling in the extreme that the Government do not seem to know their own mind or the implications of their own protocol. The consequences of a return to a hard border or divisions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the fears emerging for people in Northern Ireland and the problems for businesses across the UK are all serious matters—hence our amendment. Businesses in Northern Ireland have spoken with one voice and are rightly concerned about the potential impact of border checks on goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. So, too, are businesses across other parts of Great Britain. Any business that currently sends goods to Northern Ireland should not have to expect border checks within the UK.

13:29

Businesses in Bristol West have already told me of their anxieties about checks between the UK and the rest of the EU27, but at least those checks were anticipated after the 2016 referendum. Those businesses should not have to expect border checks within the UK, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Not only that but the Prime Minister has, at times, appeared at odds with his own Secretary of State on what the practical implications and, therefore, the trading and economic implications will be for the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is enshrined in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. We must honour that agreement, and the Government should not be afraid to be open about how they are honouring it. That is why we ask them to consider supporting amendment 1.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I do not think any Conservative Member would, in any way, demur from the need to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has provided the bedrock of political stability, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the withdrawal agreement itself specifically underlines the point about unfettered access and, equally, that the protocol is intended to be replaced by the enduring agreement that we wish to strike with the European Union?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention but, of course, it is far from clear that that will be the case. What we are actually seeing, even from the Secretary of State, is that there will be customs checks. There will have to be border checks because of the nature of the protocol.

I ask the Minister to provide clarity. If the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is correct, all well and good, but that is not the impression we have been given.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady’s points are appropriate and balanced. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, suggests, as has been suggested throughout this debate, that there is automatic secession from the Northern Ireland protocol—there is not. Article 13(8) is very clear that the only way we secede from the Northern Ireland protocol is, first, if the European Union agrees and, secondly, if the confines of the protocol are no longer required. Those two things are not in our gift, so there is no certainty of our automatic secession, as the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) was invited to believe.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is because of that uncertainty that many people in Northern Ireland have understandable fears about the future.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. We heard it again yesterday that the Government’s intention is for Britain to diverge from the European Union. If that is the case, as we are being led to believe, it is inevitable that there will be border checks somewhere. With respect to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), there is absolutely no guarantee and no certainty. It is the Government’s wish to diverge that is causing this problem.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I, too, sat through yesterday’s debate, and that seemed to be what was being said. The Brexit Secretary himself said that there will have to be some sort of checks, which is inevitable. If we are to diverge from the current rules and Northern Ireland is to remain within them, there will have to be checks. It is no wonder that the people of Northern Ireland are concerned about the potential impact on their place within this United Kingdom.

Businesses in Bristol West have already told me of their anxieties, as I said, but they had a right not to expect there to be border checks within the UK. Northern Ireland’s place is enshrined in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, but this is not just about trade—that is why I mentioned the agreement. This is about people. It is about values. It is about hopes and fears for the future, and it is about the feeling of belonging. It is about relationships between and within communities.

There is a perception among some in Northern Ireland, as hon. Members have mentioned, that a border nobody voted for will be created within the United Kingdom down the Irish sea. A border in the Irish sea does not bring people together, as the Good Friday/Belfast agreement does; it divides people and pulls them apart.

Amendment 1 seeks to give the Government a way of renewing their commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement by showing that they still believe in the Union—the full Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The amendment would require them to report openly and transparently on the implications of the protocol for the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and vice versa, for the Northern Ireland economy, for the fiscal and regulatory compliance of goods travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and for barriers to trade for third-country goods entering Northern Ireland and Great Britain from the rest of the EU and third countries.

Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament and each devolved legislature, and to provide for debate and proper scrutiny in both Houses. The first report should appear before 31 October. I can see no problem with that. If there is no problem, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup says, what is the problem with transparency? It would not take the Government very long to do that reporting, and our constituents and the people of Northern Ireland have a right to expect such transparency.

If the Government do not support amendment 1, I can only ask them to respond. Do they feel they owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to report sufficiently on the commitment they made earlier in this process to avoid a hard border? What is it about transparency and accountability to the people of the whole United Kingdom to which they object?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

On transparency and reporting, it is important that Northern Ireland is represented on the proposed Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol so that we have a direct input into how the arrangements are enacted.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

That sounds like an eminently sensible idea.

The Opposition support the cross-party amendment, new clause 55, and I will come on to the other clauses. The Labour party has consistently proposed a solution to the possibility of Brexit causing a border either on the island of Ireland or in the Irish sea, and our customs union proposal would prevent both. There will be a chance to discuss that proposal later today, and the Government will have a chance to consider it. In the meantime, I ask them to consider amendment 1.

Clause 37 is an astonishing breach of faith with some of the most vulnerable children in the world. Our amendment 4, which we will push to a vote, seeks to restore that faith. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and the noble Lord Dubs, our dear friend and colleague, have today written jointly to all Conservative Members to urge them to support amendment 4 and thereby scrap clause 37.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

The UK has already reneged on its commitment to the 480 child refugees who were due to come to the UK from France under the Dubs scheme. This withdrawal agreement is a further regression of the UK’s moral duty to help vulnerable refugee children, so does my hon. Friend agree that amendment 4 would require the UK to show that it is serious about its humanitarian obligations?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about who we want to be as a country—who I believe the British people already are—and how we want to be seen. As Conservative Members will know, there is no mandate for this change. The change was not in their general election manifesto or in any statement of support for the withdrawal agreement of which I am aware, although they are welcome to contradict me. It is deeply wrong for the Government to seek to remove this provision on protecting vulnerable children just because they can.

I am sure that many Conservative Members are troubled by this, and I hope some are having words with their Whips right now. I know their constituents will be shocked by the breach of trust between the people of this country who, no matter who they voted for in December, believe that protecting vulnerable children is part of who we are as a country. Brexit or no Brexit, that is who we are.

I believe the Minister is an honourable man, and perhaps he will seek to remedy this breach of faith by not objecting to amendment 4, and thereby not put his MPs in an awkward position. We shall see.

Clause 37 removes the commitment to negotiate an agreement with the EU27 on protecting child refugees. If the Government will not back our amendment to change that, I hope they will explain it. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has already outlined much of the case, and I am grateful to her for supporting our amendment and for laying out the legal detail, as I am not as capable as her of doing so.

This commitment belongs within the Bill. The Government have said otherwise, but we believe it belongs here because, as well as keeping faith with the noble Lord Dubs and others both inside and outside Parliament, the existing provisions for the protection of children would then be the basis for negotiating an agreement. We must consider the fact that the clock is ticking; we leave the EU at the end of this month and we will then have only a few months more to agree the future relationship. The regulations that currently provide the legal basis for child refugees to be reunited with adult relatives will end if we do not put any other negotiated agreement in place in that time.

Surely, there can be no right hon. or hon. Member in this place who does not respect and admire the work of our colleague and friend Lord Dubs, who, with warmth and determination, eternal optimism and good faith, has campaigned, and inspired others to campaign, for us to do more, not less, for vulnerable child refugees travelling alone and trying to get to safety. Who among us can fail to recognise his extraordinary example and his achievements? I hope that I am wrong, but it would seem that, unfortunately, the Government do not recognise them. That is certainly Lord Dubs’s view and it is mine, too, because in clause 37 they have reneged on that commitment. More importantly, they have reneged on a commitment to child refugees themselves, to secure arrangements at the earliest opportunity on how to protect children elsewhere in the EU who have an adult relative legally in the UK, either with status or in the asylum process.

Family reunion is one of those things that should not need explaining, but apparently it does: families belong together. Families who are traumatised by war, persecution and conflict are often forced to make decisions that none of us would ever want to have to make. Sometimes, in their journeys to safety, they are separated, and we should be doing everything we can to help reunite them, wherever they are, because that is part of who we are as a country. The British Red Cross and other refugee organisations have recommended that clause 37 be removed and that the provision be restored, and the Government could do just that. They have said that there is no change of policy and that it is just not appropriate for this provision to be in this Bill—the Minister is nodding. Why should it not be in this Bill? It was in the October version. The provisions end this year and I have heard no whisper of any negotiations so far with the EU about this provision, although I am happy to be corrected if the Minister knows otherwise.

In numerous reports, such as the House of Lords European Union Committee report “Brexit: refugee protection and asylum policy” and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report “Responding to irregular migration: A diplomatic route”, the importance of providing safe and legal routes to protection has been noted. They point out, for example, that policies that focus

“exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”

They have warned:

“In the absence of robust and accessible legal routes for seeking asylum in the UK, those with a claim are left with little choice but to make dangerous journeys by land and sea.”

The Government have rightly shown concern about people setting out on those dangerous journeys, but making it harder to come by legal routes is what prompts them. The Government recognise the need—I have heard them do this—to do more to prevent desperate and vulnerable people setting out in leaky boats and taking other dangerous routes, but this recognition is hollow words if it is not followed up with the action needed to increase safe and legal routes. The Minister will know, as I have pressed on this on many occasions, in different contexts and different debates, that refugee resettlement and refugee family reunion saves lives and prevents those dangerous journeys.

Clause 37 is worse than I have set out, as not only does it fail to increase our response, but it goes backwards. It risks going backwards because we have no commitment on what will happen and it is totally unnecessary. Let me set out some things the Government could choose to do and commit to right now. They could commit that family reunion rights will be protected, with priority afforded to unaccompanied children. They could tell us they will replace the family reunion elements of Dublin III by prioritising negotiation with the EU and with key member states so that there is an agreement that allows individuals who have claimed asylum to be reunited with their family members. The Government could commit to allowing children to join extended family members in the UK who have the legal right to be here because they are in a process or they already have status.

We hope that the Government and their Back Benchers will recognise the rightness of this cause and the moral justification for it. We hope that they understand that the people of the United Kingdom will want them to do this. We hope they will also join us in paying tribute to the many community organisations, volunteers, councillors and individuals who have shown our national values, and demonstrate them daily, by protecting, and offering to protect, still more vulnerable people. We hope the Government will acknowledge that and accept our amendment.

Finally, I come to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. An extraordinary turn of affairs has occurred between versions 1 and 2 of this Bill: the Government have totally removed the process of parliamentary scrutiny over the negotiations for the future relationship with the EU. Our new clause 1 therefore seeks to restore this scrutiny. Do we want to leave the European Union just for the Government to be able to ride roughshod over the views of the democratically elected Members of this House of Commons, on our side and on the other? Do our constituents really want us to have less say, not more, over the relationship with our nearest neighbours? Did the people we represent really go to the polls on a dark, cold, rainy and windy day in December to elect us, on this side of the House and on that, so that we can simply agree to hand over power to the Executive on this, the single most important issue of our times? Is this really what “Get Brexit done” means?

13:45

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Throughout the proceedings yesterday the Labour Back Benches were empty. For half the time there was only one Member there—Labour’s only surviving Eurosceptic—but for most of the time there was nobody there at all and we ended up finishing early, such was Labour’s determination to provide scrutiny.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Labour party had leadership hustings last night and that the Front-Bench team were here and fully engaged. I am talking now about the future relationship. Labour Members know, reluctantly or not—for many of us, this will be a sad moment—that on 31 January we will leave the EU. We accept that, but I am now talking about scrutiny of the future relationship. The shamefully misleading impression given by the Government that electing them in December would mean that Brexit would be “done” by the end of January and that we could move on to other matters is a terrible way to treat the people of the United Kingdom, whoever they voted for.

I am sure the Prime Minister and his entire Front-Bench team are fully aware that Brexit does not just get “done” when we leave, as we are going to and as the Opposition have acknowledged, on 31 January. I am certain that newly elected, as well as returning, Conservative Members know perfectly well that all that will happen on 31 January is that we will leave the European Union. They know that none of the agreement on the future relationship, or of the arrangements for sharing information about criminals or trading, or for co-operating on research or on moving life-saving medicines between the UK and the rest of the EU, will be “done”. That will all be still to do. The Government have set a wildly unrealistic expectation, not only that Brexit will just get “done”, but that the many aspects of the future relationship will be “done” by the end of June this year, for the transition to be over by the end of December. In doing that, the Government treat the economy, jobs, lives and welfare of the people of the UK recklessly.

Clause 33 means that the implementation period comes to an end on 31 December, in all circumstances, as Ministers said yesterday. Even if we have not worked out how people who currently work across borders in the EU can continue to do so, Ministers are prohibited by law—they will be by the end of tomorrow—from asking for an extension period. If the agreements on how we share information about terrorists and criminals, or on other important aspects of data sharing, are only days away, we will still not be allowed to ask for an extension, even one that is just for days. Even if the arrangements for the movement of medicines are not complete, there will be no extension. [Interruption.] This is related to this amendment, because we are asking for scrutiny of the process. If the Government are going to insist on this transition period coming to an end no matter what, surely we should have a right to scrutinise the process.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. She should ignore the jeers and concentrate on the forcefulness of the points she is making. Does she agree that the situation she has just described, whereby favourable agreements just a few days away from being negotiated would be given up in favour of this shibboleth of a certain date, is the classic definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I do agree with the hon. and learned Lady on that. I say again that that shows why we need this amendment, because it is about the scrutiny of the process. If we are to accept this ridiculous idea that there must be no extension to the transition period, even if it is for just days, at least we should have the right to scrutinise that process, on behalf of the people we were sent here to represent. This is not about whether there is good or bad faith on the part of the EU member states. I am sure that they will, as we all hope, negotiate in good faith, but there are practical implications here about the sheer volume of work to be done to reach agreements on all these vital aspects of our future relationship and secure the parliamentary approval of 27 other countries by the end of this year.

I am saddened, but no longer shocked, that the Government rejected our sensible proposal yesterday, but I hope that today they will consider our sensible proposal on scrutiny. It is not too much to ask that we, the elected representatives of the United Kingdom—of all parties, including the Government party—have the right to hear from our Ministers on the aims and objectives of the negotiations, the progress made and the outcome. It is not too much to ask that we be guaranteed that right, with the opportunity to debate and discuss, rather than having to wait for possible a ministerial statement or being forced to beg for information via an urgent question.

Surely, Government Members can see the wisdom in our proposal. They, too, were elected to represent their constituents, not just to be lobby fodder for their Prime Minister. If they have a business in their constituency on which jobs depend, and the ability to trade relies on the continuation of an agreement between the UK and the EU, do they not want to be able to ask their Government about whether that is included in the negotiating objectives and to be able to find out how that is going? If they have a constituent whose life depends on the movement of a medical device from one EU country to the UK, do they not want to be able to find out whether that is part of the negotiations and how that is going? Surely, they will want to be able to represent their constituents.

Members may not realise that the Law Society has recommended reinstating the scrutiny role. They may have forgotten that the Supreme Court judgment in the 2017 Gina Miller case made it clear that the Government cannot make or withdraw from a treaty that amounts to a major change to UK constitutional arrangements without parliamentary oversight. Or maybe this does not count. I ask all Government Members to consider pushing their Government, and I ask the Minister—I say again that I know him to be an honourable man—to consider restoring the full process of parliamentary scrutiny. I ask them to commit today to doing that. They could choose to adopt the Opposition amendment, or they could achieve it in some other way. I do not mind; I just believe that, as elected representatives, we should be able to represent the people who sent us here on the most important change to our way of life, our jobs, our businesses and our security in our lifetimes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)]

Before I address the provisions we are debating, I wish to acknowledge the enormous hard work and professionalism of officials in the Department for Exiting the European Union, in which I had the privilege to serve for more than two years, and in the territorial offices in which I have served since, in bringing this Bill and the withdrawal agreement to the position they are in today. I pay tribute to all those in the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland civil service who have contributed to our work on EU exit and to ensuring that the whole UK is able to leave the European Union in an orderly way. The Bill may have been a long time in coming, but it is delivering on a mandate for the whole United Kingdom. It has been a privilege to work with colleagues from every part of the United Kingdom in preparing and delivering it.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) about the importance of the Good Friday Belfast agreement. It is absolutely right that it has been a central focus of the exit process from the start. We do not need amendment 1 to state our firm commitment to both the Good Friday agreement and the principle of consent, or, indeed, my party’s absolute commitment to the United Kingdom.

I shall talk briefly to the purpose of clauses 18 to 37 and schedules 3 and 5 before I go into the detail of the amendments. As a Northern Ireland Minister, I make no excuses if most of my focus in respect of the amendments is on Northern Ireland. I am sorry not to have heard from more Northern Ireland colleagues so far; I shall try to make time to ensure that I can.

First, the clauses set out how EU law will be wound down at the end of the implementation period. Secondly, they enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under the financial settlement. Thirdly, and crucially, they implement the regulatory, customs and other arrangements contained in the Northern Ireland protocol; protect rights and arrangements contained in the Belfast Good Friday agreement; and avoid a hard border. Fourthly, they update the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that it operates as intended in the light of the withdrawal agreement. Fifthly, they allow UK courts to interpret UK laws and not to be inadvertently bound by historic European court cases. Sixthly, they provide a mechanism for Parliament to consider EU legislation that raises a matter of vital national interests, thereby increasing parliamentary scrutiny. Seventhly, they ensure that the Government are properly accountable for their work in the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee, and that Parliament should be informed on formal dispute proceedings that arise from the withdrawal agreement. Eighthly, they guarantee that we can ratify the withdrawal agreement on 31 January by ensuring that once the Bill receives Royal Assent there are no further parliamentary hurdles to ratification. Ninthly, they repeal unnecessary or spent enactments relating to EU exit.

I shall now address the amendments—

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I am happy to take interventions as I address the amendments; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me move on to that first.

I agree with what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said in an intervention about the importance of every part of the UK being heard. I recognise that many of the amendments are focused on securing Northern Ireland’s interests in the next phase of the Brexit process, and we absolutely recognise the support they have received from across the Northern Ireland business and political community. If and when the Executive are restored, the UK Government will be ready to consider commitments concerning the Executive’s role in future discussions with the European Union and to engage with them as we safeguard Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK. The Government cannot accept any of the amendments to the clauses that implement the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, for a number of reasons.

First, let me address new clauses 14, 15, 39 and 40, all tabled by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, as well as new clauses 63 and 13. At the outset, I should confirm that the protocol does not affect the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, which remains part of our political and economic union.

[Stephen Timms]

The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill states:

“Goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and Entry Summary (ENS) Declarations”.

Is that statement correct?

[Mr Walker]

It is clear that there are reporting requirements in the functioning of the protocol, but, as is clearly set out in article 6 of the protocol, we want to ensure that we use the Joint Committee to reduce them and make sure that we have the absolute minimum burden. The protocol itself clearly gives the Government the ability to provide unfettered access. I shall address that in more detail as I go on.

Northern Ireland remains in the UK customs territory and can benefit from future trade deals that we strike with the rest of the world. The Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that the deal is good for businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it would be enormously helpful if the Government’s stance ensured that whatever regulatory regime is required, it is not only of the lightest touch but is as cost-neutral as possible? Therefore, there needs to be detailed discussion with Treasury colleagues to see what mechanisms may exist for reclaiming, either through the VAT process or offsetting against personal or corporation tax, in order to make it cost-neutral, with the understanding that we need to be able to do something.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. As he will appreciate, I cannot necessarily make commitments on behalf of Treasury colleagues at this stage, but I have no doubt that he will assiduously press for Northern Ireland’s interests with the Treasury.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will need to make some progress so that he and his colleagues can speak.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister is humble enough to recognise that he cannot make commitments on behalf of the Treasury, but he should go a step further and say that he cannot make commitments on behalf of the European Union, either. That is our fundamental problem with the withdrawal agreement and its implications for Northern Ireland. There is no point asserting sovereignty and indicating that Northern Ireland is fully in compliance with the customs territory of United Kingdom, only to hand that power to a Joint Committee with the European Union.

[Mr Walker]

As he always does, the hon. Gentleman makes his point powerfully. It is clear from the protocol that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom customs territory, and that we want to make sure that we maintain unfettered access between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There are powers in the protocol for the Government to do that.

Let me make a little progress. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Belfast Good Friday agreement is upheld throughout our departure from the European Union. The protocol is clear that it protects rights contained in that agreement, and the Bill gives effect to the UK’s commitments in that regard. We are confident that the new functions conferred on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland are sufficient for them to carry out their roles in the dedicated mechanism. It will be of particular interest to some Opposition Front Benchers who have raised concerns with us that the Bill confirms the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s “own motion” standing under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as providing for such standing under the protocol. I direct Members’ attention to paragraph 5 of schedule 3. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland will form the bedrock of the dedicated mechanism established under article 2(1) of the protocol. All the powers necessary for these bodies to perform their necessary functions are provided in schedule 3. I therefore urge the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) to withdraw amendments 32 and 34, which are unnecessary, so that we can allow for the dedicated mechanism.

13:59

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I am happy to withdraw my amendments in the light of the Minister’s comments, but I ask him to respond further on the need for both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission to receive the same notification as the Attorney General on human rights or equality issues that come before the courts or tribunals.

[Mr Walker]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, which I am happy to look into, but my understanding is that under the Bill those bodies have the powers they need to acquire the necessary information. I am grateful to him for his gracious withdrawal.

New clauses 11 and 12 were tabled by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I want to make it clear from the outset that the Government’s commitment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Belfast agreement, which it implements, is unfaltering. The consent mechanism contained in the protocol, for which the Government will legislate before the first vote is required in 2024, operates on the basis of a majority of democratically elected representatives in Northern Ireland being able to continue or end alignment with EU law. I am certain that this is the right mechanism. The right position in principle is not to hand a veto to any one party—not to Brussels, not to Dublin and not to any one party or community in Northern Ireland. That is what our consent mechanism does. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments and back this arrangement.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister not recognise the incompatibility of the two statements he has made? He wants to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Belfast agreement, yet he is prepared to set aside one of its most fundamental parts—that, on controversial issues and issues that one community feels threatens its identity and the things it values, there should be a mechanism whereby there is a difference in the majority vote. He seems not to understand that the protocol and the terms of this Bill set that very vital safeguard aside.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, let me provide this clarification. The Minister referred to withdrawing an amendment, as did the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). At this stage, there is no need to withdraw amendments, because none of them has been moved. It is only the lead amendment that has been moved.

[Mr Walker]

I apologise, Sir Roger. I stand corrected.

I absolutely recognise the principle in the agreement on contentious domestic matters in Northern Ireland. We are talking about a consent mechanism that is being given to the Assembly uniquely in the case of an international agreement, because we recognise the importance of the issue. We also recognise the benefits of cross-community consent, which is why our approach would mean that a vote recurs more often if a decision is taken without that cross-community consent.

It is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland—including through implementation on an all-island and cross-border basis—on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the Administrations north and south and not the responsibility of the UK Government. That is why clause 24 ensures that the UK cannot agree to the making of a recommendation by the Joint Committee, which would alter the arrangements for north-south co-operation. As the protocol ensures these aims and the Bill give effect to those commitments, I urge the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down to withdraw amendment 36 as it is not necessary to achieve the aims that it seeks.

[Karin Smyth]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, and then I will have to limit interventions.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on clause 24. I am a favoured, seasoned bureaucrat, and I do like a bit of transparency around governance and process. I am struggling to understand how the relationship works between the proposals from the Good Friday/ Belfast agreement bodies, particularly the North South Ministerial Council, to this specialised committee, which has no enforcement power but has an ability to recommend to the Joint Committee, which apparently has a supervisory power. We are not sure whether that body can then take action, or whether it just makes recommendations back to the North South Ministerial Council. We are in an ever-moving circle of recommendations, but with no action. The real concern with clause 24 is that it is in aspic in 2020. The ability to move on relationships seems to be lost, and the ability to do that with democratic accountability back to the people across Ireland and the United Kingdom is lost, and that is a serious governance point that the Government need to address.

[Mr Walker]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point and I have great respect for the work she does in this space, but I think she misunderstands. Clause 24 simply means that, as a result of the protocol and the UK Government’s role in the Joint Committee, there will not be decisions taken to change north-south co-operation. It does not prohibit or restrict in any way a restored Executive from taking decisions on that within the confines of the North South Ministerial Council. I have to move on now, but, in fairness, I think that that addresses the point.

The Government urge the hon. Member for North Down and the hon. Member for Foyle to withdraw amendment 33 and new clause 61 as they risk creating legal uncertainty for businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland, which is unacceptable to the Government. Our departure from the EU requires the Government to ensure that the statute book is able to function post exit, and these amendments put that at risk.

I wish now to turn to the important amendments 12, 19, 50 and 51 and new clauses 44, 52, 55 and 60. As Members can see from article 6 of the protocol, nothing in the withdrawal agreement prevents the Government from ensuring access for Northern Ireland goods to the market in Great Britain. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that, beyond our obligations under international law, there will be no new checks and processes on the movement of such goods. Our manifesto commitment is absolutely clear: the Bill gives us the power to deliver this. We recognise the strong voice with which Northern Ireland’s businesses have been speaking on the importance of unfettered access and of protecting Northern Ireland’s position within the internal market as a whole and the cross-party, cross-community support for this to be delivered. It can be delivered through clause 21 and through the opportunity to follow up through the Joint Committee, as we discussed earlier. We will, of course, continue to engage with businesses and stakeholders, but I none the less urge the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Foyle to withdraw these amendments.

[Dr Whitford]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Lady on one of her own amendments.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend’s comments. Does he agree that, as expressed in the DUP’s amendments, there is very widespread concern across Northern Ireland and among business groups about the proposal of the protocol? He is trying to explain the details, but it is still going to be complex and it is still going to cause unhappiness and concern. Does he agree that it would be best if, in the course of this year, the Government committed to a comprehensive free trade agreement in which Northern Ireland comes out absolutely on a level pegging status on every issue with the rest of the United Kingdom? All the problems with the detail of the protocol would disappear, because Northern Ireland would be on a level pegging with the rest of the UK as part of a free trade agreement.

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience and passion on these issues. Of course I agree with him, but what we want is a free trade agreement for the whole of the UK that addresses these issues and allows us the most frictionless access to our neighbours and good trade for all of us. For Northern Ireland, that would be an excellent result. We have to focus on the fact that this Bill is about the withdrawal agreement, and that includes the protocol. We need to take through the protocol to ratify the withdrawal agreement and move forward into that negotiation.

The Government are committed to maintaining the highest levels of transparency and scrutiny in relation to this Bill and to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. We have been clear on that, but the exact form of accountability needs to be appropriately framed, so the Government cannot accept new clauses 53, 54 or 65, which would place an undue burden on the Government but not provide the transparency and scrutiny that they purport to achieve. It is no surprise that the Opposition, through amendment 1, seek to place hurdles in the way of our exit, but the result of the general election across the United Kingdom shows that they lack the mandate to do so and that we have a clear mandate to proceed. We should do so without the hurdles that the previous Parliament consistently threw in the way of progress.

[Sir William Cash]

I wish to ask my hon. Friend to reflect on one point. Under this Bill, the European Scrutiny Committee, both in the Commons and the Lords, will have the power to examine certain matters. I know that he knows about that, but there is also the question of interpretation, which comes up in this set of proposals. I wish to reinforce the exchange that I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), which is that clause 5 has not been addressed, and that reaffirms the supremacy of EU law before exit day. We need to keep an eye on the question of the quashing and disapplication of Acts of Parliament as we proceed.

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely take on board my hon. Friend’s comments. As we are discussing parliamentary scrutiny, I am sure that he will welcome the clauses that set out a role for the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will come to the hon. Lady’s new clause shortly, so perhaps I can give way to her then.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will also come back to the issue raised by my hon. Friend.

As is standard in international agreements, the withdrawal agreement sets out procedures for dealing with disputes concerning compliance with the agreement. Amendment 24 would require parliamentary approval for the payment of any fines or penalties under the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is a binding agreement that will place the UK under a legal obligation to make those payments. We have to be clear that we will honour our international legal obligations, and we therefore cannot accept any conditionality on payments.

I turn to amendments 38 and 46 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). It is essential that the powers in clauses 18 to 22 can be used to enable all appropriate measures required by the withdrawal agreement to be implemented by the end of 2020. Restricting the power in the manner proposed would limit the Government’s ability to implement the withdrawal agreement in the most sensible way. I remind the hon. and learned Lady that the use of “appropriate” in statute is not at all new. There are myriad examples elsewhere on the statute book of powers that use the term “appropriate” to describe the discretion available to Ministers when legislating. I remember well that we discussed the question of “appropriate” versus “necessary” many times during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and Parliament accepted the use of the word “appropriate”. There is no persuasive reason why we should depart from that approach here.

[Joanna Cherry]

In the Scottish Parliament’s legal continuity Bill—which of course was struck down by the Supreme Court after the Conservative party retrospectively changed the law in the House of Lords—the power that Scottish Ministers afforded themselves for making delegated legislation used the word “necessary” rather than “appropriate”, so it is not the case that all Governments in these islands afford to themselves the sort of sweeping powers that the Minister is planning on affording himself. There are very legitimate concerns about this issue that are shared not just by politicians but by members of the judiciary. What does he have to say in response to the points raised not just by me, but by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who was the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice in the previous Parliament?

[Mr Walker]

I obviously pay heed to those points when they are raised, but I am told that the term “appropriate” actually better allows us to take better steps to ensure that multiple options can be explored when the legal changes are complex and interact with numerous pieces of existing legislation; so there are other elements to take into account.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have three points to make. First, perhaps the Minister could set out what those “better steps” are. Secondly, will he address the issue of consideration under the affirmative resolution procedure as opposed to the negative resolution procedure, which might put some of my concerns to rest? Thirdly, before he finishes, will he tell us why we moved from the formulation of the Supreme Court in clause 26 to the lower courts?

[Mr Walker]

I will absolutely come back to my hon. Friend on the latter point. There are a number of places in the Bill where it is very clear that there will be active consideration by the Commons of the secondary legislation. That is an important part of the parliamentary scrutiny process.

I turn to amendment 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It would inhibit our ability to implement part 3 of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, particularly with regard to the ability to legislate for the consent mechanism and the provision of unfettered access. However, I reassure the Committee—this picks up from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—that any amendment to primary legislation through clauses 18 to 21 would have to be actively approved by votes of Parliament.

[Dr Whitford]

But this changes clause 8 in the original European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which included limitations meaning that these sweeping powers without a sunset clause could not be used in relation to the Human Rights Act, the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act or the Northern Ireland Act. What changes exactly does the Minister feel he would need to make to the Scotland Act to meet the relevant aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol? Why is the legislation being changed? The Minister should justify why those protections and limitations existed in the original Act but he now feels bound to take them out. What is he planning to change in the other devolved settlements, for Scotland and Wales?

14:15

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady is making a comparison between two separate pieces of legislation. We have no dastardly plans to change the devolution settlement. However, we want to ensure that we are able to take the necessary steps to implement the protocol, including providing unfettered access across all parts of the UK, in the limited period available. We will want to engage with the devolved Administrations and legislatures about the most effective way of achieving that.

[Dr Whitford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will not, I am afraid.

The Government cannot accept amendment 49, as it would mean that we could be inadvertently bound by European Union rulings for many years. Instead, clause 26 ensures that we and our courts will be able to determine the extent to which courts are bound by historic Court of Justice of the European Union decisions after the implementation period. This will be done sensibly, so I can provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The Bill commits us to consult the senior judiciary across the UK before making regulations, and we do not intend this in any way to upset long-standing constitutional principles such as the structure and hierarchy of the court system. This clause simply enables us to take back control of our laws and disentangle ourselves from the EU’s legal order, but in a way that will be consulted on carefully with the judiciary, recognising the structures and hierarchies that exist there.

New clauses 1, 6 and 17 and amendment (a) to new clause 6 all seek to introduce various statutory roles for Parliament, and for the devolved Administrations and legislatures, in the future relationship negotiations. These are unnecessary requirements that risk impeding and delaying negotiations. New clause 6 in particular imposes onerous requirements for consultation and impact assessments, but would make it very challenging indeed to conclude negotiations by the end of 2020.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the Minister recognise that what he refers to as “onerous requirements” are precisely what our colleagues in the European Parliament enjoy right now? Does he not find that there is a rather ironic point here, which is that we are supposed to be taking back control—although we assumed that meant to elected representatives, not just to No. 10—but we actually have less control than the colleagues we have left behind in Brussels?

[Mr Walker]

I fundamentally disagree. The purpose of the Bill is to deliver on the withdrawal agreement and take that forward. It is not to set out the future of negotiations. This legislation is focused on allowing us to move forward into those negotiations. It would be a profound mistake to tie the hands of the Government in achieving the best result for the whole United Kingdom.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Given that we have flatlining life expectancy and an increasing infant and child mortality rate—the worst in western Europe, which is quite staggering—will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to introduce an assessment of the impact on health of the trade deal, because there will be a significant impact? I really would like an adequate response.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady talks about assessments of future deals. The place in which to do that is not legislation that is focused on implementing the withdrawal agreement. I am afraid that it is simply not the case, as it was in the last Parliament, that the political arithmetic means that the Opposition can tie the Government up with all sorts of commitments and assessments. We need to ensure that we get the best deal for our economy, our health and our country, and it is right that we move forward by accepting the withdrawal agreement, legislating through the Bill and focusing on the next stage.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister will be well aware, new clause 1 bears a marked resemblance to clause 31 in the previous version of the Bill. The Prime Minister said to the House on 22 October, talking about the now disappeared clause 31, that

“the intention is to allow the House to participate actively and fully in the building of the future partnership”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 840.]

and the clause set out a whole process for doing that, so why was it a good idea to have that in the version of the Bill produced in October, but now it has apparently become completely unnecessary and terribly onerous for the Government?

[Mr Walker]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is perhaps in some of the exchanges we had during that debate, when I was reaching out to him to suggest that he ought to support our orderly withdrawal from the European Union so that we could get on to the next phase of negotiations. Since then, we have had a general election that provides a clear mandate for this Government to take us forward, to deliver the withdrawal agreement, and to get into that next phase of negotiations. I think we need to focus on that.

We have are already engaged extensively with the devolved Administrations in our preparations for the negotiations, and we will of course continue to involve all parties, including those in Northern Ireland, as we begin those negotiations. Indeed, this speaks to the absolute necessity and the vital urgency of restoring a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. The Government will support Parliament in scrutinising the negotiations. We have made a clear commitment in this Bill to Parliament’s scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee. To that end, clause 30 provides that when disputes arise, they must be reported to Parliament. Further, clause 34 states that only a Minister will be able to act as the UK’s co-chair of the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee, and clause 35 ensures that all decisions must be made by a Minister in person. That Minister will be accountable to Parliament. We therefore believe that new clause 47 should not be pressed.

The Government fully recognise the important role that devolved Administrations will play in ensuring that our independent trade policy delivers for the whole of the UK. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom, and it is vital that we retain appropriate flexibility to proceed with negotiations at pace. However, we have been clear that the devolved Administrations will remain closely involved. Therefore, there is no need to make provisions in statute when the Government are already working tirelessly to ensure that the views and perspectives of devolved Administrations are given full consideration in the United Kingdom’s trade policy. As such, I would urge hon. Members not to press new clause 64.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There is something deeply ironic about the fact that if we were to remain in the European Union, trade negotiation objectives would have to be agreed with individual nation states. Indeed, in Belgium, the devolved legislatures for Wallonia, Flanders and the Brussels region would have an individual say. Does the Minister not agree, therefore, that in this situation, given the different nature of the economy of Wales, with its manufacturing, farming and services to people, Wales’s devolved legislature, alongside the devolved legislatures of Scotland and Northern Ireland, should have a say in the objectives of the trade agreement negotiations as a very minimum?

[Mr Walker]

We have always taken the interests of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland very seriously in this process. We have always engaged. I have personally been to the Welsh Assembly on a number of occasions to give evidence.

The conduct of international relations is reserved to the UK Government, so representation at the Joint Committee, the specialised committees and the joint consultative working group is a matter for UK Ministers. However, I recognise the particular interests of the Northern Ireland parties given the role of these committees in the protocol, and this is a matter we would like to discuss further with the parties in a restored Executive. However, it would be wrong to pre-empt such discussions in this legislation. As such, I would urge hon. Members not to press new clauses 22, 26 and 42.

New clause 66 would require the Government to report to the devolved Administrations—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I am afraid I will not at the moment, but I will come back the hon. Gentleman if I can.

[David Linden]

On this point?

[Mr Walker]

No.

New clause 66 would require the Government to report to the devolved Administrations on maintaining alignment with EU law, but devolution settlements already lay out the terms under which devolved Administrations can make law, while the common frameworks provide a forum for intergovernmental deliberation on the use of these powers. This new clause is therefore unnecessary.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister make sure, in the discussions with the devolved Governments, that the interests of England are also central to his considerations? We do not have a devolved Administration, but we have a very strong wish to see Brexit through, because we think there are a lot of gains from Brexit.

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend is of course right that people across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in England, voted for Brexit, but we should not forget the large numbers of people in Scotland, the almost 1 million people in Northern Ireland and those in Wales who also voted for Brexit.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and that is the last intervention I can take, I am afraid.

[David Linden]

I am most grateful. Earlier, the Minister talked about respecting the devolved Administrations and listening to what they were saying, so can he tell me what the Government have actually done with regard to the words in the 2016 document, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”?

[Mr Walker]

I have answered that question many times. I am very happy to talk about many of the aspects of the political declaration that reflect some of the concerns raised in “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, but that is not a matter for this debate.

On the important question of child refugees, which the hon. Member for Bristol West spoke about at length and with commendable passion, this Government are fully committed both to the principle of family reunion and to supporting the most vulnerable children. Our policy has not changed. Although she said that she had heard no whisper of negotiations, I can confirm that the Home Secretary wrote to the Commission on 22 October to start negotiations with the European Union on future arrangements. We will also continue to reunite children with their families under the Dublin regulation during the implementation period. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made clear, there is very strong support on the Government Benches for the principle of family reunion.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Perhaps I can help the Minister out. Is he aware that in 2017 the UK signed up to the Council of Europe’s action plan on protecting refugees and migrant children, which, among other things, enhances the integration of children into host societies, and that that commitment remains, regardless of what happens to these amendments?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course we have to take action on this across a number of areas, but the right place to do that is not in this legislation. We do not need further reporting requirements such as would be required by amendment 4, unilateral measures such as those set out in amendment 26, or legally binding negotiating objectives.

In new clause 21, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) shows his admirable ambition for the UK’s independent trade policy enabled by leaving the European Union. We absolutely share those ambitions. I can assure my right hon. Friend, who was a privilege to work with, that the Government will be working in the national interest to kickstart the UK’s international trade policy in both bilateral and multilateral fora. I know that he has discussed this with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. However, he will know, perhaps better than almost anyone else in this Chamber, how important it is that the Government do not have their hands tied in negotiation, so I would ask him not to press his amendment.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that undertaking, but will he give me one other undertaking, which is that the United Kingdom will take its place in the World Trade Organisation immediately we leave the European Union, which will be, after all, on 1 February?

[Mr Walker]

I hesitate to give that from the Dispatch Box because I am not a Trade Minister, but I am pretty sure that if my right hon. Friend asked a Trade Minister that question, the answer he would get is yes.

The Government have been given a mandate following the UK general election to get Brexit done. That is what this Bill aims to achieve. The withdrawal agreement and the protocol deliver a good deal for the United Kingdom and leave the door open to improving their operation in the Joint Committee to minimise disruption to businesses and individuals right across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to withdraw their amendments and progress this Bill so that we can get on with delivering on our commitments to the whole country. This will kick-start a bright new future for the people of all four nations of the United Kingdom.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is a great pity that the time is restricted in this debate because there are so many amendments and so many people want to take part in it.

The amendments that we have tabled are designed to be positive—to ensure that the promises that the Government have made are honoured, as is the manifesto commitment that they have made in relation to Northern Ireland, which states:

“Guaranteeing the full economic benefits of Brexit: Northern Ireland will enjoy the full economic benefits of Brexit including new free trade agreements with the rest of the world. We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”

All our amendments are intended to ensure that that promise is delivered on. I am sure the Minister will understand, given the experience of the withdrawal agreement, that we wish to see some of these things secured within the Bill rather than in the promises that are made here.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

A lot of the DUP’s amendments are about trying to secure the future of access to UK markets for Northern Ireland farmers. That is massively important to farmers in Cumbria as well, vice versa across the Irish sea. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have today announced at the Oxford farming conference that they are refusing to delay the phase-out of the basic payment scheme, which makes up 85% of the income of English livestock farmers, and that their doing so would massively undermine Britain’s farming economy and our ability to provide food security and protect our historic landscape?

12:19

[Sammy Wilson]

All these kinds of things ensure that people want to see these issues nailed down in the Bill, rather than hear the promises that are made.

Our amendments fall into three categories. I want to deal mostly with the first group, on unfettered access to the UK market. The second group aim to ensure proper representation for Northern Ireland on the Joint Committee and specialised committees, which will be very powerful and will be able to make decisions that have a dramatic impact on Northern Ireland. The third group aim to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly is consulted in accordance with the Belfast agreement.

The Minister has argued that the Bill guarantees unfettered access to the UK market—the protocol does not stop it, and the Bill facilitates it—and yet, when one reads clause 21, it is quite clear that none of these issues has been hammered down. Ministers “may” make regulations to facilitate access to the GB market. If disagreements arise in the Joint Committee or if the terms of the protocol require there to be checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, Ministers may well compromise and decide, “We’re not going to make regulations. We have to balance the arguments up. We may make regulations, but according to the Bill, it is not necessary for us to do so.”

The Bill simply refers to regulations

“facilitating the access to the market”.

That access to the market may require businesses in Northern Ireland to undertake a huge number of checks, with costly administration. The term “unfettered access” is not in the Bill, and despite the promises that the Minister has made, no one yet knows what unfettered access means. Our amendments are designed to ensure, first, that the Bill states that Ministers must bring forward regulations; secondly, that those regulations must ensure unfettered access to the GB market, which is the biggest market for the Northern Ireland economy; and thirdly, that that unfettered access is defined in the Bill.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point about unfettered access to Great Britain for Northern Ireland, but of course a marketplace is somewhere where we buy and sell, and while he is considering west to east transit, east to west—Great Britain to Northern Ireland—will be a much greater concern, because that is where the EU will have the greatest interest.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is why there must be guarantees on the face of the Bill that Ministers will ensure that regulations are designed in a way that does not stop trade, whether from east to west or west to east. The Bill singularly fails to do that at the moment, and our amendments are designed to ensure that it happens, for not only manufacturing but fishing.

[Jim Shannon]

The Democratic Unionist party has tabled new clause 39 in relation to fishing. If one of my boats leaves Portavogie, goes out and catches a fish in the Irish sea and comes back into Portavogie, it owes tariffs, with administrative and bureaucratic costs. But if it goes and lands its catch in Scotland or England, it does not have to pay any charges whatsoever. The Government promised a golden dawn for the fishing sector when we left the EU. Quite clearly, boats in Northern Ireland—boats from Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel—will not get that advantage. Is it not time that the Government considered the future of the fishing sector in particular and ensured that it has the golden dawn that the rest of the United Kingdom seems to have?

[Sammy Wilson]

My hon. Friend illustrates once again the potential unforeseen consequences.

Our amendments have the support of all the political parties in Northern Ireland, such is the degree of concern about the impact on the Northern Ireland economy. We could support Labour’s amendment 1, but it does not go as far as we would like. We already know from the Government’s own assessment that there will be impacts on the Northern Ireland economy, and while amendment 1 asks for a picture at a particular time, new clause 55 asks for a moving picture over a period of time, with independent assessments on a year-to-year basis of the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol on the Northern Ireland economy. That is as important as the assessment proposed in amendment 1.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I regret that in the two hours allocated to speak about the Northern Ireland protocol, he is the only representative of Northern Ireland who will be allowed to speak on the substantive amendments we have tabled on north-south co-operation, the environmental impact and democratic oversight. That will contribute to the very real feeling that Brexit, and this form of Brexit, is being forced on Northern Ireland, which has never given its consent.

People will appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and I come from very different perspectives, but all the Northern Irish parties and all the business community have worked together on our common interests, because they are so vital to protect businesses and consumers, who cannot absorb the costs of this Brexit. Does he agree that if the Government mean anything they say about protecting Northern Ireland and the assurances they have given on unfettered access and non-tariff barriers, they should at a minimum accept new clause 55?

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes. New clause 55 is very reasonable. It asks, first, for a 12-monthly assessment of the impact of the protocol on Northern Ireland; secondly, that if there is divergence in trade policy, the administrative costs of the impact should not be borne by the private sector in Northern Ireland; and thirdly, that it is done independently, to ensure that the true costs are not glossed over. It is a very reasonable new clause, adding to Labour’s amendment 1, and I hope that the Government will accept it. They want to give an assurance that they do not want there to be a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland. The only way we will know whether the terms of the protocol are having an impact on Northern Ireland is to make a regular assessment of the protocol, the regulations enforced as a result of it and the costs.

Our first set of amendments would require the Government to define unfettered access on the face of the Bill and would oblige Ministers and devolved Administrations to ensure that unfettered access. The second set is about representation on the Joint Committee. It will be a powerful Committee, and therefore it is important that there is Northern Ireland representation on it. The third set is on consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have already said to the Minister in an intervention—

14:38

Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 20 December 2019).

The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Main power in connection with Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol

Amendment proposed: 10, page 25, line 27, at end insert—

“(8) But regulations under this section may not—

(a) impose or increase taxation or fees,

(b) make retrospective provision,

(c) create a relevant criminal offence,

(d) establish a public authority,

(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it, or

(f) amend or repeal the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 or the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”— (Dr Whitford.)

This amendment would apply the usual restrictions on Ministers’ delegated power to make regulations under the Government’s proposed new section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

14:38

Division 6

Ayes: 262

---

Labour: 191
Scottish National Party: 44
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 340

---

Conservative: 339

Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Arrangements with EU about unaccompanied children seeking asylum

Amendment proposed: 4, page 37, line 3, leave out from “Europe)” to the end of the clause and insert “after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) If, three months after this Act comes into force, no agreement achieving the objective contained in subsection (1) has been concluded with the European Union, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out—

(a) the steps taken by Her Majesty’s government, and the progress made in negotiations with the European Union, for the purpose of achieving the objective in subsection (1); and

(b) whether in the Minister’s opinion an agreement with the European Union achieving the objective of subsection (1) is likely to be achieved by IP completion day and, if not, setting out the reasons for this.

(3B) Following the making of the first Statement referred to in subsection (2), and until such time as an agreement satisfying the objective contained in subsection (1) is reached with the European Union, the Minister shall, at least as frequently as every 28 days thereafter, make further statements in accordance with sections (3A)(a) and (b).” —(Thangam Debbonaire.)

This amendment would protect the right for unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with their family after Brexit.

14:56

Division 7

Ayes: 252

---

Labour: 187
Scottish National Party: 46
Liberal Democrat: 11
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 348

---

Conservative: 339
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 6

Parliamentary approval of the future relationship

‘(1) The Secretary of State may not engage in negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU until a Minister of the Crown has laid a draft negotiating mandate before each House of Parliament and—

(a) moved an amendable motion in the House of Commons containing the text of the draft negotiating mandate;

(b) the draft negotiating mandate (as amended) has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and

(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the draft negotiating mandate has been moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The draft negotiating mandate must set out in detail—

(a) the UK’s negotiation objectives,

(b) all fields and sectors to be included in the proposed negotiations,

(c) the principles to underpin the proposed negotiation,

(d) any limits on the proposed negotiations, and

(e) the desired outcomes from the proposed negotiations.

(3) Prior to laying the draft negotiating mandate, a Minister of the Crown must have consulted each devolved administration on the negotiating mandate.

(4) Prior to the House’s consideration of a motion under subsection (1)(b), a Minister of the Crown must lay before both Houses of Parliament a sustainability impact assessment conducted by a credible body independent of government following consultation with—

(a) each devolved administration,

(b) public bodies, businesses, trade unions and non-governmental organisations which, in the opinion of the independent body, have a relevant interest, and

(c) the public.

(5) The assessment shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed trade agreement, including—

(a) social,

(b) economic,

(c) environmental,

(d) gender,

(e) equalities,

(f) climate change,

(g) human rights,

(h) labour,

(i) development, and

(j) regional

impacts.

(6) In conducting negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, a Minister of the Crown must seek to achieve the objectives set out in the negotiating mandate approved under subsection (1)(b).

(7) After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must—

(a) lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress made, by the end of the period, in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, including—

(i) the Minister’s assessment of the extent to which the outcome of those negotiations is likely to reflect the negotiating mandate approved under subsection (1)(b), and

(ii) if the Minister’s assessment is that the future relationship with the EU is, in any respect, not likely to reflect that mandate, an explanation of why that is so, and

(b) lay before each House of Parliament the latest rounds of negotiating texts, by the end of each reporting period, and

(c) provide a copy of the report to the Presiding Officer of each of the devolved legislatures and to—

(i) the Scottish Ministers,

(ii) the Welsh Ministers, and

(iii) the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.

(8) Subsections (9) to (13) apply if, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, an agreement in principle has been reached with the EU on a treaty the principal purpose of which is to deal with all or part of the future relationship with the EU.

(9) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament—

(a) a statement that political agreement has been reached, and

(b) a copy of the negotiated future relationship treaty.

(10) Prior to the laying of the text of the proposed treaty, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the text of the proposed agreement and taken their views into account, with special consideration given to matters relating to devolved competences.

(11) Prior to considering a motion approving the text of the negotiated future relationship treaty, the Government must lay before each House of Parliament a response to any report by a relevant Parliamentary committee (such as the Exiting the EU select committee) containing a recommendation in relation to the ratification of the agreement.

(12) A treaty in the same form, or to substantially the same effect, as the negotiated future relationship treaty may be ratified only if the negotiated future relationship treaty has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on an amendable motion moved by a Minister of the Crown and—

(a) the House of Lords has not resolved, within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the negotiated future relationship treaty is laid before that House, that any treaty resulting from it should not be ratified, or

(b) if the House of Lords has so resolved within that period, a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why.

(13) Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification) does not apply in relation to a treaty if subsection (11) applies in relation to the ratification of that treaty.’—(Caroline Lucas.)

This new clause ensures that MPs get a guaranteed vote with an amendable motion on the EU-UK Future Relationship and negotiating objectives, and sets out scrutiny of the negotiating mandate. It requires a sustainability impact assessment of the future relationship; the regular release of negotiation texts; and engagement with devolved administrations.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

15:12

Division 8

Ayes: 251

---

Labour: 189
Scottish National Party: 46
Liberal Democrat: 9
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 347

---

Conservative: 339
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

New Clause 55

Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market

“(1) As part of its obligation under Article 6.2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to use its best endeavours to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK, the UK Government must—

(a) publish an assessment at least every 12 months of any negative impacts on businesses and consumers arising from the Protocol on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and vice versa; and

(b) develop mitigations to safeguard the place of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in the UK internal market.

(2) The assessment published under paragraph (1)(a) must include assessment of the impact of any actual or proposed regulatory or trade policy divergence on Northern Ireland’s place in the UK Internal Market.

(3) Any official or administrative costs arising from the duties under subsections (1) and (2) may not be recouped from the private sector.”—(Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill..

15:27

Division 9

Ayes: 262

---

Labour: 192
Scottish National Party: 45
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 337

---

Conservative: 337

Clause 38

Parliamentary sovereignty

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 38, page 37, line 24, at end insert—

“and has been so during the period since the passage of the European Communities Act 1972.”

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Gary Streeter)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 35, in clause 38, page 37, line 39, at end insert—

“insofar as future primary legislation may expressly repeal all or any provisions of this Act, but only to that extent.”

This amendment would ensure that existing and future primary legislation that impliedly repealed Section 7A, etc of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would be invalid, despite the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

Clauses 38 to 40 stand part.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 41 stand part.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 9, in clause 42, page 41, line 6, leave out from “force” to end of line 6 and insert—

“only when each House of Parliament has approved a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering a ministerial economic impact assessment of the commencement of this Act.”

This amendment would require the House to endorse an economic impact assessment of measures this bill would implement.

Clause 42 stand part.

New clause 28—Conditional approval subject to a confirmation referendum—

‘(1) The condition in this subsection is that a further referendum has been held on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in which the electorate has been offered two options—

(a) the option for the UK to leave the European Union in accordance with the withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship; and

(b) the option for the UK to remain in the European Union on existing membership terms

and that the Chief Returning Officer has certified that a majority of voters has supported the option for the UK to leave the European Union in accordance with the withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship.

(2) If the condition in subsection (1) has been fulfilled, then—

(a) the approval of the withdrawal agreement by the House of Commons required under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is deemed to have been given;

(b) the House of Lords is deemed to have debated the motion required under section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

(c) the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2019 is, for the purposes of section 13(1)(d) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, an Act of Parliament which contains provision for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement;

(d) the Government must ratify the withdrawal agreement within the period of three days beginning on the day after certification by the Chief Returning Officer under subsection (1); and

(e) requirements in section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification) do not apply to the withdrawal agreement (but this does not affect whether that section applies to any modification of the withdrawal agreement).”

This new clause would require the Government to give the public the final say on Brexit through a people’s vote, with the choice between leaving under the terms of the withdrawal agreement and remaining in the EU.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I rise to speak about parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 38 is a puzzle, and we have tabled our amendment 11 to tease out more of that puzzle, to try to work out what it is for and to expose some of what we on this side believe has been quite puzzling leadership on the part of those who have been peddling the idea that we are going to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders because they have somehow not been under our control for the last 40 years. I am going to stop using the phrase “take back control” in a moment, but I will first analyse it to make my point about our amendment.

We have been repeatedly told that the EU referendum was about taking back control and restoring parliamentary sovereignty. I am seeing nods from certain esteemed Government Members telling me that that is indeed what it was about. It was not about that, however. I find this most puzzling. Have we ever actually lost our parliamentary sovereignty? The answer is, of course, no. Saying that Brexit is about taking back control of our laws, our money and our borders is quite extraordinary. Let us start with laws. Have all the laws we have passed in the past 40 years been just a dream? Did we imagine all those laws? Just in the four years since I took my seat, we have passed law after law. We have put Bills through a process of scrutiny, debate and amendment.

[John Redwood]

But does the hon. Lady not understand the message of the referendum and the election? There are very large numbers of directly acting regulations that we can do nothing about, and we have had a lot of legislation going through this House directed by EU directives, which the UK was not happy with.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I understand the difference between a law and a directive. I also understand the fact that we were perfectly capable of making our own laws during the past 40 years. Let us take an example that I am very fond of—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is shaking his head, but he knows perfectly well that we have passed laws. For instance, let us take one that was passed on the very last day of the last Parliament. My dear friend Stephen Pound, the former MP for Ealing North, was standing right here at the Dispatch Box making his last speech as shadow Northern Ireland Minister. He was closing for the Opposition on the final stages of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill, which would at last provide compensation for victims of historical child abuse. He marked that occasion with tributes to the victims, some of whom were in the Gallery, with respect for cross-party collaboration and with a heartfelt plea for the law to be implemented fully and speedily and never to be needed again. Anyone who was in the House that day, as I was, cannot fail to have been moved by his speech but also by the impact of the law, whose value to the lives of people who had suffered will continue for many years. Many of us will always remember that debate.

[John Redwood]

Nobody is disputing that we can pass laws while a member of the EU as long as the EU allows us to. It is quite simple.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am going to continue with my example, because this is incredibly puzzling. I do not recall such a thing at any stage in the passage of this Bill or any other Bill that I have been part of—as a Whip I have served on many a Public Bill Committee in the past four years—because at no point during the passage of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019 did anybody have to ring up the EU and ask for permission.

15:44

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not understand how nonsensical her argument is? Of course there are laws that remain within the remit of this Parliament; but equally, many areas of government and political activity in this country are in the gift of the European Union. There are also European Union regulations that are directly applicable within the United Kingdom over which this Parliament has no control. Does she not understand that?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Regulations that would have been discussed either in the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers, and those people are also elected and have been for decades. Members have been elected to the European Parliament since 1979. I know that, as I am sure Conservative Members do, because I have campaigned for those Members in elections.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady just referred to the Council of Ministers. Would she deny for a minute, as is well understood by everybody else, that decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers by a majority vote of other countries behind closed doors and without a transcript? They are therefore not democratic. How can she talk about people being elected when the decisions are actually taken in that manner?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The last time I looked, most—although admittedly not all—of the Government’s Ministers were democratically elected. We participated in the creation of the rules of that Council. I am going to skip ahead in my speech and then come back again, because I wish to remind Conservative Members that it was, for instance, a Tory Government who took us into the single market, with all its rules. They rightly recognised the benefits of the shared rules of a single market. They recognised that they were worth it and that they did not compromise our sovereignty.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Is the hon. Lady in denial, or has she been living in a bubble? We had a referendum, and we have just had a general election that reinforced the referendum result. Whatever she may say from that Dispatch Box, that ship has sailed, as one of her colleagues said.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I understand that we are leaving on 31 January. I understand the result of the general election. I am addressing this clause and our amendments to it, which is entirely proper and entirely in keeping with the rules of Parliament and the Standing Orders and is actually what sovereignty is supposed to be about. Is not parliamentary sovereignty supposed to be about elected right hon. and hon. Members holding the Executive to account?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Many folk on the Government side of the House will be terribly disappointed when this all comes to an end and their hobby-horse of the past 40 years disappears. The real loss of sovereignty and the real power grab is the amount of power being handed to mandarins in Whitehall and Cabinet Ministers here to pass Executive decisions without scrutiny in this House of Commons.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Indeed. I find it most puzzling that Conservative Members who argued for a so-called return to parliamentary sovereignty in this country are quite happy to nod through a Bill that wipes away parliamentary scrutiny of the process of negotiating the future relationship. It is quite extraordinary.

I remind Conservative Members that it was under a Tory-led coalition Government that section 18 of the European Union Act 2011 clarified that limits on sovereignty are at Parliament’s own behest and can, if explicitly provided for, be revoked. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have intervened were presumably here at that time. I was not, but I have read the text and I know what it says. The Government’s own 2017 White Paper said

“Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU”,

and I watch with interest to see whether a Minister will go back on that.

[Chris Grayling]

Does the hon. Lady not understand that it has always been in the gift of Parliament to repeal the Act that took us into the European Union and to take us out of all European laws in their entirety? It has never been in the gift of Parliament, as long as we are subject to the rules of membership, to reject an individual agreed EU measure. That is the difference.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

This is quite extraordinary because, again, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that there was a referendum in which the British people chose to be in the European Union, and they have voted for Members of the European Parliament over the course of four decades. I have acknowledged that the result of the 2016 European Union referendum is going to happen on 31 January, but we are arguing here about a clause that is in the Bill, and it is entirely proper for the Opposition to propose an amendment to try to probe what on earth it means.

Did I imagine that we considered the Northern Ireland historical abuse Bill? I checked Hansard this morning and it appears that I was not dreaming—I was actually there. I did not dream the passage of the world’s first Climate Change Act in 2008. Nobody had to ring Brussels to ask, “Can we pass this law?” or if we could equalise marriage. We have been passing our own laws all this time. We have never needed to ask for permission. It is not true that we have no say on EU rules; we have had democratically elected representation in the EU Parliament since 1979.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has made two points that I think are incorrect. First, the British people voted to join something where we had a full veto over anything that we did not agree could be imposed on the UK. Secondly, on judicial activism and the mission creep of the European Court of Justice, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to comment on the way in which power was grabbed through two court cases—namely, those of Van Gend en Loos and of Costa v. ENEL.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

One of the things that interests me about the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is what we will do when we are trying to resolve a dispute over a trade agreement at a supranational court—[Interruption.] They will not be elected representatives. The World Trade Organisation court of dispute does not consist of elected representatives. Government Members seem quite happy to hand over control to the WTO court of dispute resolution and pretend that that is somehow more democratic. [Interruption.] Calling me silly is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

We have been sovereign all this time. On our money, we have always had our sovereignty. We set our own budgets. We are represented at EU budget setting by our democratically elected representatives. As I have said, we have even had opt-outs, negotiated by Tory Governments, from some of those financial agreements. We have negotiated opt-outs, variations, rebates and all sorts of specific conditions for the UK.

The phrase used is “money, laws and borders” and I cannot remember which way around they are, but on borders we chose, rightly or wrongly—and we can decide for ourselves whether it was right or wrong—how we interpreted the requirements on the free movement of people, one of the four freedoms of the single market, which, I remind hon. Members, a Tory Government took us into. Other EU nations have interpreted that freedom differently. We chose, as a sovereign nation, not to participate in the Schengen area. We decide how we police our borders and whether or not there are enough border police.

We have also chosen to benefit from freedom of movement, which I acknowledge will end after 31 January. It is a freedom that I wish we had valued more and whose passing I will truly mourn, but it never undermined our sovereignty. That is implied even in the wording of the clause, because it states that “sovereignty subsists notwithstanding” various provisions. Of course, we agree—and will continue to agree after debate, scrutiny and amendment—to many other rules beyond our borders. International treaties, trade agreements and security co-operation arrangements all carry commitments to shared rules and to abiding by the rules of supranational bodies of dispute resolution, most of which are not elected, but Parliament’s sovereignty will remain intact.

I ask the Minister respectfully if he will explain the legal and practical purpose of clause 38. Even the phrase, “It is recognised”, has the feel of a political rather than a legal statement. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment 11 is to discover the Government’s intention. We think that stating that Parliament is sovereign

“and has been so during the period since the passage of the European Communities Act 1972”

is entirely consistent with what the Government themselves said in their White Paper only a few months ago. We have been sovereign all that time.

I am sure that Members know this, but our sovereignty was never in doubt and was not diminished. I could spend a long time asking what this non-argument about sovereignty has all been about, but I am pretty sure that a lot of it—perhaps most of it—has been a false argument to distract attention from the desire to deregulate this country and turn us into a bargain basement nation with no attention given to workers’ rights, environmental protections, health and safety or any of the other regulations in which we played a part in Europe, which we have implemented and which have helped us help the people we represent. I would like the Government to explain the point of clause 38.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)]

Parliament is sovereign, was sovereign and will be sovereign, and the clause recognises that fundamental principle in our constitutional arrangement, which is of great significance to many hon. Members. Membership of the European Union has felt as though we have ceded control. We cannot pull back sovereignty piece by piece—Conservative Back Benchers mentioned a number of examples. Anybody who has sat on a delegated legislation Committee will have been told by the Minister, “We cannot change this because it has gone through the European processes and we have to rubber stamp it.” The presumption was that we were full members, and that was made worse by qualified majority voting; previously, we had the ability to come back to each individual matter.

[Sir William Cash]

A very simple example of what my hon. Friend mentions is the EU’s port services regulation, which was opposed by every trade union, by the Government and by every one of the 47 port employers but went through this House simply because it had been passed by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers. That regulation was imposed upon us by the abdication of our sovereignty under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend is right. We could not do anything about that law or any other specific issue without coming out of the European Union, taking back control and asserting our sovereignty. Clause 38 reaffirms that sovereignty going forward and, crucially, during the implementation period.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister accept that our sovereignty is diminished, because we currently have a veto on many votes? Some of them are subject to majority voting, as the former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee said, but we are one of 27 nations. Now, under World Trade Organisation terms, we will be one of 164 countries and unable to change the rules. Those terms will jack up the cost of drugs and stop us nationalising things, which will constrain our sovereignty much more. The idea that we will have more sovereignty rather than less is wrong, and the clause is therefore misleading.

[James Duddridge]

I disagree with virtually all the hon. Gentleman’s points. We will take back control, hold that sovereignty, take our seat as an independent nation state on WTO rules, and engage in international forums to look globally, rather than looking within Europe in European forums.

Clause 39 relates to interpretation. This type of clause is standard practice in primary legislation and contains key definitions. Subsection (1) lists items used in the Bill with accompanying definitions, such as the relevant agreements with the EU, the EEA, EFTA and Switzerland. Given the possibility of a change in EU summer-time arrangements, the clause provides for consequential changes in the exact time of the implementation period on 31 December in the United Kingdom. Let me be very clear: this power cannot be used to change the time and date of the implementation period for any other purpose. The clause is fundamental to ensuring the operation of the Bill.

Clause 40 and schedule 4 make further provision for regulations to make powers under the Bill, which is of interest and importance to Members of Parliament. Schedule 4 provides for the parliamentary scrutiny procedure for secondary legislation under the powers in the Bill. We recognise that our exit from the EU is momentous and Parliament will want to scrutinise any changes that we make to the statute book as part of that process.

[John Redwood]

I am very much in favour of clause 38, which reasserts our sovereignty. If the European Union wanted to legislate punitively against us during the implementation period, can I take it from the Minister that we would use this clause to prevent such legislation from having effect?

16:00

[James Duddridge]

Yes. Clause 38 not only restates the historical position but reasserts our sovereignty during the implementation period. Parliament will be given extra powers, such as the powers being taken by the European Scrutiny Committee, which is important because we will not be participants in the decision-making process.

[Sir William Cash]

In a nutshell, laws are democratic when they are made in line with a manifesto following a general election. The bottom line, therefore, is that decisions taken by the European Scrutiny Committee on vital national interests will also go through departmental Select Committees, and then there will be a vote on the Floor of the House. That means this House will decide whether it wants to obey a legislative arrangement that has come out of the European Union, which is completely different from anything that happened since 1972.

[James Duddridge]

I thank the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. As he knows, the powers will also extend to the House of Lords, allowing for an additional check.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister agree that if we must have a certain level of equivalence to sustain a reasonable level of trade, we will be obliged to accept the EU’s changes, which will be made without our consent because we will be outside the room, or else take the economic cost? That is not sovereignty; it is just self-harm for the sake of opposing things. If we just agree to the changes, what is the point of it?

[James Duddridge]

If we were taking the hon. Gentleman’s version of Brexit, of staying in dynamic alignment, he would be right, but we are not doing that. We are taking back control, so we will be an independent nation state.

Under schedule 4, the general position will be that the affirmative procedure will apply when the Bill’s core powers are exercised so as to modify primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation. Although not all the modifications will be substantial, this approach has been adopted given the exceptional context and the uniqueness of the matters dealt with in this Bill. Clause 40 recognises that Parliament wants a greater place in scrutinising legislation.

There is one exception to this rule, and it relates to the exercise of powers to make provision by regulation for citizens to appeal against immigration decisions. That exception is made to ensure such provision can be made in time for 31 January, and the made affirmative procedure is therefore adopted for that exceptional process.

Parliament has a duty to provide the British people with a functioning statute book. Clause 40 and schedule 4 provide essential further provision on the powers in the Bill, and I urge hon. Members to support their standing part of the Bill.

As hon. Members know, consequential provisions are standard, even in legislation of great constitutional importance. Equally, transitional provisions are a standard way to smooth the application of a change in the UK statute book. Schedule 5 already makes many consequential amendments, but there will be more. As is standard practice, we are therefore taking a power to amend those constitutional amendments.

I understand Members’ concerns about delegated powers in this Bill, and I would like to allay those fears and concerns today. This power is naturally constrained. It can be used only to make provisions that are consequential to the Bill. Transitional, transitory and saving provisions are equally standard in smoothing the introduction of a change to the statute book. As we implement the withdrawal agreement, it is in everyone’s interest that we ensure legal continuity for businesses and individuals. Again, schedule 5 introduces some of those measures, but we will need the flexibility to ensure that the withdrawal agreement can operate smoothly and efficiently for the people of the UK.

[Patrick Grady]

Is the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which operated so effectively in the last Parliament, expected to be re-established in this Parliament to scrutinise statutory instruments made under this Bill?

[James Duddridge]

I thank that Committee for the work it has done, although I must admit that my focus has been on the work the European Scrutiny Committee is doing during the implementation period. I am more than happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman later on the specific point about the Committee he mentions. As hon. Members will know, case law and an array of legal authorities provide a very narrow scope for Governments to exercise powers of these types. They are standard provisions to permit “housekeeping” modifications.

[Dr Whitford]

The Minister is talking about the delegated powers, which are sweeping and extensive throughout this Bill. Why are the Government so reluctant to have limitations that protect key primary legislation such as the Human Rights Act and the devolved Acts, which were just voted against by Government Members?

[James Duddridge]

Our withdrawal from the EU does not impinge on our human rights commitments. That issue is dealt with in later new clauses. I will make some more detailed comments on human rights then, but our commitments to human rights are unaffected by this Bill.

Clause 42 provides for the extent and commencement of the Bill and sets out its short title. It sets out that the Bill will extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, save for a limited number of exceptions, with one being that section 1 extends to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar. The European Communities Act currently extends to the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar in a limited way. This means that the saving effect of the European Communities Act to allow for the implementation period must similarly extend to these jurisdictions—in effect, we will be continuing as we are during the implementation period. The Government have regularly engaged with the Crown dependencies throughout the EU exit process to keep them apprised of developments and to provide a forum for ongoing dialogue. That has been an important aspect of ensuring that this clause is fit for purpose.

The clause also sets out which parts of the Act will commence immediately at Royal Assent, and provides a power for the Minister to commence other provisions at different times by regulation. Provisions such as the consequential and transitional powers, and certain definitions, will commence immediately. It is also usual practice for the Bill to allow provisions to be commenced at different times through commencement regulations. This is an essential part of how the Act will come into place in an orderly manner.

On schedule 5, the House will remember the debates on section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the power to fix deficiencies in retained EU law. It was written so that in the event that the UK left the EU without a deal, deficiencies arising from our withdrawal would be corrected. Since that Act was passed, the Government and the devolved authorities have laid secondary legislation under the 2018 Act and other primary legislation to ensure a functioning statute book on exit day in the event of no deal. We do not want this legislation to come into force on exit day—rather, we want to defer these bits of secondary legislation en masse so that they come into effect at the end of the implementation period. This schedule provides for the mass deferral of this secondary legislation so that it comes into force by reference to “IP completion day” rather than “exit day”.

The schedule also contains the power to make exceptions to the mass deferral. It also covers the devolved Assemblies’ use of this power, and provides for a similar deferral of commencement, and a power to make exceptions in respect of certain primary legislation made by the devolved authorities. In addition to the provisions I have just set out, the schedule also expands the consequential power in the 2018 Act so that it can be used to make fixes in consequence of amendments that this Bill makes to that Act. A number of Acts now need to be updated to reflect the terms of the withdrawal agreement, including the implementation period. These amendments alter previous changes made by the 2018 Act to other legislation. The provisions contained in this schedule are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the statute book for the whole of the implementation period and beyond, so it must stand part of this Bill.

Amendment 11 was, I believe, a probing measure to allow us to discuss sovereignty. It has been a good place-setter, enabling us to have a robust discussion of what is meant by “sovereignty”. We have been able to confirm that the UK has been able to do things while inside the EU. We have strongly confirmed that we have felt constrained, and have been constrained, as part of the EU in not disagreeing with things that have been put through by the EU. We now have a closer understanding of what Conservative Members mean by parliamentary sovereignty and why we asserted ourselves during the Brexit debate and the general election, which we won resoundingly.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Duddridge]

With pleasure.

[Geraint Davies]

The pleasure is all mine.

Does the Minister agree that the United States is undermining the WTO by not appointing judges to the appellant court? The Americans do not want a rule-based system; they want a power-based system—their power, and they put most of the money into the WTO. The body has 164 members, so the idea that on our own, rather than as part of the EU bloc, we will have influence in the WTO that compares to our influence by virtue of our population in the EU is surely not credible. We will simply have less sovereignty.

[James Duddridge]

We will have more influence: we will have influence with the Americans, who want to do a trade deal with us early on, and we will work with other international partners. The WTO has been of immense value in liberalising trade, and in many ways the EU trading within itself has been a block on the liberalisation of global trade, although it has opened out trade within the EU. I have made that point around Parliament and I think Members support the principle.

[John Redwood]

Let me elucidate the point. I sometimes think the Opposition do not seem to understand that we are in the WTO through the EU anyway. The whole EU is governed by WTO rules and the WTO court, yet the Opposition say that we would sacrifice control by going into the WTO. That bit of it already applies to us. We will get our vote and our voice, so we will actually get some power.

[James Duddridge]

My right hon. Friend is right. I disagree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), but if he was right we would be suffering those problems at distance through the EU; if indeed it was the problem that he describes, it would not be a new problem.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[James Duddridge]

I am going to make some progress on amendment 9. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech as a trade rep; I shall listen carefully to his remarks and intervene on him if that is appropriate and helpful to the debate.

The House will be aware that the Government previously published an impact assessment in support of the Bill. It is a standard assessment of the direct costs and benefits to businesses of elements of the Bill, and is available to Parliament and the public.

The assessment is in addition to the Government’s analysis, which was published in November 2018. It is detailed and robust and covers a broad range of scenarios.

In his letter to the Treasury Committee on 21 October last year, the Chancellor of Exchequer committed the Government to provide continued analysis of the appropriate points through the next stages of the negotiations. Hopefully, that will reassure the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), in addition to the reassurance she received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who spoke on issues of parliamentary scrutiny in the debate on the previous group. The Government remain committed to providing that analysis and will inform Parliament with the best analysis on which to base decisions. We will do so at the appropriate time, and so that it does not impede our ability to strike a good deal. I do not think that Members of Parliament or the British public would want us to do otherwise.

The British people have voted to get Brexit done and we must honour that by leaving with a deal. Fundamentally, amendment 9 is sadly another attempt to delay Brexit. We do not want to test the people’s patience further by adding another step to the process, so I urge the SNP to withdraw the amendment. An impact assessment already exists and is there for everyone to see.

I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) for tabling amendment 35, but unfortunately we cannot accept it. The clause recognises a principal fundamental to our constitutional relationships: that Parliament is sovereign. Nothing in the Bill derogates from the sovereignty of Parliament, as the clause makes clear. In passing legislation to give effect to the withdrawal agreement, Parliament is exercising that sovereignty. Clause 5 is a critical component of the Bill: it provides individuals and businesses with some clarity, such that they can rely on the withdrawal agreement. It also provides for the withdrawal agreement to take priority over domestic law where it is incompatible. That is consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is giving effect to the priority of the withdrawal agreement. The effect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would go beyond that. It would be novel and it would bind Parliament’s hands in exercising its ability to make and unmake law. He should be assured that such an amendment is entirely unnecessary, so I hope that he does not press it to a vote.

16:15

New clause 28 seeks to introduce a clause that would require a further confirmatory referendum. We do not want any more referendums. May I gently remind the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey)—he is not in his place, but I will send him a copy of Hansard—that we have recently had a general election and we are committed to leaving the European Union on 31 January? I see that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) is in her place. Let me apologise to her as the new clause has been backed by the entire Liberal Democrat Bench. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn or not moved.

[Dr Whitford]

Clause 38 addresses parliamentary sovereignty. Independent reviews of the clause, including by the Library and the Institute for Government, point out how completely meaningless it is. It purely states something without giving it any power. It has no power in law, yet throughout this Bill, sweeping delegated powers are being taken from this Parliament to the Executive. The Government have just voted against limiting those powers in the standard way that they were limited in the 2018 withdrawal Act to protect things such as the Human Rights Act, the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act and the Northern Ireland Act. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was at the Dispatch Box for the previous group of amendments, could not explain why the Government felt that they could not accept such limitations. That is where the concern comes, particularly on clause 21. There is no sunset clause—there is no limit. This plan to rebalance powers between the Executive, Parliament and the courts was in the Tory manifesto, and we literally see it coming to life inside this Bill.

The Minister mentioned clause 5, which gives the withdrawal agreement supremacy over all domestic law. It will not allow parliamentary scrutiny of any of the changes that result from that. These sweeping, broad-brush powers are concerning people. In particular, the removal of clause 31 of the original withdrawal agreement Bill in its entirety means that Parliament has no voice, no influence and no ability to set the terms or aims of the future relationship, which goes way beyond any trade deal. Such actions are making people afraid of what is going on. Furthermore, we have not heard any good argument from the Government as to why Parliament is suddenly being excluded in this way.

It is bizarre now to take this stance of “The lady doth protest too much” and, “Oh, we all believe in parliamentary sovereignty.” In actual fact, what we see is a complete undermining of the sovereignty of this Parliament. We also see an undermining of the sovereignty of the other three Parliaments in the United Kingdom. The devolved Governments are being undermined. They also will have no influence over the future relationship. They are also having to face delegated powers being taken from them, so that the Government can legislate on devolved areas even without the involvement of devolved Ministers. Twenty years after devolution, this is seen as an absolute power grab and an absolute attack on the devolved Parliaments of the United Kingdom.

In amendment 9, we specifically talk about an economic impact assessment. There has not been one since 2018—and that was on the Chequers agreement. Frankly, having read the Chequers agreement, which many Members on the Government Benches, including the Prime Minister, did not support, I can say that it was a complete cake-and-eat-it agreement. Frankly, it was never an agreement; it was just a wish list that had no chance of happening. There has been no economic impact assessment since then, and certainly no economic impact assessment of what this Bill will do.

We have heard all the representatives of Northern Ireland coming together across the divide of the communities to ask for regular economic impact assessments on what this Bill does to Northern Ireland. As someone from a coastal, west of Scotland constituency, let me point out that we will be looking across at Northern Ireland, which will be sitting in the single market. Fishermen in my constituency are talking about losing their businesses or having to register in Northern Ireland to try to compete. Our farmers will face delays at ports and may face tariffs. They will certainly face huge bureaucracy that farmers in Northern Ireland will not face. I have two big just-in-time industries in my constituency: aerospace and pharmaceuticals. How are we going to keep those industries, let alone attract other businesses? They will look at Ayrshire and they will look at Northern Ireland; one is in the single market and one is not. I am sorry, but the idea that the economic assessment that was done on the Chequers deal would count for this deal and this Bill is frankly complete nonsense.

When this Government talk about their precious Union, it is important that they respect the devolved Governments, who are being given no locus in the future relationship. The fact that the Scottish Parliament will be voting on withholding a legislative consent motion for this legislation was dismissed as irrelevant by the Prime Minister himself at the Dispatch Box before Christmas. If it is so important to Members on the Tory Benches to preserve their precious Union, may I suggest that it is a bit like a marriage? Imagine turning around and saying to the missus, “Tough, I won’t give you a divorce”, “Tough, I don’t want to listen to you”, or “Shut up, because I’m in charge.” Imagine saying things like, “Yeah, give me half your wages” and “You can’t leave me, because I bought a big 4x4 and now we have an overdraft.” That is what the relationship looks like from Scotland.

As the former Prime Minister and the Attorney General both pointed out, it is not possible to maintain a union of nations that is not voluntary and that countries do not wish to be a part of. That has repeatedly been put forward as a Brexit argument. You will not keep Scotland in your precious Union with the utter disrespect that is being shown for her Government, her people and how her people voted. The Scottish National party is the party that people voted for, so repeatedly saying that the people of Scotland “don’t want this” and “don’t want that” is nonsense. If Government Members believe in democracy, they should be respecting not just the Scottish Government, but the Scottish Parliament. They cannot ride roughshod with delegated powers over the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It will certainly not protect their precious Union.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, “What is this sovereignty?” It is terribly simple; it is the ability to make our own laws in our own Parliament, in accordance with the electoral decisions taken by the people in line with a manifesto and with their constitutional arrangements, which have been in place for many generations. It is this for which people fought and died in world wars. The very simple reality is that sovereignty is about whether or not we can govern ourselves.

My rebellion against the Maastricht treaty was based on the simple proposition that that treaty created European government. In 1971, we entered into arrangements—then enacted through the European Communities Act 1972—on the basis of a White Paper that said we would never give up the veto under any circumstances, and furthermore that to do so would be not only against our own national interest, but contrary to the fabric of the European Community itself. Believe it or not, it was understood in Government circles at that time that the veto enabled us to retain the actuality and reality of the ability to make our own laws. Gradually, over the next 30 or 40 years, that veto was whittled away to extinction, and the processes that I have to deal with day in, day out in the European Scrutiny Committee—and have been doing so since I first went on the Committee in 1985—have demonstrated to me that, in fact, we have not been governing ourselves. That is why I entered into opposition to the Maastricht treaty and then to Nice, Amsterdam and ultimately Lisbon. The reality of what has been happening is that the individuals who sit on these green Benches have simply had their ability to make the laws that they are entitled to make on behalf of the people who vote for them reduced to rubble.

In return, we have been faced with an increasingly dysfunctional European Union that did not work in the interests of the British people, and that is why we got the result we did in the referendum. It was the people who voted. Interestingly, when the decision was taken to hold the referendum, it was decided by six to one in the House of Commons. We voluntarily agreed that we would abdicate our right as Members of Parliament and let the people of this country make that decision on their own behalf. All the resistance we have seen over the past three years from the Opposition Benches and from a number of our recalcitrant colleagues, many of whom are no longer in the House, was based on a complete failure to understand that the decisions that were taken in that referendum were authorised by Parliament and, indeed, by themselves.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—I did the first draft of the Bill, which was accepted by the Government—said that the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed on exit day. That is now in fact implementation period day, but for practical purposes it comes to the same thing. The Opposition religiously—or irreligiously, depending on how one cares to put it—decided that they would oppose that Bill in principle, as they did on Second Reading and on Third Reading. Every single Conservative, even my recalcitrant colleagues—even Kenneth Clarke—voted for the withdrawal Act on Third Reading, but the Opposition denied not only the sovereignty that was being restored by the repeal of the ’72 Act but the democracy that went with it. That is a fundamental issue. They destroyed their credibility with the British people, and I believe that the ordinary man in the street—the people who voted in the last general election—understood that.

I have already made the point that European laws are made behind closed doors by a majority vote. Nobody can say that the decisions that were taken, which we had to accept because we had no alternative, were laws made by our elected representatives. I have never heard such trash coming from a Front Bench as the suggestion that the fact that these people happen to be elected Members of Parliament in the Council of Ministers conferred upon them some form of democratic right to decide.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is making absolutely the right case about sovereignty. I mentioned Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL. The point about those two cases is that they were judicial statements. One was about direct effect and the other was about the whole idea that European law had supremacy. They were never voted on in this House. Nobody agreed to them. Nobody said, “This is what we wanted.” That led to something quite interesting—the imposition of the extension of welfare payments to EU migrants who came here was the result of a judicial review of something that we had never voted for, and it cost us a lot of money.

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very good point. Those cases happened before we came into the European Union, and they invade the very concept of the constitutionality of this country and of other countries too, because they say that we are obliged to obey not just any law, not just all laws, but even constitutional laws. That is the point. It is an utter invasion. It is a complete and total destruction of the decision of people through the ballot box in general elections. That is the problem. Sovereignty and democracy are intertwined at the heart of our constitutional system. The hon. Member for Bristol West ought to reflect on the rather absurd propositions in her speech, because she cannot prove a single point that she made.

16:30

[Mr Paterson]

A key function of Members sent here—the earlier Parliaments were in Shropshire, of course; it is a regrettable tendency that we have had them in Westminster for the last few hundred years—is that we pass supply, vote funds and are responsible for moneys raised from our constituents. “No taxation without representation” is fundamental. The current rules are in complete breach of that. It is worth reading the National Audit Office report which says that between 2005 and 2015, the EU demanded £642 million back because of the unsatisfactory manner in which the last Labour Government introduced CAP reform. There was absolutely nothing that a single Member of Parliament could do by voting here to stop that money being demanded from the UK Government.

[Sir William Cash]

In conclusion, I will simply say that I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said, as indeed I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said. The bottom line is that our passing of the withdrawal Act, in conjunction with the general election that we have just won, gives us back the opportunity to make laws on behalf of the people of this country in a democratic, constitutional arrangement of such importance that I believe it will go down as a historic moment when the Bill’s Third Reading is passed tomorrow.

[Stephen Farry]

I rise primarily to address amendment 35 in my name and its intersection with clause 38. I do not intend to press it to a Division, but I want to highlight some of the issues that arise from it.

More generally, on the point of parliamentary sovereignty, I want to make a couple of comments, as other Members have, about the irony with respect to the level of delegated powers that the Bill will create, as well as the lack of scrutiny of the future relationship, which is of particular importance to us in Northern Ireland but also, of course, for all colleagues across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland/Ireland protocol, which is of such importance to us in Northern Ireland and has almost bedevilled the process of Brexit for many years, was only in effect programmed for two hours today. Many of the Northern Ireland voices were not properly articulated on that.

The concern of my amendment is the rights protections under the Good Friday agreement. The Good Friday agreement is, of course, an international agreement, but its implementation in domestic law falls to the UK Government. The agreement sets out a comprehensive set of rights, including the political participation of women, the right to freely choose one’s residence, freedom from sectarian harassment, a statutory equality duty and, perhaps most significantly, the requirement for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK domestic law.

Most of the debate in Northern Ireland and beyond around Brexit, as it pertains to our situation, has focused on issues around borders, including the business community, the economy, trade and what the future holds in that regard. But people are also deeply concerned about rights issues, for a whole range of reasons. Article 2(1) of the protocol on Northern Ireland/Ireland provides a commitment that there will be

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”.

That is very much welcome, but we have seen a gradual weakening of the level of commitment to rights protections since the original draft of the joint report in December 2017. The European Union is very clear that it falls to the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the rights under the Good Friday agreement are protected as part of the future relationship.

The specific concern that I am trying to raise through amendment 35 is that there seems to be an inconsistency between section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and clause 38 of the Bill, which is the focus of this section of our debate. Clause 38 stresses parliamentary sovereignty notwithstanding section 7A, which is used to give some degree of reassurance that there will not be any threat to rights, but there is the potential that section 7A could be overridden in some shape or form. There are several reasons why we have some concern in this respect. First, not all Good Friday agreement rights relate to the European convention itself; some are broader than what the convention contains. Some of the proposed legislative commitments apply only to Northern Ireland Departments and public bodies, and do not extend as far as the UK Government themselves, and in that there may well be some potential danger.

There are also concerns about whether the UK Government have, to date, fully respected some of the rights under the Good Friday agreement. As Members will appreciate, identity is a very complex issue across these islands, but it has been managed to date through a number of different forms—for example, the common travel area; more recently, the Good Friday agreement; and hitherto, of course, the joint membership of the European Union by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Up until now, both jurisdictions have moved in tandem on issues involving the European Union, including on matters such as the Schengen agreement, which the Republic of Ireland has also opted out of. We are now faced with the fact that, for the first time ever, we are going to see the UK and Ireland move in different directions in terms of the European Union. That may well throw up a whole range of issues, challenges and anomalies that will need to be managed successfully.

Brexit strips away a lot of those protections, and perhaps does create a certain degree of risk. If I may, I will take one example in that regard. Members may well be aware of the Emma DeSouza case regarding immigration. It drew attention to the fact that the UK Government have not reflected in UK domestic law, particularly in relation to revision of the British Nationality Act 1981, the right of someone born and resident in Northern Ireland to identify solely as Irish, and to have Irish citizenship. What the law currently says is that anyone born in Northern Ireland is, by birth, automatically British, and to many that goes against both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.

As long as that case, and indeed other situations, go unresolved there is a latent fear of these anomalies persisting and, indeed, potentially growing, particularly if there is greater divergence between the UK and the rest of the European Union, including the Republic of Ireland in particular. That has implications for what is a very complex situation, which has been managed by the Good Friday agreement—on a faltering basis over the past 20 years, but none the less managed—and we may well be in very difficult and rocky territory. It is important that the Government reflect on some of the fears that are being expressed in Northern Ireland. Although I am not going to press the amendment today, I think it is important that the Government reflect on the matter.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member must of course reflect that the fact of the matter is that the Republic of Ireland is an independent country in its own right. By being independent it is entitled to go its own way, and if it wants to go a different way with Europe it is entitled to do that. We would not want to restrict it and say it has to come with Britain. I would be delighted, whenever we leave the EU and Europe increases its bill of membership to the Republic of Ireland—when the Republic sees how costly it is to be a member—if those in the Republic of Ireland had a national conversation about their role as Irish citizens in the EU. Ultimately, however, that is a choice the Republic of Ireland has made—that it wishes to remain within the EU—and we should not try to restrict its hands, either.

[Stephen Farry]

I am always grateful to hear comments from my counterpart in Northern Ireland, but I think it is worth stressing for the record that there is no significant movement or debate whatsoever in the Republic of Ireland about any form of “Irexit”, as it might be framed. There is deep commitment to membership of the European Union in the south of Ireland, as indeed there is, on a majority basis, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and other parts of the UK as well.

While Ireland will make its decision to remain part of the European Union, it is of course the UK that is diverging. That debate has been had, and I recognise the outcome in that respect. None the less, it is important to recognise that Northern Ireland is a complex society, and it only works on the basis of sharing and interdependence. A very careful set of balanced relationships has been built up over the past number of years, with the support of those on both Front Benches in this House over that period. Brexit does potentially strip away some of the sticking-plaster over some of the cracks and we do not know exactly how things will work out. It is important that the Government pay regard to, and are sensitive to, the very particular implications in rights terms for Northern Ireland as the Brexit process unfolds.

[John Redwood]

Clause 38 is welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for being one of the co-authors of that excellent piece of Government-proposed legislation. I also support the Minister in opposing various new clauses and amendments before us.

It seems to come down to the question, “What is sovereignty?” and I think the public understand it so much better than many Opposition MPs seem to. The public fully understand that our constitution should be based on the proposition that the public decide who should represent them in the House of Commons and then the House of Commons decides what laws are appropriate, what taxes to raise and how to spend that money, and at the end of four or five years—or sometimes a shorter period—the public get to judge whether we collectively made a good job of it or not, or whether there is some new configuration of Members of Parliament that can make it better. So the public are ultimately sovereign but they trust us, their elected Members, with their sovereignty for a period of up to five years to exercise the powers of government.

When we first joined the European Economic Community, the country was assured that that sovereignty —that set of powers—would not be damaged in any way. To underwrite that promise the Government said, correctly then, that there would be no matter decided in the European Economic Community that could be forced on the United Kingdom against its will; we always had a veto so that if it proposed a law, a charge or a tax that we did not like, we could use the veto. Over our years of membership, we have seen those vetoes gradually reduced—those powers taken away—so that today, although we are still a full member of what is now the European Union, there are huge swathes of policy areas where we are not free to legislate where we wish, or in some cases not free to legislate at all, because it is entirely occupied territory under the Community acquis.

The ultimate sovereign power in the United Kingdom today is the European Court of Justice; that is the ultimate appeal of any legal issue, and it can overrule what the two Houses of Parliament decide, it can overrule a statute, and it can strike down a law passed in this place. It is that which a majority of the British people decided they thought was unsatisfactory. When they had voted many years ago to support our continued membership of the European Economic Community it was called a Common Market and misrepresented as a free trade area, which of course is rather different from a customs union with complex rules, and they were given an assurance that their Parliament would still be able to choose their taxes, spend their money and pass their laws in the traditional way. That turned out not to be true.

The loss of those freedoms was progressive under the Single European Act, under the Maastricht treaty, under the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty and, above all, the Lisbon treaty. The Lisbon treaty was the culmination of that journey towards a very strong European Government that was superior to the United Kingdom Government, and the implied substantial strengthening of the wide-ranging powers of the European Court of Justice, because every directive and every regulation that was passed—and there were thousands of them—not only produced a more directly acting legal power over our country that we could not modify or change, but also gave so much more extensive powers to the European Court of Justice because it is the ultimate arbitrator of that body of law.

It is that body of law which this legislation today is seeking to put under United Kingdom control. We have been arguing over this for three and a half years now. The public thought it was a very simple matter and told us to get on with it. We had a fractious and unhelpful Parliament until recently, which did all in its power to thwart the putting into law of the wishes of the United Kingdom electors.

I hope today, after a second general election and after a referendum where the British people made it clear that they wished their sovereignty to rest again with them and be delegated to their Parliament, that the Opposition might have understood that, and might have understood that currently, contrary to what we have been told by the Labour Front Bench, there are a very large number of areas where we cannot do as we please.

16:44

Let us start with the money. Yes, we wish to take back control of the money. This Parliament cannot decide to reduce the amount of money it pays to the European Union. They decide that: they determine the bill and they enforce the bill. I hope that Ministers can reassure me that after December, at the end of the implementation period, that will cease and we will only pay when there is an agreement between us and the European Union that we accept for services or joint policies that we wish to undertake as a sovereign nation. We cannot go on accepting their hand in our pocket, taking our money under their legal powers.

I personally think it is a great pity that we have had such a delay to exit, because I resent the net £1 billion or more a month we are paying in. That will continue, I am afraid, throughout this year. I would like that money for priorities in Wokingham and in the constituencies of other colleagues here in the House of Commons. I find it very odd that so many MPs are so dismissive of the significance of the money, given the quite important role it seemed to play in the referendum campaign and given how colleagues are normally very keen to see increases in expenditure on public services in our country. They do not make the connection that if we carry on paying very large sums to the European Union, it limits our scope to make the increases they would like.

It also means we do not control our own taxes, so our country cannot choose the power to tax any of our sales; that is determined for us. It has to be the VAT tax system. We had to introduce that when we joined the European Union. There are arguments for continuing with some kind of VAT system, but surely we want to decide what rate it is levied at and what items it is levied on. There are quite a number of items that I think it should not be levied on, where I think I would find agreement across the Committee. However, we are not allowed today to remove VAT from green products, for example, because that is against European Union rules. I therefore look forward to our opportunity to shape our own taxation system as soon as we are properly out.

There is then the issue of when we actually have control over our law. What I hope clause 38 will achieve is that if the European Union decides during the implementation period to pass laws that are particularly penal on the United Kingdom or are damaging to our commercial and economic interests, we can use that reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty before the expiry of the implementation period to ensure that that particular law does not apply to the United Kingdom. Otherwise, there is an invitation to anyone of bad will in the European Union to think of schemes that would be disadvantageous to the United Kingdom during the implementation period.

On borders, where again those on the Labour Front Bench seem surprisingly dismissive of a very important question that has been in our debate throughout the referendum and in subsequent general elections, I think there is a general view in the country, which goes well beyond Conservative voters, that there should be a fair system of entry between EU and non-EU people. At the moment, the EU gets preference. I think a lot of people feel that there should be some overall limitation on the numbers of people coming in seeking low-paid work or speculatively seeking work. They favour some kind of a work permit system, which is quite common in many other advanced civilised countries. Because we wish people who join us to be welcomed, because we want them to live to a decent standard and because we accept the commitment to pay them benefits and find them subsidised housing if that is their requirement, surely it should be in our power to decide how many people we welcome in this way, and to decide that that should be related to our capacity to offer them something worth while, and to our economic needs. I give way to my right hon. Friend, who has done so much in this area.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

May I just pick up on one point? My right hon. Friend talks about, “should we wish to give them benefits”. The reality now is that the British Government have to pay benefits even to families of people working over here when their families are not with them. That is roundly disliked across Europe, but those countries all accept there is nothing they can do about it because the European Court of Justice imposed that as part of freedom of movement. It was never debated as part of freedom of movement and it was never supposed that it would happen. It is an end to sovereignty when one can no longer make a decision to change something like that.

[John Redwood]

My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly; that is exactly the kind of limitation of our sovereign power, and of our freedom to make decisions that please our electors, that I have been talking about. It is quite important, given the history of this debate.

Turning to the Scottish nationalists, I agree with what the Scottish nationalist spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), said: we only want volunteers in our Union. We are democrats. We believe that the Union works, but that if a significant portion of the Union develops a feeling that it is not working for them, we need to test that. I was a strong supporter of accepting the Scottish National party idea, just a few years ago, that there should be a referendum. That referendum had the full support of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is the sovereign authority for these purposes on Union matters. I also fully agreed with the then SNP leadership when I talked to them about it—I think our formal exchanges were recorded in Hansard. They said that they agreed with me that whichever side lost should accept the result, and that it would be a “once in a generation” event, not a regular event that happened every five years until one side got the answer that it liked. I hope that the SNP will reflect on that. We are democrats and we want volunteers in our Union, but we cannot pull it up and examine it every two or three years through a referendum, which is very divisive, expensive and damaging to confidence and economic progress. We should live with the result.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we did respect the result? We have been here for four and a half years. We would not have been if we did not respect it; we would have been independent, and we would not be being dragged over the EU cliff at the end of this month. He should accept that the claim of right that Scotland has had for 331 years did not disappear in 2014, and that his party has changed the entire fabric of the United Kingdom. It cannot continue to treat Scotland’s views with disrespect.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Gary Streeter)]

Just before the right hon. Gentleman continues, we do not want to be dragged into a debate on Scottish independence on clause 38. Let us continue to debate these amendments and the clause.

[John Redwood]

Good advice, but I am trying to address the SNP point related to its proposals on how we treat devolved government fairly and whether we are listening properly to Scotland. I think that we are very much listening to Scotland, but we have to understand that the matter of the Union is a responsibility of the Union Parliament, and that the matter of our membership of the European Union is a responsibility of the European Parliament. It is the hon. Lady’s misfortune to have been on the wrong side in two referendums, but there has been a deeply democratic process in both cases, as to whether Scotland stays in the Union and whether we stay in the EU.

I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to remember that there is a fourth country in our Union: the country of England. We are very reasonable people, and we do not go on and on about English issues. However, when we get to this debate over how the different parts of the United Kingdom are consulted and respond to the issue of how we leave the EU, England too needs a voice within the Government and needs to be seen as an important part of the process.

The overwhelming vote for Brexit was an English vote because in numbers, England is a very large part of the Union. That is important, just as the Scottish and Northern Irish view is. I hope that the Government will look at this machinery of government issue and make sure that there is, within Government, a clear and definitive English voice. In due course, I think that we need to discuss whether this Parliament should have an English Grand Committee that can not only veto proposals that England does not like, but make proposals that England wants, because that would do something to correct the obvious imbalances that make this a particularly difficult matter to settle, when the largest part of the Union, with the overwhelming Brexit vote, is not formally represented in the discussions.

[Geraint Davies]

It is a pleasure of sorts to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). On the issue of sovereignty and democracy, it is worth remembering something. The basis of the 2016 referendum was one person, one vote, one issue, and there was a clear majority then to leave. In 2019, we had another vote, a general election, and had that been counted on the same basis—one person, one vote—we would have had 14.5 million voting for the oven-ready Brexit on offer and 16.5 million voting for a people’s vote or remain. Obviously, that vote was on a different basis—on a constituency representation basis and on a number of issues—and the clear decision was for a Conservative Government with a majority of 80. That is clearly understood, but to try to conflate the two is wrong. In fact, there remains a compelling case that the oven-ready Brexit being railroaded through—in my view, a reckless Brexit that would undermine the sovereignty, power and financial and trading credibility of Britain—should go back to the public for a final vote.

[John Redwood]

I gently remind the hon. Member that during the election senior Labour people argued passionately that it was fine for a leave voter to vote Labour and that they were not all in favour of what he has just said, so I do not think he can say that in all cases the Labour vote was definitely a vote for remain or a second referendum.

[Geraint Davies]

To be clear, I said that the proposition was remain or public vote on the deal. The Labour party position essentially was that the oven-ready Brexit would be bad for Britain—it would make us more divided, weaker, poorer, more isolated and so on—and that we could put together a better Brexit that protected our jobs through trading alignment and our environment and workers’ rights through dynamic alignment of those conditions.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Gary Streeter)]

Order. This is very interesting, but the hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the amendments or the clause. His speech is more a Third Reading speech, for which there will be plenty of opportunity tomorrow. If he has a speech to make on the amendments, we look forward to hearing it.

[Geraint Davies]

I apologise for responding to the speech made on this subject by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, but I will not go on about that any more.

I want to focus on clause 38, on sovereignty, and new clause 28, on whether we should have a confirmatory referendum, which I was just talking about. I was making the argument, which I will stop making, Sir Gary, in support of the proposal in new clause 28, that there was a legitimate case for a confirmatory referendum on the grounds that most people voted for either remain or a second referendum and that the position of the Labour party was to have a second referendum.

In defining sovereignty, the hon. Member for Stone and others have said that having sovereignty means we can make all our own decisions here and that everything will be all right. I accept that that is an idea in the minds of many voters, and intuitively it sounds very sensible, but in practice is that really what would happen? I contend that this Brexit will reduce our sovereignty and that therefore clause 38 is misleading. At the moment, we have pooled sovereignty in the EU. We are one of 28 countries, but our vote is proportionate to our population. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that things are rammed through without our being consulted—that they just happen to us—but even in majority voting we have a veto, together with others, such as Germany, for example, which is the biggest player and is very worried that when we leave it will not be able to exercise, with us, certain restraints and constraints on the EU.

Ultimately, if we have a close trading relationship with the EU, to which after all 44% of our trade goes—from a Welsh point of view, more like 60%—we will need some level of equivalence, which will mean our having to accord with standards decided in a closed room without us being in that closed room. Surely, that is less sovereignty, not more. We will have to make the following decision: do we agree with something that has been decided without us rather than our being able to argue and block it, with Germany and others, or do we want to be out of the room deciding whether to accept the rules that are coming over—and if we do not accept them it might hinder our trade? That does not sound like sovereignty improvement to me.

16:59

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend tell me what definition of sovereignty he is using? It is completely confusing me. I have just checked, and the normal definition is

“the authority of a state to govern itself”,

but my hon. Friend is talking about majority voting when we might be in a minority. What is his definition of sovereignty?

[Geraint Davies]

What we are talking about is the freedom of this Parliament to influence the outcomes for our electorate. [Interruption.] What I am saying, as my hon. Friend chunters in his seat, is that we will move from a position in which we can influence rules that will be applied in Britain to one in which we cannot influence those rules, and they will still be applied. We are not suddenly leaving and going to the moon.

I know that there is a move on the other side for us to become semi-detached, or worse, from the EU, and to thrust ourselves into the fond arms of the WTO. However, as I said to the Minister earlier, and I have had some experience of this as a trade rapporteur for the Council of Europe at the WTO, we will end up negotiating with 164 countries with just one vote, not proportionate to our population—and some of those countries will be dictatorships—as opposed to being in a club of 28 mature economies with a strong bargaining position within the WTO. As I said earlier, the WTO is being undermined by the United States, which wants its own massive power to decide everything, rather than rules. Moreover, it has existing rules that are contrary to what we are allowed to do within the EU.

We may talk of sovereignty, but if at some point in the future the Government of Britain wanted to return the railways, for instance, to public ownership—I appreciate that the Minister may not want to do this—the WTO would be able to stop us. It also has rules about patents which will increase the price of drugs. I do not think that “people in the street” voted for that.

Furthermore, the WTO will impose—as will bilateral trading relationships with the United States—new systems of arbitration courts and panels with independent judges who, unlike the European Court of Justice, are not democratically elected, and who will make decisions on whether big companies can either sue us or threaten to sue us for not pursuing various activities, or will block our legislation.

In case there is any ambiguity, let me give an example. Lone Pine, the big fracking company, sued the Canadian Government because Quebec had a moratorium on fracking, saying that it would affect climate change, or was not in the interests of the environment, or whatever it was. We have started fracking in this country, but let us suppose that the Welsh Government said that they did not want fracking in Wales. If there were to be an investor-state dispute settlement tribunal, the frackers could come along and say “Look here, we cannot have this, we are fracking”, and sue the British Government. Is that sovereignty and control in any normal circumstances? Of course it is not. Courts will be available that will fine, or threaten to fine, the British Government for passing legislation to protect the environment and the public health of our citizens, and their intimidation will deter future Governments from doing that.

We have introduced a sugar tax, but when that happened in Mexico there was an attack on it through an investor-state dispute settlement. If we introduce a plastics tax, we will be attacked for that.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

This is not sovereignty; it is madness and self-harm, on which point I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I really do not understand what the hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench are up to. It is as if they are trying to rewrite the whole concept of the world order in trade. The EU has to abide by WTO rules just as we will when we leave—and we already do. There is no issue here that is going to change. WTO rules apply to the EU as stringently as they apply to us, and when we leave and become a voting member, they will still apply to us. The difference is that if there is a debate for change, we will have a vote which we do not have now because we are subsidiary, underneath the EU. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is specious, and it is total nonsense.

[Geraint Davies]

Well, that was very helpful.

Some hon. Members have failed to understand this. I remember the big debate over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, for example, and over these investor-state dispute settlement clauses being used by the Americans on fracking and other issues. Once we are in a situation where, instead of being in the powerful trading bloc of the EU, negotiating head to head with China or the United States from a position of strength to sustain our environmental and workers’ rights and our standards, we will suddenly instead be broken free, semi-detached, and turning our back on our biggest local market—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) to chunter, but that is what will happen. It is already being discussed in the trading arrangements with the United States. The United States is saying, “Right, you’re on your own now and we are going to have this relationship and we will enforce it through the international tribunal.” That is what is going to happen.

Let us take as an example the simple European REACH protection—the regulations concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. If the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green were making chemicals in Europe, he would have to prove they were safe before marketing them. In the United States, he would just be able to market them and an environmental protection organisation would have to prove them harmful. That is why they sell asbestos in America, and that is why there will be pressure for us to have asbestos in our brake pads here. That is why there will be pressure for us to have hormone-impregnated meat from America imposed on our growing children, who could then have premature pubescence. I know that some people think that that is sovereignty, but I do not.

[Dr Whitford]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a threat to the sugar tax is already within the trade papers that have come out, registering the discussions that have already been happening with the US? The sheer threat of a Government, whether a devolved Government or this one here, being dragged through an investor-state dispute settlement can create a fear of public health measures such as the one we have in Scotland on the minimum unit pricing on alcohol, which this Parliament have not got round to. They might find that they struggle to get round to it in the future because they would be challenged, which would threaten the public health of everyone in the United Kingdom.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the chilling effect of that overhanging threat.

Let us be clear on the specifics. Lots of people talk about the impact of this on our health service and about the Americans arriving and taking our data and privatising the health service. But apart from that, let us think about the public health impact of these changes in relation to sugar. The NHS spends £12 billion a year on diabetes—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Gary Streeter)]

Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to link this to the overall concept of sovereignty, but he is now talking about future trade deals rather than about clause 38 of the Bill and sovereignty. I would just encourage him to come back to the clause.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for your guidance.

I guess the point is that sovereignty is about our ability to make laws here without intimidation or interference, but that we could find ourselves outside the EU and no longer able, for example, to introduce a tax on sugar that would reduce the cost of obesity to the NHS. We could have a situation where we want to let people know that there are six teaspoonfuls of sugar in a Müller Light yoghurt and nine in a Coca-Cola, and we want to drive down sugar content in order to drive down diabetes and health costs. Instead, we could be fined because the projection of a manufacturer of a sugar-impregnated product was less than that. That is not sovereignty. If we cannot protect our environment, our public health and our trade because we will be under the cosh with these companies suing us through the arbitration panels, that is not sovereignty. This clause should therefore be struck out, because it is completely misleading.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I actually agree with an awful lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said in terms of the construction of his argument, but his conclusions are hypothesised on a trade deal that is yet to be done. The important point about all this is that we have sovereignty over deciding what goes into the trade deal. If we do not want to put stuff into a trade deal, it does not matter what the investment courts say. They can only adjudicate on that which is in a trade deal, and what will go into a trade deal will be decided by this sovereign Parliament. That is where his conclusion is completely wrong. He was putting forward quite a strong argument to start with, and I do agree with it, but his conclusions are completely wrong given the sovereignty of this Parliament.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If there has been any lack of clarity let me make it clear that I am saying that we are in the EU at the moment and obviously do lots of trade with the EU—44% of it—and we do quite a lot of trade through the EU indirectly with America and elsewhere, so we are in a reasonable position. If we come out of the EU and suddenly find that we need to make up for lost trade, we will be under a lot of pressure to do a deal quickly with the US. We will also be in a much weaker position, because we will be standing alone.

The US is a big player and knows it, so it will try to get what it wants, as has been pointed out on sugar, fracking and other examples. What is more, it has ISDS powers as part of its normal bilateral trading agreements, and that is already recorded in trading relations. The idea suggested by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), which I respect, is that we could in theory say, “No, we don’t want this. We won’t go ahead with that.” but there would be a huge economic cost. There would also be enormous pressure, while doing all these other trade deals, to agree.

The assumption is that we could just carry on as before with all the other bilateral trading agreements with small countries such as Chile. If you were Chile, Sir Gary, you would think, “Hold on. Instead of negotiating with the big EU, I’m now negotiating with a relatively smaller UK, so I want a better deal.” Therefore, our sovereignty, in terms of our power to deliver what our electorate wants, is reduced. Our sovereignty has therefore been intrinsically undermined, rather than enhanced, which is contrary to what is being spun out here.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Member speaks as if trade is all one way. One of Germany’s biggest trading partners is the United Kingdom. Does he think that it wants to go down the road he is describing? The Germans will want to ensure that they continue to have a good trading relationship with the United Kingdom no matter whether Britain is within or outside the EU.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Gary Streeter)]

I call Geraint Davies to talk on sovereignty and clause 38.

[Geraint Davies]

That is very helpful. Let us get this point clear. Something like 44% of our trade goes to the EU, so it is enormously important to us. However, less than 5% of the EU’s trade overall comes to the UK. There is a balance of power, and it is the case that two EU countries—the Netherlands and Germany—have a significant trade surplus with the UK, but the others do not. The EU will quite reasonably, as a bloc, want to protect its standards, its environment and its workers’ rights and not be undercut.

We have seen that already in terms of sovereignty, because we want a better environment, but the Government have already decided to withdraw from the carbon trading system, so we will have our own carbon tax. However, my understanding of the Government proposal for the carbon emissions tax is that we will charge £16 a tonne and the EU will tax £25 a tonne. In other words, we are already becoming a sort of pollution dumping ground. The more we diverge negatively away from the EU, the less we will be able to trade and the more we will be in the hands of the US, the Chinese or whoever. That is not sovereignty; that is just being in the hands of others.

I accept your guidance, Sir Gary, and I think I have made my point. We will be poorer, weaker and more divided. This is not about sovereignty. This is about the abdication of sovereignty, and I deeply regret it.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Gary.

I want to make a few brief comments on clause 38. I want to say a word or two about parliamentary sovereignty and why the clause is necessary. We have heard the phrase “parliamentary sovereignty” a lot recently. It is much used and much misused. Although it is certainly a subject for debate, it can essentially be understood to mean that this place is the supreme law-making body in the country. It makes the law and cannot bind its successors, so the law can be changed. The law is made after an election, at which we stand on the basis of a set of promises. We then enact those promises, and at the following election, the electorate judge how well we have performed and whether we have kept those promises, and then they make a judgment at the ballot box accordingly.

17:15

That principle has been affected significantly by European Union membership. I will address the effect of the ECJ. The Factortame case in 1989 meant that, for the first time, an Act of Parliament—the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in that case—could be disapplied if it was incompatible with European Union law. The second major case is Van Gend en Loos, which established the principle of direct effect—as opposed to direct applicability—whereby the rights enshrined in European Union treaties could be enforced by European Union citizens without recourse to Parliament. That has a serious impact on sovereignty, because it means that rules are being made outwith the procedure of this House.

Labour Front Benchers are academically correct to say that parliamentary sovereignty has continued since 1972, because it has always been possible for this House to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, which is what we have now decided to do. In essence, Parliament decided to hand over, wholesale, spheres of competence, as the European Union calls them, meaning that the EU would make the rules in certain areas and Parliament would simply provide the rubber stamp through direct effect and regulations. Therefore, when an individual rule was made that we did not like, there was very little that Members could do about it. They could, of course, revoke their consent for the entire scheme and repeal the 1972 Act, which is what we have now done, but they could not revoke on an individual basis.

That consent came from this House. The reason clause 38 is so important is that a different period is about to commence. Since 1972, all the way up to 2019, Parliament has consented to the rule-making powers and machinery of the European Union through the European Communities Act. Once we are out of the implementation period, all the rules that affect the people we govern will be made in this House. We will make promises when we stand for election; we will implement them to the best of our abilities; and then we will stand on that record. Every point is subsidiary to that. Everything we have heard about future trade deals will follow on from the principle of sovereignty and the direct democratic accountability that happens in this House when we stand for election, when we speak and when we return. That will not be the case, however, during the implementation period.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to imagine a scenario in which the United Kingdom has a trade deal with America and this Parliament decides that it is going to say no to genetically modified or hormone-treated beef. How free and how sovereign does he think this Parliament will be in such a scenario? It will not be.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he illustrates precisely the point I am trying to make, which is about the nature of sovereignty. Sovereignty is held in this place, which makes the law and is the superior governing body. If there is a trade deal with the United States, the electorate will have a chance at the next election to have their say on whether they agree with it. If the hon. Gentleman’s or any other party wishes to change it, they can say so in their manifesto and stand for election accordingly. If elected, they will be able to enter negotiations to change it.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way; I am grateful to him. Of course, a trade agreement requires a dispute resolution mechanism, and we currently have the European Court of Justice. When and if there is a trade deal with America, the dispute resolution mechanism will give away sovereignty and we will be back to square one.

[Robert Courts]

No, that is a misunderstanding of the nature of a trade dispute body. Every treaty has to have some sort of dispute resolution—the hon. Gentleman is quite right about that. If there is a trade deal with the United States or any other body, there will of course be a trade dispute resolution, but it will adjudicate on the terms of the agreement approved in this House. The major difference with the ECJ is the one to which I have already referred: its judicial activism. It creates law that is over and above and has to be applied by this House, whereas when law is made by our domestic judges, this House can enact legislation to override it.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that investor dispute-settlement resolution systems in existing treaties are very one-sided? They allow private business to sue the Government, but do not allow Governments to sue business for deaths from smoking, pollution or other damage that they have caused.

[Robert Courts]

We are certainly getting into the technical detail, which is exactly what we should do at this stage. The hon. Lady ignores the independent element that takes place in any such independent arbitration mechanisms in interrnational trade organisations.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Courts]

I will not—I have taken a number of interventions and have made my point. I will conclude simply with why clause 38 is necessary and why amendment 11 misses the point.

Parliament consented to the European Union’s lawmaking structures while we remained members of the European Union. That consent will be withdrawn when the 1972 Act is repealed and we are in the implementation period. We do not want to be forced into a dynamic alignment in which rules that we have no say over are passed. We need to make it clear that Parliament retains the right to disagree and diverge from those rules if it wishes. For those reasons, the clause is entirely accurate and needed, and the amendment simply misunderstands that.

[Patrick Grady]

I have enjoyed sitting here for the past couple of hours watching the Maastricht rebels’ farewell reunion tour, although it appears that they are getting some young recruits. Fair play to them; they have been trying for 40 years and think that they will achieve what they have always wanted. I feel slightly sorry for them because I do not know what they will do after 31 January.

We heard all the greatest hits: “Supreme lawmaking body,” “Brussels bureaucrats,” “Common Market,” “No taxation without representation,” and of course the platinum hit, “Parliamentary sovereignty,” which has been enshrined in the Bill for absolutely no reason at all, as was said by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).

As the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) touched on, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, Parliament has shared and will continue to share its sovereignty. The devolution settlement effectively did that by recognising the desire of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and other regional Assemblies. Power has been devolved from this place, and are we not all grateful for that? The notion of restoring parliamentary sovereignty is completely unnecessary and is a total showpiece in the Bill. Power has always been shared across the European Union and across the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) appears to be a reborn federalist. Perhaps that could be a new solo career now that the band is coming to the end of its tour. I will happily join him in further devolution and the assertion of federalism across the United Kingdom, if that is what he wants to do. He should be worried, however, because parliamentary sovereignty is not being restored by the clause or the Bill as a whole.

In fact, the Bill represents a power grab, first from the devolved Assemblies, by taking back the right to legislate without their consent. The Bill is an example of that. As we speak, the Scottish Parliament is withholding its consent for the Bill, but this House will ride roughshod over it tonight and tomorrow. This is also a power grab by the Executive, because sweeping Henry VIII powers are included in the Bill and in accompanying Brexit legislation that has already been passed.

The Brussels bureaucrats—that favourite hit of the Maastricht rebels—are being replaced by the new one-hit wonder of the Whitehall mandarins, except it will be one hit for the rest of time if this Parliament does not stand in the way of what the Executive are trying to do.

In fact, we are not restoring anything great here. I would be interested in an answer from the Minister at some point on whether the European Statutory Instruments Committee will be reconvened in this Parliament. It was one of the achievements of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to enshrine that Committee in statute for the lifetime of the previous Parliament, so let us see the Committee come back if scrutiny and sovereignty are so important to this Government.

This place will be diminished in its powers and sovereignty, and in due course, it will be reduced in its numbers because 59 Scottish MPs will not be sitting here anymore when Scotland’s power and sovereignty are restored to its Parliament, which will be very happy to share them with its continental neighbours as a member of the European Union.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

As the Minister cleverly spotted, amendment 11 is a probing amendment. We have explored the concept of sovereignty extensively, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 38 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



New Clause 2

Protecting workers’ rights

‘(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement with the European Union that achieves the following outcomes—

(a) that the United Kingdom will not introduce any measure which would have the effect of reducing in any way the protection provided by any Retained EU Worker Rights after IP completion day;

(b) that the United Kingdom shall take all steps necessary to ensure that, from exit day, all Retained EU Worker Rights will continue to have at least the same level of protection in the United Kingdom as is applicable in other Member States;

(c) that where, after IP completion day, the European Union brings into force or effect any New EU Workers’ Rights, the result and legal consequences in the United Kingdom of those New EU Workers’ Rights shall be the same as if those New EU Workers’ Rights had been Workers’ Rights brought into force and effect by the European Union before IP completion day;

(d) that those parts of the Treaties which, before IP completion day, provide for any matter concerning the interpretation of Workers Rights in any part of the United Kingdom to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union shall continue to apply to the United Kingdom or such part of the United Kingdom to the same extent after IP completion day;

(e) that after IP completion day, the procedural rules, including limitation periods, rules of courts and tribunals and remedies, governing actions for safeguarding New EU Workers’ Rights and Retained EU Worker Rights in the United Kingdom shall continue to be no less favourable than the procedural rules governing similar actions under United Kingdom law;

(f) that nothing in this clause shall prevent the United Kingdom from introducing amendments to Workers’ Rights for the purpose of making such provisions more favourable to the protection of workers;

(g) that the terms at (a) to (f) shall have direct effect and shall be recognised and available in law and be capable of enforcement by individuals and their trade unions in courts and tribunal.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) cease to apply if the Government has secured an agreement with the European Union that achieves the objective in subsection (1).

(3) A Minister of the Crown must make an oral statement to the House of Commons on the objective in subsection (1)—

(a) within three months of this Act coming into force;

(b) at least as frequently as every 28 days thereafter.

(4) Each statement made under subsection (3) must set out—

(a) the steps taken by the Government, and the progress made in negotiations with the European Union, for the purpose of achieving the objective in subsection (1); and

(b) whether in the Minister’s opinion an agreement with the European Union achieving the objective of subsection (1) is likely to be achieved by IP completion day and, if not, setting out the reasons for this.

(5) For the purpose of this section—

“New EU Worker Right” means any Workers’ Rights—

(a) which Member States are obliged to confer by an EU directive published in the Official Journal of the European Union on or after IP completion day; or

(b) that are conferred by an EU regulation or other instrument published in the Official Journal of the European Union on or after IP completion day; or

(c) that arise out of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union on or after IP completion day;

and shall include any improvement to a Workers’ Right which existed before IP completion day;

“Retained EU Worker Rights” means Workers’ Rights which—

(a) immediately before IP completion day, the United Kingdom was obliged to confer by virtue of the Treaties and the EU directives listed in Schedule 1, or which were, without further enactment, given legal effect in the United Kingdom; and

(b) on IP completion day, continued to have effect in any part of the United Kingdom;

“Workers’ Rights” means rights of individuals, classes of individuals and their trade unions, in all areas of labour protection including—

(a) fundamental rights at work, including all forms of discrimination;

(b) fair working conditions and employment standards;

(c) information and consultation rights;

(d) restructuring of undertakings and acquired rights; and

(e) health and safety at work.

“Exit day” shall have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

“IP completion day” shall have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”—(Nick Thomas-Symonds.)

This new clause would require the Government to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the EU protecting workers’ rights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir George Howarth)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

New clause 3—Future relationship: Customs Union and Single Market—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement with the European Union that achieves the following outcomes—

(a) a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union involving alignment with the Union customs code, a common external tariff and an agreement on commercial policy that includes a UK say on future EU trade deals;

(b) close alignment with the single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations, with clear arrangements for dispute resolution;

(c) dynamic alignment on rights and protections so that UK standards keep pace with evolving standards across the EU as a minimum;

(d) UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and

(e) Close cooperation on security including access to the European Arrest warrant and databases such as EUROPOL and SIS II.”

New clause 8—Maintaining the UK’s place in the Single Market and Customs Union—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to maintain the United Kingdom’s status within the Single Market and Customs Union of the European Union within the framework of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union.

(2) A Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on aims noted in subsection (1).”

This new clause ensures that the UK Government will negotiate for the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s membership of the single market and customs union.

New clause 10—Implementation period negotiating objectives: Erasmus+—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and the EU before the end of the implementation period that enables the UK to participate in all elements of the Erasmus+ programme on existing terms after the implementation period ends (“the Erasmus+ negotiations”).

(2) A Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the Erasmus+ negotiations within six months of this Act being passed.”

This new clause would require the Government to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the EU’s Erasmus+ education and youth programme.

New clause 16—Economic impact assessment—

“(1) A Minister of the Crown must—

(a) lay before each House of Parliament and

(b) submit to the Presiding Officers of each devolved legislature

a comprehensive economic impact assessment of potential outcomes arising from the conclusion of negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an analysis by NUTS1 and NUTS2 regions of the United Kingdom including (but not limited to)—

(i) impact on employment as both a nominal figure and percentage, and

(ii) impact on Gross Value Added;

(b) a sectoral analysis including but not limited to agriculture, health and social care, manufacturing, the aerospace industry, and financial services.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce an economic impact assessment on the future relationship negotiated with the European Union.

New clause 20—UK-EU trade agreement: mutual recognition and standards—

“(1) The Government must, during and after the implementation period, seek as part of any future trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union mutual recognition, adequacy or deemed equivalence arrangements across all product regulations and standards covered by the agreement in the following areas—

(a) goods,

(b) services,

(c) data protection,

(d) environmental standards,

(e) labour standards,

(f) professional qualifications, and

(g) any other technical regulations or standards which it seeks to negotiate.

(2) Nothing in any trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union shall prevent Parliament from enacting laws and setting technical regulations and standards within the United Kingdom.

(3) “Technical regulations or standards” shall include any law, regulation or administrative action that affects the trade of goods, including agrifood and agricultural goods, including those covered by the World Trade Organisation’s Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organisation’s Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement.”

This new clause would mandate the Government to seek mutual recognition, adequacy or deemed equivalence arrangements on standards to be included in the future trade relationship, while preserving the right of Parliament to set laws and standards in the UK.

New clause 27—Non-regression from EU standards—

“(none) After section 14 (financial provision) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 insert—

‘14A  Interpretation: “regressive”

(1) In this section and sections 14B to 14D “regressive” means—

(a) reducing the level of protection provided by retained EU law in respect of a protected matter (specified in subsection (2)), or

(b) weakening governance processes associated with retained EU law in respect of a protected matter (specified in subsection (2)).

(2) The protected matters are—

(a) the environment;

(b) food safety and other standards;

(c) the substance of REACH regulations; and

(d) animal welfare.

14B Primary legislation

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—

(a) make a statement to the effect that in the Minister’s view the provisions of the Bill are not intended to have, and are not reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect, or

(b) make a statement that although provisions of the Bill are intended to have, or are reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect, the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) If the Bill relates to environmental law—

(a) in preparing the statement the Minister must—

(i) consult the Office for Environmental Protection (“OEP”); and

(ii) publish their response, and

(b) if the OEP’s response asserts that provisions of the Bill are reasonably likely to have a regressive effect on environmental law, that response must also suggest how to avoid that effect.

(3) A Minister who makes a statement under subsection (1)(b) must also—

(a) publish the reasons for including in the Bill provisions that are intended, or reasonably likely, to have a regressive effect (“regressive provisions”);

(b) arrange for a motion to be moved in the House of Commons, before the Bill leaves that House, for a resolution that the House approves the inclusion of regressive provisions; and

(c) arrange for a motion to be moved in the House of Lords, before the Bill leaves that House, for a resolution that the House approves the inclusion of regressive provisions.

14C Subordinate legislation

‘(1) Regulations under this Act are unlawful if and to the extent that they are intended to have, or in practice are reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.

(2) A statutory instrument under any other Act which is made for the purposes of or in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU is unlawful if and to the extent that it is intended to have, or in practice is reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.

14D Other action by public authorities

‘(1) Any action taken by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown under this Act is unlawful if and to the extent that it is intended to have, or in practice is reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.

(2) Any action taken by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of or in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU is unlawful if and to the extent that it is intended to have, or in practice is reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.

(3) A public authority exercising a function in respect of a protected matter must not exercise the function in a way that is intended to have, or in practice is reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.

14E Guidance

‘(none) The Secretary of State must publish guidance for government departments and other public authorities designed to ensure and facilitate the avoidance of action that would be unlawful by virtue of sections 14B to 14D.

14F Divergence tracking

‘(1) In this section “divergence report” means a report containing—

(a) a summary of new EU environmental laws;

(b) a summary of steps taken by the Government in relation to the issues addressed by those laws;

(c) a summary of steps taken by the Government as set out in previous divergence reports;

(d) an independent review identifying any divergence between UK law and EU law in respect of those issues and recommending action to remedy the divergence;

(e) a statement of action Ministers propose to take; and

(f) if Ministers do not propose to give effect to the recommendations of the independent review, the reasons for that.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a divergence report—

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning with the date of commencement of this section; and

(b) during each subsequent period of 6 months.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare each divergence report in consultation with persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of businesses, workers, public bodies and relevant non-governmental organisations;

(b) publish each divergence report;

(c) lay it before Parliament; and

(d) arrange for a motion to be moved in each House of Parliament, within the period of 28 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date of publication of the report, for a resolution that the House approves the divergence report.

(4) If a Committee of the House of Lords, or a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, publishes a report relating to matters to be considered in a divergence report, the divergence report must contain Ministers’ response to the Committee report.

(5) If a motion in either House for the approval of a divergence report is not passed unamended, a Minister of the Crown must as soon as reasonably practicable publish a report—

(a) setting out the steps that Ministers intend to take to rectify any divergence between UK law and EU law in respect of environmental matters, and

(b) including, in particular, legislative proposals designed to remedy the divergence, together with a timetable and strategy for enacting the legislation.

(6) In this section “independent review” means a review undertaken by a body established by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purpose of reviewing new EU law and giving independent advice to Ministers about divergence.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6)—

(a) may include provision about the membership, funding and proceedings of the body;

(b) may confer appointment and other functions on the Secretary of State or another specified person;

(c) may include incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions;

(d) must be made by statutory instrument; and

(e) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(8) Provision about membership of the body under subsection (7)(a) must, in particular, aim to ensure the inclusion of individuals who are independent of the government and have relevant knowledge and experience including expertise in environmental law’””

This new clause aims to prevent of substantive regression from EU standards in legislation after leaving the EU.

New clause 29—Implementation period negotiating objectives: level playing-field—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and EU to secure agreements that achieve the following outcomes—

(a) close alignment with the European Union single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations, with clear arrangements for dispute resolution;

(b) dynamic alignment on rights and protections for workers, consumers and the environment so that UK standards at least keep pace with evolving standards across the EU as a minimum, and;

(c) participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including for the environment, education, science, and industrial regulation.

(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on each of the outcomes listed in subsection (1) (a) to (c) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to seek close alignment with the EU single market on key level playing-field provisions such as workers’ rights and environmental and consumer standards and protections as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.

New clause 30—Maintaining the UK’s place in the Single Market and Customs Union—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to maintain the United Kingdom’s status within the Single Market and Customs Union of the European Union within the framework of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union.

(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the objective in subsection (1) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to seek to keep the UK in the Single Market and the Customs Union as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.

New clause 31—UK participation in the European medicines regulatory network—

“(1) It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.

(2) ‘Exit day’ shall have the meaning set out in section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

(3) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the objective in subsection (1) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to seek to maintain participation in the European medicines regulatory network as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.

New clause 32—Maintaining the UK’s membership of Euratom—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to maintain the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Atomic Energy Community within the framework of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union.

(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the objective in subsection (1) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”.

This new clause would require the UK Government to seek to maintain the UK’s membership of Euratom as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.

New clause 35—Implementation period negotiating objectives: security partnership—

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and EU to secure agreements that achieve the following outcomes—

(a) continued UK participation in the European Arrest Warrant,

(b) continued UK membership if Europol and Eurojust, and

(c) continued direct access for UK agencies to the following EU data-sharing tools—

(i) the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II),

(ii) the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS),

(iii) the Prüm Decisions,

(iv) Passenger Name Record (PNR), and

(v) the Europol Information System (EIS).

(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on each of the outcomes listed in subsection (1) (a) to (c) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to seek a comprehensive security partnership as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.

New clause 38—Independent review of the impact of withdrawal—

“(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU in relation to each of the following periods—

(a) the initial one-year period, and

(b) each subsequent three-year period.

(2) A review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.

(3) The review must consider the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on—

(a) the economy of the United Kingdom,

(b) national security,

(c) climate change and the environment,

(d) human rights, and

(e) social and economic rights.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out a review in relation to a particular period, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report sent under subsection (4)(b).

(6) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review, and

(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).

(7) In this section—

“initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning on the day following exit day as defined in section 20(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

“subsequent three-year period” means a period of three years beginning with the first day after the most recent of—

(a) the initial one-year period, or

(b) the most recent subsequent three-year period.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish regular independent reports on the impact of Brexit.

New clause 45—NHS protection and devolved legislatures—

“(1) Any provision relating to the National Health Service within a trade deal shall not be made without consultation with, and only after publication of a legislative consent memorandum from, each of the relevant devolved legislatures.

(2) For purposes of this Part, ‘relevant devolved legislatures’ means—

(a) the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(b) Scottish Parliament, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales.”

This new clause requires each devolved legislature to give legislative consent to any trade deal affecting the National Health Service.

New clause 46—Impact assessment—

‘(none) The Government must publish undertake equality, environmental and economic impact assessments, by each region of the United Kingdom, on any proposed future relationship or Free Trade Agreement, before initiating legislation to implement any such proposed future relationship or Free Trade Agreement.”

This new clause requires the publication of regional equality, environmental and economic impact assessments of any proposed future relationship or Free Trade Agreement.

New clause 48—Maintaining the UK’s membership of Horizon 2020 and future Horizon programmes—

‘(none) It shall be an objective of the Government to maintain the United Kingdom’s membership of Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes within the framework of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union.”

This new clause would require the Government to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the EU’s Horizon 2020 research programme and its successor programmes, such as Horizon Europe.

New clause 49—UK citizens resident in the EU: protection of rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to preserve, as far as is possible, the United Kingdom’s obligations under EU law to British citizens who are resident in any EEA country, or in Switzerland, on the day before IP completion day.

(2) The arrangements in subsection (1) must include—

(a) arrangements for people in receipt of a United Kingdom state retirement pension to continue receiving that pension under the same uprating and other arrangements as apply on the day on which this Act is passed, for the rest of their lifetimes as long as they remain resident in any other EEA country, or in Switzerland,

(b) arrangements for British citizens to continue receiving the same level of publicly-provided healthcare as they do currently as EU citizens.

(3) The duty in subsection (1) applies whether or not the United Kingdom reaches any relevant reciprocal arrangements with other EEA member states, or with Switzerland.”

This new clause requires the Government to take steps to preserve the rights of UK citizens living in the EU, including continuing to uprate UK state pensions for Britons living in the EU and paying for publicly-provided healthcare.

New clause 50—EU Charter of Fundamental Rights impact assessment—

“A Minister of the Crown must, on or before 30 June 2020, publish a comprehensive impact assessment of the effect of removing the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from domestic law.”

This new clause would provide that the UK Government commits to conducting and publishing an impact assessment of the effect of removal of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (by virtue of section 5(4) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018).

New clause 51—Protection for workers’ rights—

“(1) After section 18 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (customs arrangement as part of the framework for the future relationship) insert—

‘18A Protection for workers’ rights

(1) Part 1 of Schedule 5A (which requires statements of non-regression in relation to workers’ retained EU rights) has effect.

(2) Part 2 of Schedule 5A (which provides for reporting requirements and parliamentary oversight in relation to new EU workers’ rights) has effect.

(3) Part 3 of Schedule 5A (which contains interpretative provision) has effect.’

(2) After Schedule 5 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (publication and rules of evidence) insert the Schedule 5A set out in Schedule (Protection for workers’ rights) to this Act.”

This new clause reinstates what was Clause 34 and Schedule 4 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill (Bill 7) in the October-December 2019 Session and provides additional procedural protections for workers rights that currently form part of EU law, but which would not be protected against modification, repeal or revocation in domestic law once the transition or implementation period has ended.

New clause 59—Representation in the European Parliament—

“(1) It must be a negotiating objective of the United Kingdom Government to seek to secure ongoing and formal representation in the European Parliament, at not less than observer status, for the devolved nations and regions of the UK.

(2) Once secured, this representation shall be determined and co-ordinated by each devolved administration.”

New schedule 1—Protection for workers’ rights Protection for workers’ rights—

“Protection for workers’ rights

The Schedule 5A to be inserted after Schedule 5 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is as follows:

‘Schedule 5A

Protection for workers’ rights

Part 1

Workers’ retained EU rights

Acts of Parliament: statements of non-regression

1 (1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a relevant Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—

(a) make a statement to the effect that in the Minister’s view the provisions of the Bill will not result in the law of the relevant part or parts of the United Kingdom failing to confer any workers’ retained EU right (a “statement of non-regression”), or

(b) make a statement to the effect that although the Minister is unable to make a statement of non-regression Her Majesty’s Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

(3) Before making a statement under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) in relation to a Bill, a Minister of the Crown must consult—

(a) persons representative of workers,

(b) persons representative of employers, and

(c) any other persons whom the Minister considers it appropriate to consult.

(4) But that duty does not apply to a statement made in relation to a Bill if—

(a) it is not practicable for the consultation to take place in relation to the statement by reason of urgency, or

(b) the statement is being made before Second Reading of the Bill in the second House of Parliament and the Bill was not amended in the first House of Parliament.

(5) In this paragraph—

“first House of Parliament”, in relation to a Bill, means the House of Parliament in which the Bill is first introduced;

“relevant Bill” means a Bill which contains provision that—

(a) extends to England and Wales or Scotland (or both), and

(b) relates to any of the workers’ retained EU rights;

“relevant part of the United Kingdom”, in relation to a Bill, means—

(a) England and Wales, if the Bill extends there;

(b) Scotland, if the Bill extends there;

“second House of Parliament”, in relation to a Bill, means the House of Parliament to which the Bill moves after completing its passage through the first House of Parliament.

Part 2

New EU workers’ rights

Reports on new EU workers’ rights

2 (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Secretary of State must—

(a) produce a report under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) relating to that period (“the relevant reporting period”),

(b) publish the report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and

(c) lay copies of the report before Parliament.

(2) A report under this sub-paragraph is one that contains a statement that no new EU workers’ rights have been published by the EU during the relevant reporting period.

(3) A report under this sub-paragraph is one that contains—

(a) a statement that one or more new EU workers’ rights have been published by the EU during the relevant reporting period, and

(b) as respects each new EU workers’ right published during that period, either—

(i) a statement to the effect that in the Secretary of State’s view the law of England and Wales and Scotland confers a workers’ right of the same kind as the new EU workers’ right (a “statement of non-divergence”), or

(ii) a statement to the effect that the Secretary of State is unable to make a statement of non-divergence.

(4) If a report under sub-paragraph (3) contains a statement under sub-paragraph (3)(b)(ii) as respects a new EU workers’ right, the report must also contain—

(a) a statement of whether or not Her Majesty’s Government intends to take any action in respect of the new EU workers’ right, and

(b) if it does, a statement describing the action which it is intending to take.

(5) In relation to each report under sub-paragraph (3), a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

(a) a motion, to the effect that the House of Commons has approved the report, to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 28 Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which a copy of the report is laid before that House, and

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to approve the report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 28 Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which a copy of the report is laid before that House.

(6) When producing a report under sub-paragraph (3), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) persons representative of workers,

(b) persons representative of employers, and

(c) any other persons whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(7) In this paragraph “reporting period” means—

(a) the period that—

(i) begins with IP completion day, and

(ii) ends with the day which falls six months after the day on which IP completion day falls;

(b) subsequently, each period that—

(i) begins with the day (the “start day”) that comes immediately after the end of the preceding reporting period, and

(ii) ends with the end day.

(8) The “end day” for that purpose is decided as follows—

(a) if any new EU workers’ rights are published by the EU during the period of six months beginning with the start day, the end day is the day which falls six months after—

(i) the day on which those rights are published by the EU, or

(ii) if they are published by the EU on different days, the earliest of those days;

(b) if no new EU workers’ rights are published by the EU during the period of six months beginning with the start day, the end day is the day which falls twelve months after the start day.

(9) A reference in this paragraph to a new EU workers’ right being published by the EU is a reference to the EU directive or EU regulation which provides for its conferral being published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Part 3

Interpretation

Interpretation

3 (1) In this Schedule—

“new EU workers’ rights” means any workers’ rights—

(a) which member States are obliged to confer by an EU directive published in the Official Journal of the European Union on or after IP completion day, or

(b) that are conferred by an EU regulation published in the Official Journal of the European Union on or after IP completion day;

“workers’ retained EU rights” means workers’ rights of the kinds which—

(a) immediately before IP completion day, the United Kingdom was obliged to confer by virtue of the EU directives listed in the table in paragraph 4, and

(b) on IP completion day, continued to have effect (by virtue of this Act and as modified by any provision made by or under this Act or otherwise) in the law of England and Wales or Scotland;

“workers’ rights” means rights of individuals, and classes of individuals, in the area of labour protection as regards—

(a) fundamental rights at work,

(b) fair working conditions and employment standards,

(c) information and consultation rights at company level,

(d) restructuring of undertakings, and

(e) health and safety at work.

(2) The reference in the definition of “workers’ retained EU rights” to rights which continued to have effect by virtue of this Act includes a reference to rights which form part of retained EU law by virtue of section 2 but which would have continued to have effect irrespective of that section.

(3) References in this Schedule to rights being of the same kind as new EU workers’ rights are to be read as references to rights being of the same kind so far as that is consistent with the United Kingdom’s domestic legal order following its withdrawal from the EU.

(4) For the purposes of this Schedule a right under the law of England and Wales or Scotland is conferred whether or not it is in force.

4 (1) The table referred to in the definition of “workers’ retained EU rights” is as follows:

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As this is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box this year, I would like to thank my constituents for re-electing me and send all hon. and right hon. Members my very best wishes for 2020.

I draw attention to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my support from trade unions.

We fully accept that, following the general election, we will be leaving the European Union on 31 January, but winning a mandate for that exit, as the Government have, does not give Ministers a free pass to avoid any scrutiny. The Government should be held to account between elections as well as at elections, and that is what the Opposition propose to do. We will continue to make the case in the post-Brexit United Kingdom for jobs and livelihoods, for environmental safeguards, for consumer protections and for employment rights, as we have over recent years.

New clause 2 is about protecting vital workers’ rights, and subsection (1)(a) would ensure that the Government cannot introduce measures that would, in any way, have the effect of reducing the protections provided on the day the transition period ends. We believe this must go further.

Subsection (1)(b) confirms that the Government, after our exit from the EU, will ensure that workers’ rights in the United Kingdom are, as a minimum, at the level they are in other EU member states. We also insist that the Government are held to account in Parliament on those objectives. The Government must never be allowed to sell out the workers of this country, and we will not let them off the hook. We will stand with those to whom this Government and the Prime Minister have made promises.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s tone and his acceptance of the result of the general election. In turn, will he accept that workers’ rights in the UK are greater than those enjoyed within the EU and that we do not need to be members of the EU in order to have them? Sick pay, maternity leave and the minimum wage are examples in this regard. Does he accept that those rights are already enhanced and that this sovereign Parliament guards them, not the EU?

17:30

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman giving credit to past Labour Governments and their achievements, and he is absolutely right in what he says about the national minimum wage. We can go back even further and talk about the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was another fine achievement by a UK Labour Government. However, there are also rights whose genesis has been in European law, as we know if we talk to agency workers and think about the working time directive. We should be praising these things. Labour Members say they should be not only preserved but enhanced in future years, and that is what this new clause is all about.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s record on workers’ rights is concerning to say the least. Let us consider the previous incarnation of this Bill, which was in October 2019. Schedule 4 to that Bill outlined that, first, a Minister would have to consult businesses and unions on the impact on workers’ rights of any new proposed legislation and then state formally how that would happen, and that, secondly, the Government would have to report regularly on any new EU directives. At the time, those proposals were described by the TUC general secretary as “meaningless procedural tricks”, which is why Labour Members tabled a similar amendment to the one before us today so that stronger protections would be in place. The position of the Government in October 2019 was weak on workers’ rights and now it is even weaker. If the Prime Minister cared so much, he would not have moved the provisions on this from the legally binding withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration. Why bother to make that change if not to prepare the ground to make changes in the future? It was no surprise that the Government started off this Parliament indicating that they want to attack the right to strike in the transport sector.

None of those are the actions of a Government who want, as they claim, to

“protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU”.

They are not the actions of a Government who want to make Britain the

“best place in the world to work.”

Let us not forget that the Conservative party is the party of employment tribunal fees, which were a barrier to those whose rights at work had been infringed and were seeking justice. The Government now ask for trust on workers’ rights, but their record on this bears no reasonable scrutiny. The Home Secretary, in the EU referendum campaign, talked of the

“burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.

Another member of the Government said:

“The weight of employment regulation is now back-breaking: the collective redundancies directive, the atypical workers directive, the working time directive and a thousand more”.

Who said that? It was the man who now claims to be the workers’ friend, the Prime Minister himself. This Government cannot and will not be trusted on workers’ rights—rights that have been hard won over generations by the labour movement. That is why this new clause is needed in the Bill, in order to safeguard the millions of workers in this country who deserve our continuous protections of their rights. That is why the Opposition will press that new clause to a vote when the time comes.

New clause 3 sets out details about our future relationship, putting the protection of jobs and livelihoods at the very top of our priorities as we depart the EU. It sets out the arguments that have been made by the Opposition for some years now, arguments for a UK-wide customs union, with a say in external trade deals, for strong, high-quality single market access, and for ensuring that rights and protections—for workers, as I have mentioned, but in other areas too—in the UK never fall behind those across Europe. I also think of our manufacturing sector, where our exporters are currently benefiting from tariff-free access to the single market. In all our constituencies, whether through direct employment or the many supply chains that exist, workers and businesses will rightly look to this House to protect their interests going forward, and that is what we should do.

In the course of this Parliament, we will hold the Government to account on their record on jobs and investment. The basis upon which they secure the new relationship with the EU will have consequences for now and for decades to come. Parliament has lost its right to set a negotiating mandate, so that task now falls squarely on the shoulders of the Government. They will be judged on what they do and the impact it has on employment prospects up and down the land.

Subsection (1)(d) refers to participation in EU agencies, many of which have been debated in the course of our deliberations on Brexit in recent years. I wish to focus on and make some remarks about the issue of security, because in a digital age, when crime knows no borders, there are extraordinary new challenges in the task of keeping the public safe. Nobody can doubt the value of working together, and continuing to work together, on security with the EU and other international partners, but the Government have not yet produced a credible plan on how the current advantages we have—the current set of tools—will continue in the post-Brexit age.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a crucial point. Although I agree with the other parts of the new clause on the customs union and the single market, security is an aspect that was largely lost in many of the debates that we had in the House, yet we members of the Home Affairs Committee regularly heard evidence from experts—from law enforcement agencies, the Metropolitan police and others—of the risks to our security of not getting a comprehensive security arrangement in place. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to those experts and the Government should listen to them, too?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall develop that point, because one issue is that the non-binding political declaration contains an aim for a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership, but that is currently just words on a piece of paper. We urgently need a plan. When the former Prime Minister spoke at the Munich security conference in February 2018, she spoke about a security treaty with the EU27, but we are still waiting for the planned architecture of that co-operation.

Let me give some specific examples. Things such as the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and Europol are critical to the successful investigation and extradition of wanted suspects or criminals. National Crime Agency statistics show how important this is. In the period from 2010 to 2016, the UK made 1,773 requests to member states for extradition under the European arrest warrant and received 48,776 requests from member states for extradition. Not only can the UK currently bring people to these shores to face justice, but we can send dangerous people to other countries to face legal proceedings.

It seems the Government have accepted the importance of the European arrest warrant. Their July 2018 White Paper said that

“the UK has arrested more than 12,000 individuals, and for every person arrested on an EAW issued by the UK, the UK arrests eight on EAWs issued by other Member States”.

That White Paper also showed the challenge that the Government face. It said:

“Existing extradition arrangements between the EU and third countries do not provide the same level of capability as the EAW.”

We cannot allow our capability to be diminished.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Before the general election I produced a report with the all-party group on deaths abroad and consular services and assistance, which I chair. He may be aware that there are already significant challenges when our citizens die, get into trouble or are incarcerated abroad. All the officers and the people I have spoken to have said that Brexit is only going to compound those issues and make it more difficult for our citizens to get proper representation and support from the Foreign Office after Brexit; does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the challenges, which are precisely what I wish to come on to and develop.

Yesterday, I heard the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union respond to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); my fear is that as yet the Government’s thinking just has not moved beyond the implementation period, which ends at the end of 2020. What happens after that is so important, because it will determine what our law enforcement agencies have in their armoury to deal with pan-European crime. It is an urgent task.

The issue of data sharing and continued data sharing is crucial. Were the UK ever to lose access to the EU’s security databases, information that today can be retrieved almost instantaneously could take days or weeks to access. That would create a significant hurdle to effective policing, to say the least.

On Europol, how do the Government see the future? Do they envisage full participation, or only observer status at board meetings? We just do not know. The fact that the situation is critical and the position wholly unsatisfactory is the fault of the Government and not of those who work in our security sector. After all, the UK makes a great contribution to European security. Through the Schengen information system—or SIS II as it is known—the UK is contributing to the sharing of real-time data on wanted criminals, missing persons and suspected terrorists, and that co-operation is beneficial to us all. The data shared in that database are used millions of times each year by UK police, and that surely must illustrate to all Members the profound risk of there being no long-term deal on security.

In conducting the negotiation, the Government must emphasise the UK’s contribution and the mutually beneficial nature of European co-operation in dealing with the most serious organised crime on our continent. I listened carefully to the new European Commission President today. She said that the threat of terrorism is real, and that we have to share the necessary information to stop terrorists crossing borders and attacking us. She is right. When we are fighting crime, we are better working to eradicate it collectively than working alone, and we need a formal legal basis to continue to do so. That is why new clause 3 is so important, and I commend it and new clause 2 to the House.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to give the support of the Scottish National party to the official Opposition’s new clause 2 and to speak to new clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); new clauses 50 and 51 and new schedule 1 in my name and those of some of my colleagues; and new clauses 45 and 46, in the names of SDLP Members.

I want to turn first to the issue of workers’ rights. What is being done in this Bill is very serious, which is why new clause 51 and new schedule 1 seek to reinstate the missing clause and schedule that were in the October version of this Bill. The Government have suggested that the substance of the deleted clauses will be covered in a separate employment Bill, but, as it has yet to be laid before Parliament, we are understandably suspicious given the history of these matters. It is simply not true or accurate to suggest that the United Kingdom has done a better job than the European Union in protecting workers’ rights. There are some respects in which the United Kingdom has progressed matters, and it is true to say that those came under a Labour Government, and I congratulate Labour on that.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I want to develop my point before I take any interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

There are many other respects in which the European Union and our membership of it have advanced the cause of workers’ rights. Judgments of the European Court of Justice, expanding the law in the way that some hon. Members seem to find so objectionable, have also led to greater protections for workers in the United Kingdom. As well as the disappearance of what was clause 34 in the October Bill, this Bill also removes the provision that pre-Brexit judgments of the European Court of Justice will continue to be binding on UK courts until the UK Supreme Court departs from them. Instead, it has provision for Ministers of this Government to make regulations under clause 26—[Interruption.] I can see the Minister frowning at me, but we spoke about this in some detail earlier today. I am talking about regulations to enable certain courts and tribunals to depart from the CJEU case law. That, of course, underlines the concern that many trade unions feel in relation to this matter.

I have read very carefully what Unison, the TUC and the Scottish TUC say about this matter. I have also seen what has been said by Thompsons Solicitors, a well-known legal firm that many of us have had dealings with in the past, which has worked hard in the area of protection of workers’ rights. The fear is that the combination of the missing clause and the power that the Government are taking to themselves to interfere with the Supreme Court’s ability to overrule previous European Court of Justice decisions will create a chaotic free-for-all on workers’ rights in the United Kingdom, whereby the courts could potentially weaken existing workers’ rights and ignore past ECJ rulings from which trade unionists and workers across the United Kingdom have benefited. If that does not happen in the courts, it could well happen as a result of the unilateral action of Government Ministers through delegated legislation.

17:45

It is important to remember that working people in the United Kingdom have benefited from a number of recent landmark judgments by the Court of Justice, including the requirement for employers to keep records of all hours worked to comply with the working time directive, which is very important to many of our constituents, and the ruling that employers might not have to factor overtime into holiday pay calculations, which is also very important to many of our constituents, particularly to those who are not as well paid as Members of this House—even those who do not have a second job. We often hear from Government Members how much they care about the working man and woman, but if they really did, they would support the new clauses tabled by me and by the Labour party, and would give us the guarantees we require that there will not be a regression from the rights that many of our constituents have enjoyed as a result of European Union law.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Many of those who advanced the leave cause during the referendum campaign said that one of the reasons they wanted to leave the European Union was to do away with workers’ rights and employment rights. Now that many of those people are on the Treasury Bench, the suspicions held by many of us are only going to intensify.

[Joanna Cherry]

Not all, but many Members on the Government Benches have spoken about just the sort of free-for-all on rights that we fear. Of course, this partly comes from the conceit that somehow the United Kingdom—by which they normally mean England—has a monopoly on rights, which is not shared by other countries across the world, including the other countries in the European Union. Unfortunately, the lived experience of working men and women across the United Kingdom is not one of confidence in Governments of the UK to protect them, particularly when those Governments are of the Conservative and Unionist party. That is why they have been so reliant on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, and on directives and regulations passed by the European Union institutions, in which Britain has of course had significant input over the years. My new clauses and the Labour party’s seek to achieve some minimum guarantees in relation to the continued enjoyment of many rights that exist only because of the European Union.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that the European Court of Justice underpins our fundamental values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law? Does she also agree that, outside it, workers’ rights, the judiciary and the rule of law are under attack, and that our civil service, the BBC and all such institutions are now a free-for-all? It is not just workers’ rights; it is the judicial system itself.

[Joanna Cherry]

As I said earlier, it is clear from the Conservative manifesto that the Government intend a rebalancing of power between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. I think this comes from a sense of hubris about the Prime Minister’s defeat in the Supreme Court at the tail end of last year. Of course, it is important to remember that that was not a political decision, but a legal one. The distinguished Scottish judge Lord Drummond Young said in the Scottish Supreme Court, “It is not for the judiciary to scrutinise the Government. That is the job of Parliament. But when the Government prevents Parliament from doing its job, then it is the job of the judiciary to step in to make sure that Parliament can fulfil its function.” I see that that comment from a distinguished member of the Scottish bench is going down like a lead balloon on the Government Benches, but it simply mirrors what Lady Hale was careful to do in the Supreme Court, which was to underline that these were legal judgments, not political ones.

Our memberships of international institutions such as the European Union and the European convention on human rights, separately, have given important guarantees that regardless of the complexion of government in the United Kingdom, there will be certain minimum standards. Withdrawal from the EU undermines that in a number of areas, particularly workers’ rights, and that is why these amendments are so important.

My second point relates to the charter of fundamental rights, which was of course removed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and is not dealt with in this Bill. However, there remains widespread concern about the effect of the removal of the charter because, as we heard at length in the last Parliament, it guarantees certain rights that are not guaranteed by the convention on human rights or by the domestic legal systems of these islands. My SNP colleagues and I believe that this Parliament should ensure that the Bill does not lead to the diminishing of the rights of UK citizens or EU citizens living in the UK. One way of doing that would be for the Government to commit to conducting and publishing an impact assessment on the effect of the removal of the EU charter of fundamental rights later this year. That is what my new clause 50 seeks to achieve. I would respectfully suggest that, in the interests of certainty, no reasonable parliamentarian in this House who cares about the rights of his or her constituents could oppose an inquiry into the impact of the withdrawal of the charter on their constituents’ rights.

New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and a number of other colleagues, sets out a requirement for the UK Government to negotiate a deal keeping the UK close to the single market and the customs union. I have no intention of pressing it, because I know that that ship has sailed. However, it is intended to remind the House of, and to put on record, the position of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government in relation to membership of the single market and the customs union.

The Minister said earlier that the UK Government have engaged with the devolved Administrations throughout the negotiations to leave the European Union, but I am afraid that the evidence of the past three years shows that while engagement has taken place, it has been very much a superficial box-ticking exercise. That is not just the view of the SNP; I see others who represent seats in areas covered by other devolved Administrations nodding their heads.

In December 2016, the Scottish Government published a document called “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, which was the first comprehensive proposal from any Government in these islands to address the outcome of the EU referendum. It contained an evidence-based analysis showing that the least damaging option for leaving the European Union—the optimum case being to remain—was to continue membership of the single market and customs union. The document demonstrated how that could be done for the UK as a whole, notwithstanding other parts of the United Kingdom such as Northern Ireland and Scotland. The proposals represented a very considerable compromise by the Scottish Government, but despite cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, they were almost instantly dismissed by the former Prime Minister. Indeed, they were read more carefully by Michel Barnier than by the British Government.

Thereafter, Scottish Government colleagues engaged fully in good faith with the process set up by the UK Government apparently—I use the word “apparently” advisedly—to involve and consult the devolved Administrations in formulating the UK position for withdrawal. The terms of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations, which was set up for that very purpose, were agreed in October 2016, saying that through the Committee the Governments would

“work collaboratively to…seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for, Article 50 negotiations; and provide oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured from these negotiations”.

Sadly, it was soon clear that the UK Government had no intention of honouring those commitments. There is more to engagement than simply turning up and speaking at people. Engagement involves listening, compromising and collaborating.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The hon. and learned Lady is making an important contribution, as she often does. This is not just about the withdrawal process. We cannot even get discussions about what is happening with the shared prosperity fund. It is 19 or 20 months since the consultation should have ended. I understand from Welsh Assembly Members and Welsh Government colleagues that they cannot even get a discussion with the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Wales Office or the Scottish Office. If we cannot even get what happens to our funding right, there is little hope of genuine consultation with the devolved Administrations on the process of leaving.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is very much the experience of my Scottish Government colleagues across the board in this engagement with the British Government. In fact, in a recent keynote speech to the Institute for Government, my friend and colleague Mike Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for the constitution in the Scottish Government, said that

“at no point have the views of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or Northern Irish representatives been addressed”

in a way that has led them to believe that they have been listened to and would be taken account of in any meaningful way. Still less has there been any recognition of any need to accommodate the pro-EU majority in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, or of the position of Scottish MPs or, indeed, the Scottish Parliament, which normally votes by more than two thirds to one third on substantive Brexit issues. Indeed, just this afternoon as we have been debating here, the Scottish Parliament has voted by 92 votes to 29 to withhold legislative consent to this Bill. I am afraid that the Government cannot just blame the bête noire of the Scottish National party for that. It has involved all parties in the House—the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens, but not the Scottish Conservatives, who are not interested in what the majority of people living in Scotland want. They are more interested in doing the bidding of their Westminster-based masters.

The point is this: there has been no meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government. There has been no meaningful engagement with the Welsh Government. As we heard even from the DUP, which has a genuine right to be annoyed about recent developments, there has been no meaningful engagement with Northern Irish representatives.

While we hear a lot of rhetoric again and again today about how the British people have spoken, the will of the people and a suggestion that the Opposition are somehow an affront to democracy for turning up and scrutinising this Bill, it is important to remember that, far from being an affront to democracy, my hon. Friends and I speak for majority opinion in Scotland—the majority opinion in Scotland is to remain in the European Union. Every electoral opportunity that has been afforded to Scotland since the EU referendum, including the last general election, has resulted in a resounding majority of seats for parties that support remaining in the European Union. So can we tone down a wee bit the rhetoric about the will of the British people and acknowledge the reality of the degree to which engagement has taken place?

Members need not just take my word for it or that of my colleagues in the SNP Scottish Government. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Commons concluded in July 2018:

“It is clear from the evidence to this inquiry that Whitehall still operates extensively on the basis of a structure and culture which take little account of the realities of devolution in the UK. This is inimical to the principles of devolution and good governance in UK.”

That was the conclusion of a cross-party Committee of this House. I do not expect any support from Government Members for the SNP’s new clause 8, but it gives me the opportunity to correct some factual misunderstandings about the degree of engagement that has taken place over the last few years.

Before I conclude, I would like to express my support for new clauses 45 and 46, tabled by my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party. New clause 45 would require each devolved legislature to give legislative consent to any trade deal affecting the NHS. It is very similar to the SNP’s new clause 68, which was not selected for debate. The SNP manifesto in Scotland contained a commitment to protect the NHS from a trade deal with the United States of America. We won the election in Scotland with 45% of the vote and 80% of the seats, and it would perhaps be a courtesy to take on board an amendment that reflects the will of the majority of people who bothered to vote in Scotland.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sure the hon. and learned Member would acknowledge that a similar pledge has also been made by the Welsh Health Minister, and my constituency colleague, Vaughan Gething. Welsh Labour’s commitment on this, and I am sure that of Plaid Cymru and others, is absolutely clear: we will defend the NHS in Wales in trade negotiations.

18:01

[Joanna Cherry]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the position in Wales. That of course reflects the fact that, again, this is a concern not just of nationalist parties, but of the parties that support the devolved settlements but perhaps do not wish to go as far as independence.

The SDLP’s new clause 46 requires regional equality, environmental and economic impact assessments of any proposed future relationship or free trade agreement. Again, that is eminently sensible. It is similar to Plaid Cymru’s new clause 16, which is looking for a UK-wide economic impact assessment. Again, those are matters that I would have thought any MP who cares about the outcome of these negotiations and the future of their constituents’ livelihoods would be well advised to support.

I will conclude by saying that we need to take account in these proceedings of the different positions of the devolved nations. What I say and will continue to say to the Government is that if they continue to act as if there is no difference between the wishes of the electorate in England and the wishes of the electorate in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, they will do so at their peril, and the Union that they say they care about so much will be further undermined by that behaviour.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I rise to support new clauses 10 and 29, on which we will be seeking a vote today. These should absolutely be no-brainers.

New clause 10 is about the Erasmus programme. For students, young people, those in training and staff who work in the education sector, the Erasmus scheme has been absolutely incredible. I wonder how many of us on these Benches have used that programme ourselves, or have had our children or others in our family do so. From 2014 to the end of this year alone, €1 billion has been allocated to support the UK as part of Erasmus+. New clause 10 would only require the Government to seek—to do what they say they want to do, but let us be sure—to negotiate continuing full membership of the future Erasmus education and youth programme.

We could secure access to the programme through negotiations, but we would be an associated third country and that would never be as good as the programme we are part of now. However, at least with new clause 10 this Parliament would be instructing the Government that, as part of the next phase, that is something we absolutely want.

Let us remind ourselves what Erasmus does. It allows our young people to go abroad to European universities, to learn new languages, to meet new people, to put down some roots abroad and to build the international understanding that, in my view, is a big part of what it means to be British.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Committee for consideration. Today I had the opportunity to meet representatives from the Russell Group, which encompasses 24 universities across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Erasmus scheme was one of the schemes they mentioned. They intimated how good the scheme was and how important it was, and stressed the opportunity that it brings. I want to support the hon. Lady in what she has said. When we have universities with the capacity and strength of membership that we have across all four regions, it indicates to me that the Erasmus scheme is a good scheme and needs to be retained.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention; he makes the point beautifully. It is such a no-brainer: this is something that we should want to keep.

When people who have used the scheme return and apply their skills, the economy is boosted. The scheme increases their chances of getting a job and increases their confidence and sense of independence—and Brexit puts all that under threat. If full access to the scheme is not negotiated, it is those from the poorer families who will suffer. Those from well-off families will be able to study abroad if they want; their parents could pay the fees. The Erasmus scheme gives those from poorer backgrounds the ability to do that in a way that simply was not available before it came to fruition.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points on the reasons why we should keep Erasmus. Pollokshields Primary in my constituency is one of the very few state primary schools that participate in the exchange programme, and it broadens the horizons of children from a Scottish Pakistani background by twinning with a school, Colegio Hernández, in Spain. So horizons are being broadened in all kinds of different ways under the scheme. It would be such a shame to lose it.

[Layla Moran]

That is another reason why we need to keep it, and I will simply say this: while Brexit suggests to those abroad that Britain might be not quite as international-facing as it was before, every time I meet a young person—particularly during the most recent election campaign—they point to things like Erasmus as the older generation pulling up the drawbridge to the opportunities that we had, and that they wish they had for their future. It would be such a shame for us to conclude this debate this week without a firm assurance from the Government that they want to keep that programme, and that there is nothing that they would love more than to see that written in the Bill itself; I do not understand why they would not want to do that.

The same goes for Horizon 2020, so I will broaden what I am saying slightly. As we know, the productivity gap is one of the biggest crises in our country and Horizon 2020 is another example of the best of European co-operation. Between 2007 and 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion on research and development and innovation from the EU. When, over the past few years, I have raised this in the House, I have heard Ministers say from the Dispatch Box, “We will replace the money.”

I will make the following point through the voice of a constituent who is a professor of chemistry at Oxford University, so I hope we will concede that he probably knows. It is not just about the money, he says:

“It’s important for Ministers to recognise that access to EU funding only plays a part and is certainly not the full sum of UK scientists’ concerns. Science is indeed Humboldt’s “country without borders”; in 2018, over half of all scientific research papers published from the UK acknowledged international collaboration through author addresses, and well over 30% of all publications involved one or more EU countries.”

That says it all; I hear it over and over again. If we want to attract the best, a visa will not help; they need to know that they will be absolutely welcome in our country, and that they are welcome for those research opportunities. We are already seeing it in our institutions—not just Oxford University but Oxford Brookes as well, and in the number of professors and others who are coming to me and saying, “I tried to put in for a certain grant; it is not being accepted any more because of the uncertainty this is causing.” If new clause 10 were part of the Bill, it would give them the certainty they need to be part of that collaboration from now—and, believe me, when those people go and they go to the other European universities that will have them, that is where they will put down roots and that is where they are more likely to stay. We cannot afford to lose those people. I know the Government want to keep the best and the brightest; well, these are they, and they are saying that they are leaving.

Finally, I shall speak to new clause 29, which is about that level playing field. I shall obviously support the Labour Front Bench in the Division, when it comes, because that level playing field and its effect on workers’ rights is incredibly important, but I will continue to stress that it is not just about workers’ rights; it is also about environmental standards, and that is the bit that I am seriously concerned about.

The best feature of the election campaign we have just had was that the environment was, apparently, at the top of all political parties’ agenda; we kept hearing from the Government that they wanted to supersede the level playing field arrangements when it came to environmental standards, and that is brilliant. All the level playing field is actually is a minimum standard; why would we not want to keep it?

The same goes for workers’ rights. The same goes for anything else when it comes to that level playing field. The problem, as we have heard before, is that removing it and deregulating opens the door to lower standards. We talk about America. It is not just about America, but let’s face it, we know that that is where the Government are looking to their next trade deal.

I want to be clear about what the problem is. The environment Bill, which the Government say will replace EU legislation, does not operate on the stronger precautionary principle to which the EU’s environmental standards currently operate. We are in a climate emergency. We cannot help but be moved—I am sure we all are—by the images coming out of Australia. We need to ensure that those minimum standards are the absolute minimum. My worry is that in a post-Brexit world we will be looking for trade deals with other countries who would much prefer it if we lowered our standards. That would open the door to our compromising in this area, when I heard time and time again that there was no appetite across the country for any kind of compromise.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case. Does she agree that not only non-regression but dynamic alignment is vital? EU legislation is constantly modified. For example, the REACH legislation has been updated 38 times since it first came into law in 2006. If we are to avoid the risk of so-called zombie legislation—EU legislation brought across to the UK statute book but not updated—we need dynamic alignment, too.

[Layla Moran]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady for her point and commend her for her tireless work on this issue. I think the broad consensus across the House is that we must now take the environmental crisis seriously. As the science progresses and as we understand where the technologies are going, we must stay close to our nearest neighbours. That matters when it comes to the environment and to biodiversity. We have to make sure that we do that. I ask us all, as a sign to ensure we stay within that level playing field and within programmes such as Horizon and Erasmus, to vote for new clauses 10 and 29.

[Debbie Abrahams]

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Sir George.

I rise to speak to my new clause 27, which seeks to ensure that there is no regression from EU standards on the environment; food; the substance of REACH regulations, which seek to protect human health and the environment from the use of chemicals; and animal welfare. It addresses the points that have just been made.

The UK currently enjoys high standards in areas such as habitat protection and product safety. Having developed those standards with our European neighbours, we now benefit from cleaner beaches, safer food and the best chemicals regulation in the world. The Government have committed to legislate to ensure high standards of environmental protection, but they have not yet delivered on that commitment. The 2018 withdrawal agreement contained a legally binding mutual commitment to non-regression in most areas of environmental law, if the transition period did not produce an agreement on the future relationship. That has been removed from the Bill and I wonder whether the Minister can explain why that is the case.

Climate change is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. The world is now experiencing a climate emergency, and an urgent and rapid global response is now necessary. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding and the horrendous bush fires we currently see in Australia, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. After more than a century and a half of industrialisation, deforestation and large-scale agriculture, quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen to record levels that have not been seen in 3 million years.

We know that as populations, economies and standards of living grow, so does the cumulative level of greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5° C, finding that limiting global warming to 1.5° C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. The IPCC said we must cut global emissions in half by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The UK should be leading the way both nationally and internationally. The Government must play their role.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady will not be surprised that I completely agree with her. She will know that the Prime Minister has said that he wants to bring forward what he has called the most ambitious environmental programme of any country in the world. That being the case, does she share my bewilderment that Ministers could even conceive of not supporting the new clause? What would they have to fear from an amendment that simply seeks to ensure that we do not go backwards, if they are absolutely serious about delivering for the environment?

18:14

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes the point that I am trying to make: if the Government are committed to this, why are they not putting it in the Bill?

Last September’s UN climate action summit delivered a boost in momentum, co-operation and ambition, but as the UN Secretary-General said:

“we have a long way to go…We need more concrete plans, more ambition from more countries and more businesses. We need all financial institutions, public and private, to choose, once and for all, the green economy.”

This year’s UN climate conference must see existing commitments renewed and increased, not least by the Government. The political declaration, agreed by the UK and EU in October 2019, proposed that the UK and EU should uphold “common high standards”. However, the declaration is only indicative and is not legally binding. Including an amendment on environmental non-regression in the Bill would help to ensure that standards are not weakened across the UK during the process of EU withdrawal. Given that the scope of the Bill is focused on actions in connection with EU withdrawal, further non-regression guarantees will be needed, both in domestic legislation, such as the environment Bill, and in the future relationship agreement with the EU.

The new clause is broken down into a number of different sections. Proposed new section 14A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 defines regressive and protected matters covered by the proposal, which include

“the environment…food safety and other standards…the substance of REACH regulations; and…animal welfare.”

Proposed new section 14B adds a procedural check—similar to that already carried out on new legislation in relation to human rights—for primary legislation. This requires Government either to state that new legislation does not weaken environmental standards or, if it does, to explain why and require explicit parliamentary approval of that regression. The new office for environmental protection must be consulted during this process.

Proposed new section 14C prevents withdrawal from the EU being used as a route for lowering environmental standards by secondary legislation.

Proposed new section 14D prevents withdrawal from the EU being used as a route for lowering environmental standards by other public body action.

Proposed new section 14E requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance for Government Departments and other public authorities to support them in avoiding any regressive actions.

Finally, proposed new section 14F ensures that all new EU environmental law is reviewed by an expert independent body to track potential divergence. If any potential divergence is identified and not approved by Parliament, the Government must commit to taking steps to rectify that divergence.

An argument has been made that the new clause is not needed, as the UK will have better standards. However, Ministers have stated many times that environmental standards will not be weakened, so it should not be controversial to guarantee that in legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned. What objection can the Government have to committing to the new clause? I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that. A meaningful commitment to non-regression is essential if the UK is to genuinely put itself forward as a world leader in environmental protection. I urge the Government to support the new clause; we need to ensure that their deeds match their words.

I was very disappointed that my new clause 9, with which I sought to prevent any Minister of the Crown from financially benefiting from any proposed trade deal, was not selected for debate. I was under no illusion that the Government would support it, but I wanted to highlight the issue. If anybody has not read the excellent book by Professor Danny Dorling on what is driving Brexit, I thoroughly recommend it. If national policy is being driven by the narrow interests of a few, and their interests are their own enrichment, our politics is not just damaged but broken. As I am sure many here would agree, politics is about public service, not what it can do for us personally.

[Claire Hanna]

I rise to speak to new clause 45, on the protection of the NHS from future trade deals, and new clause 59, on ensuring political representation for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament.

I suspect it goes without saying that I deeply regret the arrival of this point in the Brexit process. We still view Brexit as an extraordinary act of self-harm for Britain. We on our side of the Irish sea will suffer immense political, social and economic collateral damage. To protect ourselves, and indeed other regions of the UK, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and I have tabled amendments that would provide for impact assessments, prevent the diminution of rights, on which the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) has expanded very well, and give the Good Friday agreement institutions the flexibility they need to respond to the challenges that Brexit will bring. I do not need to remind Members that the Good Friday agreement is sovereign in Northern Ireland and has been endorsed overwhelmingly by the people—more so than anything else before or since. It is not just an ornament on the mantelpiece; it is a toolkit that can help us to weather the storm of Brexit, but it has to be given the powers, flexibility and opportunity to respond to the many challenges that we know are coming but the shape of which we do not yet know.

Ensuring European parliamentary representation for Northern Ireland is part of that. Thankfully, we will be within the regulatory orbit of the EU. Members will know that the Good Friday agreement mandates the Government to ensure no diminution of rights for people in Northern Ireland because of Brexit, but one of those rights, because they are Irish citizens and therefore will continue to be EU citizens, is the right to political representation in the European Parliament. There is therefore a duty on the Government to continue to provide that right for continuing EU and Irish citizens.

In many ways, the new clause merges amendments tabled by others around democratic oversight, transparency and parliamentary consent as this Brexit evolves. For the many reasons Members have laid out, if Brexit is to deliver even a fraction of what Government Members are promising, they should have no concerns about oversight and allowing people to see the process as it evolves. In matters of public policy, I have always found sunlight to be the best disinfectant. We must allow people to see how the processes are happening.

New clause 45 is self-explanatory. It seeks to protect the NHS from future trade deals and to ensure, if a future relationship affects the devolution settlement on health, that legislative consent is sought from the Northern Ireland Assembly—fingers crossed, it will exist again next week—and from the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

We have tabled several other amendments—and support amendments that mirror them—around a level playing field, the maintenance of workers’ rights, Erasmus and Horizon 2020, which are so fundamental to Queen’s University in my constituency, and safeguards for EU nationals living here.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is making some very pertinent points. In my constituency, the agri-food sector is important for jobs. We need workers’ rights enshrined so that those in the sector can have their jobs and immigration status retained. In some cases, people might fall through the cracks. If that is the case, we need to ensure that, even at this late stage, they can apply for and have the status they need. Does she think the Government should enshrine in legislation provisions that enable them to retain their immigration status in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so they can help our agri-food sector to grow and provide more jobs?

[Claire Hanna]

I do agree. In fact, I have been surprised to find myself in the same Lobby as the hon. Member several times today. That is how important these issues are to protecting jobs, consumers and our economy. He and I come from a place that has an emigration problem, and that problem is young people feeling the need to leave for opportunities elsewhere. That we have EU workers making their homes and paying their taxes where we live contributes to and enriches our economy, our community and our cultural lives. Everything must be done to protect those already feeling the cost of Brexit.

We spoke about the economic impact earlier, but I have spoken to EU citizens in my constituency who are already feeling the chill. Perhaps they are already being passed over for jobs or promotion because their employers do not know whether they will even be allowed to work here next year, or are asking, “Will I have to fill in lots of forms in order to continue to employ you?”

As I have said, we have covered an array of issues which have been set out very well by a number of Members, including the issue of child refugees. I do not mean this as an insult, but in many ways Conservative Members are the dog that caught the car. They have been chasing Brexit for a very long time, and now they have it. They have the numbers to get it done, and with that comes a duty to protect people from it. I do not believe that there is any good way to do Brexit, but they have those numbers, and they have that duty to take the roughest edges off it for the most vulnerable people.

[David Linden]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I agreed with much of what she said.

I refer Members to my new clause 56, entitled “Implementation period negotiating objectives: annual celebration of Europe Day”. Unfortunately it was not selected by the acting Chairman of Ways and Means—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, which is unusual for him. Members of the European Research Group, in their infinite wisdom, talk of Big Ben chiming away on 31 January, but if the Minister and the Government are serious about a strong future relationship with the European Union, it is important for them to consider our suggestion that an oral statement should be made on Europe Day, and that European flags should be flown above Government buildings.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. He has made a good point. His new clause is about celebration and recognising what we had in Europe, as opposed to the triumphant attitude of the ERG and the Brexiteers who talk of Big Ben chiming on the 31st. I was contacted by a constituent, Paul from Kilmarnock, who requested the Government not to organise a triumphant celebration because of the fear felt by so many other people about what they are losing. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who want Big Ben to sound should recognise what EU citizens will feel like on that night when we exit Europe?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s constituent Paul has made a fair point. Brexit should not be about the narrow nationalism of the European Research Group and inward-looking “little Britain” attitudes. My new clause suggests a way of expressing a more outward-looking view of the future relationship. I am sure that when the Bill goes to the other place, the Government will be able to table an amendment to that effect. However, I want to stay in order, so I shall now speak in favour of new clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and new clauses 50 and 51 and new schedule 1, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

I will not detain the Commitee for too long, but will confine my remarks to amendments relating specifically to membership of the single market and the customs union and, subsequently, those relating to workers’ rights. First, however, let me say that it is important to reflect on the new reality of where we are following the general election. Like it or not, the Conservatives must accept that their Brexit message failed in Scotland. They lost more than half their seats, and the SNP now holds 80% of the Scottish seats in the House; but, in the most undemocratic manner possible, the Tories are choosing to ignore Scottish voters by pressing ahead with their hard Brexit plans. To put it simply, we are being dictated to by a minority party in Scotland. During the election campaign, one of the Prime Minister’s more bizarre media stunts saw him drive a JCB digger through a polystyrene wall to deliver his “Get Brexit Done” message. It is now very clear that that wall represents Scotland, and that this Tory Government intend to forge ahead with their “Bulldozer Brexit”.

Like so many people in Scotland, I distinctly remember leaflets being delivered during the Scottish independence referendum campaign, imploring people to accept that a No vote was a vote to protect our rights as EU citizens and to maintain our membership of the European Union. Understandably—although it was not how I voted—many of our fellow citizens voted No in good faith, believing that that truly was the best way of protecting our EU membership. Five years on, having voted to stay in the United Kingdom, the people of Scotland now face the harsh and sad reality of our country being dragged out of the European Union by a British Government we did not vote for and by an intransigent Prime Minister who has no mandate from Scotland for this utterly reckless move.

18:30

Early on, following the Brexit result, the Scottish Government sought to compromise with the British Government to ensure that if Brexit were to be pursued, it would be done in such a way that would cause as little economic damage as possible for our nation and its people. For those of us who closely followed the consequences of the 2014 referendum, an expectation of compromise and respect was perhaps not an unrealistic ask. We were promised that, if we voted no in 2014, Scotland would not just be treated equally and with respect; we were told that we would lead the United Kingdom. When the First Minister of Scotland outlined the compromise position that would see Scotland remain in the single market and customs union, many people thought, somewhat naively, that this would be considered in good faith by the British Government.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has already referred to the document “Scotland’s Place in Europe” from 2016. We asked for that compromise to be considered with goodwill, but it was not. We were told that it was impossible. So imagine our surprise when this Prime Minister came to power and negotiated an amendment to the withdrawal agreement that gives Northern Ireland unfettered access to the single market and customs union, unquestionably putting Scotland at a competitive economic disadvantage. What we see in its starkest terms is an unequal and broken United Kingdom, with Scotland being left out in the cold. Every nation in the UK other than Scotland gets compromise for what it voted for: Northern Ireland, which voted to remain, gets access to the single market and the customs union; England, which voted for Brexit, gets Brexit; Wales, which voted for Brexit, gets Brexit; but Scotland, which voted to remain, gets economically trashed and utterly ignored.

New clause 8 is a last-ditch attempt from the SNP to make the British Government see sense and protect Scotland from the inevitable job losses after leaving the single market and customs union. The cost of leaving the single market and customs union is just too high to contemplate for Scotland. Put simply, it means up to 100,000 jobs being lost, including thousands in my own fragile constituency of Glasgow East, so I implore hon. Members on the Government Benches—particularly those from Scotland who claim to come here to stand up for Scotland—to support new clause 8. I am looking around the Chamber but I cannot actually see any Conservative Members from Scotland, but perhaps that will be no surprise.

I wish to turn now to new clause 51, which seeks to protect workers’ rights. Quite simply, the British Conservative Government cannot be trusted with workers’ rights. Let us never forget that theirs was the Government who brought forward the draconian anti-trade union legislation. Trusting the Tories with workers’ rights is akin to putting a lion in charge of an abattoir. We already know what they think: it is on public record. Take for example the current Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab). He has been attacking workers’ rights ever since he became an MP in 2010. Nine years ago, he wrote a research paper calling for

“a total opt-out from the working time directive”.

Even though the working time directive ensures that millions of workers have the right to paid holidays, time off work and guaranteed lunch and rest breaks, the current Foreign Secretary singled it out as one of 10 obstacles to British business. His paper, entitled “Escaping the Strait Jacket”, also urged the UK Government to ensure that this

“costly anti-jobs legislation cannot cause further damage to the economy”.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Is not the principle, though, whether it be on workers’ rights or anything else, that this House will be the place where the decisions on those issues will be legislated upon? Of course there are political differences on all sorts of issues. I happen to take issue with the way in which the hon. Gentleman characterises them, but that is beside the point. However, this House will decide what the workers’ rights for UK citizens should be. Surely that is the aim of this House.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is very much my concern that we have a Tory majority Government who will morph into Thatcherism on steroids over the course of the next five years. For me, the idea that we just sit back and let the Prime Minister and the current Foreign Secretary dictate what direction we take with employment rights is not a chance that I am willing to take.

[Chris Stephens]

Is it not the reality that in the last 20 years the advances in workers’ rights have come mainly from Europe? When we look at the fixed-term workers directive for those on temporary contracts or doing part-time and agency work, we see that it was not this place that was advancing the cause of those workers; it was the European Union and the European Parliament.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I think that was the very reason why 62% of people in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. They did not want workers’ rights to be controlled somehow from London.

I want to go back to what I was saying about the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton and his remarks about the working time directive and some of the “obstacles” that he identified in relation to British businesses. The fact that he did so in an article calling for a renegotiation of the UK’s future relationship with the European Union does not bode well now that he is in one of the highest offices of Government. Our hard-won workers’ rights secured from 40 years of EU membership cannot be forgotten, diluted or abolished by this right-wing neo-liberal Government whom Scotland did not vote for. I therefore urge hon. Members to support new clause 51.

Let us be honest: we know the results of tonight’s Divisions before they even take place. We need to face the truth that this majority Brexiteer Government think that Scottish voters will simply lie down while they steamroller over their interests. The choice for the people of Scotland could not be clearer, because Scotland has the unquestionable right to choose its own future. Do we stay shackled to Brexit Britain and failed Tory economics, or do we rejoin the family of European nations, which is outward-looking, progressive and treats its member states with respect, dignity and equality? Of course, the Tories often accuse the SNP of trying to break up Britain, but the reality is that it is the SNP who are driving the bulldozer. Make no mistake: the Scottish independence referendum is coming, and the passage of this legislation tomorrow will doubtless result in people taking a very different view from that in 2014.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to make a brief contribution this evening and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who reminded me of the debates that we have been having over the past three and a half years since the referendum. There was an overwhelming sense of déjà vu in that some Members who supported the remain position at the 2016 referendum have still not properly recognised that time has moved on. I was one of those who voted remain in the referendum and I, in common with many Conservative colleagues, am reconciled to the fact that the British public voted to leave, as demonstrated forcefully in the general election. The déjà vu that I am experiencing is that many of the arguments that we have heard ad nauseam for hours, days and weeks in this Chamber are still being trotted out again in this debate today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Philip Dunne]

I want to make some progress. The reason why I stood to speak this evening is that I made my maiden speech in a debate on the EU in my first month in this House 14 and a half years ago. It is therefore fitting that I should say something in this debate just before we hopefully cease debating whether we are leaving the EU this month, because that matter has now been resolved.

I want to make a specific contribution in relation to new clause 27, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I have considerable sympathy with the spirit and principles underlying the new clause, which she spoke eloquently on earlier, but the reason why I want to refer to it is to ask the Minister, in his summing up before the Committee ends this evening, how the Government intend to take account of that spirit and intent in future legislation. I recognise that it is not appropriate to adorn this Bill with commitments that have nothing to do with the withdrawal agreement per se, but they are none the less worthy in themselves.

I draw the House’s attention to the part in the Conservative manifesto, on which I was proud to stand recently, that says:

“we will legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer rights.”

We have already heard from others this evening about the existing higher level of workers’ rights that apply in the UK over and above those that are applied across the EU, and we as a Government have an ambition to maintain environmental protections in many areas at a higher level than those that currently apply across the EU.

[Debbie Abrahams]

This is not meant to sound trite, but a number of different commitments were made in different manifestos. For example, the Conservatives party’s 2015 manifesto committed to halving the disability employment gap and to introducing new starter homes, neither of which was delivered. This is about backing up commitments. If the Government are seriously committed to this—I understand that the right hon. Gentleman certainly is—what is wrong with including it in the Bill?

[Philip Dunne]

I will give one example of what is wrong with the hon. Lady’s new clause, and that is its territorial jurisdiction. I remind her that environmental protection is primarily a devolved matter. The territorial jurisdiction of the environment Bill that was in the Queen’s Speech and that will be brought before this House will relate to England primarily and, to a small extent, Northern Ireland. I am rather surprised that hon. Members representing the Scottish National party, who are here in force this evening and who have spoken before me, did not choose to raise that point.

[Alan Brown]

It is great to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is such a great defender of devolution. As a defender of devolution, does he respect the fact that the Scottish Parliament today rejected the UK Government’s legislative consent motion, and does he also respect the right of Scotland’s people to choose their future?

[Philip Dunne]

As the Prime Minister said, far more eloquently than I could, during Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Scottish people did decide in 2014 and that is the vote that should be respected by this House. [Interruption.] I am going to move back to my point rather than engage—

[David Linden]

rose—

[Philip Dunne]

I am not going to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because I know what he is going to say.

In conclusion, will the Minister, if he has the opportunity to do so, refer in his winding up speech to the environment Bill that will shortly be brought before this House and explain the extent to which the protections sought in new clause 27 are likely to be enshrined in it?

[James Duddridge]

It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). I think I will be able to reassure him throughout my contribution, particularly on non-regression issues.

We have heard a number of good speeches. In the days since the general election, I have sensed a change in tone in Parliament, an acceptance of that which is happening, and a better debate across the House about what is actually going to happen. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of laughter, or chuntering, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) would call it. I have been an offender in that sense, but I do sense a small change in tone.

I would like to speak to 21 new clauses, but I will focus my time because I understand that the House wants to make progress on the substantive new clauses, as opposed to those that are technically flawed. Some are probing new clauses—that point has been made a number of times—and I hope they are more in number than the substantive new clauses that will be pushed to a vote.

I will first speak to new clause 2, tabled by the official Opposition, and to new clause 51 and new schedule 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who has been omnipresent throughout the day. I am grateful to her for her contribution. The amendments relate to the protection of workers’ rights. As the Government have stated and the Prime Minister has confirmed, we are committed to ensuring that workers’ rights are protected as the UK leaves the EU. I want to reiterate that and add some detail. There is no suggestion that this Government would propose, or that this Parliament would allow, a change or regression in workers’ rights to make them lower than currently required by EU law. We have been clear, in fact, that we will protect and continue to improve workers’ rights. We do not need to be in the EU to do that; we can do it on our own.

[David Linden]

rose—

[James Duddridge]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, to save him from chuntering at me.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to chunter on the record. He is talking about workers’ rights and what the Government are going to do. If we are to believe the Government’s promises, we understand they will be coming by way of the employment Bill. When will that Bill be presented to the House and published?

[James Duddridge]

Very soon after the Queen’s Speech, and the timetable will come through the normal channels in the normal way. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any notice now, but if I get an inkling of when that Bill will be introduced, I will be sure to tell him as soon as I can. As he has pointed out, we announced in the Queen’s Speech that we would bring forward legislation to deliver on the good work plan and the Taylor review. It will give workers in the UK the protections that they need in a changing world; I think that there is an increasing recognition that the world of work is changing.

18:34

[Michael Tomlinson]

Is it not precisely the point that it is for this Chamber and this sovereign Parliament to pass laws? My hon. Friend has mentioned the forthcoming Bill, and this House of Commons will determine the appropriate rights. We already enjoy enhanced rights, and we do not need to be a member of the European Union to have those rights.

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for his succinct contribution. He is entirely right to say that, on this issue, we will have the freedom to determine our future. New clause 2 would require the UK to negotiate to become, effectively, a rule-taker in perpetuity. We would be subject to EU employment rules with little or no influence over their development. The type of alignment envisaged in the new clause is not necessary to maintain high standards and protection for UK workers. This Parliament has set higher standards than those in many EU directives. For example, the UK’s race and sex discrimination protections and equal pay rights were decided before we entered the EU.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I want to clarify what the Minister said about dynamic alignment. Is he saying that if rights were to be enhanced by the European Union, it would not be the Government’s intention to follow?

[James Duddridge]

No; that is not what I said, and our intention is not as the hon. Gentleman suggests. But it is for this Parliament to decide what it wants to do, rather than simply following what an outside body recommends.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister mentions the Taylor review. The European Parliament and Commission are debating similar issues and will offer something stronger than what the Government have proposed with the Taylor review. If the European Parliament goes further, will it be the UK Government’s aim at least to match what comes from the European Union?

[James Duddridge]

Later in my speech, I will highlight areas where we are going to go further. Perhaps I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again at that point if what I say does not give him sufficient reassurance. The Government are committed to delivering high standards, and I will provide a bit more detail when I come to talk about other clauses.

I turn to new clauses 3, 8 and 30, which relate to alignment with or continued membership of the EU single market and customs union. I am grateful for the confirmation that new clause 8 is a probing amendment. The Prime Minister has set out a deal, and the political declaration contains a framework for a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement. The result of the general election shows that, across the whole United Kingdom, the public support that, notwithstanding the points that have been made in the Chamber today about different areas.

That mandate did not include negotiating a customs union or maintaining the UK’s place in the single market, as proposed in the new clauses. The public want us to move on to negotiating the future relationship without any unnecessary hurdles, and that is what the Government will do. Only by leaving the EU customs union and single market will the UK be able to pursue an ambitious free trade agreement and strike new trade deals with new and existing global partners. The political declaration provides a framework for all that.

The political declaration also provides a framework for security co-operation. That will include access to the European arrest warrant, which several colleagues have mentioned, as well as to Europol and SIS II. We have committed to being involved in them, and our European partners have committed to engaging in that through the political declaration.

We have also agreed to put in place a streamlined extradition arrangement, on which we continue to work with Europol and Eurojust. Beyond that, we have agreed to look at further areas of co-operation on the exchange of information. Beyond SIS II, on the broader point raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen, it will also include Icarus.

The detail, however, means this is best done in co-operation over the period. After all, the point of the level playing field is to do this in a paced way. As a cross-cutting Minister, I have engaged on this issue with a number of Ministers who are engaged much more directly. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured as this issue rolls out, but it is not for today’s Bill, although it is a perfectly acceptable placeholder for a probing amendment.

On new clause 29, I make it clear that we want an ambitious future economic partnership with the EU that allows us to control our own laws, with the benefits of trade with other countries around the world. Adopting this amendment would prevent that. Dynamic alignment with future EU rules is not in the best interests of this country. It is here, not in Brussels, where decisions should be made on the laws that govern our country. That point has been ably made by other hon. Members.

We will maintain and uphold high standards for workers, consumers and the environment. We do not have to follow EU rules to achieve that; we can do it on our own. We have made that clear in the revised political declaration and through our commitment to introduce legislation that will enshrine those high standards in our laws.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Can the Minister confirm, as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) mentioned, that the principles of new clause 27 will be included in the environment Bill if they are not to be included in this Bill?

[James Duddridge]

Forgive me if I am not definitive and if I have not ticked off every single point, but the underlying point is that there will be no regression. We have committed to environmental rights, and I will go into more detail on how we will move ahead of what the EU is currently doing and of what it proposes to do. The answer, in spirit, is yes, but I do not want to give a resounding yes, just in case there is one comma in one part of the hon. Lady’s amendment that deviates from what we are doing.

On the broader suggestions about participation in EU funding programmes, the political declaration envisages close co-operation across a range of areas, including science—I am coming on to that—and education. The declaration already provides a possibility for programmes, which will be done during the negotiation period.

The political declaration sets out that the parties will also explore co-operation between the United Kingdom and all the appropriate EU agencies. The nature of that co-operation will be subject to negotiation.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister says we do not need to be in the EU to protect environmental standards. I know from my experience as a young civil engineer that the EU had to take a Tory Government to court to force action on cleaning up our bathing beaches across the UK. That happened purely because we were a member of the EU; otherwise we would still have raw sewage in the seas and waters around the UK.

[James Duddridge]

I will come on to the environment. If I do not answer the hon. Gentleman’s underlying point, he should feel free to intervene again.

It is good to see the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) in her place, as she tabled new clause 10. The Government secured agreement to participate in all elements of the Erasmus+ programme during the implementation period, and that will be done in the future relationship. We made it clear that we are open to maintaining and expanding co-operation in education. We strongly believe, as she does, in the value of international exchange, not just European exchange, and it is very much part of our vision for global Britain to extend that concept, rather than simply looking at the narrow area of the United Kingdom. We believe that the UK and European countries should continue to give young people and students opportunities around the world in universities and elsewhere—through other elements of Erasmus and support—post-Brexit. The political declaration envisages the possibility of UK participation in EU programmes, and we will negotiate the general terms of participation, where appropriate, throughout the implementation period. Ultimately, decisions about our participation will be a matter for wider negotiations, but we will look at all the available opportunities.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Minister mentions EU funding programmes. Scotland has been benefiting from €872 million of EU funding over the past seven years. In the highlands and islands, this is a net contribution benefit and it has changed communities across our entire area. Does the Minister have any idea, and can he give us any inkling, as to when the shared prosperity fund is going to be launched and what it will cover? Can he give us any information about that?

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the broader arena, we will be taking back control of our money and spending it as we choose. As for his specific point, those decisions will come after a cross-governmental spending review and I am more than happy to commit the Treasury to write to him with any more detail if it is available.

New clauses 16 and 46 are on economic assessments, with the latter standing in the name of Social Democratic and Labour party Members. These would require environmental and equality impact assessments. We have had a few calls for impact assessments across the board, and I have made the point about their cost a number of times. In some cases, we are already making commitments, and this would be bad government spend, for the sake of producing a report. This debate is about the Bill and exiting the EU, whereas a lot of these reports would be about the future relationship, so this Bill would be an inappropriate place to put provision for these reports, even if they were the right thing to do. It simply would not be possible to agree to publish a detailed analysis of something that has not yet been agreed. In November 2018, the Government published a detailed analysis covering a broad range of— [Interruption.]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir George Howarth)]

Order. It is a great discourtesy for people to be carrying on separate conversations when any Member of the House is speaking.

[James Duddridge]

Thank you, Sir George. I suspect that the Committee is encouraging me to make progress, and I will take the hint. I do ask Members to bear with me, because I am dealing with 21 new clauses and it is important to cover them, as they have all been tabled with seriousness and deserve the Government’s attention.

On new clause 38, the Government have been committed to publishing an objective spending analysis of the UK’s withdrawal ever since the people voted to leave the EU three and a half years ago.

On the economy, we have already spoken about the objective analysis, and I am not going to say any more on new clause 38. I will address human rights in more detail when dealing with a slightly later clause.

New clause 20 deals with mutual recognition and raises a number of important issues relating to adequacy and equivalence with the EU in a number of areas for the future relationship. The Government fully agree that in some areas it would be appropriate to agree arrangements of the sort that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) mentions. For instance, the political declaration envisages reciprocal adequacy decisions in the area of data protection. However, the Government do not believe that adequacy decisions, mutual recognition or equivalence arrangements are always in the best interests of the country, with one example being where they rely on alignment with future EU rules. Although I understand the thrust of his proposal, I do not think it is helpful to constrain the Prime Minister and his negotiating team by prescribing negotiating objectives too precisely. The Government will always listen to the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and we are particularly grateful for his stewardship of a Department that is about to come to an end as a result of the success of his work and that of many other contributors, including some fantastic civil servants and a truly exceptional Secretary of State, in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). It is always a good idea for me to be nice about my boss.

New clause 27 addresses further environmental issues. Sadly, the Government cannot support the new clause; I shall go into some detail on why. The UK is an advanced modern economy with a long history of environmental protections supported by strong legal frameworks that in some cases predate the EU. We will shortly bring forward an environment Bill that will set ambitious new domestic frameworks for environmental governance, including—crucially—the establishment of the office for environmental protection. The legislation will build on the 25-year environmental plan, which we are part-way through—admittedly, it is early on in the 25-year plan—and provide the assurances that will be upheld.

[Caroline Lucas]

On the new environment Bill and the Office for Environmental Protection, will the Minister guarantee that it really will have sharp teeth and the same enforcement powers that we have been used to seeing from the European Court of Justice? The previous environment Bill certainly did not have that kind of watchdog—it was much more of a poodle than a dog with a bark.

[James Duddridge]

There ain’t no point in having one of these things if it does not have teeth and if it does not bark and have a bit of bite, so I can commit the Government on all those points. The Government are committed to remaining a world-leader in environmental protection once we have left the UK. Leaving the EU gives us the opportunity to put the environment front and centre in our policy making.

19:00

New clause 31 relates to the European Medicines Agency and would require the appropriate authority to take the necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement that enables the UK fully to participate in the EMA after Brexit day. This is another issue that we need to consider during the implementation period; it is not for this Bill, which is plainly and simply for getting Brexit done. It is not a Bill on which to hang lots of other things. In its 21 clauses there are many areas of agreement. There are things that we support and things that were in the Queen’s Speech and the Conservative manifesto, but that does not mean that they need to be in this specific Bill.

I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) for tabling new clause 32, on Euratom, but for a number of reasons it is neither practical nor desirable to maintain the UK’s membership when we leave the EU. I am conscious of the time, so as the right hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber I am happy to write to him to detail the reasons.

I have already outlined a number of points on security, so I shall not detain the Committee with any further discussion of new clause 35.

Let me be very, very clear on new clause 45: the Government have been consistently clear that when we are negotiating trade deals, the NHS will not be on the table; the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table; and the services that the NHS provides will not be on the table.

Let me turn to the associated points on Horizon 2020. I can write to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon with the detail. I have seen the value of Horizon 2020 and I understand that it is not quite as simple as just the money; it is also about participation, and I know the hon. Lady is passionate about that. There are similar points in relation to Erasmus and the other agencies, so I will not trouble the Committee too much.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The NHS is of course devolved in Scotland. May I make a personal appeal, with which I am sure my colleagues in the Scottish National party will agree? Will the Government work as closely as possible with the Scottish Government to ensure that the laudable position that the NHS should not be for sale applies to Scotland as much as it does to the UK?

[James Duddridge]

I agree, and I am meeting with the Scottish Government tomorrow so will make that point in my first sentence.

I am conscious of the time and the fact that Members will hear from me again after two more speeches, so I shall not go into any more detail on new clause 49 because citizens’ rights have been covered quite extensively.

On observer status of the devolved Assemblies in the EU, it would be wrong, given that, as a country, we are leaving the European Union, to give special status to the devolved Assemblies. The devolved Assemblies will come out with us.

Finally, turning to new clause 50 on the charter of rights, there is no need for a report. We will maintain our human rights and liberties. They are fundamental to the European Union and nothing that we do in leaving the European Union changes that.

Sir George, I thank you and your team for standing in for this Bill. I think that there has been a change of tone in the House. I am looking forward to serving in this Parliament over the next period. I think that it is a better place, and a better place for delivering Brexit. It is now over to the House of Lords.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir George Howarth)]

Order. It is very kind of the Minister to say so, but I do not think that I can take any personal credit for the change in tone of the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

19:05

Division 10

Ayes: 255

---

Labour: 192
Scottish National Party: 46
Liberal Democrat: 11
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 344

---

Conservative: 336
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

New Clause 10

Implementation period negotiating objectives: Erasmus+

‘(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and the EU before the end of the implementation period that enables the UK to participate in all elements of the Erasmus+ programme on existing terms after the implementation period ends (“the Erasmus+ negotiations”).

(2) A Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the Erasmus+ negotiations within six months of this Act being passed.’—(Layla Moran.)

This new clause would require the Government to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the EU’s Erasmus+ education and youth programme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

19:20

Division 11

Ayes: 254

---

Labour: 193
Scottish National Party: 46
Liberal Democrat: 9
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 344

---

Conservative: 336
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

New Clause 29

Implementation period negotiating objectives: level playing-field

“(1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and EU to secure agreements that achieve the following outcomes—

(a) close alignment with the European Union single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations, with clear arrangements for dispute resolution;

(b) dynamic alignment on rights and protections for workers, consumers and the environment so that UK standards at least keep pace with evolving standards across the EU as a minimum, and;

(c) participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including for the environment, education, science, and industrial regulation.

(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on each of the outcomes listed in subsection (1) (a) to (c) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”—(Layla Moran.)

This new clause would require the UK Government to seek close alignment with the EU single market on key level playing-field provisions such as workers’ rights and environmental and consumer standards and protections as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

19:34

Division 12

Ayes: 250

---

Labour: 189
Scottish National Party: 46
Liberal Democrat: 9
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 345

---

Conservative: 336
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

The Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motions in the name of Secretary Stephen Barclay relating to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and to the motion in the name of Secretary Julian Smith relating to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act.—(Iain Stewart.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

19:48

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the announcement of the results of the election of Deputy Speakers. Before I announce the results, I would like to thank the right hon. Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) for serving as temporary Deputy Speakers.

I will now proceed to read the results. The first to be elected is Dame Eleanor Laing, who is also the first ever woman to be elected Chairman of Ways and Means. [Applause.] No clapping, whatever we do!

I will now announce the next positions. Dame Rosie Winterton was elected First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, and Mr Nigel Evans was elected Second Deputy Chairman.

I congratulate those who have been elected, and look forward to working with the new Speaker’s team. As I said earlier, this is the first time a woman has been elected to the position of Chairman of Ways and Means, so it is an historic occasion for the House.

The results of the count will be made available in the Vote Office as soon as possible, and will be published online.

[Dame Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to stand up in the Chamber, because it is my one opportunity to do so in very many years.

Let me, on behalf of all the candidates who took part in the election, thank the Clerks for the way in which they conducted it, and for the swift way in which they produced the results. Let me also thank all the other candidates for the courtesy with which the campaign—however short it may have been—was fought. And let me say to you, Mr Speaker, that you and I have worked very well together for a great many years, and I am honoured and delighted to be re-elected as part of your team. I know that you intend to do a lot to bring this place into the 21st century and restore faith in our democracy, and I look forward to doing all that I can to help you.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

19:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves, for the purposes of section 2(2)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, the report made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union under section 2(1) of that Act, published on 8 November 2019 titled “Report under section 2(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019”.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we may take the following motion:

That this House, for the purposes of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has considered the statement made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union under section 13(4) of that Act on 8 November 2019 titled “Statement under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.

[James Duddridge]

In a bid to improve my popularity, Mr Speaker, I will be very brief, and, following speeches from the Front Benchers and a few others, we should be able to conclude the debate quickly.

The Government were required by law to table these motions, which relate to a report and statement published by the Government on 8 November 2019. Last October, Parliament failed to approve the revised deal negotiated by the Prime Minister. That triggered a requirement for the Government to seek an extension of the article 50 period to 31 January, which in turn triggered reporting requirements under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. The statement outlined how the Government proposed to proceed in the light of the House of Commons vote in October. A report for the purposes of section 2 was also published, explaining what progress had been made in negotiations on the UK’s relationship with the EU. Both are available on gov.uk, and are also in the Vote Office.

Let me add, for the benefit of Members who have not read the documents, that they make it clear that the Government have no further plans to change the terms of the withdrawal agreement regarding our exit on 31 January. The reason is quite simple: we will be leaving the European Union with the Prime Minister’s deal at the end of this month.

19:53

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am conscious that the House likes nothing more than an opportunity to debate our departure from the European Union, and I shall make some fairly brief remarks in response to what the Minister has said.

We are having this debate because of the Opposition’s success in the previous Parliament, when we worked closely with colleagues in all parties—including Conservative Members—to secure a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, and to prevent a no-deal Brexit. It is not just those on our side of the House who have benefited from the provisions in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and from the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Members from across the House were given the opportunity to question Ministers on the various withdrawal agreements and, indeed, to vote them down three times. Those who participated in those votes are well represented here. They included the Prime Minister, who is not.

The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, which we have been debating over the past two days, repeals both section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the Benn Act in its entirety. I do not want to repeat the debate that we have been having or pre-empt the exciting debate that we can anticipate tomorrow on Third Reading, but it is disappointing that the Government have refused to accept a single one of the many sensible and constructive amendments to the Bill that were tabled. We will not oppose the motions today, but I would say that with Parliament’s role in ratifying the withdrawal agreement soon to be completed, it is deeply regrettable that the Government have used the withdrawal agreement Bill to undermine parliamentary democracy so severely by reducing our role in overseeing the negotiations on the future relationship. If anybody thinks that the past few years of negotiating the first stages of our departure from the European Union have been difficult, that will be nothing compared with the negotiations yet to come. The decisions over our future relationship with the EU will have consequences for generations, and this is not the time to lock Parliament out of decision making or diminish our role in scrutinising the Government.

Securing Parliament’s role in the first phase of the negotiations was dragged out of the Government kicking and screaming, both through the Supreme Court and by votes in this place. The right response for a Government after an election in which they won a clear majority of seats but failed to win a majority of votes would be to move forward with humility and attempt to build consensus, so I am disappointed that instead they are responding by threatening the judiciary and excluding Parliament. We have seen over the past few years that the Government will do all they can to avoid their responsibilities to Parliament, up to and including proroguing Parliament to avoid obligations in the legislation under consideration now. I hope that Conservative Members will reflect on whether voting to lock themselves out of any influence over the Brexit process fulfils the ambition of parliamentary sovereignty for which so many of them have argued over the previous few years.

19:57

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I want to contribute briefly to the debate. It is quite right that there is a bit of a sombre and reflective mood in the House as we consider these motions, because they are the legacy of the cross-party efforts that were made during the last Parliament to ensure and secure as much scrutiny as possible of the Government’s Brexit proposals. Given that the whole point of Brexit, as we heard earlier today, is supposed to be about taking back control and the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty, it was absolutely right that those efforts were made. We should pay tribute to those Members, many of whom are not here any more, whose legacy is still being felt as a result of the Grieve amendment in 2018 and the Benn Act in 2019. I also want to pay tribute to my former colleague Stephen Gethins, who was part of so much of that cross-party co-operation.

The establishment of those amendments and that legislation pushed the boundaries and set new precedents, and they are going to be particularly important in the post-Brexit world in holding this Executive to account for the power grab that they are now perpetrating through the Bill that we have discussed today. It is right, as we go through the remaining stages of the Brexit legislative process, that the mood is one of reflection and consideration and not one of triumphalism or of the bombast that we hear from the Maastricht rebels and the European Research Group on the Government side of the House. They might want Big Ben to chime at 11 pm on 31 January, although I am not sure they will be successful with that request. Perhaps they should not be, because we know the trouble that Brexit is going to bring. They might want to reflect, as they continue with their campaign, on the old admonishment: do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 13(6)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Resolved,

That this House, for the purposes of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has considered the statement made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union under section 13(4) of that Act on 8 November 2019 titled “Statement under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.—(James Duddridge.)

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

20:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Report pursuant to section 3(5) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was laid before this House on Thursday 19 December.

I am taking this debate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is currently in Belfast in talks with the Northern Ireland parties and working towards getting Stormont back up and running.

On 18 December, the Northern Ireland Office published on gov.uk a report setting out the latest position on progress on Executive formation, transparency of political donations, higher education and a Derry/Londonderry university, presumption of non-prosecution and troubles prosecution guidance, and the abortion law review. The Northern Ireland Office has laid copies of that report in both Houses now that Parliament has returned. Copies of all the previous reports are available on gov.uk. It was the seventh and final report published on these issues in line with our obligations under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.

It is this Government’s absolute priority to get Stormont back up and running before the 13 January deadline. Colleagues across the House understand the issues at stake here. Failure to restore the institutions will raise difficult and urgent decisions about the future governance of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State remains in Belfast today to facilitate talks. All five party leaders remain positively engaged in the process, and our assessment is that it remains possible but challenging for the parties to secure a political agreement before the deadline. We all recognise how closely the deadline is looming. If 13 January passes without agreement, the Secretary of State will fall under a legal obligation to call an Assembly election. I am hopeful that, as we have heard in previous debates of this nature, Members from all parties will join me in urging the parties to come to an accommodation so that a restored Assembly and Executive can get on with resolving the real challenges that continue to frustrate the daily lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

Turning to the abortion report, the Government are working towards the laying of regulations for a new legal framework for the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland, as required by the 2019 Act. The new framework will be in force by 31 March 2020. Women and girls who are seeking access to services in the meantime can do so in England free of charge, with all costs of the procedure, including travel and, where needed, accommodation, paid for by the Government. Arrangements can be made by contacting the central booking service, and we have published the contact telephone number and the services provided on gov.uk.

The public consultation on the legal framework for the provision of such services closed on 16 December. During the consultation period, officials continued engaging with health professionals, individuals who have been affected by the law, civil society organisations, and women’s groups—including Doctors for Choice, Alliance for Choice, Here NI and the Women’s Resource and Development Agency—on the proposals set out in the consultation document. We are currently analysing the responses, having received good levels of engagement from many different viewpoints. As was made clear in earlier debates and, indeed, the foreword to the consultation, we were seeking views on the question of how the framework can best be delivered in Northern Ireland, not on whether the reform should be happening.

The Government’s response to the consultation will be published in due course. We are happy to continue discussions with interested parties as the regulations are taken forward in line with the requirement under section 9 of the Act that the recommendations of the 2018 UN CEDAW Report are implemented in respect of Northern Ireland by 31 March 2020. The Government will continue to abide by our legal obligations.

On the presumption of non-prosecution and troubles prosecution guidance, reforming the legacy system in Northern Ireland remains a top priority for the UK Government. We will always owe a vast debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of the soldiers and police officers who upheld the rule of law and were themselves accountable to it. The Government are strongly opposed to our service personnel and veterans being subject to the threat of vexatious litigation in the form of repeated investigations and potential prosecution arising from historical military operations many years after the events in question.

The Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed about how the current system is operating in Northern Ireland and are committed to seeking the prompt implementation of the Stormont House agreement proposals on legacy in order to provide both reconciliation for victims and greater certainty for military veterans. Any legislation that improves the legacy system in Northern Ireland will need to be agreed by the UK Parliament and have the support of a restored Northern Ireland Executive. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working closely with ministerial colleagues, the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government to that end.

We take very seriously the issue of transparency of donations to Northern Ireland parties. Northern Ireland parties are now subject to the same reporting requirements as other parties across the UK. That is a significant step forward, but the question of retrospectively opening up records from 2014 remains genuinely difficult. At a time when threats to elected representatives are all too common, we must be very careful that anything we do should not lead to intimidation against members of the public who donated to parties. We will consult the Northern Ireland parties in due course on any future change to the legislation, but I hope the House will understand that for now our focus must remain on securing agreement to restore devolved government to the people of Northern Ireland.

On higher education and a Derry/Londonderry university, there has been no progress since the last report on the subject, which was laid on 4 December. No business case has been submitted, so we are not able to assess proposals. The Government have been clear on their commitment to turbo-charging the economy and levelling up all regions across the UK. The Derry and Strabane city deal and the inclusive future fund, which formed a £105 million economic package for the north-west, is further evidence of that commitment. We are aware of the support that exists for the extension of higher education provision in the north-west, and this is another example of a project in Northern Ireland facing barriers due to the lack of devolved government. Restoring the Executive would remove blockages and, with Executive approval, allow funding to be unlocked for expanding higher education provision in the north-west.

Turning to payments to victims of troubles-related incidents, in October the Government launched a public consultation on a scheme for regular payments to, or in respect of, individuals living with serious disablement caused by troubles-related incidents. The proposed scheme is intended to provide acknowledgment to those injured in troubles-related incidents through no fault of their own. The consultation closed on 26 November. Responses are being carefully considered and will inform final decisions regarding the scheme. The consultation proposed not to make payments to individuals with a criminal conviction directly related to the incident in which they sustained the injury. We will make regulations by the end of January, as specified in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. The scheme will then be open for applications no later than the end of May 2020. Victims injured through no fault of their own deserve this form of acknowledgment and measure of additional financial support, which is a core element of the Stormont House agreement proposals to help address the legacy of the troubles. It remains vital that we make progress on this and related matters.

The Government are also under a duty to make regulations to provide for same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships in Northern Ireland by 13 January 2020. On 23 December 2019 the Northern Ireland Office laid regulations before Parliament that mean that, from next week, on 13 January, same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships will be lawful in Northern Ireland. Couples will therefore be able to register their intent to enter into such a relationship, with a minimum 28-day notice period required. Therefore, as previously stated, we expect ceremonies will be able to take place during the week of Valentine’s Day.

There are still two key issues on which we will be seeking the views of the people of Northern Ireland before we legislate further, namely same-sex religious marriage, together with the appropriate protections, and the right to convert from a civil partnership to a marriage, and vice versa. We want to consult on both matters in order to ensure that the legislation takes proper account of the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland and provides adequate religious protections. The consultation will seek views from religious bodies and individuals on how religious same-sex marriage will be provided for in Northern Ireland, and how protections can best be achieved. We also want to get the right approach for conversion entitlements for Northern Ireland, given the different approaches taken across the rest of the UK. The Government hope to be able to launch a short consultation on those two issues from mid-January, and we will bring forward regulations as soon as we are able to do so in 2020.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity not only to discuss these important matters but, more importantly, to hear from Northern Ireland Members, and I recognise the sincere and deeply held views on some of the topics discussed. In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s undiminished commitment to see Stormont back up and running again. Northern Ireland needs its own locally elected representatives making decisions on local issues and making Northern Ireland’s voice heard across the UK.

20:08

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Minister on making a 20-minute speech in just over eight minutes? He has been on his feet all day. This is an important report and he has raised a number of important issues.

I will begin where the Minister began. I hope he will at least be able to help the House in response to some of my questions. Under the legislation that this House passed to provide safe and legal abortion for women in Northern Ireland, the UK Government are obliged to make provision for that service in Northern Ireland by 31 March. As the Minister told the House, the consultation on the matter has concluded. Will he guarantee that if the House has to discharge that legislative duty, the consultation will be brought to the House in time for us to examine the results before taking the necessary legislative steps? I hope we recognise that by that time, the Stormont Assembly may well be back in operation, and if the Assembly were to legislate contrary to the UK Government’s establishment of a process for safe and legal abortion, our efforts would have been futile. I ask for the establishment of the closest possible working relationship between the Westminster Government and a newly formed Executive in Stormont to ensure a smooth transition, so that we can deliver to the women of Northern Ireland what the House dictated: safe and legal abortion from 1 April.

The Minister spoke about the prosecution of those who perpetrated violence during the troubles. I quote from the report that is before the House tonight, in which the UK Government quite rightly say that they

“will continue to seek better ways of dealing with legacy issues that provide better outcomes for victims and survivors”.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about the potential for payment to victims of the troubles. That is right and proper. Many of those who suffered are no longer with us—some of them for obvious reasons, but some simply because of the passage of time—so they cannot avail themselves of any compensation, but a group of people depend on progress being made in this area. The Minister’s words will be welcome, but we need to see real progress.

Of course, outcomes for victims and survivors include, where appropriate, the prosecution of those who have perpetrated violence against them or their families; that is a legitimate demand. Although we want, as the Minister rightly said, to avoid vexatious prosecutions, let us be absolutely clear that we in this House are not turning our back on the rule of law. Those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes, such as murder and manslaughter, must still face the full force of the law. There can be no statute of limitations that provides an artificial form of protection, because that would be unacceptable to the House and the public and incompatible with our obligations under international law.

I move on briefly to an allied question—payments for victims of institutional abuse. The Minister may not be able to give me a full answer tonight, but it would be helpful to see what the process of payments for victims of such abuse will look like. The Opposition were very happy to work with the Government on the matter before Christmas. Generally speaking, I am against the overly rapid emergence of legislation, because it can cause problems later on, but we quite rightly conspired to insist that that legislation was put on the statute book before the House was dissolved for the general election.

We now need to know how that process is working out. Where are we up to with interim payments for victims of institutional abuse? Where are we with the creation of a redress board to develop a well-worked formula for those who suffered, some of them because of the incompetence of the statutory authorities and some, sadly, at the hands of those who were there to offer care?

One way or another, our society owes support to what is now an ageing population. Their numbers are decreasing day by day, and I hope the Minister can give us some satisfaction.

The Minister may not be totally apprised of the question of business rates, which has emerged in recent hours. The announced business rate revaluation seemingly results in severe increases in payments, particularly for certain parts of retail, small shops and the pub and hotel trade. There will ultimately be an obligation on a reformed Assembly to deal with this issue, but I would like the Minister to take on board the fact that this can have a detrimental impact.

Looking to our own constituencies, most Members know that a small shop, a pub or a hotel can be central to keeping our town centres and communities alive. It is important in my constituency and it is obviously important in Northern Ireland that we have some sense of proportion in any change to business rates.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

One issue that the Minister did not mention is that of those born in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish and as Irish citizens, and therefore as European Union citizens, as exemplified by the DeSouza case. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is now time that the report promised on the Floor of the House by the previous Prime Minister, and which many of us have asked for, is presented and put in the Library?

[Tony Lloyd]

The hon. Member is absolutely right in his demand. The DeSouza case shames us as a society. We ought to resolve the issue not only for that particular couple—I have met them, of course—but more generally. This matters to those who consider themselves to be Irish. It is part of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and it is something to which every party in this House is committed. We ought to make sure that our obligations are translated into something of practical value to the DeSouza campaign. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Health service pay in Northern Ireland has now reached crisis proportions. A hospital porter or cleaner in Northern Ireland, for example, is paid a wage of some £16,943, whereas their comparator in England and Wales is on £17,650, some £700 more—the pay is better again in Scotland. I could go through the situation for healthcare assistants and administrative workers, and it is the same for nurses and paramedics.

The Minister used senior nurses as a reference point. A senior nurse in Scotland, England and Wales is paid £30,401 a year, whereas a senior nurse in Northern Ireland is paid significantly less, £27,772, which cannot be acceptable. I know of nobody who accepts that there is justification for that position. None of the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly accepts that position, and the Opposition do not accept that position. This has to be resolved.

The Minister began by saying that the Secretary of State is in Belfast to try to make sure that the all-party talks come to fruition so that we see the Assembly restored, which is the conclusion we all want to see. If it happens, the Minister can say that the issue will be translated over to the Assembly, as is right and proper. However, I warn him that if the Assembly is not back up and running in a short time, and if we face the possibility of prolonged delay for an election, it will be incumbent upon the Westminster Government to look at the situation. Those nurses, administrative workers, hospital porters and cleaners should not have to wait for an indefinite amount of time in the future, particularly given that, almost uniquely, nurses have gone on strike because of the length of time they have faced this disparity of income and unfairness. It is always convenient for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to say, “This really ought to be a devolved issue”, but this is not necessarily a devolved issue. Clearly, if the Assembly is back up and running, there is a strong argument that it should be resolved by the Assembly, as long as the resource base is there for it to make those pay increases. If the Assembly is not up and running, the legal basis exists for this to be delivered by Whitehall and the Westminster Government. I am happy to go through that with the Minister and the Secretary of State in due course. It is important that the signal is given now to people in the health service in Northern Ireland that their long struggle for fairness will shortly come to a conclusion.

I will conclude with one further remark. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Wales became a grandmother this morning. Her grandchild Jesse Kearney has an Irish father and a Welsh mother—a mother from Great Britain. I would like to believe that the Jesse Kearney generation will grow up in a world very different from the one we have at the moment. I hope they will grow up in one where we have a robust Stormont Assembly and system of governance in Northern Ireland, one that allows us to put the history we are talking about tonight, be it the history of violence or the legacy of abuse, so far in the past that a generation can grow up in hope, in a transformed society. That is what this House has to be about, and it is why we cannot have excuses from those on the Treasury Bench or from the parties in Stormont. We now have to see the Secretary of State’s genuine efforts, which I applaud, brought to a conclusion so that Northern Ireland can begin to move forward again with a properly working Assembly, which can begin to deliver the transformation it needs not simply for hospital workers, but for the people of Northern Ireland.

20:22

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this debate for several reasons. I applaud the fact that the Minister is here for this debate and the Secretary of State is not; that is not something we usually say, but given the task the Secretary of State is engaged with and his focus on it, it is welcome. I share the Minister’s hope that the talks conclude with a positive outcome and that prior to next Monday’s deadline an agreement will be reached to secure the Executive in Northern Ireland, as devolved government is unquestionably the right long-term solution for Northern Ireland. I listened carefully to what he said about the options available to the Secretary of State, but I think that the Government, this House and all the parties in Northern Ireland, more of which are now represented in this House than was the case prior to December’s election, collectively owe a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that that part of the United Kingdom is properly governed. I say to the Minister and to the parties in Northern Ireland that if by next Monday we do not see an ability to restore the Stormont Executive, I do not think, for reasons I will set out in a moment, that either option of kicking the can down the road by extending the deadline or having another Assembly election will be up to the task. I fear that we will be confronting a binary choice of getting the Assembly up and running or having, to some extent, Executive decisions taken by Ministers accountable to this House.

Let me just set out one area where I think that is necessary, and here I pick up from what the shadow Secretary of State said. I agree with what he said about the important health workforce issues in Northern Ireland. The fact that nurses there are on strike is incredibly regrettable, but worse is the performance of the health service.

Let us look at two particular factors. One is the length of time for which people are waiting for treatment. In the most recent set of statistics for England, 1,233 people were waiting more than a year for treatment—to see a consultant. I understand that in Northern Ireland—I do not think I need to elaborate on the difference in population sizes to many Members—the number of people waiting for more than a year to see a consultant is 103,000. That is more than a third of all the people waiting for health treatment. The cancer waiting times mean that a fifth of those people who receive a cancer diagnosis receive that diagnosis in the emergency department of a hospital. I do not know what the precise statistics are, but it seems likely that thousands of people are therefore dying unnecessarily because they are not receiving timely health treatment.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the lack of devolved government in Northern Ireland—with Ministers accountable to the people of Northern Ireland and able to take the necessary decisions to reform the health service, implement pay awards, recruit the necessary staff and make sure that the health service is running efficiently—is leading directly to the unnecessary deaths of people in Northern Ireland. If we are unable to see the re-establishment of a Stormont Executive and Assembly next week, we cannot in good conscience allow the situation to continue if it means the early deaths of citizens of part of our own country.

Ministers and the Government are going to be faced with a very difficult decision. If we do not see a restored Executive and Assembly, it is not going to be a realistic option—unless we are literally on the cusp of an agreement—just to kick the can down the road again and extend the deadline or have elections. I have looked carefully at the result of the general election in Northern Ireland and how it compares to the result of the most recent Assembly election. When I look at the difference in performance of the relevant political parties, it does not seem to me that there is anything about an Assembly election taking place in the present political circumstances that would lead to an outcome that would enable the formation of an Executive after such an election, which cannot take place next week.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

While the right hon. Gentleman is elaborating on that point, does he agree that, however much people might relish an election, if one were to be held in the current context, it is difficult to see that the exposition of the problems we have faced over the past three years would change to any degree either before, during or after such an election?

[Mr Harper]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I have looked at the balance of opinion on the political parties and it seems to me that although the exact number of seats they have would differ, the broad order of ranking would not change. It also seems to me that there is a danger that an election would cause people to dig in further on the contentious issues—on which I shall not elaborate—that are preventing the coming together of the political parties to form an Executive and get the Assembly up and running. People would be less capable of the necessary compromises because parties would have staked out positions in an election campaign.

To the Minister and my valued colleagues from Northern Ireland, all I can say is that we are approaching a decision point at which, if the parties in Northern Ireland are unable to re-establish an Executive and an Assembly, I fear that the Government, at least in the short term, are going to have to come to the House with a proposition on the necessity of some level of direct rule by Westminster Ministers. I completely agree that that is not the right long-term solution for Northern Ireland but, for the reasons I have set out—even if for no reason other than the performance of the health service, which is close to falling over—we cannot in good conscience allow that situation to continue. The shadow Secretary of State set out some other relevant issues.

My second and final point is to ask the Minister whether he is able to furnish the House with any further details about progress on the legacy prosecution issues. I noticed in the report that, during the general election campaign, officials were continuing to work through options. I recognise from what he said earlier that what he can say is probably limited because obviously we would want to make progress only with the agreement of a re-established Executive and Assembly. Therefore, I accept that he will not be able to set out any details, but I was hoping that he could at least set out the progress that had been made in exploring the options. I would also like some hint of a timetable so that, if we were able to establish devolved Government again, we could learn how quickly the Government could make progress on bringing forward a scheme to resolve those legacy issues around prosecutions. Clearly, for those individuals who are directly affected—whether in live cases or in their worry about the future—some understanding of how quickly those issues can be brought to a conclusion would be welcomed.

Those are the two issues that I wanted to bring in front of the Minister and the House. I also wanted to set them out in front of colleagues from Northern Ireland, because we are approaching a very grave point where I fear that we may have to take decisions with some very significant consequences for the future.

20:31

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

People in Northern Ireland and further afield will be watching this closely with great hopes for progress. It seems that there is the potential for progress, but time is running very short. There is no doubt that people in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, have paid the price of an absence of devolved government. This is now the best and perhaps the final opportunity to restore these institutions, so it is critical that every effort is made to secure a deal.

That deal will not come without significant effort and without compromise from all of those involved. There is an indication that a joint paper will be published by the two Governments later in the week. The movements of the Secretary of State are welcome, because we need to be clear that the consequences of not securing a deal before 13 January could be much more profound than simply another Stormont election. We know that the Secretary of State previously suggested that, in the continued absence of a Government at Stormont and with Brexit requiring significant Executive direction, a return to some form of direct rule will be required. We have heard from the Opposition spokesperson who has expressed similar thoughts. Any return of direct rule would undermine previous political and peace agreements, and that would be most regrettable.

The Scottish Government are absolutely committed to all the institutions of the Good Friday agreement and to making sure that their stability and the stability of the peace process is not undermined amidst the Brexit chaos. I am sure that the Minister knows that both the EU and the US Congress have said that there will not be a free trade agreement with the UK if Brexit in any way undermines the integrity of the peace process.

Just like in Scotland, the recent general election has again reinforced the Northern Ireland electorate’s choice to back parties that wish to retain EU membership. It is wrong and undemocratic that Brexit is being imposed on Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is absolutely crucial that the UK Government respect the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland and the pillars of the peace process. They must find ways to avoid interfering with the delicate balance of these relationships, which have been so hard won.

As part of a deal to restore Stormont, it has been widely speculated that Northern Ireland businesses would receive Brexit mitigation and, indeed, Northern Ireland business organisations have said that they will seek more than £100 million to mitigate the effects on the economy. We do not begrudge that financial help, but if there is to be a Brexit mitigation package for Northern Ireland, that is an admission of the costs to business and communities, so such a fund must also be replicated in Scotland.

Indeed, as part of the Prime Minister’s deal, Northern Ireland firms will already have access to the European single market, which is denied to Scottish businesses, and that risks placing them at a major competitive disadvantage. If we reflect briefly on the last Parliament, the UK Government failed to ensure that the funds handed to the DUP were subject to the Barnett formula, which again meant that Scotland’s budget was denied more than £3 billion.

This debate will be of interest to viewers in Northern Ireland in particular. As has been discussed, some of those viewers may well be nurses, who perhaps would usually be on shift, but today are on strike. That strike of nurses in Northern Ireland today is absolutely testament to the need for decisions to be made locally. People in other places might be unaware of the strike, or they might be unaware of the unprecedented nature of the strike, which is in protest against pay and staffing levels that the nurses say are unsafe. There is no doubt at all that the lack of government and political direction is deepening the crisis in Northern Ireland’s public services and their capacity to deliver for people. For example, the latest hospital waiting time figures show that nearly 300,000 people in Northern Ireland are waiting for a first appointment with a consultant; that represents a sixth of the whole population. On average, there is a four-year wait for knee and hip operations.

These issues are incredibly serious, and only a functioning and devolved Government are capable of tackling them. It cannot be left to a dysfunctional and disinterested UK Government to do so. That prospect in itself must give renewed impetus to all the parties involved in the talks to do everything they can to ensure that they come to a compromise, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can be rewarded through the return of their own Government. Previous talks have overcome divisions much more significant than the issues currently blocking progress, so we know that this can be done, and it really must.

20:36

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Pages 9 and 10 of the report we are considering address the Northern Ireland Office’s consultation on new abortion regulations for Northern Ireland. In addressing this subject, it is important to remember that abortion is a devolved policy competence in Northern Ireland and has been for almost 100 years. In 2016, the democratically-elected Northern Ireland Assembly voted by a straightforward, cross-community majority not to change its abortion law in any way. In this context, the Government were absolutely right—as the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), stated on a number of occasions in this place when abortion in Northern Ireland was raised—that this is a devolved matter for a restored Northern Ireland Assembly to consider. However, that was—sadly, in my view, as I stated at the time—ignored by the 2017-19 Parliament, which went ahead and passed the provision that the Government are now required to introduce by 31 March this year: a new legal framework for abortion law for Northern Ireland, under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.

To that end, the Government very promptly launched a consultation in November. Having looked at the consultation and the questions that it asked, I was deeply concerned by its width and breadth. It was much wider than section 9 strictly requires, raising concerns in my mind about possible changes to abortion law in Northern Ireland going much further than section 9 anticipated. I urge Ministers not to take this course of action when the final regulations are published, and I will now go into some detail on the matter.

The consultation made references to clinicians not being involved in abortion procedures on the grounds of conscience—something that has been respected, certainly here, for over 50 years. I know that a number of clinicians in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned that their right to conscientiously object to engagement in abortion treatment procedures may not be given the same respect that it has here. There were also references in the consultation questionnaires to “exclusion zones”—the subject of a consultation here not long ago, in response to which, after consideration, the then Home Secretary decided to take no action.

Section 9(4) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act says:

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make whatever other changes to the law of Northern Ireland appear to”

him

“to be necessary or appropriate for the purpose of”

implementing paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW—convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—report. The CEDAW report—I will not go into the debate that we had on more than one occasion in this place about the authority of that report—requires abortion to be legalised on three grounds. It says that Northern Ireland law should be amended to provide abortion on expanded grounds in “at least” these three circumstances: “rape and incest”;

“severe fetal impairment, including fatal fetal abnormality”;

and

“threat to the pregnant woman’s physical or mental health.”

However, having read the consultation and, as I say, considered the very wide questions that have been raised within it, I am deeply concerned that the abortion framework that may be proposed by the Northern Ireland Office might go far beyond those three circumstances. For example, it may allow for access to abortion on request for any reason up to 12 weeks’ gestation, and then up to 24 weeks, on the basis of the standard in the rest of Great Britain under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967. That standard, which goes wider than the CEDAW report proposes, is

“that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family”.

Speaking as someone who has for a number of years engaged on this subject as chair of the all-party pro-life group—although I realise that we are currently in a situation where all the all-party groups have to be reinstated—I know that that standard has effectively led to abortion on request. I am not aware of a single case in the past 10 years where a woman who has requested abortion in England and Wales has been denied one for failing to reach that standard. The CEDAW report does not require it to be introduced in Northern Ireland; nor, as I say, does it make reference to the conscience clause or exclusion zones.

May I urge the Minister to consider that it is possible for the Northern Ireland Office to adopt a much more restrictive standard than the one proposed in the consultation document, while fulfilling the requirements of section 9? If the Government are to act consistently with their many-times-stated commitment to respect devolution, I would have thought it made sense for them to introduce a new regulatory framework that departs from previous Northern Ireland abortion regulations only to the degree that the 2017-19 Parliament insisted on, but no further.

Of course, I recognise that the use of the words “at least” in the CEDAW report does not prevent the Government from going further, but I suggest to the Minister that the words “necessary or appropriate” in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 do so. I urge him to consider that as well as, obviously, the spirit of devolution and the fact that when that Act was voted on just a few months ago, every single member of the 2017-19 Parliament who represented a Northern Ireland constituency in Westminster voted against it. Law change has been imposed on Northern Ireland by a coalition of MPs representing seats in England, Scotland and Wales. I think that is inappropriate and wrong, and I said so at the time. Indeed, I said that I felt that the whole clause was out of scope—but I appreciate that you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr Speaker.

In closing, I want to ask one or two specific questions of the Minister. The Government have reported, as he mentioned in his opening remarks, that the consultation document has been produced after discussion with a range of stakeholders. Yesterday, in the other place, Lord Duncan of Springbank said:

“Discussions with interested parties will continue as the regulations are taken forward”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 January 2020; Vol. 801, c. 152.]

I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to me to let me know which stakeholders were involved prior to publication of the consultation document, whether there were any others apart from those he mentioned in his opening remarks and who the interested parties will be in discussions with the Government on the regulations.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is making a very good speech. I have been chair of the disability all-party parliamentary group for the last two parliamentary terms, and I have been contacted by the Don’t Screen Us Out community, who are particularly concerned about the scope of the regulations and the impact on families with Down’s syndrome children. I hope that the Minister will comment on whether there has been consultation with that group, because, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree, that would be very helpful.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that really important point. It is because I am so concerned about a number of issues relating to these proposals, and I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to respond to our specific points today, I wonder whether he would be willing to meet me, the hon. Lady and other concerned colleagues about the potential extent of these changes. I also hope that he will reflect on the appropriateness of bringing forward proposals that do not undermine devolution any more than section 9 requires.

[Mr Robin Walker]

Given that I may have very limited time to respond in detail at the end of the debate, I want to say that I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) to discuss these matters further.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for that.

Lord Duncan said yesterday in the other place:

“There has been no registered growth in illegal or back-street abortions in Northern Ireland”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 January 2020; Vol. 801, c. 172]—

since the current law was repealed in October. Can the Minister confirm how the Government know this and that doctors are not carrying out abortions, since there is no requirement for them to notify the Government or the Northern Ireland Department of what they might or might not be doing at the present time?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a maiden speech from Carla Lockhart.

20:47

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his update. I count it an honour and a privilege to stand in this place today—the mother of all Parliaments—to make my maiden speech as the first ever female MP to represent the good people of the Upper Bann constituency.

I want to begin by thanking all those constituents who voted for me on 12 December. They have placed their trust in me, and I want to say thank you to them. I will be a champion for them, and I will not let them down. I promise to be a strong and articulate voice for all within my constituency. I am an unapologetic Unionist, but I commit to working hard and delivering for all the people in Upper Bann.

I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr David Simpson. David was a strong advocate for Upper Bann and, indeed, Northern Ireland. He served with distinction in this House for over 14 years. I wish David and his family well in his retirement from this place.

I started my political career at the age of 21 as a local councillor representing Lurgan and progressed to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016. My passion for politics and the Union started when I was much younger. I had the privilege of growing up right in the very heart of Ulster in a working-class family, and I am proud of the roots and the grounding that I have. Growing up near the border with the Republic of Ireland and knowing many families who had loved ones murdered, I was always very aware of the troubles in Northern Ireland and why we had such a love for the Union and our British way of life.

My early influencers were two men who served in this House with honour and integrity over many years: the late Lord Bannside and the right hon. Peter Robinson, the former MP for Belfast East—someone who has been a constant source of encouragement to me. I have a long way to go before I can even get close to the level of impact that they made in this House. Both defended the Union and stood up for Northern Ireland with every fibre of their body, and in that same vein I too will do just that.

It is with regret that I do not sit on these Benches with the former DUP Member for Belfast South and my party’s deputy leader, the former Member for Belfast North, the right hon. Nigel Dodds. He is an extremely capable orator and someone who contributed greatly to this House. It is unfortunate that Belfast North has now no representation on these Benches.

It is no secret that Northern Ireland has had its difficulties in the past, but I am proud of our wee country. It is the best place on earth, with Upper Bann being at its very heart. Lurgan, Portadown, Banbridge, Craigavon and the surrounding villages have their own unique offering, be it tourism, commerce or hospitality. The people are what make it a special place, and if any hon. Members have not visited my constituency they are more than welcome to come and see that it is a great place in which to live, work and do business.

I have always longed to make a difference in society and make it a brighter, better place for future generations. Northern Ireland suffered greatly at the hands of terrorism, and we do not want to return to those days. We want a peaceful, prosperous society and one that is moving forward. We have moved on from those dark days in Northern Ireland. We want to see investment, improved healthcare provision, a better education system and improved infrastructure.

To that end, I will endeavour to use this position to achieve just that. I want to see changes to our special educational needs provision, and I want to tackle the escalating mental health crisis that exists within our society. Our suicide figures are still among the highest within the United Kingdom. This needs to be tackled urgently, and I along with colleagues will work with the Secretary of State.

I now move to the motion at hand, and particularly the report concerning abortion. I feel it is imperative that I speak on this to attempt again to highlight the anger, disappointment and frustration concerning the change in abortion laws that have been foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland. These changes came in the most roughshod way, with complete contempt for the devolved Administration and the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I want today to make the point to this House, on behalf of the many thousands of people across Northern Ireland who take a pro-life stance, that we want to repeal section 9 with immediate effect and allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to debate, discuss and evidence-gather on this emotive issue.

The Secretary of State has not intervened to assist our crumbling healthcare system, to reward our healthcare workers fairly or to avert the mental health crisis we are facing. He has not done that because he has said that these, in his own words, are “devolved issues”. Abortion was and should be a devolved matter, yet this House has imposed on Northern Ireland the most extreme measures of abortion anywhere across Europe.

Northern Ireland has been a country that has always supported life-affirming laws. Back in 1967, our politicians said no to the Abortion Act, and according to research conducted by Both Lives Matter, 100,000 more people are alive today. England and Wales back then did support the Act, and as a result over 8 million babies have been aborted—three every minute, 23 every hour or 561 every day, with only a small percentage of them being aborted on the grounds of sexual crime or fatal foetal abnormality.

Great credence has been given to the CEDAW report, and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned the three instances. However, we believe that the abortion framework that looks likely to be proposed by the Northern Ireland Office will go far beyond allowing abortion on these grounds. It is my understanding that no consultation will take place on the legislative text of the regulations. With regard to abortion, it is well known that the detail of the text is crucial. The ask on that is that at least we as parliamentarians are consulted before the specific text is laid, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to meet those Members who are concerned in that regard.

In Northern Ireland, abortion on request for any reason will be legalised to the point at which a baby is

“capable of being born alive”.

This includes on the grounds of disability. I implore my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister to accede to the request to have section 9 repealed as part of the ongoing negotiations. The DUP is a pro-life party, but this actually crosses traditional boundaries and there is widespread cross-community support across Northern Ireland. We have an evolving political landscape, and I say let the people of Northern Ireland have their say on this matter.

On this, Mr Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a close. I want a society in Northern Ireland that values life, and I want to see services that will help women choose life. We want to see a perinatal palliative care centre, a maternal mental health unit and better childcare services, and that is my ask of this Government. Help us create a culture of choosing life, as opposed to killing an innocent little baby that does not have the voice to say, “No, mummy!” It is incomprehensible that the Government, knowing that abortion was a devolved matter, have published consultation proposals to introduce changes that go far beyond what has actually been required by Parliament. If the Government want to maintain any commitment to devolution, I would implore them to rethink their coach-and-horses approach to a life-and-death piece of legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have about five more speakers, so we must divvy up the time. We are going to finish at about 9.30, and ideally the Minister would like about five minutes to reply.

20:54

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on a fluid, cogent and passionate maiden speech. The attention that all quarters of the House gave to her remarks indicated the interest with which she was heard. She spoke with great passion about the issues on which she wishes to campaign in this place, with great warmth about her constituency and in tribute to her predecessor and my friend David Simpson, and with clarity and confidence about what motivates and drives her Unionism. On all those points she is to be congratulated, and I wish her much happiness in her years of service in this place.

A number of colleagues have referenced the deteriorating situation in the arenas of the public policy delivery of health, of welfare and of education and, as the hon. Lady referenced, the intolerably high level of suicides in Northern Ireland. I do not think anybody would suggest that the restitution of Stormont would solve all those problems at the stroke of a pen, but certainly I think all of us should be motivated in this place by the idea that local decisions taken by locally accountable politicians are in the best interests of those we serve, and therefore the imperative underlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I must thank for updating the House, to reventilate on the crucial, pressing and urgent need to get Stormont back up and running is right. It is perhaps tempting fate to suggest that some of the rumours coming from the discussions in which my right hon Friend the Secretary of State is taking part indicate some cause for hope, but let us in our night prayers this evening pray that we do see some success and the restitution of Stormont.

I want to turn, albeit very briefly, to the argument, or conundrum, deployed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I understand entirely that if the talks fail the default position will be a tendency to say, “Enough with deadlines; we can’t have any more deadlines, we now have to cut to the chase.” The easiest chase to cut to is of course direct rule, either officially or unofficially, to try to address the pressing issues.

While I understand the ease, and for some indeed the desirability, of that, it would in my judgment be a retrograde step. The devolution genie in this kingdom is very firmly out of the bottle and it would be both undesirable and possibly impossible to put that genie back.

I also think it would be the easiest thing to do for the politicians of Northern Ireland, where in essence it would effectively put on the back burner the imperative to try to find some workable solutions and accommodations to overcome the historical tensions—there would be no need for that because decisions would be taken in this place. That would not, in my assessment, just lead to a maintenance of the status quo; it would actually be a very significant step backwards to decades and years of acrimony, bitterness and the blame game.

I therefore suggest that if the talks ultimately fail—let us all repeat that we pray they will not—the default position will have to be fresh elections. They may very well throw up broadly similar results to previous elections, but we are in incredibly interesting times electorally, as last month’s general election illustrated. The stark and indeed startling fact that for the first time in its history Northern Ireland elected, albeit by a slim margin, a majority of non-Unionist representatives to this place shows that things can change, and change very rapidly.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about her determination to serve her community. I know that that determination will be shared by all her colleagues from Northern Ireland, whether they are from the Alliance party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and, while they do not take their seats, Sinn Féin. I think the challenge from the electorate to all the political parties who hold true in their repetition of that motivation will effectively be, “Put your money where your mouth is. If that is what motivates you in public service, you will have to find a way to resolve whatever the outstanding hurdle is without defaulting to the easy get-out-of-jail-free option of direct rule.”

New elections may very well produce a continuance of the stalemate, but they could also act as the engine to break the logjam. While wishing the talks success, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resolve not to do the easy thing in those circumstances and to trigger fresh elections and say to the electorate, “You are concerned about deteriorating standards in education, health and welfare, high levels of suicide, and other areas of public life. This is now your opportunity to force your politicians to find a way of dealing with them through restoring Stormont. If they can’t, you may very well start to choose new politicians.”

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the outcome of the general election in Northern Ireland and to the number of pro-Union and anti-Union people returned to the House. Does he accept that when I was first elected 18 years ago the combined percentage of people voting for united Ireland candidates came to 42% and that in December last month it was 39%? The vote for united Ireland parties has gone down in those 18 years. He has just spoken about what might happen after an election to the Assembly, but will he outline how he thinks the problems would change, whatever the make-up of those dealing with the problems?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One can argue percentages till the cows come home, but in terms of bums on seats, as it were—or, in the case of Sinn Féin, non-bums on seats, if that is the right phrase to use—the figure speaks for itself. That should give us all cause for concern. It should also motivate those of us who share a strong belief in the importance of the maintenance of the Union and the unity of the United Kingdom to redouble our efforts, strengthen our arguments and make ever-more attractive the reasons to maintain the Union. That is as applicable in Northern Ireland as it is in Scotland, because as Unionists we face the twin challenge of trying to persuade a growing sceptical population that there is relevance to Unionism today and to its continuing. We cannot just walk through a fog of presuming that the status quo, almost of itself, will continue.

On what the hon. Gentleman asked, I think that last month the electorate, remainers and leavers alike, decided that they wanted an end to the impasse, throwing up some very peculiar and—as far as Government Members are concerned—very welcome results. When the electorate has had enough, they will pick up the stubby pencil at the ballot box and almost use it as a sword, as they use the ballot paper as a shield, to reassert what they want.

This point is possibly unpalatable to many: if politicians are prepared to not allow the restitution of devolution, because they seek to argue over points that for many in Northern Ireland will seem irrelevant or not as pressing as dealing with health, education and welfare, there is the risk that those electors will turn to politicians who are less hog-tied by those traditions and seek to break the impasse by having a new set of faces around the table. It may result in exactly the same sort of result, but if these talks fail we should default to fresh elections and not just write the electoral process off, as though it was just another way of staying the hand of the inevitable—the return to direct rule, the inevitability of which we should resist at all costs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Three Members are still seeking to speak, plus the Minister, so please do the maths and be considerate.

21:06

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I say how pleased I was to hear the maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart)? I think we can look forward to some exceptional contributions from her in the House over the next period of time.

Pages 9 to 11 of the report deal with the abortion consultation that ran between 4 November and 16 December. The way in which the consultation was conducted was hugely problematic. I appreciate that some of the issues with the consultation were not the fault of the Northern Ireland Office, but I understand that it was placed in a deeply invidious position by Parliament in the timelines that were set out. Conducting only a six-week consultation during a general election campaign on an issue of this sensitivity was simply inappropriate.

The consultation document had all the hallmarks of being rushed out or at least incomplete. Major gaps existed in it; just a few examples will suffice to show some of the issues. No clarity was given in the document on who will be performing abortions in Northern Ireland under the new regulatory framework. Will it be private providers, such as Marie Stopes or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, or the national health service? The document at no point discussed which body will inspect abortion providers operating in Northern Ireland. That is a hugely important question, yet no details were provided.

The regulatory framework in the document is without question the biggest problem with it. Despite the consistent claims of the Northern Ireland Office and Ministers over the years that abortion is a devolved issue, and about the importance of respecting the people of Northern Ireland, the consultation document adopted an expansive interpretation of section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 in the proposals. Instead of adopting a cautious approach, as they should have, taking into consideration the way in which the law was passed—without consultation and with the known strong opposition in Northern Ireland to it; all Northern Ireland MPs who took their seats in Parliament at the time voted against the measure, and the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly voted as recently as 2016 not to change the law in any way—the Northern Ireland Office went far beyond what was strictly required by section 9 of the Act. That point has been well made by a number of eminent lawyers and has caused huge concern in Northern Ireland.

David Scoffield, QC, stated, in his expert legal opinion, that

“the question posed to me is essentially whether, if the…Secretary of State…determined to do no more than necessary to comply with his strict legal obligations under the 2019 Act, the proposals set out in the consultation go beyond this...I consider it to be relatively simple to conclude that the answer to this question is ‘yes’.”

He further stated:

“In my view it would be quite possible for the…Secretary of State…if he wished to take a conservative approach…for instance, on the basis of concerns that he should go no further to legislate on devolved matters than the UK Parliament has strictly required in the absence of a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly—to broaden the availability of abortion in Northern Ireland to a lesser extent than appears to be envisaged in the consultation proposals…to comply with the CEDAW recommendations.”

He continued:

“the proposal…goes well beyond the requirement in paragraph 85(a) …of the…report. Whilst the approach on which consultation responses have been invited would enable a woman or girl who had become pregnant through rape (or incest) to access an abortion up to the appropriate gestation period, it would also provide access to abortion for many others who would not have such access if the availability was confined to cases covered by paragraph 85(b)”.

Let us make no mistake: the radical proposals in the Northern Ireland Office consultation constitute a clear political choice on the part of the NIO to undermine devolution to a greater extent than the 2017 to 2019 Parliament required. There is no requirement to import into Northern Ireland ground C of the Abortion Act 1967, which would effectively lead to abortion on request for any reason between 12 or 14 weeks’ and 22 or 24 weeks’ gestation.

I sincerely hope that the Northern Ireland Office will consider the consultation responses and rethink its proposals. I understand that it is legally obligated to introduce a new regulatory framework, but it is not required to introduce these proposed radical changes. Up until the point when the other place voted for the amendment that became section 9, the Government were entirely consistent in their respect for devolution and the fact that abortion was a devolved matter for the Assembly, but let us be clear that certainly since 4 November, when the consultation was published, the main actor within the British constitution has been not Parliament, but the British Government, in wilfully and unnecessarily proposing an abortion regime that departed far more radically from what we had experienced until last October than what Parliament required.

The people of Northern Ireland do not want us to do this. Some 20,000 people— rich and poor, Protestant and Catholic, young and old—stood together at Stormont, rising above political opinion, religious divide and any other consideration, to beg this place not to do this awful thing. Yes, protect women, yes, find a better way, but abortion on demand taking place every two minutes night and day, as on the mainland, is not what we need in Northern Ireland. Some 100,000 people live today because of the legislation in Northern Ireland. We do not have to introduce this radical change, which is the difference between life in death, in this way. The Minister has time to rethink. I ask that he take this opportunity to do so and allow the voices of people in Northern Ireland to be heard, their wishes to be acknowledged and the right of life to be respected.

In closing, I want quickly to mention same-sex marriage. I pose this question to the Minister because I attended the Christian Institute meeting in Belfast four or five weeks ago. It was very clear and sent me some information in a letter:

“As things stand there is no protection”—

for Churches—

“and the NIO and Secretary of State”—

and the Minister of State

“must change this—not simply for Christian denominations but for our Jewish and Muslim friends who have the same deeply held beliefs. We are never in a place to bully people or belittle them but in a country which cherishes our freedoms and acknowledges that the foundation of this country is the word of God—the protection of those Christians to say that they will hold to biblical truth…must be enshrined within the law.”

The good news for Northern Ireland and the integrity of the British constitution is that the proposals in the abortion consultation were only proposals. The British Government do not need to discharge their responsibilities under section 9 and introduce these specific proposals. I therefore call on the Minister and the Government to step back from the brink and introduce only the legislative changes that section 9 actually requires. Decency and honesty require them to do so.

21:12

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have spoken this evening to the Taoiseach and the Secretary of State about this very sensitive period in the negotiations, but as many other Members have already said, the time is well past. Tomorrow we will have been without a Government for three years. The people we represent have not had a Government for three years. Let that sink in. Look at the consequences for our health service. Our health services are at breaking point. Our school budgets are at breaking point. Our nurses, for the first time, are on strike right now. They have been used as a political pawn in this process, because of our failure to deliver for them and the people they look after every single day of the week on our behalf.

I agree with the shadow Secretary of State. No matter what happens in our talks process, take the nurses and the healthcare workers out of this and provide them with the pay they work for, deserve and are entitled to. They should not have to strike one more day to get their full entitlement, which they absolutely and totally deserve.

This has gone on for far too long. I for one, as leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, have already committed myself to compromise on behalf of the people whom we represent. Other parties now need to step up and get ready to compromise, because the deadline is Monday, and the deadline should stay Monday. We cannot drag this out any longer, because the people whom we represent screamed very loudly at the last election. They are fed up, and what do they want? What are they saying to us? They are saying, “Get back to work.” Compromise is not a dirty word. We have learned that through many difficult negotiations, through many years of coming together and bringing our communities together. We cannot lose that progress. We cannot go backwards. It is up to us to sort the problem out.

Let me say one more thing. There is nothing called direct rule any more. That is gone. It is outlawed. We cannot go back to the days of rule from this place over the people of Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreement, and every agreement since states that devolution is how we do our business now. If we cannot have devolution—although we should not countenance that—people need to understand that the automatic response is not direct rule, because the nationalist population will not accept it, the Irish Government will not accept it, and the St Andrews agreement has ruled it out as an option.

So what must we do? We must recognise that a voice in governance must be given to both sides of our community, to all the minorities; and we are all minorities in Northern Ireland now. If we do not compromise, the next step will be not rule from London, but some form of joint rule from London and Dublin. People need to recognise that when we are talking tough in these negotiations.

It is time to bury the hatchet, because the issues that are at stake in these negotiations, important though they are—and I have strong views on all of them—are not as important as people dying on waiting lists, they are not as important as nurses not being paid properly, and they are not as important as our schools not being able to fund the education services that we need to give to our young people.

21:17

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I will try to be brief, given the pressures of time. Let me first refer to the main focus of the debate, Executive formation and, hopefully, the successful return of devolution, and say that I hope that this is the last time we shall have a debate on the Executive formation Act. There is only one way forward for the governing of Northern Ireland—through sharing. That reflects the complex nature of our society, and the need to ensure that all traditions and identities are represented in our governance. While I would not go as far as my colleague the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who talked of joint rule, any notion of direct rule or direct responsibility from London must take on board some form of Irish dimension, and it is difficult to get that balance right. If the Irish dimension is too strong it will annoy Unionists, and if it is too weak it will annoy nationalists. That is why the careful balance in the Good Friday agreement is so important.

I do not want to see elections in Northern Ireland. We must ensure that devolution is restored as quickly as possible. However, in the event that we do not see talks resolved and a proper outcome, we cannot simply carry on with what we have been doing for the past three years. That is not tenable. Something has to give in the system.

Finally, let me say something about the two social issues that have been raised. While the Northern Ireland parties have presented a united front today in relation to some aspects of Brexit, I fear that it will break down at this point. I want to put on record that while my party has a conscience position on the issue of abortion, like most parties in the House, I personally was content that the House legislated on abortion reform last July. As a then Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I was not at all offended, because we had not sat for the best part of three years, and even before that, efforts at reform had stalled. Biology does not change when we cross the Irish sea. Women are women, and basic reproductive rights must be recognised as fundamental issues of human rights.

It is also important to bear in mind the rulings of both the UK Supreme Court and the High Court in Belfast. The position has been established, and the guidelines can now be put through either in a restored Northern Ireland Assembly or here in the Houses of Parliament. That is the choice, but reform must take place, and I believe that a majority in Northern Ireland support it.

That is also the case with regard to equal marriage—same-sex marriage—and I think that the model in the rest of the UK is readily transferable to Northern Ireland, with only a few minor tweaks here and there. No one is arguing that the Churches should not be given some sort of opt-out in terms of respect for their doctrines. The issue is how far that should go. We need to be mindful of people’s rights as human beings in employment and other aspects, and not go down a much more extreme form of constraint with this important set of reforms. It is important that we take them over the line in a restored Assembly. If we do not, this House of Parliament should do what is important to recognise people’s rights in Northern Ireland, but fundamentally, we must get the Assembly restored over the coming days.

21:20

[Mr Robin Walker]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on her excellent and powerful maiden speech and on making a clear and pronounced contribution to this House on her first outing. I am sure we will hear a great deal more from her in the months to come.

We have had a debate in which there has again been the consensus that we all want to see. We all want to see the devolved institutions restored and the agreements respected and seen through. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), for their support for that position.

As ever in these debates, we have heard a wide range of opinions. In the previous debate, I was getting beaten up very heavily by pro-choice colleagues on the Opposition Benches. On this occasion, perhaps the voice was slightly louder from the pro-life people, who I am happy to meet to try to address their concerns further, to ensure that we take this forward in the best possible way and in a way that is respectful of the concerns in the community in Northern Ireland and more widely. We have to recognise that we are under a legal duty under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2019, and we will be continuing to work to put in place the regulations by 31 March, providing access to abortion consistent with the CEDAW report.

The hon. Member for Rochdale asked what we could do if the Executive were restored. If that were to happen before 31 March, we would welcome discussions on the regulations that will be made, and questions on implementation, which of course will be taken forward by the Northern Ireland Department of Health. As these are devolved matters, any reform after March 2020 can of course be considered by the Executive and the Assembly, subject to such legislation complying with convention rights and the usual Assembly procedures. This is yet another of those issues where, if we want the concerns and views of people in Northern Ireland to be properly heard, we must ensure that the institutions are in place.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the legacy system, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I cannot give them specific dates at the moment, but I am happy to come back to them on that when I can. We want to work rapidly on this issue, and we are clear that the current system for dealing with the past has not been working well and needs to be reformed. We will continue to work with partners to seek better ways of dealing with legacy issues, to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors and to give veterans the protections that they deserve.

The hon. Member for Rochdale also asked about the historical institutional abuse. I am grateful for his support and that of the Opposition, as well as the support from across the House, in getting that legislation through before the election. It was important that we did so, and I know that he moved heaven and earth to ensure that we could do it, as did my Secretary of State. The Northern Ireland civil service has now established a project board, and work continues at pace to deliver the scheme. The head of the Northern Ireland civil service met the victims and survivors groups on 17 December and set out the timetable for redress. The application process for the redress appeals is open from the end of March 2020. I hope that provides some update on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of business rates. Having been a territorial Minister in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, whenever I travel I hear concerns about business rates—as indeed I do in my own constituency. These are fundamentally devolved matters that need to be dealt with by the devolved Administration. He mentioned that there had been a recent valuation, and that there were concerns about that. I absolutely recognise that, and the best place for those concerns to be addressed and taken up is in the Northern Irish Assembly. That is yet another factor that means we want to get the Assembly back up and running.

On nurses’ pay, I have complete sympathy for what people are saying about how unacceptable it is that people should have to be out on strike. It was the decision of the previous Northern Ireland Executive to diverge from parity with England and Wales on health workers’ pay, but the UK Government stand ready to support a deal that will help to resolve the pay dispute. Once again, if we can get an Executive in place, we will work with them to ensure that that can be done, and that the urgent issues to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean alluded regarding the health situation in Northern Ireland are addressed.

As to my right hon. Friend’s further point about the legacy system, we will look at legislation at the earliest opportunity. It is clear that legislation to improve the legacy system in Northern Ireland will need to be agreed by the UK Government and have the support of the Northern Ireland Executive, which once again comes back to how critical it is that we get an Executive.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) rightly spoke about the urgency and importance of talks to restore the institutions and pillars of the peace process, which everyone in this House is united in supporting. She was also rightly clear about the devolved nature of health in Northern Ireland, which is one of the reasons why we want to continue to lean into the talks and get devolution back up and running.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made a passionate speech, speaking with her usual knowledge of this issue. She urged us not to go as far as the consultation suggests, but it is a consultation and a listening process, and we will engage with the responses before we come out with any formal Government response. I am happy to meet her to see how we can take on board her concerns, and I will write to her about any further people who have been involved in the consultation beyond those that I mentioned. Part of the reason why I mentioned those groups in my speech was because the Secretary of State talked in our previous debate about meeting Church groups, and we had objections from some Opposition Members that we were talking to Church groups but not necessarily women’s groups, so I wanted to put some of those groups on the record. She will recognise that it is important that we have also engaged with the royal colleges and medical professionals on those issues.

Returning to the fantastic maiden speech by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, she was clear about the strength of her community and her constituency’s attractiveness to tourists. I look forward to visiting, and I certainly hope to be able to make many more visits when I am in Northern Ireland in the near future.

We heard concerns from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean about what could happen on 13 January if we do not deliver a successful outcome to the talks. It is clear that none of the options is attractive. We want to ensure that we can get the Executive back up and running and get an Assembly sitting in Northern Ireland to deal with such issues. That is why I share the hopes of many in the House that this is the last debate we will need on the 2019 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Report pursuant to section 3(5) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was laid before this House on Thursday 19 December.

SPAC Nation

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nigel Huddleston.)

21:28

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important and alarming issue this evening, and I am grateful to colleagues who have stayed late to be present during this debate. SPAC Nation is an organisation that has been in the news recently, and I start by expressing my gratitude to Nadine White and Emma Youle at HuffPost, who carried out some extraordinary investigative journalism to bring the matter to light, to Greg McKenzie and the excellent BBC “Panorama” team for their work, and to many others working in the media and in the press.

When I first became aware of SPAC Nation I thought, as many have done, that it was just another church. I started to think differently when one of their leaders stood as the Conservative candidate in a Croydon council by-election. There is nothing wrong with a church leader standing for election, of course, but it was odd to find hundreds of young members of this so-called church shouting abuse at other parties’ canvassers, shouting obscenities at the council leader, and intimidating voters on their own doorsteps, including by videoing them. When I tweeted my concerns about this unchurch- like behaviour, I was inundated with emails and phone calls from young people and their parents, making alarming allegations about SPAC Nation. I took a full two days to phone them all back, and from that I was able to piece together what was really going on inside this organisation.

I am convinced that SPAC Nation is a cult. It advertises events targeted mainly at young black people in poorer parts of London. It offers free food or free bowling sessions to attract young people to come along. The young leaders vet the young people who turn up and then target those who appear to be most susceptible. They befriend these particular young people and invite them to further functions and events, including dinners. One of the organisation’s leaders will start phoning them, sometimes several times a day. They are then given lifts by that individual to meetings. Then, what appears to be brainwashing starts. They are told that if their life is unsuccessful, if their family is poor, that is because they are not giving enough money to God. They call it seed: “If you give seed to God—as much as you can lay your hands on—you will become rich.” This is the message they try to pump into these young people’s heads.

The organisation’s leaders display extraordinary wealth. They drive cars worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. They wear Rolex watches and expensive designer suits, and they live in multimillion-pound properties. All of this is way beyond the experience of the young people they are targeting. They tell these vulnerable young people that they became rich by giving seed to God and tell them that they can have the same, but first they have to give, and by any means possible.

Some young people are encouraged to break their links with their families and move into properties rented by the organisation’s leaders. They call them “trap houses”, the term used for drug dens in the United States. A woman leader of this organisation running one of these trap houses where vulnerable young girls were placed has 27 convictions for serious fraud. No vulnerable child should be allowed anywhere near her. Once in these houses, the control and coercion becomes far more insidious. One young victim told me they had prayer sessions, which she described as brainwashing, for up to eight hours a day, but the emphasis was not on God or spirituality; it was on wealth and money and the need to give seed to God in order to get rich.

Once the organisation has control of a young person’s mind, it pressures them into making fraudulent personal loan applications so that they can hand the money to the organisation’s leaders. They are pressured into setting up fake businesses so that they can apply fraudulently for business loans. The so-called pastors show the young recruits how to fill in the application forms with false information. In some cases they fill in the forms for the young person simply to sign. In at least one case, an application was made in a young person’s name without their knowledge or awareness.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

On SPAC Nation and the financial implications of some of its dealings, my hon. Friend will be aware of the case of the late Mrs Osinlaru, who seems to have obtained a £150,000 secured loan on her house. Tragically she passed away, leaving her two young adult daughters and 13-year-old son in the house, unaware of this control over it. The house was later repossessed and a bailiff’s warrant secured, but that was stopped only because of the presence of the young 13-year-old son. That family risk losing their home and becoming homeless because of a loan they did not know about, and their mum has passed away. I have written to the church and it has admitted that it was involved in securing, or helping to secure, that loan. Does that give my hon. Friend further cause for concern?

[Mr Reed]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another alarming case of what appears to be a form of fraud and deception perpetrated on a family who had just lost their mother. It seems to have been deliberately intended to disinherit her children.

There are many ways in which the leaders of this organisation appear to be perpetrating fraud in order to enrich themselves. I have spoken to young people who, sickeningly, were taken to private clinics to sell their blood, with a so-called pastor pretending to be their parent in order to sign consent forms. I have spoken to young people who were coached to commit benefit fraud. I have met students—I have also spoken to their parents—who were coerced into handing over their entire student loans before being taken to banks to raise further money through personal loans, so they lost their ability to continue in education and ended up in serious debt.

Tragically, where criminal exploitation is taking place, there is often also sexual exploitation. One young woman told me that she was just 16 when she moved into a trap house and, in her words,

“everyone was having sex with everyone else, it was disgusting”.

I asked her to clarify whether she meant older pastors having sex with younger girls, and she said yes.

When that young woman complained to her pastor, she was taken to the organisation’s leader, who told her that if she complained to the police, it would rebound on her, because he was powerful and had friends in high places. He made that claim look real to these vulnerable young people by inviting politicians and senior police officers to his church services. He even met the Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing Street. I believe all those people thought they were engaging with a church that helped vulnerable young people, but in reality they were being used to intimidate young victims and prevent them from speaking out.

SPAC Nation is not an organisation that is getting young people out of crime, as it claims; it is an organisation that is criminalising young people for its own ends. It operates right across London and has already expanded into other cities, including Birmingham and Leicester.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and raising what is clearly an important issue. Does he agree that what he has described is criminal activity and preying on the most vulnerable, and it is essential that the Government intervene and take action?

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. I look forward to hearing what Ministers have to say about how we can work constructively and collectively to tackle many of the problems and horrors that are associated with this organisation.

As I was saying, SPAC Nation started in London. It seems to have spread right across the city, and it is expanding into other cities including Birmingham and Leicester. It has no fixed location—it does not have a home church—which makes it much harder for the authorities to track it. There is no home police unit keeping track of what it is doing. There is no local safeguarding board keeping track of the risks to young people. It holds its services in vast venues in many different boroughs and cities.

I have reported to the police and safeguarding authorities every single allegation that has been made to me, but I am deeply worried that more has not been done to stop this organisation from exploiting vulnerable young people. SPAC Nation claims to have up to 1,000 young people involved right now, and every one of those young people is at risk. It appears to have up to 15 trap houses scattered across London, and every young person inside those properties is at very serious risk. A teacher in north London told me that SPAC Nation had been recruiting schoolgirls outside the school gates. A youth worker in Croydon told me that it had been recruiting outside the youth centre. SPAC Nation is targeting young people so that it can exploit them, and it is imperative that the organisation is stopped.

I have some questions that I would like the Minister to answer this evening, if possible. Allegations about this organisation have been circulating widely in the black community and on social media for up to four years, so why has police intelligence failed to pick anything up? I was able to find out most of this information over a couple of days by speaking to people and googling on social media. If I can do that without the resources of the police, why has police intelligence failed to recognise what is happening to potentially thousands of vulnerable young kids across this city? What action can be taken immediately to stop this organisation recruiting any more vulnerable young people for abuse and exploitation in my constituency and beyond? Given what we have heard, and given what victims have told us, we surely cannot allow this organisation to continue targeting other young people for abuse and exploitation when we can take action to protect them.

What help can be given to young people involved in SPAC Nation now? That includes those living in trap houses who urgently need to get out before they are further criminalised, their family relationships destroyed and their future lives ruined. And why has no help been offered to potentially thousands of young people who have managed to get away from SPAC Nation but who are left burdened with huge debts and who have been criminalised, many of them homeless and many suffering trauma and mental ill health? We cannot simply leave these young people to suffer the consequences of abuse by an exploitative organisation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What the hon. Gentleman has illustrated tonight is worrying to everyone who has heard it. It is hard not to be moved and to feel concerned. The magnitude and the massiveness of what he has outlined indicates that it should not be an ordinary police investigation; it probably needs a specialised unit with the resources and the manpower and womanpower to conclude the investigation and put an end to what has gone wrong. Exploitation of young people is abysmal and despicable, and it needs to be addressed.

[Mr Reed]

As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with every word he says.

What concerns me further are the worrying echoes of the Rotherham child abuse scandal. In that case, vulnerable young girls’ allegations of serious abuse were dismissed because they came from poor or difficult backgrounds, and it is the same with SPAC Nation. I cannot help wondering, as one desperate mum told me: if this was happening to white middle-class children, would it have been ignored for so many years? Would it have been allowed to go on in this way? We need to address that question, because it is a real feeling and concern in the community. In my opinion, SPAC Nation is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a church, because that gives it access to vulnerable young people and cover for exploiting them.

I would like to say this to every young person who is afraid or at risk from SPAC Nation’s activities tonight. This organisation might seem powerful, but we are stronger and we are on your side. Collectively, we will not stop until every young person is safe. We will not stop until the wrongdoers inside SPAC Nation have been brought to justice, and we will not stop until this dangerous, manipulative organisation can do no more harm.

21:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Helen Whately)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) for calling this debate and raising these very serious concerns. I also thank his constituents and all those who have had the courage to speak up and bring this situation to his and our attention. I thank other Members who stayed here tonight to intervene and contribute to this debate.

I am answering the debate, as the Minister for arts, heritage and tourism, on behalf of the Minister for civil society, Baroness Barran, who sits in the House of Lords. The allegations concern a charity, and charity policy sits within our Department. I am grateful to have the Minister for safeguarding and vulnerability—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—and the Minister for London, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), on the Front Bench with me.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Croydon North; I have read a great deal of the media coverage; and I watched the “Panorama” documentary. I find the accusations deeply concerning. These are very serious allegations, and they clearly must be properly and urgently investigated.

The Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry into SPAC Nation on 5 December 2019, and that inquiry is looking into its finances, governance, safeguarding and overall compliance with charity law. However, it was not the Charity Commission’s first engagement with SPAC Nation. The Charity Commission launched a regulatory compliance case in April 2018 and then issued an action plan to SPAC Nation’s trustees in June 2019.

The Charity Commission was not satisfied with SPAC Nation’s response to the action plan. Along with the further allegations and concerns that have been raised in the media and by the hon. Gentleman, that is why it launched its statutory inquiry in December. It also issued an order under section 84 of the Charities Act 2011, requiring the charity to bank the money it holds in cash.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that while the Charity Commission is carrying out its statutory inquiry, I cannot comment on the specific allegations in this case. A report will be published by the Charity Commission once the investigation is complete. Although the Charity Commission cannot investigate criminal offences, it does have the power to refer charities to the police. I understand that, in parallel, the Metropolitan police are already reviewing these allegations of fraud and other offences relating to SPAC Nation that he has raised, including directly with them.

One of the most upsetting aspects of the allegations is the alleged exploitation of vulnerable young people. The suggestion that the very people who most need help and support are being taken advantage of is particularly worrying. This is a known risk, which is why a huge amount of work has been and is being done across government to improve safeguarding practices and make our society safer for young people.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may agree that this is an important issue in terms of the safeguarding of young people, but the reality is that this is still happening now to a number of young people, not just in London but across other cities, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed). Is there not something the Government can do now to investigate some of these serious allegations, whereby a number of young people continue to be exploited?

[Helen Whately]

As I am trying to make clear, these allegations are being investigated by the Charity Commission and reviewed by the police, so this is not something the Government can intervene in at this point. However, this debate is certainly raising this issue up the agenda and making sure that there is a great deal of awareness about the situation. I will do my best to address the questions as I proceed.

I wish to talk a bit more about the important role of safeguarding in charities. It is important because it should prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people or enable a rapid and effective response if exploitation does happen. I want to make clear how seriously the Government take this; since 2018, we have invested more than £1 million in the domestic charity safeguarding programme. We have been working with charities and other partners, including the National Crime Agency, to raise awareness of safeguarding; to ensure that charities, whatever their size, whether large or small, know their responsibilities, know how to handle concerns quickly and can easily access advice. The Charity Commission has also launched a whistleblowing helpline to help people report safeguarding concerns, and I encourage anyone who has experienced or witnessed wrongdoing, or are concerned about it, to use that as a means of reporting it. Obviously, Members here can refer people to do that.

Allegations such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman reinforce the importance of this vital work on strengthening safeguarding, and further announcements will be made on that shortly. Protecting people from harm must always take precedence over protecting a charity’s brand or status. Charities must be clear that they will listen to safeguarding concerns and that those concerns must be treated promptly and seriously acted upon. The majority of charities take their safeguarding responsibilities extremely seriously, and it is right that we recognise that, but when concerns are raised, action should be taken by the Charity Commission and, if necessary, local safeguarding authorities and the police.

Many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns relate to the police matters. As I have said, the police are reviewing the evidence they have received. May I suggest that if he has not done so already, he raises these concerns about policing with both the Mayor of London and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police?

The Home Office is working extremely hard to transform its approach to dealing with crimes against vulnerable young people. It has invested significantly in a programme of reform to help the police to respond to changing crimes, including child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse has been prioritised as a national threat, and the Home Office are empowering police forces to develop their specialist skills and expertise, increasing the police’s capabilities to tackle this terrible crime.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Forgive me if I am being ignorant on this point, but the Minister has asked my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) to raise this with the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, if he has not already done so. The Home Office is the Government’s responsibility and this sounds to me like a Home Office issue that the Government need to look into, so will she clarify whether or not this is an issue that the Home Office should be addressing?

[Helen Whately]

The important point is that this is a police matter, which is why the Mayor of London, as the police and crime commissioner for London, is the appropriate person with whom to raise concerns. However, there is a bigger-picture point, which is why I am talking about what the Home Office is doing to prevent and respond to crime against young people, particularly sexual abuse.

Let me come to something that is very relevant to this specific topic. In 2015, the Home Office launched the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and in May last year that inquiry announced its final investigation strand—into child protection in religious organisations and settings. That strand of the inquiry is now examining the nature and adequacy of child protection policies, practices and procedures, and it will consider whether safeguarding in those kinds of settings needs to be strengthened further.

On safeguarding across government, in July 2018, the Department for Education updated the statutory guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and it is funding a £2 million tackling child exploitation support programme to help to deliver more effective responses to child sexual and criminal exploitation and involvement in gangs and drugs.

[Mr Reed]

How much longer does the Minister think that this organisation should be allowed to access vulnerable young people and exploit them?

[Helen Whately]

I am doing my best to make clear how seriously I take these allegations, and I know that the other Ministers on the Front Bench take the allegations very seriously, but the allegations are being investigated, so the hon. Member puts me in a difficult position by asking me to say things that it would be inappropriate for me to say at the Dispatch Box. I recognise that I may not be able to answer all his questions right here and now, so I will do my best to follow up and write to him with the best possible answers that I can give. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, has suggested that she might be able to meet the hon. Member and the other Croydon MPs to discuss the wider issues raised by the concerns he has expressed.

[Mr Reed]

I did not mean to put the Minister in a difficult position or to be disingenuous in any way; I am just concerned. Given the severity and volume of the allegations, and the type of allegations that we are hearing, can nothing further be done, perhaps by the Government working with the police and crime commissioners, wherever that may be necessary, or with the police forces, wherever that may be necessary, to prevent this organisation, even if only temporarily, from being able to stand outside school gates and youth centres and target young people? I would be happy to work collaboratively with the Minister and her colleagues to seek an answer to that—I understand that I have not given warning of that question this evening—but if there were some way for us to look at working together to prevent any more young lives being destroyed, even while investigations are going on, I would be immensely grateful.

[Helen Whately]

I am sorry but I cannot give a different answer from this Dispatch Box. None of us would want to say anything this evening that might perhaps prevent an effective investigation taking place, or that might prejudice the outcome in any way that might be unhelpful. Given how serious these allegations are, let us make sure that they can be effectively investigated and pursued.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She is being very generous. The Charity Commission can often move very slowly, and given the seriousness of the allegations, would it not be possible to suspend charitable status while the investigations are going ahead? Considering other charities that deal with young people from memory, I am aware that this has happened in the past.

[Helen Whately]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady with a full response to that question, but let me reiterate that I know that the Charity Commission is, as I said before, investigating the matter and that, because it does not look into criminal activity, the police are reviewing these allegations. Those two things are happening.

Before we finish, I want to put the record straight on one matter. I do understand that the pastor to whom the hon. Gentleman referred went to No. 10 Downing Street, but I have been told that he did not meet the Prime Minister. I think that it is appropriate to say that. My understanding is that he attended a roundtable event along with 25 other Church leaders to discuss youth violence, and it was in that context that he was in No. 10 Downing Street.

Just before I conclude, I want to make an important point and say how mindful I am, given the context of this debate, of the important role that religion, faith and worship play in our society and what a significant and important contribution that many religious charities make to our communities. They are often the first in and last out of marginal communities, providing invaluable help and support for those most in need. That includes many black majority Churches up and down the country that support their local communities, contributing positively to wider society. That is a very important point to put on the record.

As I have said, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. He has the offer of a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss these wider issues in principle. May I thank him for calling this debate and for highlighting these very serious allegations? His concerns have been fully heard by me, by the other Ministers here and by many thousands via the media coverage that this has received. The crucial next step is for the Charity Commission and the police to investigate the allegations and to take appropriate action.

Question put and agreed to.

21:57

House adjourned.

House of Lords

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 8 January 2020

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Oaths and Affirmations

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

15:05

Several noble Lords took the oath or made the solemn affirmation, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Farming

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:10

Asked by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of (1) upland farms, and (2) tenant farmers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Upland and tenant farmers are key to a vibrant agricultural sector and rural communities. In the tenant farming sector, we have consulted on proposals to support productivity improvements and facilitate structural change. We will publish a response to the consultation soon. Food production and environmental enhancement are central to our plans and go hand in hand. We are working with farmers in all sectors and locations to co-design environmental land management schemes.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that tenant farmers and upland farms are the backbone of the farming community? Will he ensure that they have a vibrant future? In particular, will he guarantee today that the agriculture Bill will bring forward proposals for tenancy reform, and that tenant farmers who currently benefit from countryside stewardship schemes will have the opportunity to access funds under the ELMS and other new moneys coming after the agricultural funds from the European Union cease?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, 33% of all farms in England are of mixed tenure—owning and renting land—which emphasises why this is important. It is why we have consulted on tenancy reform and are working on improving the situation. These matters are under active consideration. On the benefits of the environmental land management scheme, we are working with all sectors—owning, tenant and those who farm commons—because all this is part of the important work of enhancing the environment.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he is speaking as Agriculture Minister for England and that his comments are not necessarily applicable in the same way in Wales and Scotland, where agriculture is devolved? Will he ensure, however, that if extra resource becomes available in England, a Barnett consequential will come through for Wales and Scotland? Given the importance of the sheep industry in upland Wales, will he confirm that, if steps are taken by the Welsh Government to help the sheep industry, no action will be taken from London to try to stop them?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am well aware that upland farming and sheep production in Wales are extremely important. That is why our lamb exports to Japan, China and India are a way forward. As the noble Lord has said, it is clearly a devolved matter. Defra has strong and good relationships with the devolved Administrations, particularly that in Wales, and we want the agricultural sector in Wales to be successful, as we want it to be in the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that many hill farmers rely on farm subsidies to survive, so can he clarify whether the Government intend to maintain the £3.2 billion cash pot that was previously available for farm support to the end of the seven-year transitional period that is envisaged, even if the pot is distributed in a different way? Will that overall pot be maintained?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I take the opportunity of the noble Baroness’s question to speak of a manifesto commitment. We will guarantee the current annual budget to farmers in every year of the Parliament. I am very pleased that in December last year the Chancellor confirmed nearly £3 billion of funding for 2020. By way of a simplified countryside stewardship scheme that is coming in and through the pilots of the environmental land management scheme, we want a scheme flexible enough to work across England and all sectors, so that we enhance the environment and that the public good already being done by many farmers is properly recognised.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, has Defra commissioned research, along the lines of that carried out by the Welsh Government, as to what land, notably upland, is likely to become unfarmed after the extended single farm payment runs out? Has it calculated what is likely to happen to that land?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, environmental land management schemes will be available in the uplands, so that farmers can decide about food production, timber production and the public goods that will benefit. I do not see any problem at all about such parts of the country, with the right trees in the right places, being part of our work and the farming community’s work to ensure that we have greater tree cover. I do not see it in quite the way the noble Lord describes, with parts of the country being unfarmed: we will be farming for timber and food production and for the environment.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. In its paper Moving Away from Direct Payments, Defra states:

“There is evidence that Direct Payments inflate farm rents, meaning some of the payment supports the income of the landowner, not the tenant farm.”


Does the Minister expect that the removal of the BPS will have the direct impact of lowering rents for tenant farmers?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I have to say that I have not studied that particular element. I think our tenancy reforms will ensure flexibility and that, as with all these things, there is a reasonable return for the landowner. As I have said, a lot of land is farmed by a mixture of part-rented and part-owned. I see our tenancy reforms as giving more flexibility and options for tenants to have successful and productive businesses.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, while the £2.85 billion announced on 30 December is welcome and provides a degree of reassurance for all farmers, the majority of this money will be allocated at the end of 2020, with only £143 million for 2021. There is no certainty for the remaining period to 2023. On CAP Pillar 2, the Government press release states that:

“Remaining EU funding … will continue until the current EU funding is used up or 2023, whichever is earliest.”


If the price of feed and other costs increase as we leave the EU, this money will run out sooner rather than later. Does the Minister accept that natural inflation does not play a part in the Government’s plan for farmers or agriculture?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I said before, we have guaranteed in our manifesto the current annual budget for farmers in every year of this Parliament. Clearly, as we all know, farming costs go up and down. For example, in some years straw is up or down, or corn is up or down, and therefore you get different consequences in different parts of the farming industry. In our manifesto and throughout, we have set out that we support farming and that we want farmers to play a part in enhancing the environment. I emphasise that we recognise the importance of food production and food security, and this will be in our updated agriculture Bill to be introduced shortly.

Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the integrated security, defence and foreign policy review will report on the United Kingdom’s place in the world.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has committed to undertake the deepest review of Britain’s security, defence and foreign policy. The review will examine how we strengthen and prioritise our alliances, diplomacy and development, and how we reform Whitehall to support integrated policy-making and operational planning. It will consider all aspects of our defence and security capabilities, including our approach to procurement and maintaining our technological edge. An announcement on the review will be made in due course.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. This review is very welcome, not least to those of us who have argued for some time that the UK should be updating the strategy set out in 2011 on conflict, stability and security. It is welcome that defence, diplomacy and development are all referenced both in the gracious Speech and in the supporting documentation. The UK is in a unique position internationally, because of our commitment to defence, our commitment to development and our diplomatic resources, to make a real impact. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister and the Government that due weight and respect will be given to development as well as diplomacy and defence, as this will ensure that this review and its outcomes have the most impact in whatever “global Britain” might now mean.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree completely with what the noble Lord has just articulated. On international development, as I indicated, the review will be broad-ranging, with a number of interwoven strands. The precise scope of the review has yet to be determined, but I can tell the noble Lord that the policy to maintain 0.7% of gross national income for development will remain unchanged.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure he is—that over the last three years your Lordships’ International Relations Committee has produced a stream of reports on Britain’s changing role, security and foreign policy in utterly transformed world conditions and an entirely new international landscape? Would he tell his colleagues in government that all they have to do is read some of these reports? It would save them a lot of work and trouble.

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to my noble friend and can reassure him that those reports have been read. I can only endorse his central point: the world is changing rapidly. Technology is advancing at pace, international relations are becoming more complex, and conflict and climate change are driving migration at scale. That is why the Government must not get stuck in outmoded practices and ways of thinking. We have to be nimbler on our feet, adapt faster and take decisions in an integrated and better fashion. The review will address all these issues.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, did the Minister listen yesterday to the speech of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who recalled that he and the late Robin Cook worked together to produce a defence and foreign policy review that lasted an unprecedented 11 years? They achieved this by forming a defence review built on agreed foreign policy objectives. Will the Government follow that sensible pattern? It seems a common-sense approach to this sort of review, although, having said that, I recall my mother telling me as a young man that in life I would find that sense was not that common.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I listened with care yesterday to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and agreed with a great deal of what he said. However, this review is about more than defence. It is about both defence and the wider context in which defence operates: our international relations, international foreign policy and national security. Defence will be bound up in this, and I anticipate that the kind of far-reaching and comprehensive review he referred to, which took place under the Labour Government, will be broadly mirrored in the work that we do.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that our standing on the world stage is also heavily influenced by our ability to defend against cyberattack—most recently the micro example of the hacking of the New Year Honours List but, more alarmingly perhaps, the likely retaliation from Iranian activity in the cybersphere. What deep thinking around cyber and the joining up of the strategy across the digital skills of every department, which need to be upgraded, will be in the review? I make a plea that we think imaginatively and creatively about how to bring people into this very important aspect of the defence services.

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As I said, the precise scope of the review has yet to be determined, but I have no doubt that cyber will feature large in the subjects to be addressed.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it is clear that this will be a long-term review and will take a considerable amount of time. Meanwhile, our policy towards the Middle East, which has been made very much in close relation with France and Germany, will be left as we leave the European Union at the end of this month without the framework through which we have operated. Are there plans to make some interim arrangements until we come to the end of the review, for example by responding to the proposals floated by the French and German Governments for a European security council, which would keep Britain in the loop?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we aim to keep pace with whatever happens in Europe after we leave the EU. However, we have made clear that, while we are leaving the EU, we have committed to strengthen our co-operation with Europe on security, our intelligence services have highly effective co-operation to build on, and, of course, the foundation of European security since 1949 has been the NATO alliance, which will not change.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in yesterday’s debate—I do not know whether the Minister was present—I asked a question about the nature of the review and the fact that the three lead departments were the FCO, the MoD and the Cabinet Office. Development is a key part of this strategy, and I am concerned that DfID does not have the same lead role. I did not get a response yesterday; I hope I get one today. One of my old trade union general secretaries used to say, “If you want to knock someone’s shed down, tell them that you’re knocking the house down.” We have a problem here regarding the future of DfID. I hope that the Minister can give us some strong reassurance that it will remain a stand-alone department with its own Secretary of State.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am not in a position to resolve questions about the machinery of government. However, as I said in my original Answer, one of the main aspects of the review will be to see how we can best reform Whitehall to support more integrated, joined up policy-making. I have already indicated that the international development theme will be central to that work.

Creative Industries: Research and Development

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:26

Asked by

[Baroness Bull]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to adopting a broader definition of research and development that includes, and incentivises, research and development investment in the creative industries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s definition of research and development builds on the internationally recognised OECD definition. Following that definition, the UK offers relief to boost research and development through direct grants, support for universities and R&D tax credits. There are eight additional tax reliefs specific to the creative industries, which delivered over £1.1 billion of support in 2018-19 alone.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his engagement with this Question. However, I urge him to consider, in reviewing R&D definitions, the Government addressing current HMRC requirements that R&D relates specifically to scientific or technological discovery. The exclusion of work in the arts, humanities and social sciences means that much of the R&D taking place in the creative industries is ineligible for targeted tax relief, despite creative businesses undertaking almost as much R&D as manufacturing. Does the Minister agree that applying tax incentives equally to a sector that already represents the fastest-growing part of the UK economy would be an effective way to boost innovation and productivity?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that creative industries are at the heart of the improvements that we have seen across the UK’s global reach. We put a significant amount of money into research and development in the creative industries. Some £58 million has gone to research and development through the creative clusters, £39 million directly from government and £25 million from industry. But that does not answer the noble Baroness’s question, which regards the definition. I read with interest the paper by Hasan Bakhshi and Elizabeth Lomas, Defining R&D for the Creative Industries. If the noble Baroness is willing and amenable, I would like to sit with her and discuss this matter further.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, appears to have hit on an idea that can go further. However, can we put a time limit on this? The Budget is coming up on 11 March, and redefining that process can be announced then so that these important businesses can benefit from the tax benefits of research and development. Could the Minister therefore also adhere to a timetable that enables the Budget to play a role in this?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

On tax, it is important to stress that we offer a significant amount of tax relief that covers all the wider creative industries, from film animation to museums and galleries and the theatre, and so far it affects a significant proportion of those areas. The noble Baroness raised the exact definitions, which is important, because thus far we are bound by the Frascati convention of the OECD definition, which is tilted primarily towards technology and science. I will not go into too much detail, but this of course misses the epistemic and aleatory uncertainties inherent in this particular problem—you do not hear that every day.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Indeed, we need to pause after that. A round of applause would not be inappropriate.

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned the creative clusters, because they have been a huge success in bringing out the exact points made by the noble Baroness in her Question. However, does she not also raise a wider definitional issue—it does not have a grand name—which is that the creative industries are often structured around freelancers working in small industries and, as such, they cannot take advantage of some of the scale issues for which the Minister’s department is responsible? I think particularly of the way in which the apprenticeship levy cannot be applied in this case. Does the Minister have any plans to change that?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord makes an important point. I was curious about that this morning as well. I was fearful that a lot of these funds would end up in the larger businesses and industries but, in actual fact, SMEs are disproportionately affected in this area for the very reason that the arts, humanities and wider creative industries are usually small ventures. So there is a significant proportion of benefit in that regard. If the noble Lord will allow it, I will drop him a note on the exact figures and put it in the Library for the edification of all others.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Can my noble friend also consider as part of his follow-up work the allocation of the R&D spend by government? We are talking about tax, which obviously affects the creative sector and companies. The Government are actually spending more money on R&D, which I very much welcome, but allocation to sectors other than the ones that BEIS considers key is very important. Agriculture, which we discussed earlier, has lost a lot of its R&D in recent years. The creative sector is a new sector and requires attention as well.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The simple answer to that question is yes, I will do that.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether we could use a bit of creativity in terms of how a public/private partnership in investment in R&D could reflect the needs of the nation as a whole, so that when the Government think about a critical mass they do not simply, for the north of England, think about Manchester. Given the Minister’s heritage, does he agree that if Scotland were treated as badly as Yorkshire —Yorkshire has a larger population than Scotland—there would be an SNP cry for something better? If we are to keep our nation together, we need something better for the east of the Pennines.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I agree with the noble Lord. On a bizarre point, I was criticised over the Christmas period for drinking not Scottish tea but Yorkshire tea. In Scotland, even on these issues, grievances can be found. He is exactly right: there would no doubt be a problem if we treated these individuals as if they were competitive. There should be a constructive advantage to working together and seeing the collaboration that can lift all parts of the United Kingdom to the wider benefit of all.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, great creativity depends on a very wide definition of various art forms, whether it be science and technology or something else. Of course, we are extremely good at this in this country and the creative industries bring a huge amount of recognition and money into the Exchequer. The problem is that innovation tends to need public rather than private money. With private sponsorship, to take the area of expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, people love to sponsor “Romeo and Juliet”, for example, but are less interested in really innovative work.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is correct. It is not always easy for the Government to find the right way to support this area, which is why we seek to collaborate with private enterprise and the artistic industries, for obvious reasons: they are more artistically minded than the Government perhaps are. Politics is not quite the art it used to be.

County Lines Drugs Gangs

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:33

Asked by

[Lord Farmer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the statement of the Chief Constable for Devon and Cornwall Police that children involved in county lines drugs gangs should be seen as victims not criminals.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, county lines exploitation has a devastating impact on our communities. We are working to disrupt county lines gangs and end the exploitation of children and vulnerable adults. This includes investing £20 million in a new package of measures to crack down on these gangs. Our position is clear: children who have been groomed and exploited through country lines should be seen as victims first and foremost.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. The chief constable points to the lack of family and security in these children’s lives and to the need to bridge the gap between dysfunctional homes and school. That is exactly what the family hubs promised in the Conservative manifesto aim to do. Can my noble friend update the House on the Government’s plans for delivering on that promise?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly can, and it is apposite that my noble friend has asked this Question today, because earlier today he will have heard the PM reiterate his commitment to family hubs to our honourable friend Fiona Bruce in another place. My noble friend Lord Younger has also written today to outline our commitment to supporting vulnerable families with the intensive, integrated support that they need to care for their children. That is why the Government have announced up to £165 million of additional funding for the troubled families programme in 2021, and they will be setting out their plans for family hubs in due course.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware that, since 2013, there has been a 70% increase in the number of young people being excluded from school and put into alternative provision. Much of that alternative provision is unregistered, which means that often no proper checks are made on those young people. We also see young children in care being put into unregulated accommodation. How do the Government plan to support these most vulnerable young people?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am glad that the noble Lord has raised this issue. It is not just something that we are acutely aware of—as he and I will know from our local government days, it is long overdue for attention. He may also know that the Government commissioned my honourable friend Ed Timpson MP, who I am delighted to say is back in the other place, to undertake a review of alternative provision so that the quality of provision can be as good and effective—perhaps more so—as in a mainstream school, because these children need extra attention. To date there has been a £4 million investment in an innovation fund for alternative provision, and I am sure that the House will be kept updated on its success.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment on youth services funding? She mentioned family hubs, but since 2010 there has been a 69% reduction in the funding of youth services by local authorities. This must have had a negative impact on the lives of many young people. Will the Government now start to reverse that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government have already made quite a few inroads, particularly for vulnerable children. I have just mentioned the £165 million-worth of funding for troubled families for the next year. We have invested £3.6 million in the National County Lines Coordination Centre, which is absolutely essential for safeguarding young people who get into that sort of activity. Further, the £200 million youth endowment fund will be delivered over 10 years, in addition to the £22 million of the early intervention youth fund that is already funding 10 projects. But one of the most important aspects of funding is that into which we put into our trusted relationships fund. These children do not trust anyone, so it is very important that they are able to build up trust with those who are seeking to protect them.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has already indicated that here we are talking about some of the most vulnerable children in our society, some of whom are in the care of local authorities. Building on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does the Minister agree that this is a sad reflection of the current state of child protection services in this country? Is it not time that we looked again at the quality of child protection standards?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord and I go back many years on this issue and we do not disagree. I shall certainly get my noble friend Lord Younger to update him on some of the child protection issues, because if children are staying in unregulated bed and breakfast accommodation, for example, which is something I remember from the past, that situation needs to change. But I will give him an updated position on that.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of representing a Devon constituency for 18 years and I support the view of the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall on this matter. May I respectfully remind my noble friend that I represented 650 square miles of Devon—a very sparsely populated area? When we look at national solutions, what is very often needed in rural areas is a very different approach from when you are looking at large urban conurbations. There are pockets of deprivation in rural counties that reflect exactly what one sees in inner cities, but they are on such a small scale and so disparate that they never qualify for grants and support. I ask my noble friend to make sure that we do not fall into the one-size-fits-all trap.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend raises two very important points there: the spread-out nature of county areas and the distances people have to travel to get support. I do not know whether she recalls—I recall it only vaguely from two or three years ago—the rural sparsity fund that was designed to address precisely such an issue. Of course, she also brings to mind the fact that county lines are specifically designed to cross from town areas into country areas and vice versa. So she raises the really important point that, wherever children are, their vulnerability is equally important.

Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill [HL]

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 1st reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:40

A Bill to require the Secretary of State to ensure that domestic properties have a minimum energy performance rating of C on an Energy Performance Certificate; to make provision regarding performance and insulation of new heating systems in existing properties; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Foster of Bath, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Extension of Franchise (House of Lords) Bill [HL]

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 1st reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:41

A Bill to make provision for members of the House of Lords to vote in elections to the House of Commons.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Naseby, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 1st reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:41

A Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Grocott, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 1st reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:42

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, please forgive my prolixity as I set off on this journey.

A Bill to make provision for requiring public bodies to act in pursuit of the United Kingdom’s environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing by meeting wellbeing objectives, publishing future generations impact assessments, accounting for preventative spending, and through public services contracts; to establish a Commissioner for Future Generations for the United Kingdom; to establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Future Generations; to require companies to consider the impact of their activities on the United Kingdom’s wellbeing; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Bird, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Referendums Criteria Bill [HL]

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 1st reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:43

A Bill to make provision concerning referendums within the United Kingdom on constitutional or parliamentary arrangements.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Cormack, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Queen’s Speech

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Debate (3rd Day)

15:44

Moved on Thursday 19 December 2019 by

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.”

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to open the third day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. I begin by wishing all noble Lords a happy and prosperous new year.

The focus of today’s debate on home affairs, justice, constitutional affairs and devolved affairs will enable us to explore some of the key themes of the gracious Speech. That includes the Government’s commitments to making our streets safer, which is the first duty of any Government; to review the way the constitution works in our modern society to ensure that our democracy and the rights of all are protected and supported; to deliver further for the whole of our union, investing in and levelling up every part of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and to improve the criminal justice system so that it is fair, proportionate and supports victims to get the justice they deserve. Given the wealth of experience represented on all sides of the House, both my noble friend Lady Williams and I look forward to hearing the contributions from noble Lords.

We were all shocked and appalled by the scenes at London Bridge at the end of last year. I express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones. I also pay tribute to those members of the public and the emergency services who ran towards danger. The incident was a shocking reminder of the threats we face from terrorism. The Government’s top priority is the safety and security of the public, and that is why we will introduce changes to ensure that the worst terrorist offenders spend the appropriate amount of time in prison. We want to give the public greater confidence that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the level of their offending and the risk they represent.

The Government have also been clear that the most serious violent and sexual offenders must serve sentences that truly reflect the severity of the crime. We will toughen community orders, so that they deliver an appropriate level of punishment, and address issues such as mental health or substance misuse.

As well as getting tougher on criminals, we also recognise that being a victim of a crime can be a life-changing event and the way that people are treated in the justice system can have a huge impact in helping them to recover. The Government are determined to ensure that victims receive the support they need and the justice they deserve. That is why we have committed to guaranteeing victims’ rights in legislation, through a victims law. Our law will build on the rights to which victims are entitled as set out in the victims’ code and ensure that they fully understand the level of support they can expect. Furthermore, we are committed to consider increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that they can better hold government to account. To deliver this we will seek views on a revised victims’ code in early 2020 and bring forward a consultation on our new victims law as soon as possible thereafter. Noble Lords will agree that such an approach will ensure that victims of crime receive the best support and the understanding they need to enable them to cope and recover.

Recent cases have underlined the anguish for families when offenders are released in spite of refusing to disclose the location of their victims’ remains. This Government have brought forward legislation to make sure that an offender’s failure to disclose these details about their offences is considered by the Parole Board as part of its assessment as to whether they should be released from prison. We are grateful to the family of Helen McCourt, who have underlined the significant importance of this issue. The legislation also makes provision to address circumstances where offenders fail to disclose the identities of children who are the subject of indecent images.

Domestic abuse can shatter the lives of victims and tears families apart. In the year ending March 2019, an estimated 2.4 million adults experienced domestic abuse. The domestic abuse Bill will transform the response to domestic abuse to better protect victims and their children, and to ensure they have the support they need and that offenders are brought to justice. We need to build a society that has zero tolerance when it comes to domestic abuse and empowers people to confront it. This Bill will be a step towards that.

Marriage will always be of vital importance to our society, but when people take the difficult decision to divorce, the legal process should not incentivise conflict. The current process incentivises that one spouse makes allegations about the other’s conduct, to avoid otherwise waiting for at least two years of separation. The new process will remove the requirement to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Where reconciliation is not possible, the new process will encourage couples to approach arrangements for the future as constructively and co-operatively as is possible.

The Government are committed to ensuring a fair justice system that works for everyone and commands public confidence. We will establish a royal commission on the criminal justice process in England and Wales which will deliver a fundamental review of some of the key issues affecting the system now, and which may do so in the future. The Government will set out the terms of reference for the royal commission in due course, which will include details on the scope, duration and membership of the commission.

After Brexit, United Kingdom businesses, individuals and families will still need to be able to settle cross-border disputes. That is why we are bringing forward a Bill enabling us to operate agreements on private international law after we leave the EU. These agreements can help to return home a child abducted by one of their parents, help two parents living in different countries to agree custody arrangements in the best interests of their children, or help a UK business to resolve issues with a supplier based abroad. Without these agreements, people involved in cross-border disputes will find it more difficult to resolve them. This Bill will give United Kingdom businesses, citizens and families the confidence to work, live and trade across borders, and will help the UK to flourish as a trading nation, as we leave the European Union.

Following our exit from the European Union, the government will bring an end to free movement to ensure that the UK can take back control and introduce an Australian-style points-based immigration system that prioritises people’s skills and contributions to the UK. While seizing this opportunity, we remain committed to ensuring that resident European citizens—people who are our family, friends, neighbours and colleagues and who have built their lives here and contributed so much to this country—have the right to remain.

The tragic killing of PC Andrew Harper last summer and the incident at London Bridge in November illustrated how police officers put their lives on the line and make sacrifices day in and day out in the course of their duties to assist others. The Government are committed to the recruitment of 20,000 police officers over the next three years and we have already begun recruiting new officers. We are also committed to providing the police with the powers, support and protection they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. That is why we are putting our commitment to a police covenant on a statutory footing. We are strengthening the powers available to the police to allow them to tackle unauthorised encampments. We will also introduce measures to strengthen the legal protection given to police drivers when pursuing a subject or responding to an emergency. This will ensure that the police have the protections and the powers they need to continue with their vitally important work.

Along with further protections and powers for our police officers, we will also award them the power to arrest individuals who are wanted by trusted international partners. We will ensure that the police do not have to allow known offenders, flagged on Interpol systems, to walk free while they seek a warrant. The provision will see people who are wanted for a serious crime in a country such as Canada or America and who may be a danger to the public brought before a judge within 24 hours to allow extradition proceedings to commence and thus make the streets of the UK safer.

The Government are working hard to improve the efficient and effective removal of foreign national offenders from the UK. However, tougher action is needed to stop abuse of the system, speed up the process for deporting foreign national offenders and deter foreign criminals from coming to the UK. That is why the Government will significantly increase the maximum penalty for those who return to the UK in breach of a deportation order, sending a clear message to criminals who seek to return to the UK, namely: if you try to return, you will go to prison for a long time.

The Government are absolutely committed to tackling serious violence and making our streets safer. We are determined to stop young people being drawn into crime. We need to understand and address the factors that cause someone to commit violent crime in the first place. That is why the Government will bring forward a new legal duty which will ensure that all agencies work together to share intelligence and identify warning signs, so that we can intervene earlier, protect young people and prevent and reduce serious violence in local areas.

The United Kingdom and its allies face sustained hostile activity from certain states, as illustrated by the Salisbury attack. We are committed to empowering the brave men and women of our law enforcement and security services with the tools they need to tackle these evolving threats. The espionage Bill will modernise existing offences to deal more effectively with the espionage threat.

One of this Government’s key priorities is the integrity and prosperity of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom. Our union is the most successful economic and political partnership in history, and it is at its strongest when all four nations work together. We are committed to getting Stormont functioning again and we will continue to work with Northern Ireland’s political parties to re-establish the Executive and the Assembly. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, we will devolve and empower regions across England so that decisions and powers sit in the right place and closer to people than ever before. As set out in the gracious Speech, the Government are committed to levelling up powers and investment in the regions across England and will also introduce a bold new UK shared prosperity fund to tackle inequality and deprivation in each of the four nations and across all regions of the United Kingdom

The measures outlined in the gracious Speech set out a clear direction for the future of the United Kingdom, for a country with safer streets where the most serious offenders spend longer in prison and tougher community sentences address underlying causes of crime—one that ensures that victims receive justice and have rights enshrined in law to support them throughout the process.

We want a society with zero tolerance for domestic abuse that empowers people to confront it, that values marriage but accepts the realities of divorce, and gives the necessary powers as well as the legal protections our police officers need to do their jobs and keep us safe. We want a nation that works with others to settle cross-border disputes, values immigration but prioritises the skills it needs and rejects foreign criminals from our shores swiftly and decisively, where state agencies work together to address serious violence tou keep our young people safe from harm. We want a United Kingdom that works together, where every constituent part and region is empowered with the necessary political will, the right levels of investment, and the ability to make decisions in its own best interests, where opportunity is levelled up and every single person can thrive. Over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to debating with your Lordships the many measures which I have outlined today.

16:00

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on their comprehensive win in last month’s general election. If nothing else, it allows for a period of stability in the coming years so that important issues can be addressed. I am always willing to support the Government if I think they have got matters rights, but I will always oppose the Government if I believe that, no matter how well intentioned, they are making the wrong call. That will be my job in this noble House in the coming years, as it has been since I arrived here 10 years ago.

The debate today focuses on home affairs, justice, constitutional affairs and devolved affairs. I intend to make some initial comments about the Bills in the Queen’s Speech in these subject areas. Anything I do not cover will no doubt be covered ably by my noble friend Lord Rosser and other noble Lords in today’s debate. I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, in paying tribute to the civilians and others at London Bridge for their bravery, and I offer my condolences to the victims and their families.

Some measures in the Queen’s Speech seem to be trying to fix the damage done by the coalition and Conservative Governments, an example being the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers, to which the Minister referred. That still will not take us back to the level we had in 2010. I was pleased to see that the domestic violence Bill will return, and I hope it will become law later this year. Domestic violence is an evil, wicked crime, and the measures outlined in the Bill will make significant progress in protecting victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. The Bill will, I am told, place a legal duty on local authorities to offer secure accommodation to people fleeing violence. Perhaps, when she responds, the Minister will outline how her department is going to ensure that adequate funds are provided to cover this new duty. Just placing a new duty with no additional funding is not going to deliver the step change that we need to see, and with other measures we have been told too often that new obligations are to be brought but no additional funding, or inadequate funding, is provided.

I have similar concerns in respect of the serious violence Bill, in which it is proposed to create new duties for a range of agencies and encourage partnership working. I want measures in place to deter violence, but partnership working with local authorities, youth services and other agencies costs money. These bodies have not been immune to significant spending reductions in recent years, and without a significant increase in resources I do not see how the proposals will be delivered to any great effect. Will the Minister outline any specific measures she expects to be taken in respect of county lines? This is an area of great concern to many people.

From reading the briefing, the police powers and protections Bill seems to be something that has merit and that we could support. Providing additional support and protections to police officers, who undertake a most difficult but necessary job, is welcome. We will have to look in detail at what is being proposed versus what the professionals think is necessary. I recall that in the previous Parliament a Bill sought to protect all blue-light services and that one of the demands from the Police Federation was tougher penalties for spitting at officers. That was resisted by the Government; they would not be persuaded on this matter. We may need to look at that and bring it back in this Bill.

In respect of the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill and the foreign national offenders Bill, we will have to wait for more detail on the proposals before taking a view, but we need to have proper safeguards in place to eliminate injustices and ensure that we are getting the balance right. I note that one of the first acts of the new Government was to abandon protections for child refugees in the withdrawal Bill. I hope that is not indicative of the asylum and immigration policy the Government intend to pursue.

On the proposed espionage legislation, we will see what comes forward, but it is right to review and update our legislation and protections to protect the United Kingdom from the actions of foreign agencies and powers that want to do us harm through industrial espionage or other threats to our security, safety and economic well-being, and we will support the Government on those matters.

Moving on to the justice proposals, I think we can all sign up to the Government’s aim of a fair justice system that keeps people safe, although after that point there may be differences in how that is delivered and what that means. In both the counter-terrorism Bill and the sentencing Bill, it is just not enough to say that we want to lock up people who have committed offences for even longer. I want sentences that reflect the crime and the community’s and public’s revulsion, but also, while people are in prison, I want real work to be done with them to address their offending behaviour. For very serious terrorists and criminals who commit other appalling offences, I fully accept that that is easier said than done, but it must be the other side of the coin in these matters.

Locking people up for longer and longer will, on its own, not address serious offending and protect us. It is also extremely costly for the taxpayer. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what work has been done to access the best strategies for tackling terrorists and other dangerous offenders, as well as looking at other programmes in Europe and beyond to deal with such matters.

The Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill seems very worthy of our support. Ensuring that prisoners make proper progress and rehabilitation is a good aim, and if certain facts that would help bring closure to victims and/or their families are not disclosed to the authorities by serious offenders, that should be considered by the Parole Board when considering an application for a prisoner’s release. In many ways, it is surprising that that is not done already.

The proposals for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill seem to be progress, although I am not sure that they will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I am very much of the opinion that the more we can keep lawyers and the courts out of divorce proceedings, the better for everyone—I am thinking of divorcing couples’ pockets.

On the constitutional matters contained in the Queen’s Speech, the creation of a constitution, democracy and rights commission is something on which the Government must be very careful. They won a large majority in the general election and will be able to get their business through the House of Commons with no problems whatever, but they must allow Parliament, the courts and the judiciary to scrutinise, challenge and, in some cases, strike out their decisions. We live in a democracy and all these parts of the state, along with a free press, are important pillars that keep matters in check. If things are not respected and treated carefully, there will be grave risks for our country, and the Government must always keep that in mind.

I very much support the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I opposed it in the first place and it has proved to be dreadful legislation. It has been totally ineffective. Even when it was working and prevented the new Prime Minister calling an election, I recall hearing on a Saturday night that the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were going to offer him a Bill to call an election days after he had lost a vote under the Act. I thought, “What nonsense”, and then I heard that the leader of the Opposition was also going to back the Bill. The rest is history, and the only winners have been the Prime Minister and Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland.

Giving the Prime Minister the power to call a general election, which has been the traditional way here in the UK, is something that we should go back to. From recollection, it is very obvious when there is going to be an election. Most Governments who are doing well in the polls will seek a dissolution of Parliament at around the fourth anniversary of their election. If they are trailing in the polls and doing badly, they will carry on into the fifth year and probably quite near to the end of their term of office, unless of course they are defeated in a no-confidence Motion, which is not going to happen any time soon.

In respect of measures to be introduced regarding elections and postal votes, I would prefer there to be much more comprehensive legislation in respect of elections. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will support me on that. I think he agrees with me that our election law is not fit for purpose.

I also think it is time for the Government to take a look at the role and function of the Electoral Commission. It has made a difference but we need to ensure that what it does in terms of all our election law is right. We have plenty of time to do that and I hope that the Government will use the coming period to make sure that it happens. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that as well.

With that, I draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to the rest of the debate, with contributions from many interesting speakers. I also look forward to the maiden speeches, which we will be hearing shortly.

16:09

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, others on these Benches will cover the justice, home affairs and other matters raised in this debate. Given its significance, I want to focus on the proposal in the Conservative manifesto to establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission within the next 12 months, which is repeated in the Queen’s Speech.

After I read that section, I re-read part of Edmund Burke’s writings on the British constitution. The tone of that part of the Conservative manifesto is astonishingly un-Conservative. It suggests that the disruptors from Vote Leave really have taken over the party from authentic Conservatives and are determined to destroy its traditional approach to the British constitution. Burke warned in his Reflections on the Revolution in France that the constitution of a country

“is not a problem of arithmetic”;

that is, not of a simple majority sweeping all before it, claiming to embody the “will of the people”—something that Burke would undoubtedly have seen as a very Robespierrean phrase.

He wrote to the electors of Bristol that their parliamentary representatives owed voters their judgment and wisdom rather than simply following popular sentiment. He emphasised the importance of the rule of law and of careful limits on the prerogative powers of the Crown. Above all, he stressed the importance of spreading power down to local communities or subdivisions—“the little platoons”—as,

“the first principle … of public affections, ... the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.”

What this allegedly Conservative manifesto offers us, in sharp contradiction, is a reassertion of prerogative power, both over Parliament and over judges as interpreters of the law. It refers to,

“The failure of Parliament to deliver Brexit”,

in the same way that Cromwell referred to the failure of the Long Parliament to grant him the powers he wanted. The failure to carry through Brexit for three years was, after all, due mainly to divisions within the Conservative Party, only resolved by expelling the dissenters as Cromwell also did.

It is therefore extremely important to agree what shape the proposed constitution, democracy and rights commission will take. How will it be constituted? If it is to attract and restore public trust, it will need to be seen from the outset as more widely constituted than from among the supporters of a Government which received well under half the votes in December’s election. Who will define its agenda? Will this be decided by No. 10 or by a process of consultation that will welcome divergent views? Will this commission be independent of government in its operation, or under the tight control of a Government in a hurry? I hope that the Government, in replying, will give us some indication of when such vital details will be presented to Parliament in—I hope and assume—a Green Paper for public debate and scrutiny.

We face some fundamental challenges to constitutional democracy, in Britain as in other open societies. Political technologies, funded by state actors or wealthy private individuals supporting their favoured political protégés, have spread from Russia across the western world. Data science now permits precise targeting of different groups of voters, with messages finely tuned to appeal to their fears and hopes. Populist politicians, backed by well-funded campaigns, promote “illiberal democracy” against liberal democracy, which means leadership without constraint, generating popular support by stoking foreign threats and national grievances. From Viktor Orbán to Donald Trump, impatience with the checks and balances of constitutional democracy, and with the limits that law and constitutional rules place on political power, feeds a drift to authoritarian government.

Yesterday, we learned that Tim Montgomerie, appointed an adviser to Prime Minister Johnson last September, has praised Viktor Orbán’s pursuit of what Montgomerie, in a speech in Budapest before Christmas, called “the limits to liberalism”, hailing Trump, Orbán and Johnson as comrades in arms in the move against liberal democracy. I hope that the Conservative Benches in this House deplore this praise for authoritarian populism as much as I do.

The Federalist Papers, setting out the rationale for the American constitution, spelled out the justification for limited government, with institutionalised checks and balances and the careful devolution of power from central Executives. James Madison declared that

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”


Alexander Hamilton—whose musical your Lordships have undoubtedly all seen—said that government has been instituted because

“the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.”

We have become painfully aware, particularly in recent days, of the passions of Donald Trump not conforming to the dictates of reason and justice, and many of us lack confidence that the ambitions of Boris Johnson will not lead him to follow suit.

We on these Benches welcome the opportunity that a well-organised constitutional convention may offer to reform and improve the quality of British democracy and government at all levels, from the federal to the local. However, it must be independent of government, with support from all parties and from civil society, not an attempt to impose a populist electoral dictatorship on Britain—or at least on England, if and when Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the union. And it will need to start by clarifying what we mean by “democracy”. Democracy is not just an event every five years; it is a process that holds government to account, a dialogue between government and citizens that provides and maintains consent for government policies. Popular alienation, of which we are all painfully aware, stems partly from the decline of local democracy, with politics looking like a game played in distant Westminster, unaware of local needs and concerns.

The restoration of public trust requires, to start with: the restoration of direct links between representative government and local communities—the centralisation of the government of England in London has also alienated people in northern towns; regional devolution, for example to Yorkshire, which is as large as Scotland and as capable of managing policing, transport and industrial development; a second Chamber, in what would then become our federal parliament, that represented the regions, to replace our appointed House of Lords, something that my party and others have supported for a long time; a stronger Parliament with fewer Ministers, to hold executive power to account; a more open electoral system so that voters no longer had to hold their noses and vote for whichever of the two dominant parties they disliked less; tighter controls on money in politics, to block the very rich from playing the populist card through heavy investment in political technologies; and citizens educated about their political and civil rights and responsibilities. That will be our proposed agenda for this new commission.

The Conservative manifesto suggests, on the contrary, that the Government want to restrict access to voting, to redraw constituency boundaries so that they no longer represent even the shadows of coherent communities, to inhibit judicial scrutiny and to attack the autonomy of the Civil Service. There is even a reference in that section of the manifesto to the greater use of data science in government, one of Dominic Cummings’ manic enthusiasms, which certainly carries some major potential benefits but also major potential risks. When will the Government spell out to Parliament how they intend to exploit consolidated government data? What statutory safeguards will they build into that exploitation? This is a very important and delicate area of policy.

Yesterday, I was told in a ministerial briefing on the EU withdrawal agreement Bill that the clause in the previous Bill that provided for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of future trade negotiations had been removed because the Government’s majority in December’s election provided a sufficient mandate for whatever they may negotiate in future. That assertion takes us back towards electoral dictatorship as opposed to parliamentary democracy, and suggests that what we are facing from our Prime Minister and those around him is a concerted attempt to shift the balance between government, Parliament and courts—and the devolved Assemblies—in favour of the Executive. That should worry the democrats in all parties.

I have not forgotten that our current Prime Minister thinks that the rules and conventions of constitutional democracy need not apply to him. I recall that he broke several clauses of the Ministerial Code within three days of resigning as Foreign Secretary. However, democracy rests on rules and acceptance of conventions, as Conservatives from Burke to Lord Salisbury have understood. I look forward to learning how the proposed constitutional convention will address these fundamental issues.

16:20

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the gracious Speech and look forward to hearing two maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower. I am sure we will listen with interest to their contributions and that their different experiences will come to be of value in your Lordships’ House.

My contribution focuses on criminal justice matters, not only because of my role as bishop to Her Majesty’s prisons but because these issues affect every community, including those in my diocese. My cathedral was privileged to host the Knife Angel memorial for victims of knife crime last September and many tens of thousands came to see it. That included a special service to remember those who have died or been otherwise affected as a result of knife crime. Alongside this, we sponsor a conference on these issues jointly with the University of Kent. One of my clergy, the Reverend Nathan Ward, also co-ordinated the presentation to the Prime Minister of a pledge book signed by more than 5,000 individuals in Medway committing never to carry a knife.

Therefore, I welcome the Government’s intentions in proposing a serious violence Bill, not least the proposed emphasis on multiagency working between named public agencies. I note also the manifesto commitment to increase funding for youth services by £500 million and the other funding mentioned in response to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Nevertheless, analysis by the Children’s Society suggests that overall funding for youth services from all public services reduced by some £3 billion between 2010 and 2018. In welcoming the proposed duty on public agencies to collaborate, I rather hope that duty will extend to requiring them to collaborate not only with each other but also with voluntary and community organisations, including church and faith communities, not least because of the funding issues. The reality on the ground is that most services for children and young people are now provided by voluntary organisations through both volunteers and paid workers. In the area of my diocese for example, the number of out-of-school youth workers provided by churches far exceeds those provided by all statutory agencies combined. It will be good to see this acknowledged and supported through the legislative framework.

All communities in our country, including faith communities, are sadly affected by domestic abuse and those communities encompass both victims and perpetrators. I welcome therefore the return of the domestic abuse Bill. My diocese is working closely with specialist agencies to raise awareness and understanding in our churches and other communities around this issue, particularly to encourage men to speak out about male violence against women as part of the White Ribbon Campaign with which we are associated. I note the good intention to place a duty on tier 1 local authorities in relation to providing refuges and other safe accommodation. I trust that, in responding to the debate, the Minister can assure the House that the Chancellor also supports that intention.

Alongside the domestic abuse Bill, I welcome the focus on victims but ask the noble Baroness that particular attention be given to children who are exploited, and not infrequently forced into crime as a result of that exploitation. Again, this was mentioned earlier in response to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Such young people too often appear in the criminal justice system as offenders or at least as suspects when fundamentally they are victims. Therefore, somewhere in this package of Bills, a clear statutory definition of child criminal exploitation would help all concerned.

The gracious Speech contains a number of proposals concerning detailed issues around sentencing and combating terrorism. Others are better placed than me to comment on those. However, perhaps because it is not thought to require further legislation, almost nothing is said about the huge challenges that face the regular work of our Prison and Probation Service. We know that the surest—and indeed the cheapest—way of reducing crime and making our communities safer is to make sure that those who offend do not do so again. We know also that the factors which lead people to desist from criminal behaviour are really very simple: decent and assured accommodation; purposeful activity, whether in employment, training, family engagement or volunteering; and networks of good and supportive relationships. Key to much of that is what happens immediately on release and in preparation for it. Alongside the proposed legislation, I hope that in this Parliament we will see good progress on these basic matters, not least in the context of the reshaping of probation services. I am sure I will not be alone in this House in keeping my attention in that direction.

Finally, I think I welcome the proposal for a royal commission. My slight reticence is because we have yet to see the terms of reference. I hope that commission will give attention not only to practical matters but to the reaffirmation and articulation of the principles and purposes that underpin the justice system as a whole. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, served as a commissioner on the 1993 royal commission, and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is speaking today, gave evidence to that commission. Of course, the context has changed significantly since 1993 and we face new and evolving kinds of criminal activity, but the importance of upholding principles of justice, fairness and the power of reconciliation does not change. I look forward to engaging with the commission and continuing to work on these issues with Members across your Lordships’ House and beyond.

16:25

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch UK. I also remind the House that I speak for 30 million UK adults who wish to see immigration reduced, 18 million of them “by a lot”. In yesterday’s debate the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, referred to what he described as a bizarre taboo against discussing world population. I would add that there seems to be an even more bizarre taboo on discussing the population of the UK, this despite the fact that our population is growing at a rate of about 1 million every three years—that is, the population of Birmingham —and 80% of that growth is due to the direct and indirect effect of immigration. If there is such a taboo, I am very happy to break it.

The Queen’s Speech promises a “modern, fair, points-based” system for immigration and it is welcome that the Prime Minister’s new year message recognised that controlling immigration is now one of “the people’s priorities.” Indeed it is. On the same day, a Home Office spokesman said that the Government wished to attract the brightest and the best while bringing the numbers down—good. They are no doubt aware that a recent Deltapoll survey found that 64% of those in marginal seats saw current immigration levels as a “major public concern.” We have had words from the Government; what about action? Crucial decisions will need to be taken quite soon on the shape of the new system. I will just make three brief points.

First, there has been talk of schemes to permit low-skilled workers from certain countries to come and work here for 11 months, before returning home for a so-called cooling-off period. Any such scheme would be completely unenforceable. It would just be a clumsy attempt to manipulate the official immigration figures, and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, agrees. These proposals should be dropped.

Secondly, for skilled workers, the current level of skills and salary must not be undermined. There is already pressure to reduce the skill level from degree to A-level and the salary from £30,000 to £21,000, only just above the living wage in London. The effect of such changes, which I agree sound rather technical, would be enormous. They would expose between 6 million and 9 million UK jobs to new or increased international competition. The effect could well be that the numbers rise sharply, given that wages in Britain are much higher than in the third world and that this route would lead to settlement.

Thirdly and lastly, a solution is at hand, one already an essential part of the Australian system that the Government claim to be following; namely, to place a cap on the number of skilled work permits issued each year. It is as simple as that, and it is a proposition supported by 70% of the British public.

I conclude with the thought that caution is essential. Numbers could well spin rapidly out of control, as they did, regrettably, in the Blair years, and it would be very difficult to get them down. If that was allowed to happen, the Conservative Party would go into the next election having spectacularly failed to reduce immigration for the fourth time. That would not amuse the bulk of its own supporters. As for the new supporters in the so-called red constituencies, many would be absolutely furious. Immigration is normally an issue that this House loves to avoid, but the Government would avoid it at their peril.

I have 10 seconds in which to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to this House and to wish him a very happy and successful time in this body.

16:30

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to rise to speak here for the first time, particularly to do so following the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, who is right to remind your Lordships of the large number of people who are concerned about the rapidly growing population and the contribution that net migration makes to that.

This is only my 12th day sitting in your Lordships’ House. In ordinary times, I might have waited a little longer before venturing to make my first utterances, but this is already my second Parliament and we have just had the second Queen’s Speech in almost as many months, so I thought I had better get my skates on.

Despite arriving in the middle of such a busy period, I have found the staff of the House to be extremely kind, generous and helpful, answering all my many trivial questions and providing directions with great patience despite the many burdens on their time. Most of all, I am grateful to them for not mistaking me for somebody’s son or parliamentary assistant who has taken a wrong turning.

I am particularly grateful to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Lamont of Lerwick, who have given me valuable guidance and support, just as they have over many years, and to noble Lords from all parts of the House who have been so very warm and welcoming.

Of course, the election that we have just seen has changed a great deal. I had anticipated using my maiden speech to tell your Lordships how much I looked forward to speaking up for the north-east of England, a part of the country which does not normally benefit from a loud chorus of Conservative voices, but now I find that I come from the new Tory heartlands and need only be a backing singer to the 10 Conservative MPs who represent the region in another place. None the less, I look forward to working with them and people from all parties and none who want to help a part of the country that I hold particularly dear.

My native area held out against the Tory tide at this election, despite being for many years a dependably Conservative part of the north-east. Whitley Bay stands in the Tynemouth constituency, which for many years was represented by a trailblazing Tory woman, Dame Irene Ward, later a Member of this House and clearly fondly remembered as Baroness Ward of North Tyneside. I know that I do not need to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, anything about Whitley Bay, for she also has the pleasure of hailing from there, but for those of your Lordships who have not yet had the pleasure of visiting, I would heartily recommend it. You will find a place fizzing with great spirit, friendliness and creativity. If your Lordships had been there this time last week, you would have seen 300 hardy souls running into the North Sea for the traditional New Year’s Day dip. I am afraid to say that I was not among them, but their bravery has certainly inspired me as I dip my toes into these rather warmer waters for the first time.

A particular privilege of entering your Lordships’ House at a relatively youthful age is the chance to do so in the sight of both my parents. I am sure that other noble Lords, however and whenever they came to this place, did so deeply conscious of the gratitude that we all owe to our families, and I am very glad to have the opportunity to express mine directly.

I hope your Lordships will also permit me to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, my boss for much of the last seven years. First at the Home Office, and then in Downing Street, I had the privilege of seeing at first hand her dutifulness, her resilience and her strong devotion to public service. I am sure that these qualities will continue to inspire many in public life, particularly those of us who have come here by her nomination. I look forward to speaking in your Lordships’ debates with my own voice, while drawing on all that I learned during those years in government. To that end, I am particularly glad to see the domestic abuse Bill among the measures in the Queen’s Speech. Its provisions will transform and, in many cases, save lives. It has already been far too long in reaching the statute book and I hope it will have a swift passage from hereon in.

I am not only a Conservative and a unionist, I am a Tory and therefore respectful of tradition—not least, today, the sensible tradition of steering clear of contentious topics in one’s maiden speech. However, when a figure as esteemed and authoritative as Lord Sumption is among those who have pointed to the growing tendency to resolve in the courts matters which, even earlier in my short political career, would have been matters for Ministers, accountable to Parliament and to the electorate, I feel safe in welcoming the Government’s plans to establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission.

The Supreme Court turned 10 years old only in October. Even without the controversies of recent months, I think that this would have been a useful time to take stock and examine how it is working and how it has developed. I am glad that there will be a chance to do that through this new commission. For my part, I have certainly watched with concern the way that litigation seems to be becoming politics by another means, and the new, seemingly widespread view that what happens in the courtroom is sacrosanct, while what happens at the ballot box is not.

My despair at seeing laws I had worked on in government and had seen pass both Houses of Parliament struck down as incompatible with EU law was one of the reasons I left government in order to campaign to leave the EU, and I am particularly glad to be coming here at a time when Parliament is reasserting some of the sovereignty which I feared it might have lost. I hope it is more than youthful naivety which leads me to believe that there is a way of proceeding and embracing this commission which can reassert the importance of the rule of law and of parliamentary democracy and can restore the reputation of our courts and our Parliament in the eyes of the public they both serve. I look forward to the day when judges are neither traduced on the front pages of newspapers, nor have their brooches replicated and worn like political pin-badges.

However, these are debates for future occasions and I must be wary of wading too deeply for fear of sinking before I can swim, particularly in the company of so many accomplished swimmers. It is a privilege to be paddling alongside you.

16:37

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who has just made an excellent speech. We are very fortunate in this place in being able to draw on the experience that new Members bring to the House. My noble friend is no exception and does just that, but he also brings to the House an attribute which most of us here do not have and cannot even aspire to: the advantage of youth. He is still in his thirties, and without reform of the second Chamber I must tell him that he could still be a Member of this House in 2070, as a sprightly 80 year-old.

My noble friend has had a stellar political career, first as President of the Cambridge Union, then at the think tank the Centre for Policy Studies, and most recently as adviser to Theresa May, both at the Home Office and then at No 10. He has a deep interest in history and recently deployed his analytical skills to good use in contemporary history, in a devastating critique of a book purporting to be a history of Theresa May’s premiership that was rushed out within weeks of her leaving office. My noble friend reviewed the book with a forensic ferocity, exposing a litany of glaring inaccuracies and unsubstantiated, if not malicious, generalisations. This was not blind loyalty on the part of my noble friend but careful, detailed and effective scrutiny. It is this talent which I know he will put to good use in the proceedings of this House, and we look forward to hearing more from him in future.

I turn now to the gracious Speech, although what I will talk about is not mentioned in it. What is more, I have to be honest, it is a subject on which I have no special knowledge or particular expertise. My purpose is simple: to highlight a subject of considerable importance —the state of our prisons, which was mentioned in the right reverend Prelate’s speech. Last week, I heard the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Peter Clarke, speaking on the “Today” programme. He has been chief inspector for four years, during which time there have been five Justice Secretaries and five Ministers for Prisons. How on earth can a Minister drive a policy through if they are in the job for no more than a few months?

In his interview, the chief inspector spoke about Feltham young offender institution. It had been inspected in January last year and was inspected again in July. In those six months, everything had got worse: levels of self-harm had tripled, violence and the use of force had risen significantly, and 40% of the children said that they felt unsafe during their time there. They were locked up for 20 hours a day. In Swinfen Hall young offender institution in Staffordshire, half the young male prisoners were locked up for 22 hours a day. As the chief inspector explained, it is not surprising that this causes frustration and anger, leading to violence, self-harm and, all too often, suicide.

This puts great pressure on prison officers. It is a really tough job, and they have to be protected. Quite rightly, the Conservative manifesto talks about the need to improve prison security, protect staff and stop drugs being smuggled into prisons. Only yesterday a report was published on HMP Winchester, which said that 59% of prisoners found it easy to import drugs. These are huge challenges. It is partly about resources: more staff and better facilities in prisons. In many places, such as HMP Liverpool, investments and improvements are being made. But it is also about the quality of local leadership, and the quality and teamwork inspired by that leadership. We know how important that is in every organisation—in schools, in companies—and so it is in prisons.

The Conservative manifesto also talked about rehabilitation. It says that the Government

“will create a prisoner education service focused on work-based training and skills”

and talks about having a “job coach” in every prison. I welcome that, but for many prisoners who have had wretched lives, what is needed is much more basic than that. Some of them have mental problems, and many lack the very basic skills of literacy and numeracy. As a general point, I hope that the Government will look around the world to see what they can learn from other countries, what reforms and innovations have worked there which we could perhaps introduce and emulate.

Finally, looking at the Lib Dem Benches, I very much welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, as the new president of the Howard League for Penal Reform. On almost every subject on which I have heard the noble Lord speak, whether in this House or in the media, I have been struck by his common sense and clarity, so I very much hope that he will use his new position to advance the cause of prison reform.

16:43

[Lord Jordan (Lab)]

The gracious Speech gave a high priority to the National Health Service—its health and the health of those it serves. More than 6,000 people are killed as a result of home accidents in the UK every year, considerably more than are killed in workplace or road accidents. The home has become, statistically, a dangerous place to be.

My comparison with road and workplace-related injury seeks not to downplay the seriousness of accidents in other environments but to highlight the fact that reductions in accidental death and injury in those areas were brought about by vigorous and prolonged campaigns led by the trade union movement and organisations such as RoSPA that eventually won the support of the Government, which then saw a safety crusade turned into life-saving laws. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was a turning point for safety in the world of work.

The eradication of home accidents has not yet benefited in the same way from such rigorous and enduring national campaigns. Consequently, the number of fatal and serious accidents in our homes has been increasing. This must change. The Government’s proposed building safety Bill provides an opportunity to alter course and to have a dramatic impact on the number of people needlessly dying or requiring hospital treatment. The Bill has the stated aim of changing industry culture to ensure accountability and that residents are safe in their homes. The focus is understandably on fire safety given the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. However, change is also needed to ensure that new homes have safety built into them to prevent other types of accidental injury. It should be noted that for every one fire-related hospital admission, there are 234 due to accidental falls.

The design of new homes can be improved to minimise the risk of accidents, particularly for those most vulnerable to serious injury: very young children and older people. Many of these accidents could be reduced by better design, such as installing flooring with higher slip resistance in bathrooms and kitchens, where a simple slip can have devastating, long-lasting or life-changing consequences for an older person. If the building regulations were to require the achievement of a minimum standard within, for example, RoSPA’s Safer by Design framework, which has now been endorsed by Public Health England, we could significantly improve the safety of new homes and prevent thousands of life-endangering falls every year. Safer by Design concentrates on dangers that tend not to attract the same level of public scrutiny as other hazards such as fire. The hazards it covers have the greatest likelihood of causing harm in new homes. Falls, burns, carbon monoxide poisoning, entrapment and poisoning from household chemicals all typically happen behind closed doors, yet they affect many thousands of people, causing death and serious injury every year.

Falls in homes account for 124 deaths, 48,600 hospital admissions and more than 600,000 visits to accident and emergency in England each year. It is insane to pour billions of pounds into the NHS bucket while gaping holes such as this go unrepaired. The Government must now include provisions for preventing the most common accidents in the home in their overhaul of building safety regulations, and put safety at the heart of their housebuilding programme.

16:49

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, shortly.

I will use the limited time I have to talk about immigration and policing. In the Prime Minister’s introduction to the Government’s background briefing on the Queen’s Speech, he talks about a “fast-track NHS visa” scheme for healthcare professionals. Can the Minister confirm that the NHS will have to pay the immigration skills charge of £1,000 a year for each foreign healthcare professional it employs and that each foreign healthcare professional will have pay £625 a year to use the NHS, neither of which currently applies to EU nationals? What assessment have the Government undertaken of the likely impact of these changes on NHS budgets and on the recruitment of foreign healthcare professionals?

The Prime Minister also talks about an

“Australian-style points-based immigration system”.

Can the Minister explain how such a system will work in relation to auxiliary staff who work in low-paid jobs in the National Health Service, care workers employed in the social care system and foreign nationals employed in the catering and hospitality sectors?

The Prime Minister talks about “making our streets safer” by recruiting 20,000 new police officers. If the number of police officers leaving the service continues at the current rate, the Government will have to recruit more than 40,000 new police officers over the next three years, recruiting at a rate never previously achieved in the history of the police service. Is the Minister aware of the spikes in the rates of police misconduct and police corruption as a result of mass recruitment in the mid-1970s and mid-2000s? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this does not happen again?

Of course, as the Prime Minister’s predecessor said repeatedly, it is not just about police numbers. British policing is based on consent—on the active support and co-operation of the public acting as the police’s eyes and ears, calling them when they see suspicious activity, passing on information and being witnesses in court. We would need vastly greater numbers of police officers were such co-operation to cease.

Blanket use of Section 60—“suspicionless” stop and search—undermines policing by consent. Only a small proportion of young black men are involved in violent crime, yet Section 60, a power that can be lawfully deployed only in areas with high levels of violent crime, affects a large proportion of young black men, the majority of whom will not be involved in violent crime. Despite a Sunday Times article last weekend casting doubt on the effectiveness of Section 60 and research by the College of Policing showing that stop and search is not effective above relatively low levels, the Government want Section 60 to be used even more, lowering the authority levels required. Today, the BBC published research showing that killings in London have risen every year over the past three years despite massive increases in Section 60 stop and search and higher stop and search rates per head of population than anywhere else in the country. Outside London, where stop and search is used far less, homicides are down for the first time in five years. We cannot arrest our way out of the crisis in violent crime.

The proposed legislation to provide better protections for the survivors of domestic abuse and better support for victims is welcome, but my concern about the royal commission into the criminal justice system is that it provides cover for inaction over the lifetime of this Parliament.

When it comes to immigration and making our streets safer, this Queen’s Speech contains many provisions that do not appear to have been thought through, or where the evidence suggests that they will be ineffective or even counterproductive. They will certainly not compensate for the loss of safety as a result of losing such measures as the European arrest warrant, the reduction in EU workers as a result of abolishing free movement and the other benefits of European Union membership.

We will assiduously scrutinise the Government’s actions and legislation. With a sizeable majority in the other place, there will be no one but the Government to blame when, as the evidence suggests they will, these measures fail to produce their intended outcomes.

16:53

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay on his excellent maiden speech.

The Prime Minister has promised a vast interlocking programme to unite and level up the whole of the UK and unleash its potential, so the royal commission on the criminal justice system should mesh with the Government’s promised review of the children’s social care system. A quarter of imprisoned men and a third of women were in care. Care-experienced children are five times more likely to offend. Such crimes imply victims, increased costs and other considerable negative impacts on society. This care review needs a relentless focus on prevention. Preventing children coming into care where possible prevents care being a conveyor belt into crime and other highly detrimental outcomes. It must focus particularly on the relationships children in care need to thrive. They are an underexploited resource, yet for a child to surface, someone has to be irrationally committed to them. The Government have developed the Lifelong Links programme through their innovation fund, but the DNA of this programme has to be replicated throughout the care system and in the lives of care leavers in prison.

Returning to the royal commission, efficiency and effectiveness need to be measured against purpose. That includes public protection, safety and order, the reform of offenders and preparing prisoners for release. My two reviews have shown incontrovertibly that relationships, the golden thread that must run through the prison rehabilitation system and the criminal justice agencies that surround it, are fundamentally important if offenders are to change.

Family and other relational ties provide meaning and the all-important motivation to other strands of rehabilitation activity. They are the third leg of the stool, alongside employment and education, which bring stability and structure to prisoners’ lives. They are particularly important for women as relationships are their greatest criminogenic need. Women are frequently in prison because of a coercive partner or family member, and preparation for release must enable disentanglement from toxic relationships. The royal commission should pay specific attention to the needs of female offenders and build on the Government’s strategy, the implementation of which appears to have lost momentum. It must also address the intergenerational transmission of crime, given that almost two-thirds of male prisoners’ sons become offenders, with an even higher prevalence among the children of imprisoned mothers. They are more likely to end up in local authority care, further necessitating the royal commission’s co-ordination with the care review.

Disappointingly, the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill survives. Its stated purpose, to remove issues that create conflict within the divorce process to strengthen family support, is naive and oxymoronic. Removing fault from divorce is unlikely to lead to a more harmonious post-separation world. Solicitors say that enduring conflict is focused on who gets the children and for how long, as well as on finances. The Government disagree that removing any notion of responsibility from divorce alters the character of marriage or affects longer-term divorce rates. However, contradictory evidence and manifold contrary responses to the consultation process were ignored. With the full approval of the state, emotional and financial harm is inflicted on the partner who is unilaterally divorced, as well as on the children, who typically prefer parents to mend it, not end it. Such inconvenient truths belie Government claims that no-fault divorce will “strengthen family support”. I will strongly resist this at Second Reading and it was not in the Conservative manifesto.

However, I fully endorse the commitment to champion family hubs, which give families the intensive and integrated support they need. Focusing attention here is the best way for the Government to strengthen family support. These would be an accessible, stigma-free place parents can go before, during and after any potential separation to get help with relational problems and prevent them impacting their children. As in Australian family relationship centres, mediation and other family law interventions could be delivered in these hubs. This would require the Ministry of Justice to work with the Department for Education and the troubled families unit.

Every department of government has a role in strengthening family relationships, so we need a Cabinet-level Minister to co-ordinate and lead this cross-cutting work, served by an equivalent apparatus to the Government Equalities Office. The Conservative Manifesto says:

“A strong society needs strong families.”


Strong families ensure that children experience the safe, stable and nurturing relationships they need to thrive. They cherish grandparents and great-grandparents so that they can face the challenges of older age flanked by love and support. They bolster working adults so that they are match fit for an ever-changing workplace. Families and relationships are not tangential at best and irrelevant at worst to policy-making or politics. They are central to human flourishing, but they will not be strengthened by words. Concrete and co-ordinated actions are required. I and others will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire until they deliver.

I am now very pleased to welcome my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower to make his maiden speech.

16:59

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer; it is a pleasure to follow him. I am grateful to be able to give my maiden speech during this gracious Speech debate. I begin my maiden speech by sharing with your Lordships my delight at both the opportunity and privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House—a place I have always held in high esteem. It is, without any doubt, an integral part of our legislature and provides the much-needed checks and balances on the work of Parliament. Long may it continue to do so.

To say that my elevation to your Lordships’ House was a surprise would probably count as the understatement of the decade, but my introduction here just a few weeks ago in October must surely count as one of the most notable days, if not the most notable, of my life—something I never expected but am truly honoured to accept. At this point, I must pay tribute to the clerks, the doorkeepers for their help with the geography and all the staff who made that such a memorable occasion; I thank them very much.

Maiden speeches are something of a hazard for me. On the last occasion, during my maiden speech upon entering the House of Commons, I rose to my feet on being called by Mr Speaker and immediately set off, dutifully informing the House how wonderful my new constituency was, when I suddenly noticed the date on the outside of the folder containing my notes. It was 3 June, my wedding anniversary. I was so engrossed in the preparation of my maiden speech that I had committed the cardinal sin of forgetting to send a card or to phone home that day. In a state of sudden and total panic, my immediate reaction was to apologise publicly during my speech and to foolishly suggest that a mention in Hansard would hopefully heal the wound. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that it was a hopeless attempt and failed miserably. I am pleased to report that I have now been forgiven.

Being introduced was a unique experience and I take this opportunity to thank my two supporters, my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. Both have distinguished themselves in their chosen professions and indeed, to a certain extent, have at times influenced my opinion on matters of politics and, in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, issues of policing. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, of course, led the Conservative group in what was then known as the National Assembly for Wales and was instrumental in modernising and reshaping the Conservative brand during the early stages of Welsh devolution. I was extremely proud to become a member of that group at Cardiff Bay for several years. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, among other senior policing roles, is of course a former commissioner of our great capital police force in London—a much-respected and popular Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, steering and refocusing the Met after the difficult days that followed the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It was here in London that I was privileged to serve with him in my role as a senior detective in what I regard to be the greatest police service in the world.

On a personal note, I had a wonderful and enjoyable upbringing in the small seaside village of Port Eynon on the south coast of the Gower peninsula in south-west Wales. I am very proud to boast that it was the first area to be designated an area of outstanding natural beauty in the United Kingdom. Having attended and received a solid education at the local Gowerton Boys’ Grammar School—incidentally, a school that produced many well-known international sports men and women, particularly rugby players, together with leading scholars in the fields of medicine and the law—I decided to follow in my father’s footsteps and join the police service. I am very proud of that, choosing to police in London as opposed to the tranquillity of rural Wales.

It will therefore come as no surprise to noble Lords that I regard the criminal justice system and devolution as extremely important aspects of government. I therefore take this opportunity to touch on a couple of issues. An area that frequently causes concern—it has already been spoken of—is the police power to stop and search. I am pleased to see that the Home Office has grasped the nettle on this, and I applaud the fresh approach adopted to stop and search by the Home Secretary in recent times, which hopefully has restored confidence for its use by front-line officers. It is, without any doubt, the one vital tool that operational officers have in their crime-reducing toolbox. I say “concern” because there is apprehension among operational officers that they may be criticised for using these powers in certain circumstances, even when justified. Conversely, where these powers are abused, resentment naturally follows. However, used appropriately and in a manner which is proportionate to the circumstances, there should be no fear on the part of any person where officers have reasonable grounds to use the powers and follow the correct and proper processes. It is true that mistakes are made, but that is more an issue of management and training, which should be identified and addressed.

Sadly, during the last year we have seen an unprecedented increase in knife crime on the streets of London. Murders in the capital reached their highest level for 11 years, with 148 deaths recorded in 2019, and no sooner had we seen the new year in when the first tragic death by stabbing occurred. I am therefore encouraged to see that the proposed serious violence Bill will create responsibilities for a range of agencies, including that local government, youth offending services, health services and probation services should work collaboratively to tackle the root causes of violent crime. I am particularly encouraged by the proposed creation of new court orders to target known knife carriers, making it easier for police to stop and search those convicted of knife crime offences. I look forward very much to seeing this Bill make a swift and successful journey on to the statute book.

On devolution, I have but one wish, and that is to see Wales prosper economically. Many of the levers for such prosperity rest with the Welsh Government. However, financial support from central government is essential for city and growth deals and major infrastructure projects. I could wax lyrical for hours on the lack of infrastructure projects in Wales, particularly on the lack of local political foresight and the need for investment in transport infrastructure, which, after all is said and done, is the essential ingredient for social and economic mobility in rural areas. I very much look forward to the day when the A55 will be upgraded in north Wales. It is a major arterial road but is now a frequently gridlocked dual carriageway, unable to meet the capacity needs of that essential northern Wales, east-west connector route.

I am especially pleased to note that government is to fund the West Wales Parkway station, just outside of Swansea. This will transform journeys between west Wales and Cardiff and beyond. It is a sad fact that young people in places such as Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion are unable to travel daily to our capital city of Cardiff to engage in their chosen vocation. Consequently, we see a drain of young people out of our rural areas, never to return. This is all due to the unbelievable Victorian principles that we still apply to the journey westwards towards Cardiff and a lack of rail infrastructure. A Swansea parkway will enable journeys to be completed without the current mandatory change of train at Swansea and further connection, while exposed to the elements. More importantly, it will considerably reduce the volume of traffic heading eastwards in the morning and back in the evening, which consequently creates a daily logjam on a now not-fit-for-purpose M4. Above all, it will, I hope, also reduce vehicular emissions by encouraging more people on to our trains.

I conclude by saying that I look forward very much to playing an active part in the work of your Lordships’ House but especially in promoting those issues not just near and dear to me but, above all, that influence the quality of life of our citizens.

17:07

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships’ House will want to congratulate my old friend—I used to be his boss but he is certainly a friend now—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on his outstanding maiden speech. It was interesting that, when he was introduced into the House of Lords, as we marched in there was a guard of honour of MPs and Members from Wales and elsewhere. I am not sure that I have seen that before in my 15 or 16 years in the House. That was all about him.

I have known the noble Lord for a long time. As a senior detective, he was involved in one of the most difficult operations in Europe. I remember someone saying to me, “I think, Commissioner, it’s about time you go out and find out what he is doing.” I did. He was working in the Balkans, in areas where other people did not want to work. While there, he showed bravery, courage, honesty and integrity. That came out in his speech, together with his charm. Since policing, his highly successful political career has been stellar. We welcome the noble Lord and look forward to hearing a lot more from him on European policing, on which he is an expert. I congratulate him on his speech.

It was 20 years ago this week that I was appointed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. As many noble Lords will know, it was a police service that was lacking in confidence, from the public and within itself, having been found wanting by the public inquiry led by Sir William Macpherson. Many in the service claimed that morale was at its lowest point ever. We sought to restore confidence and pride in being a police officer. At the heart of this was the need to grow police numbers, to provide the support so badly needed by those responsible, day in, day out, for policing our streets and keeping us safe in our homes.

We inherited a police service of 26,405 police officers. On record, we were losing 400 officers a month. In six to nine months of my taking command and working with my team, the Metropolitan Police probably would have ceased to exist. As a result, we got massive support from the Prime Minister of the day, the Home Secretary, and subsequently from the then London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, the London Assembly and all the politicians who were necessary to ensuring that we tackled this crisis. Together, we tackled it, and together, we succeeded.

I am afraid that the past decade has seen the reversal of this situation, as we have heard in your Lordships’ House today, with police numbers falling and crime increasing, through knife attacks and the worrying growth of county lines drug dealing. I am sad to say that we have also witnessed political support and engagement dwindling for those brave enough to undertake a policing career. That is a fact. However, I am delighted that we once again have a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary who recognise the value and importance of a strong and respected relationship. This is reinforced by the new government commitment to provide the service with an additional 20,000 police officers in England and Wales. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, explained that we probably need 40,000, but this will restore the status quo. It is a positive start which cannot and should not be sniffed at. It will take some time to deliver.

I also welcome the pledge for the introduction of police protection legislation to provide the police with additional powers, support and protection, a move which I believe will provide further confidence and support to our officers as they perform their duties each day. The assaults on police and other emergency services are an absolute scandal—this cannot continue.

Police officers must be meticulous in all that they do, especially when investigating crime. It must be very depressing for all of them—although part of the job— when they see those convicted of some of the most serious crimes imaginable being released back into the community well before they deserve to be. I therefore welcome the Government’s plan to introduce tougher sentencing for violent offenders and to end automatic half-way release for serious crimes, which I believe will strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system. I welcome the introduction of statutory duties across multiple public agencies to work together to prevent and reduce serious violent crime in communities, and the renewed attention committed to victims’ rights is more than welcome.

It is key that the Government address the vulnerable in our communities. Earlier this week, it was announced by its chairman that the National Police Chiefs' Council also welcomes the royal commission. However, as has already been addressed, it will be necessary for that not to be seen in isolation. For anything to succeed, it must be a combined approach to what is a serious problem.

As Gilbert and Sullivan wrote

“A policeman’s lot is not a happy one.”

It probably never was or is. However, it will be a much happier one with this Government’s renewed focus on supporting our police service and our dedicated and brave police officers, who keep us all safe in our beds at night.

17:14

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in this House, late last year, before I was rudely interrupted by a general election, I expressed my judgment that we were in danger of sleepwalking towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. I said then that I thought the combination of Boris Johnson and a hard Brexit would fan the flames of separatism. Nothing has changed my mind on that; indeed, the situation has got worse, because now the British electorate have clearly shown that they will not support—and I believe will never support—a Labour leadership that is unpatriotic, profligate, dogmatic and untrustworthy when it comes to the economy and security and, God forbid, even our Jewish minority in this country. That has removed the prospect of an alternative to the Johnson Government, which will have an effect in Scotland as well.

Of course, we can argue that it manifestly would not be in the interests of Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. First, there is a massive deficit if it separates—greater than Italy and greater than the south of Europe. The result of that would be austerity far greater than anything we have seen in the past few years, including in the health service, education and so on. Secondly, a separate Scottish economy would have to use the pound sterling. It would be, as Ireland was in the early years, a slave economy to England. Thirdly, the idea that there would be a re-accession to the European Union by the separate state of Scotland is a pipe dream, particularly when we consider that that requires unanimity and consider the countries in Europe that have their own separate problems among the ethnic minorities—witness Spain with the Catalans and the Basques.

On any rational grounds, it is manifestly not in the interests of Scotland to separate. But here is the rub: decisions are not always made on rational grounds. They are made on the grounds of emotion, frustration, ideology and spirit. Witness the decision of the English electorate to leave Europe. I understand the cuts in services and the additional pressure on services from immigration. I also understand the growing sense of English nationalism. But that decision was not one of enlightened self-interest. I accept it, but I do not have to agree with it. It was not in the interests of the English people. We must not delude ourselves that what is sufficient for the English, even in the face of rationality, will be insufficient for the Scots. I believe that there is a great danger that that will be missed because of the majority that the Prime Minister—and we congratulate him—achieved in the last election.

There are a mere 16 words in the Queen’s Speech on the most central of all issues:

“The integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance to my Government.”


That is it. It is of such utmost importance to the Government that it merited no further comment in the Queen’s Speech. There were a few vague references in the background briefing. It was not even mentioned in the House of Commons Library briefing. The most central aspect, which was supposed to underpin our leaving of Europe—the restoration of sovereignty to the United Kingdom and the integrity of that kingdom —is not even mentioned, other than in those 16 words in the Queen’s Speech. I say to the House—and I say it with no great joy because all my life I have argued for the retention of Scotland inside the United Kingdom because it is in its interests—that the integrity of the United Kingdom should not have been reduced to a background briefing document. It should have been at the forefront of the problems that we now face and the challenges being answered in the Queen’s Speech.

This issue will continue to fester. The Prime Minister likes to say that he has an oven-ready solution, but this dish will simmer for quite a while. It will not be done by the end of this month. While it is simmering, the very unity of the United Kingdom will increasingly be threatened, and I suspect that when it is cooked, the proof of that particular pudding will be that it is unpalatable for a lot of us who believe in the United Kingdom.

17:20

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on their excellent and powerful maiden speeches.

For Liberal Democrats, committed as we are to remain, the election was a major defeat and a great disappointment. We recognise that we are now headed for Brexit, which we believe will do significant harm to the UK and Europe. Supporters of Brexit now regularly call upon us all to unite behind leaving. While of course we accept the result of the election, I suggest that it is important to recognise that our nation remains deeply divided on Europe, geographically and generationally, that unity will be a long time coming, and that all parties, winners and losers, must seek out common ground. For the winners simply to impose the entirety of their will on the losers, without looking for compromise positions, just will not work.

On justice, there is a chilling passage in the government briefing on the Queen’s Speech that foresees us losing the European arrest warrant, which all security professionals agree makes us safer, as do our membership of Europol and Eurojust and our access to the Schengen databases. Our civil and family justice systems are enormously enhanced by the Rome regulations on choice of law and conflicts, the Brussels regime on determination of forum and recognition and enforcement of judgments and awards, and the enhanced Hague convention provisions on the abduction of children. These are all benefits that the previous Government consistently assured us that a Brexit deal would preserve. I do not share that confidence now. The provisions proposed in the private international law (implementation of agreements) Bill outlined by the Minister in opening will provide an inadequate substitute for the comprehensive co-operation and, importantly, the international reciprocity guaranteed by the existing provisions of EU law. Furthermore, new Clause 26(1) of the European withdrawal Bill, which permits lower courts, not just the Supreme Court, to depart from decisions of the European Court of Justice, reflects the worst consequences of divergence.

Why prohibit an extension of the implementation period, even if the necessary agreements are not yet in place? The Government threaten to act like a driver on a long journey, with a deadline for arrival, who responds to difficulties en route by driving ever faster and more dangerously to arrive on time, when a prudent driver would phone ahead and change the deadline to reach the destination safely. The Government’s approach is irresponsible and naive, the opposite of careful and well-judged diplomacy.

On other proposals on justice, there is much to welcome. We will support the enhanced victims law and the reintroduction of the domestic abuse Bill, which will transform protection for victims. The continuing reform of sentencing law will simplify and improve an overcomplicated area of law. Legislation on no-fault divorce is long overdue.

We particularly look forward to a royal commission on criminal justice. We will advocate greater concentration, from arrest to final completion of sentence, on turning lives around by helping address drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues, homelessness, deprivation, lack of education, training and employment opportunities, and the specific problems faced by women offenders. We will be arguing for co-ordinated provision for individual offenders, involving the prison and probation services, local authorities, health and training providers, potential employers and others. We will also be calling for the restoration of viable and adequate legal aid to help offenders navigate the unfamiliar and often hostile environment of the criminal justice system.

But my concern is that the Government’s attitude, evidenced by the proposed counterterrorism, sentencing and serious violence Bills, suggests a populist approach—locking up more people and for longer—whereas the reality is that in the UK we imprison far too many for too long. As other noble Lords have said, we must improve prison conditions, reduce overcrowding, increase staffing levels and cut the appalling violence, giving offenders a real chance of rehabilitation, so cutting crime and its human and financial cost accordingly. I hope that in this Parliament we will be able to make some progress on these issues.

17:25

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, two years ago I received an email from a complete stranger about veterans. I did some research and found, going back five years and more, that Members of both Houses had been approached on the topic. I and others raised it in Questions and debates, in approaches to four Home Secretaries, and by letters or meetings of delegations. One well-supported letter was sent in January 2019 by Andrew Rosindell MP and co-signed by Sir Lindsay Hoyle. It was supported by a further 18 MPs and a dozen Peers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and me. With many approaches to Home Office Ministers, what is it about? What responses were given and is it resolved?

Some 300 individuals born in Hong Kong and locally enlisted to serve in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces prior to handover were seeking right of abode in the United Kingdom. Early reaction from the Home Office was dismissive. Locally employed and locally enlisted, they were said to have no rights other than to British national (overseas) status. However, these veterans had been employed and paid by the UK, not the Hong Kong Government, their pay was subject to a UK tax reduction, they had been issued with UK service identity papers, and some had undertaken detachments in this country and jungle warfare training in Brunei. Others had been deployed to meet UK commitments to UNFICYP in 1990-91 to allow UK servicemen there to redeploy in the first Gulf conflict. Their status as veterans seemed indisputable and should be honoured by the Government under the Armed Forces covenant, as mentioned in the gracious Speech.

After that, Ministers’ responses then sounded more helpful:

“We have agreed to undertake a thorough assessment of the request that this group are offered right of abode in the United Kingdom”.


That was the response from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in January 2016. No decision was reached. By 2018, responses to Questions resorted to stonewalling and indecision. For example, in March 2018, Caroline Nokes MP wrote:

“We have received a number of representations on this matter, all of which are being carefully considered”,


adding that a decision would be made as soon as practicable.

A month later the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, wrote to me in answer to one of my Questions with an identical copy-and-paste Answer. So it went on and, in July 2019, Caroline Nokes said in an Answer:

“This is a complex matter to which we are giving careful consideration”.


In short, these veterans have been left in limbo. Ministerial responses could be diagnosed as repetitive indecision syndrome.

I have now had sight of a more recent letter, dated 13 September 2019, to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, signed by Seema Kennedy, then a Home Office Minister. She confirmed that members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps were

“part of the UK armed forces in Hong Kong … therefore MoD considers them veterans.”

Ms Kennedy went on to say that

“from a moral perspective further consideration is required.”

She said that the Home Office is

“fully engaged with this issue.”

That was signed off four months ago. The original 300 who started this request five years ago have reduced, through emigration to Canada, Australia and elsewhere and through deaths, to fewer than 100 individuals, and by no means is it likely that all would decide to leave Hong Kong.

I should mention that I have recently accepted the kind offer to be a patron of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and HKOR Benevolent Association, the members of which are affected. I recall that fine Gurkha servicemen, even though never British subjects, were granted the right of abode in the UK because they served in the British Army. While all will recognise the scale of Home Office involvement with pressing immigration issues, it is unacceptable to continue to prevaricate about this claim and so not to honour our obligation to these veterans, who swore allegiance to the Crown, served full time in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and were born British subjects.

It is four years since the Government first agreed to “undertake a thorough assessment”, as was promised by the noble Lord, Lord Bates. It is time for them to find a cure for their repetitive indecision syndrome.

17:30

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the elected police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I start with a short tribute to Ron Hogg, the former police and crime commissioner for Durham, whose life was celebrated yesterday at Durham Cathedral. He was in a past life a senior police officer, before being elected PCC in 2012. He was an outstanding and popular police and crime commissioner who called himself the “police and victims commissioner” and focused relentlessly on victims of crime. He will be long remembered.

In the short time available, I want to concentrate on the Government’s very welcome commitment to increasing the number of police officers by 20,000 over the next three and a half years; a welcome step, as I said, but one that needs perhaps to be examined in a little detail. The Government have called this,

“an unprecedented drive to increase the ranks.”

In a sense it is, but it is worth recording that in 2010 the number of serving police officers was 171,600. By March 2019, there were just over 150,000 officers, which represents a decrease over those years of 12%, 21,000 officers having left.

When the new police officers are in place, we will simply have cancelled some of the cuts brought about by the measures that Governments thought were necessary but which in my view were a mistake. For local context, in Leicestershire we had over 2,300 police officers in 2010. When I started in 2016, this figure had fallen to 1,800; that is, 500 fewer police officers on the streets of an area whose population had grown by 10% to 1.1 million. Recorded crime has doubled.

Our Chief Constable Simon Cole and his team are being asked to do much more with far less against a rapidly shifting backdrop that remains fairly unpredictable, not least because of Brexit. Our share of the new officers will be about 400; that is great, but it is worth pointing out that we have a long way to go before we will have increased the number sufficiently to get back to the necessary figures.

Another challenge that I raise, in a gentle spirit, is this: it looks as though the Government will be allocating £750 million to fund the recruitment of these 20,000 new police officers. But will police and crime commissioners and chief constables actually receive that money? The figure may be nearer £630 million; the rest, as the Government have already said, must come from that old favourite, efficiency savings.

I fear that the promise of 20,000 police officers set out in the manifesto is underfunded by over £100 million. Finding that sort of money for a police force after a decade of austerity, in an environment where approaching nine-tenths of the cost are taken up by salaries, will be a challenge, to put it mildly. Indeed, if it is £630 million for 20,000 police officers, that is £31,500 per post. The actual cost of a police officer is much nearer £50,000 per officer so there will be underspending—an underfund —unless we are very careful. On top of that there are the infrastructure costs associated with the increase in police officer numbers, recruitment, training, ICT, vehicles and equipment, and those non-salary costs are not captured in the on-costs of police officers.

Of course, the policy change is very welcome but all Governments, whatever their complexion, are fond of giving with one hand and taking away with another. With all the pressures that there are on police forces up and down the country—those pressures of course include recruitment as well as serious violent crime and other matters that the House knows well—I argue that it would be a major error for the Government to limit the amount that police and crime commissioners are able to precept in the coming settlement. That settlement is of course now out of date but, because of the election, the new one has not yet been announced; perhaps it will be announced next week. I really hope that the Government will bear in mind, in the spirit of what they are trying to do, that they should ensure that chief constables’ powers are not limited by too little precept.

17:36

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in commending my two noble friends for their high-quality maiden speeches. I follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. He pointed out that my party annexed a substantial number of votes from Labour in its heartlands—aspirational, patriotic, small “c” conservatives. My party may now need to annex some of Labour’s more sensible policies as well in order to secure those votes next time, notably putting public services before tax cuts for the better off. A good start has been made with the NHS, but we need to follow through with investment in social housing, regional policy and the reform of universal credit. The DNA of the Conservative Party is changing, and we should acknowledge that, as earlier generations have, to ensure its continuing success as a one-nation party.

I turn to the constitution. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act has had a bad press and has itself come to the end of its term. It was not, as some have claimed, a knee-jerk reaction to the formation of the coalition Government, preventing its unilateral dissolution by David Cameron at a time inconvenient to our partners. It was actually a manifesto commitment by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats before the 2010 election that was generously, but perhaps ill-advisedly, adopted by my party. However, it has not worked, as we have seen, with the Government twice choosing when they want an early election.

The Loyal Address said:

“Work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.”


But in the list of Bills published by the Leader in another place, there is no mention of what I assume is a straightforward repeal Bill. Can my noble friend shed some light on that?

Related to that is the manifesto commitment on boundaries. The last election that I fought was in 2010, using boundaries based on the electoral register drawn up 10 years earlier. Amazingly, those are the boundaries used in the three subsequent elections, last month’s being based on boundaries 19 years out of date. Without spending too much time on the reasons for that—glossing over the voting down by the Liberal Democrats of legislation introduced by their own Leader—the question arises what to do to prevent a repetition of this distortion of the democratic process. We have, to use the Prime Minister’s words, an oven-ready set of proposals, presented by the Boundary Commission in September 2018 that should have been laid before both Houses, in the words of the legislation,

“as soon as may be”,

but over a year later they have not been. Is it the Government’s intention to proceed with those, giving us a new House of Commons with 600 Members at the next election? Or is it their intention, as rumoured over the weekend, to revert to a House of 650 Members, which will require primary legislation to be introduced very soon if new boundaries are to be in place for the next scheduled election?

I turn next to voter ID, a commitment which I welcome. This has been portrayed as a sinister conspiracy by my party to disenfranchise our political opponents—see Owen Jones in last week’s Guardian. It is nothing of the sort. Compulsory ID was introduced by Labour for Northern Ireland and was recommended four years ago for the rest of the UK by the independent Electoral Commission, on which all three main parties are represented. It has repeated that recommendation several times since. The chair of the Electoral Commission has said:

“Unfortunately this proposal risks becoming a political football”—


a sport unknown in your Lordships’ House. Can I ask when this legislation will be introduced?

I welcome the consultation announced in the Queen’s Speech on electoral integrity. I have often said, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, reminded us, that we have an analogue legislative framework in a digital age. Much of the groundwork is being done by the Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. His committee is in turn drawing on the 14 reports already issued on this subject. We now need a Minister in the Cabinet Office to drive this agenda forward urgently, perhaps taking the committee’s report in June as the basis for the promised consultation.

Finally, I turn to the proposed commission on constitution, democracy and rights. The briefing tells us this will

“examine the broader aspects of the constitution in depth and develop proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”

I hope its members will be youthful polymaths, as I suspect that to live up to its name it will have to sit for a very long time and cover a wide range of subjects, including the royal prerogative, judicial review, party funding, the voting system, the future of the union, the ECHR, the role of House of Lords, the freedom of the press, franchise for 16 year-olds and appointments to the judiciary, to mention but a few. It must be prioritised and broken down into component parts if it is to be manageable.

All this is a major programme of constitutional reform, which should, wherever possible, be secured by consent. As it passes through Parliament, I hope the expertise of your Lordships’ House can be applied to it so that any emerging reforms might last longer than the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

17:42

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young, because he has of course been a long-term champion of parliamentary democracy in an unrivalled way. By contrast, Mr Dominic Cummings is not a Conservative and he certainly does not wish to conserve the UK constitution. Neither is he, we understand, a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party; indeed, he seems to be all too eager to unlock the union. Yet his personal agenda is all too evident in the 2019 Conservative manifesto and its sketchy reiterations in the gracious Speech.

The proposed

“Royal Commission to review and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process”

raises vital issues of priority, principle and practicality. Noble Lords may query whether the emphasis is right. Efficiency and effectiveness are means to an end, but the purpose of the process is to ensure that justice is done for the citizen, not just for the convenience and funding constraints of the state.

However, at least this is to be a royal commission, with all the traditional virtues of independence of the Executive that it involves. This is not so, apparently, for the constitution, democracy and rights commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, just referred. Given that the only example included in the gracious Speech under this heading is the threat to

“repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act”,

this may be a crass attempt by Mr Cummings to “take back control” to No. 10, rather than a genuine, independent, cross-party and long-overdue initiative to bring our representative democracy into the 21st century.

Incidentally, it is not straightforward, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggested. As Mr Cummings will discover, repeal of this Act would not just restore status quo ante. If the Government really want to take back from the Commons the dissolution decision, so that once again the captain of one political team would have the right to blow the final whistle whenever he or she thought that they were winning, this will require new legislation, otherwise it will not fulfil its purpose.

The manifesto promised to

“protect the integrity of our democracy.”

It has been the consensus across parties, and widespread in the body politic, that the most damaging threat has come from the failure of regulation and the regulators to transfer from the analogue to the digital campaign age, as has just been said. The investment of huge sums of money—much of it allegedly foreign and potentially illegal—in the 2016, 2017 and 2019 electoral campaigns by this means seems not to have been considered worthy of mention. We are still waiting for action on the various recommendations in 2019 to the Cabinet Office on this issue.

Some of the issues referred to specifically, such as

“the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts … the role of the House of Lords … the balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government”,

should certainly cause concern on all sides today—and well they may, given that the approach of Mr Cummings sounds like demolition rather than just better definition. We may well be drifting to a situation where No. 10 is trying to move towards an elective dictatorship; I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will speak later.

At St Margaret’s this morning, the order of service asked us to pray that the officers here

“may properly enable the work of government.”

Fortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was leading us at that point in the service and she firmly changed this to “the work of Parliament.” Since 1688 the Government have been answerable to Parliament, not the other way around. We may need to remind the present Administration of that at regular intervals in the next few years.

The greatest weakness in our democracy, displayed for all to see by last month’s election, was the extent to which its voting system cheats our citizens. Compare the number of votes it takes for them to elect a Green MP compared with a Scottish nationalist. The ratio of inequality is 33:1. The manifesto promises action:

“making sure that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.”

The Government must make clear that this is impossible with the first-past-the-post system. To fulfil the promise of equal voting value, electoral reform must feature in the remit of the commission.

Dominic Cummings boasts of his insurrection against the metropolitan elite in Parliament and the Civil Service. Since he is a product of an unfashionable fee-paying school and read history at Exeter College, Oxford, just like me, I suppose that I should rejoice in his rebellious company. I do not deny the need for a radical reappraisal of our constitutional settlement. I am just not convinced that he truly believes in parliamentary democracy.

17:47

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I should have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, before deciding what to speak about because he has said nearly everything that I wished to say, so I will not be very long. Your Lordships have heard me, and listened patiently to me, addressing the House about this misuse, this abuse, this failure to comply with constitutional conventions. As I spoke, I believed it and I still believe it. What has happened to Cabinet responsibility? Gone. What has happened to the confidentiality of Cabinet? What has happened to the constitution when the Minister for the Constitution is not a member of the Cabinet? What is happening and has happened with Henry VIII clauses now strewn like confetti at a happy wedding in the old days when, if I may say so to the Lords spiritual, the vicars did not mind if there were confetti on the path all the way back to and in the church?

When I read about the constitution, democracy and rights commission, I thought, “Hurrah! We’re going to address the problems. We’re going to address the misuse and the abuse. We’re going to try to make the Government more answerable to Parliament.” Then I thought, “Isn’t that funny? Democracy and rights are what constitutions are about. Why bother to have a commission into constitution, democracy and rights? Why add those words if your real concern is the constitution?” As the noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us, the Prime Minister has told us in a briefing that the idea is to develop,

“proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”

He has listed some of the many issues that have to be addressed. I suggest that the very first objective of any commission addressing the constitution should be to identify the misuses and abuses of it by both sides—by the coalition, too—in a practical way to establish and protect the constitution from further misuse and abuse and, in particular, to extinguish the misuse of unaccountable power by the Executive.

However, I could not dispel the suspicion that this is really all about the Prorogation decision of the Supreme Court.

[A noble Lord]

Absolutely.

[Lord Judge]

Well, why does somebody not say so? The answer is: it has been said, but it is not said in the Queen’s Speech, nor is it said in the briefing. Yes, it was an unprecedented decision, but then the situation was unprecedented. Let us just remember that if Parliament is prorogued, Parliament shuts up. There is nobody to challenge the Prorogation decision. This democratic process, an elected House, is told, “You cannot speak now on any issue, because I, the Prime Minister, have decided that there must be a Prorogation.” If the commission looks at this issue, it should not be worried about the powers of the Supreme Court; it should establish a clear understanding that Prorogation cannot happen without a vote in the House of Commons—certainly—and a vote by this House, too.

While the commission is looking at it, could it examine another element of the prerogative that has caused us all so much concern: the size of this House? What on earth is the point of that wonderful committee led by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, making all those recommendations of “two for one”, “one for two”, “swap this”? Very good, but the Prime Minister of the day retains an absolute prerogative power to appoint as many men and women to this Chamber as he or she thinks fit. It would be a good idea for the commission to look at that vice in our constitutional arrangements.

I have said as much as I want to say, save this. I support the idea of a royal commission into the criminal justice system, but if it is a royal commission, why does the constitution commission, addressing the beating political heart of the nation, not merit being one, too. What sort of unroyal commission is intended to address the constitution? If we are talking about trust, a commission established to give the Government the answers that they want will strike a mortal, further blow to the public’s confidence and trust in their own institutions, and the abuse and misuse will continue.

17:52

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate both maiden speakers in this debate. As a born-and-bred Whitley Bay girl, I particularly appreciate the title chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and share with him a deep attachment to the region that we both come from. I look forward to hearing from him in future and from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

As has just been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, there is a promise in the gracious Speech to create a constitution, democracy and rights commission, an interesting proposal which so far is just that, without any further details concerning its remit or composition. However, given that the immediate backcloth to this Queen’s Speech was the general election of 12 December, perhaps an early task of the commission could be to look at that campaign and see what lessons should be learned for the future health of our democracy and the future conduct of elections.

Yesterday, in a truly excellent maiden speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said that she wanted politics to recover from its recent battering and turn away from the world of lies, exaggerations, voter distrust and fake news. I have to say that I share her concerns entirely. Some examples of such practices have to be laid at the door of the Prime Minister, whose contradictory and colourful statements over the years have either entertained or, more frequently in my case, deeply alarmed us. He began the election campaign by saying that he had not wanted an election, even though I seem to remember that he desperately tried to get it through Parliament three times. He also said that he could not get his EU deal through Parliament, even though it had passed its first hurdle and was ready to be scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps it was the scrutiny that alarmed him, the Bill having managed to get through its first stage.

But there were other examples during the campaign that were not the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister which I found just as disquieting; for example, the doctoring of a TV interview into a fake video to make my right honourable friend Keir Starmer look clueless about Brexit when the opposite was true and he had given a fluent interview on the subject; or the fake Margaret Beckett website; or the so-called independent fact-checking website which turned out not to be independent at all but the work of one particular political party. I say “one particular political party” because I am not trying to give a party-political speech; I am trying to highlight malpractice that we should avoid in future. If there are examples of other parties, including my own, pursuing such a course of action, I would condemn that as equally unacceptable. Perhaps the party leaders could come together, either through the constitution commission or in some other way, to agree that such malpractice should be stopped and to recognise that if democracy is to survive in a world of fake news, standards of factual accuracy should prevail.

The Government talk in the gracious Speech of governing for all. In his introduction, the Prime Minister sets an ambitious goal of delivering

“for the whole of our great Union, investing in and levelling up every part of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

Surely that is an aim that we can all subscribe to, but if the Government are really to bring people together, they have a responsibility to avoid triumphalism in their approach and to recognise that, although they have a handsome majority in the House of Commons, it has been brought about by our electoral system. Overall, the Conservative vote increased by only 1.2%. The Liberal Democrats, who are said to have suffered a crushing defeat—it certainly looks like that in many ways—saw their overall vote increase by five points. Of course, the Government were hugely helped by the unpopularity of the Labour leadership, as my noble friend Lord Reid and others have said. I was struck by this day after day when campaigning in my own part of the world. I am sure that was the reason the Prime Minister really wanted an election: so that he could capitalise on that unpopularity and use a majority to claim a mandate for all kinds of other policies, including Brexit, even though it is clear from looking at the votes cast that those who voted for parties that were either anti-Brexit or committed to another referendum won 53% of the vote as against 47% on the other side—an almost exact reversal of the 2016 referendum.

The Prime Minister says in his introduction that he is humbled by the trust that voters have placed in the Government. I can only hope that he really means what he says and, to borrow Labour’s phrase, will genuinely promote the interests of the many and not the few.

17:58

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I so enjoyed the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I know that there will be many other times to debate some of the issues raised in his analysis. What I want to discuss today is what an extraordinary few years it has been in Parliament: a seemingly never-ending Session, a Government brought before the courts, imaginative judicial judgments, breakdown of conventions and an unpleasant and unruly mood surrounding all our work, even here in your Lordships’ House—the worst atmosphere that many can remember. My wish for this decade is that we can put all that behind us and rediscover our more co-operative nature, which is absolutely necessary for this House to function in the way it should. We have been through an enormously acrimonious period in our national history. We appear to be more intolerant and judgmental as a society, but we in this House should act as an example of how we can accept difference but maintain a level of cordiality in debate.

Of course, the Government are not entirely without blame. Please, can we get back to proper annual Sessions of Parliament? There is a very good business management reason to do so. Annual Sessions provide a framework discipline for Parliament, for departments, for Government and for Opposition. It forces departments to have their Bills ready at the start of a Session, is a disincentive to their adding endless clauses halfway through the Session and provides an element of predictability for Government and Opposition alike. I hope that this Session will run until around Easter 2021 and that we will then have annual Sessions until the next election, whenever that might be.

The role of opposition is, of course, vital in this House. In so many respects Oppositions have more power than Governments, but they must use that power responsibly and sparingly. I should know a thing or two, having been Leader of the Opposition for 12 years. Most of us agree that this House is best when we revise, scrutinise and act as a forum for general, often expert, debate. Governments listen rarely to your Lordships, but are more likely to do so when we do not continually defeat the Government on endless issues but use our powers of persuasion on issues the Government might actually accept. In the 2016-17 Session of Parliament, the Government were defeated in the House of Lords in almost 50% of Divisions, an absurdly high figure. That is already far too much. In the last proper Session of Parliament, 2017-19, the Government won only 22.5% of all Divisions; they lost more than three-quarters. At this level of Peer activism, we cease to be a revising and scrutinising Chamber and become a House of opposition that Governments can happily ignore. This is not the way forward for us in the future.

The Government are always a minority in this House. That is why the responsibility for how legislation is handled falls so importantly to the Opposition. Remarkably, the Opposition have been very successful in being regularly able to sway even independent Cross-Benchers to come their way and vote against the Government. I know that we have been through a very unusual period over Brexit, but let us not retain the bad habits we have grown used to. The Queen’s business must be carried on and the Government have a right to believe that their legislation should not be needlessly held up in the Lords. It is time for us to return to normal practice. One part of normal practice, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is the welcome proposal in the gracious Speech that the time has come to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It was an experiment, it has not worked, and it is time to return to the ancient workings of the British constitution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, kindly referred to me in her opening speech in this debate, before Christmas. She referred to my belief that the Lords needs to be more directly accountable to people. I stand by that. I also accept that this is a more Europhile House, but the people have spoken very clearly—again—on Brexit and we must listen to them, particularly as we are not elected. On the constitution, democracy and rights commission, I simply say “Good luck” to the Government. When the commission starts looking at this House, that will be the proper time to re-examine the role of the electorate, age, the size of the House and who should sit here, including hereditary Peers. This is a well-trodden path but there are new ideas around and we should all examine them constructively and with great care.

18:04

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, in 1978 I was the guest of a senior lawyer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That evening at home, he answered a phone call and came back wreathed in smiles: “The Republicans are struggling to get their legislation through the State Senate”, he told me. “The Democrats have told them they have to pay a price, and I’m the price: they’re making me a judge.”

On Monday of this week, a senior lecturer in the Cardiff Law School, Mr Bharat Malkani, was randomly selected by the research organisation Kantar to take part, as a member of the public, in a survey concerned with the independence of the judiciary. There were two questions. The first was, did he think the judiciary sufficiently independent from government? The second was, why is the judiciary independent? Was it lack of political interference, costs, or lack of interference from the media? When Mr Malkani asked on whose behalf the survey was being conducted, he was told that he could not be given that information until he had answered the questions. When he had finished answering, he was told it was on behalf of the Government. He phoned Kantar back later to check and was then informed that it was simply an in-house survey and had no connection to the Government at all. What is this all about? What is going on?

In recent months, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, observed, we have seen tensions. The Executive, without majority support in Parliament, unlawfully attempted to frustrate Parliament’s deliberations by way of Prorogation, relying upon prerogative powers of the Crown not deployed since the days of Charles I. Parliament reacted with unprecedented procedures, which were open to it only because the Government did not have the votes. Boundaries which were thought to be understood were crossed and the Supreme Court had to sort out the mess. Who else could have done it? The judges were portrayed by the Government, however, as unelected, unaccountable and anti-democratic: an echo perhaps, of the Mail’s “Enemies of the People” tag. The Government obviously find it difficult to get over losing a case. Anti-democratic? As Lord Bingham pointed out in a leading case:

“The function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself.”


In Emlyn Hooson’s Chester chambers, in the elections of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, five of us stood as Liberal candidates—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

We have one over there. Another fought Lord Roberts of Conwy for Plaid Cymru and there was even a Conservative contender, for a valleys seat in south Wales. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and particularly welcome his support for the A55—a north Wales road, I note—which runs into the Irish Sea, and the new Irish border, somewhere to the west of South Stack, Holyhead.

The well-worn track, however, between the Temple and Westminster was becoming rocky. For a young barrister, political involvement risked a black mark. None of the current Supreme Court justices appears to have had a juvenile fling at politics, although I note that one of them once owned a racehorse called, provocatively, “Young Radical”—something we all thought we were. Now there are these vague proposals, in the Conservative manifesto and in the Queen’s Speech, to establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission. Protecting the Constitution, the paper published by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange on 28 December, expresses alarm at the entry of the Supreme Court into the political arena. The authors appear to see the Supreme Court justices, hitherto political virgins, coming together as a collective body with a determination to seize political control and promulgate new laws. We heard an echo of that in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who referred to “imaginative” new laws.

It is a highly regressive document, even calling for the removal of the title of “Supreme Court” and reverting to the wording of the Victorian Act of 1876 when Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were created to man the Judicial Committee. The authors of the paper write:

“If appeals against judgments were reviewed, in the words of section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, before Her Majesty the Queen in her Court of Parliament, it might be much less likely that the UK’s apex appellate court would mistake its position in relation to the Houses of Parliament.”


Accordingly, this paper—the basis of Tory policy—calls for the renaming of the Supreme Court as the “Upper Appeals Court” to emphasise its inferiority to the political sovereignty of Parliament and the Executive. That may not be quite compatible with the concept of independence of the judiciary as the third pillar of our democracy. Are we on the way to Philadelphia?

18:10

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, but I shall take my text from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan. I share his concern and surprise that the gracious Speech is silent on what seems to me to be the clear and present danger of the union disintegrating. I too will talk about Scotland, but also about Ulster.

I agreed with Mr Johnson when he told the DUP conference in 2018:

“No British Conservative Government could or should sign up to … regulatory checks and … customs controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”


I agreed with that, but he has so signed up. Clearly I was wrong to discount the polls that told us that the party in England would rather lose Ulster or Scotland than delay Brexit. However, it still seems rather odd that the Government are so relaxed about the possible price to be paid. It does not take a crystal ball to spot what might happen when trade in both directions across the Irish Sea is subject to checks supervised by a third party, with tariffs payable to a third party on Northern Ireland’s imports from the mainland if there is any risk of those goods going on into the Republic. When many regulations and standards, all state aid rules and all VAT rules in Northern Ireland are set not by this Parliament or Belfast but by Brussels institutions in which Belfast is not represented but Dublin is, the economic integration of the island of Ireland will proceed apace. Will not political integration likely follow, with Westminster required to deliver on the 1998 promise of a border poll?

Northern Ireland voted to remain, and will now remain in much of the single market and all of the customs union. Anyone born there will retain the right of EU citizenship, except the citizen’s right of representation —but will not support for correcting that democratic anomaly be reinforced over time by Northern Ireland’s demography? A return to full EU membership would of course be easy. It would not require any accession negotiation; the 1990 German unification precedent would obviously apply.

It is not for a Scot like me to say whether the end of a century of Irish partition would be a good or a bad thing. All I can say is that it now seems rather likely, given Johnson’s betrayal of Ulster unionism. Where does that leave Scotland, which also voted to remain and whose Government have since argued in a series of White Papers brushed aside by Mrs May and Mr Johnson that, if the UK were to leave the single market and customs union, Scotland should be allowed to retain some kind of EEA-type arrangement—an arrangement rather like the one Ulster Unionists did not want but are now going to get? In Edinburgh the contrast adds insult to injury. If next year’s election up there returns another nationalist Government, I find it hard to see how the demand for another referendum on independence can be resisted. To go on dismissing self-determination would only fuel the demand for it, and the Irish have their right to a border poll. So where does this end?

In 2014 I campaigned against Scottish independence. Doing so will be harder next time. I annoyed Mr Salmond particularly by insisting that leaving the UK would mean leaving the EU, something few Scots wanted. That argument has gone. I majored on the economic downside to secession, but the English have just been persuaded that, for them, sovereignty matters more than prosperity. We should heed the eloquent warning of the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan; the Scots might take a similar view to the English. They might want to take back control. It is a potent slogan, and head might lose out to heart.

The gracious Speech was, as the noble Lord said, strikingly silent on all this and on how these risks could be reduced. However, the accompanying memorandum tells us on page 121 that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, is about to undertake an independent review into the UK Government’s “union capability”. I have absolutely no idea what that means, but I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord later today and wish him luck. I have great respect for him and it seems to me conceivably to be an extremely important exercise. I hope its terms of reference are broadly drawn.

In the meantime, I will make two concrete suggestions to the Minister. Will the Government include representatives from Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast in the new team being assembled to conduct the future trade relations negotiations and in the Joint Committee which is to implement the withdrawal agreement? Will they rapidly refresh strands 2 and 3 of the 1998 Good Friday agreement institutions, in particular considering how to give some democratic legitimacy to EU laws applying in future in Northern Ireland?

18:16

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, “Justice, justice thou shalt pursue” is a biblical exhortation which should be the hallmark of policy and practice in this critical area of government policy.

There is little evidence of it to be found in the Ministry of Justice’s contribution to government policy and its legislative programme, with the exception of sensible measures such as the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill and the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill. There is no recognition of the impact on access to justice of the last nine years of coalition and Conservative government policy, nor any indication of a determination to tackle the dreadful conditions in our overcrowded and understaffed prisons in a country with among the highest incarceration rates in Europe and a dreadful level of violence which we are encountering regularly. On the contrary, the Government seem determined to promote longer sentencing and potentially counterproductive measures such as more hours of unpaid work of an undefined nature. Nothing appears to be happening in ensuring that in this area profit is not a key factor.

However, it is not just the custodial system that is found wanting. The Law Society, not noted for left-leaning tendencies, describes the justice system as being “at breaking point”, citing

“shortage of duty solicitors and independent experts, court closures, barriers to accessing legal aid, and crucial evidence not being disclosed in court until the last minute.”

It also describes the criminal justice system as being at breaking point. It is true that the Ministry of Justice’s budget for criminal justice is being increased, but this is largely devoted to providing new prisons and supporting the appointment of new police officers to fill the gap caused by cuts over the last few years. The probation service continues to be overstretched. The Law Society calls on the Government to ensure adequate funding across the whole criminal justice system, not just a few parts of it. This will include the need to ensure the availability of legal representation by increasing fees and updating the means test to increase it in line with inflation since 2010, given that the present level falls well behind.

Similarly, the society invokes the need to facilitate access to civil justice, so badly affected by LASPO, which currently leaves many people on very low incomes ineligible for legal aid. It also draws attention to other failings of the present system, including the need to restore legal aid for early advice in housing and family law. Here, at least, and at last, there will be a belated piloting of an advice scheme in relation to housing law. We have to see the extent to which effective changes are made. As I pointed out several times in earlier debates, there are legal deserts in this important area, where 37% of the population live in local authority areas with no legal providers for housing law cases, in particular at a time when there are many problems in the private rented sector.

The society raises further issues, including concerns about the apparent failure to proceed with the court modernisation programme embodied in the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill, which passed through your Lordships’ House and appears to have since disappeared. Since 2010, the Ministry of Justice budget has been cut by 40%. This translates to applications for employment tribunals collapsing, legal advice services reducing from 3,266 in 2006 to less than 1,500 in 2015, and by 2017 there was a reduction in legal aid providers by 20%—presumably by now there has been an even greater reduction. Moreover, many courts have been closed, others are in poor repair, videolinks are sparse, and waiting areas sometimes fail to provide separate facilities for parties in domestic abuse cases.

One correspondent who works in the public children’s law sector sees some of the most vulnerable children in society and reports seeing,

“a court system where judges are struggling to cope with high numbers of litigants in person—some very vulnerable people—trying desperately to navigate a system so that they can either protect their child, see their child or respond to serious allegations against them … it is not unusual to see a case where there have been 3, 4, 5 social workers in the space of one year”,

with grandmothers offering to look after children and then delays of months, even years, to obtain appropriate housing.

This underlines the need not just to ensure that the legal system and proper advice and representation are accessible but that other critically important services are properly funded and available to assist both the parties and the courts. What steps will the department take to work with other departments, for example, local government and education, to contribute to the resolution of such pressing problems?

18:22

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I begin by paying tribute to two maiden speakers, my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, for maiden speeches which certainly enhanced the quality of our debate today.

I will make some comments on the constitutional measures, which this year have had unusual prominence in this debate. In particular, I welcome in the gracious Speech the words:

“Work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.”


It was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who sadly is not in his place at the moment, condemn that Act from the Opposition Front Bench and call for its repeal. He used the word “ineffective”, but I fear that it was much worse than that. The Act has always been a piece of constitutional illiteracy. It sought to destroy a fundamental principle of our constitution that, subject to the outer limit of five years, a Government may remain in office for as long as they command a majority in the House of Commons. The consequence of blocking off that principle was months of chaos, as certain parties broke their pledges to the electorate, paralysed government and yet resisted the holding of an election that was so badly needed. No Act of repeal has yet been listed for the FTPA, but it should be straightforward to revert to the status quo ante. The folly of the present Act has now been proved. Its underlying motive can only have been more coalitions and, therefore, confusion, indecision, instability, and endless haggling within government—the kind of terrain which can bring only cruel comfort to minority parties. So long as it remains on the statute book, the Act constitutes a monstrous carbuncle in the great gut of our unwritten constitution, and it should go soon.

Another outstanding issue, of which no mention was made in the gracious Speech, but of which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has already spoken most tellingly, is the need for the implementation on a population basis of new boundaries for parliamentary constituencies. This is a matter of fairness and justice, over which paralysis has sat in recent years, and I agree with his comments. Matters of this kind, if not attended to, end up nowhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, who has also, sadly, just left his place, complained that there were only 16 words in the gracious Speech about the union and devolution; the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, also had some strong words to say about it. I agree with a lot of what each of those noble Lords said, but it seems to me that much action is in fact afoot. The new “Department for the Union”, with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in charge of it, suggests the potential for progress opening up. The tone in recent press coverage of devolution and the union is encouraging, speaking as it does of viewing all policy through the prism of the union, and of levelling up, connecting and embedding devolution into everyday business as part of the daily drumbeat of government activity.

Perhaps these are just straws blown with the wind, but this now apparently prevailing tone, if fulfilled, perfectly enshrines the change of mindset throughout government, and the more proactive approach to the devolved Administrations that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee called for in two of its reports some three or four years ago is now finding favour. Abandon the slogan “devolve and forget”, was one of our cries. But for years it seemed to be our languishing reports that were being forgotten. It now seems that the tide is with us. I noticed the other day that Professor Vernon Bogdanor has joined the cry. We do not need more throwaway, ad hoc devolution; we just need better government and better intergovernmental relations. I much look forward to the forthcoming report by my noble friend Lord Dunlop on a review of UK Government union capability, not least because, like other noble Lords, I am not certain what that implies. It is yet another initiative of the Government, taking action to meet with this serious problem.

This is sensitive territory. It will not be easy, but if we can get it right and change the tone, we can then look forward not only to a stronger United Kingdom but to a much-needed improvement in the quality of government in all its parts.

18:26

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I want to talk about three issues from the present version of the Queen’s gracious Speech that impact on Wales.

First, although many of our rural constituencies voted in December to “Get Brexit done”, many farmers remain worried about the consequences of the Prime Minister’s timetable for quitting the EU. The president of the Farmers Union of Wales, in his new year message, has called on the Government to change their focus and to “Get Brexit done safely”, over a realistic timescale ensuring a trade deal with the EU which,

“delivers full and unfettered access for our Welsh produce to EU markets”.

Many Brexiters will wake up on 1 February believing that Brexit has been achieved, but that will be when the hard work begins. The Prime Minister has decided that he will take charge of the trade negotiations to begin on that day—and what a challenge he faces. He faces an EU determined to adhere to its standards and protect its internal markets, and, on the other hand, he faces the prospect of other countries demanding that we accept their lower health, hygiene, welfare and environmental standards as the price of a trade deal with them. It is a circle that will be difficult to square, and it will probably lead to the UK’s exit on or before 30 December with no deal—the disastrous situation which we, who have the interests of Welsh farmers at heart, have fought against for the last three years.

Secondly, I want to highlight the very different immigration needs of Wales. It is a subject I have alluded to before but, with the prospect of the immigration Bill arriving in this House before long, I want to put on record the potential impact one of the measures in the Bill could have on the Welsh economy. Wales has a significant number of EU workers and, as they lose their right to freedom of movement in the UK and contemplate applying for visas, both their futures here and the potential damage to the Welsh economy give rise to concern. A report in June of last year from the Wales Centre for Public Policy found that the proposal that the existing salary threshold of £30,000 for tier 2 visas be maintained would have a significant negative impact on economic growth in Wales, reducing GDP by between 1.1% and 1.6%. Nearly 50,000 of our full-time workers are from the EU, and 65% of those earn below the proposed threshold. The Migration Advisory Committee has been asked to look at whether the salary threshold should be the same or different across the UK, I look forward to the publication of its report—hopefully before the immigration Bill comes to this House.

My third and final issue is taken from the briefing documents that accompanied the Queen’s gracious Speech, in which the Government outline their economic plans for Wales. There is much I could comment on, but I want to focus on one sentence in the document that leapt out at me. It reads:

“The Government will upgrade the A55 as the main road transport artery for North Wales”.


This was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in his excellent speech. It was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, in his excellent maiden speech; I extend to him a very warm welcome to this place. The A55 runs from Chester in the east to Holyhead in the west. It is a commuting route. It is a route that gives tourists access to our towns and villages; those of us who have lived in north Wales for many years still marvel at how quickly we can now get from A to B because of it.

However, the A55 is not just our local road. This stretch of road is part of Euro route E22, which begins in Ishim in Russia and runs through Moscow, Amsterdam and Leeds with the final part of the road ending in Holyhead, then going on to Dublin. Because it is such an important link between mainland Europe and Dublin, improvements over the years have been the result of Welsh Government and EU investment. The road does need upgrading: there is a need for hard shoulders where conditions allow; there are very few lay-bys; and there is a distinct lack of lay-bys big enough for lorries.

So why am I concerned? Well, powers over transport are devolved to Wales, and I wonder whether this upgrade of the A55 is suddenly considered the UK Government’s responsibility. Is this an example of the Government bypassing devolution, or was that particular sentence in the briefing misworded? Perhaps the Minister can tell me what discussions the Government have had with the Welsh Government about the proposed upgrade.

18:32

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add my own few words to the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, about Scotland. The gracious Speech said:

“The integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance to my Government.”


The Government’s briefing note says that the Government

“want 2020 to be a year of opportunity, growth and unity for Scotland, not of further division.”

I agree with these sentiments, of course, but my concern is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, said, this message is not being put across clearly enough in Scotland to the people who live there. We are at risk of sleepwalking into the breaking up of the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, rightly said.

The future of the union in the face of the SNP’s relentless demands for another referendum on independence is a matter of huge importance. The other parts of the union have a strong interest in holding it together. Take defence, for example: the SNP will not allow any nuclear weapons to be based in Scotland. That is a red-line issue for it. So the future of the submarine base at Faslane, and all that that means, will not be negotiable after independence. We need therefore to give careful thought to what needs to be done if the integrity of the union is to be preserved.

The first point to notice is that the SNP’s relentless demands for complete independence will continue. It will not go away, despite everything that is said in the briefing note about how the Government are investing in the Scottish economy. We must give it full credit for its beliefs. It will never be satisfied with less. The briefing note is right to point out that a raft of additional powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2016. There was a time when it was thought that devolution would settle the matter for ever, but that is not so now, as the Labour Party has been replaced by the SNP as the established governing party in Scotland. Just saying no to Nicola Sturgeon’s call for another referendum on independence because of what the result was in 2014 may be enough for now, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, pointed out, it will not be enough for very much longer.

The second point is that if and when it becomes clear that independence is the settled will of the Scottish people as a whole, the demands for it will almost certainly be unanswerable. Many believe that it would be unthinkable that the people of Scotland should be held within a union to which the Scottish people as whole did not wish to belong. It needs to be stressed that this is a high standard. However, short of holding another referendum—which the Prime Minister refuses to agree to—how is one to determine whether that high standard has been reached? That is the key question.

The SNP is a master at answering that question by making capital out of the way election results play in its favour. It did this in 2015, just one year after the country rejected independence by 56% to 44% of those voting in the referendum. It said that there had been a material change of circumstances because it had won 56 of the 59 Scottish seats in that year’s general election. It did so again just a few weeks ago when it won 47 of the 59 seats in the last general election. It claims that this was a mandate for a second referendum— indyref2, as it calls it. Of course, the results in a first past the post election are not a true guide to where the settled will of the Scottish people lies. Although the SNP won by far the most seats, its share of the popular vote was only 45%.

The SNP is now looking forward to the next election for the Scottish Parliament in 2021. It is almost certain that the SNP will be returned to power again by a substantial majority; there will then be even more vocal demands for a second referendum. Of course, it can be said that the issues in that election will be about devolved government in Scotland, but we can be sure that this is not what SNP will ask the Scottish people to believe.

As a matter of law, the integrity of the union is a reserved matter to be decided here in Westminster, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that relying on the legal position will not hold up against the political campaign demanding that Scotland’s future is for the Scottish people to decide. The SNP knows that if it is to win the popular vote on this issue, it has a lot of persuading to do. Last time, many people—the silent majority—were put off by the aggression and intimidation that were used. This time, gentle, steady persuasion is likely to be the preferred, and much more effective, tactic. It is already under way as I speak.

I do not claim to have the answers to this problem. That is for the Government to work out, if they mean to make good their pledge in the gracious Speech. The purpose of my intervention is to draw attention to the scale and urgency of the issue. There is no time to lose if that pledge is to be made good.

18:37

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

The exorbitant effulgence of the Prime Minister’s pomposity and waffle has served to conceal from many people the extent of his ignorance and carelessness. Doubts persist over whether his utterances are planned or simply haphazard.

A case in point concerns the future trading relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The recent Brexit agreement has proposed a customs barrier in the Irish Sea, requiring checks on goods, known as exit summary declarations. However, Boris Johnson has insisted that there will be

“no forms, no checks, no barriers”

for goods travelling from the Province to the mainland, and he has assured people that there will be “unfettered access”. Asked by one person whether he could tell staff to refuse to fill in the forms, Mr Johnson said:

“If somebody asks you to do that, you can tell them to ring up the prime minister and I will direct them to throw that form in the bin.”


It appears that the Prime Minister has failed to understand the terms of his own Brexit agreement but there is still doubt concerning the motives behind his declaration, and some people have given him credit for a conscious strategy. If his utterances have been more considered than they seem to have been, it is difficult to understand their underlying logic. They will certainly cause difficulties when the detailed trade negotiations with the European Union are under way.

The political activities of Boris Johnson have a quality of patrician amateurism. He exudes self-confidence and a disdain for fussy detail. His attitude appeals to many who find the details of public administration to be tedious and inessential. Amateurism is nothing new in British politics. It was satirised in a long-running television series that had a hapless Minister, James Hacker, confronted by a cunning and sagacious civil servant by the name of Sir Humphrey Appleby, who was adept at sidestepping the misguided initiatives of the Minister. The programme both satirised and celebrated the modus operandi of the British Civil Service, which has endured almost unchanged for 150 years, beginning with the Civil Service reforms of 1855. It depicted in a masterful way the Minister’s gracious if quietly resentful acknowledgement of his own incompetence.

What has changed since the days of Sir Humphrey Appleby is the deference of Ministers towards the Civil Service, which is greatly diminished. The Civil Service has been faced with the impossible task of turning the fantasies of Brexit into practical reality. The inevitable failures have roused the irritation of Ministers. That irritation and the helplessness of the officials have been palpable in many of the sessions of the Lords European Union Committee and its sub-committees. The Government have hardly welcomed the substantial guidance and wisdom that have been offered by the numerous reports of the committees. Michael Gove is famous for having declared that,

“people in this country have had enough of experts.”

Members of the Lords committees do not often profess to be experts. However, they do universally acknowledge the value of expertise and they have sought to tap into it by calling upon expert witnesses. In the process, they have irritated many Ministers, who have resented the manner in which the reports of those Lords committees have served to obscure the leitmotifs of the Brexit agenda and to transform a simple idea into a maze of complications.

During the period of the recent Conservative Governments, a new element has begun to dominate the formulation of policies and their expression in legislation. Increasingly, the policies have been hatched within think tanks that are affiliated to the Conservative Party. The policy of universal credit and housing policies, including such things as the bedroom tax, originated in think tanks, most notably one called Policy Exchange. The Civil Service has been sidelined. It has been inhibited from contributing its experience and its caution to such matters, and the consequences have been disastrous. One can imagine the circumstances in which a neophyte, perhaps a recent Oxbridge graduate who is eager to impress his political masters, is put in charge of policy formulation. The result is liable to be a proposal with a strong political coloration that is devoid of practicality and careless of the plight of the people on whom it might impinge.

Another feature of those Conservative Administrations has been the increasing role of special advisers drawn from outside the Civil Service. Some of them are contemptuous and resentful of the Civil Service and its personnel. There has been a well-publicised tirade by the Prime Minister’s principal special adviser, Dominic Cummings, against the Civil Service in which he seems intent on sidestepping the normal recruitment processes. In his blog he seeks to encourage scientists, mathematicians, computer programmers and, in his own words,

“weirdos and misfits with odd skills”

to join the service.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that there is a shortage in the Administration of people with technical skills. Any attempt to reduce this deficit should be more than welcome, but the proposal of Dominic Cummings is for the creation of a disruptive ginger group, seemingly intent on pursuing the tendentious policies of right-wing fanatics. That would be profoundly unwelcome.

18:43

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, one of the great traditions of this House that the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Davies, will quickly become aware of is that when the Government plan to do something ever so slightly dodgy, they send along the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, like the village policeman, to give one of his, “Move along: nothing interesting to see here” speeches. That only underlines a worry I have which was brilliantly exposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. It is It is the grave suspicion that a Government who campaigned on “taking back control” will use the proposals for a constitution, democracy and human rights commission to claw back to the Executive the powers they have lost in recent years to Parliament, the courts and the individual citizen. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto was very clear about its intention to clip the wings of individuals or institutions who frustrate or slow down the revolution on which we are about to embark. This House has a special duty to safeguard our democratic freedoms and civil liberties from the abuses of what the late Lord Hailsham described so magnificently as our “elective dictatorship”.

Today I will concentrate on another matter, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has prepared for me. Another of our great institutional bulwarks against political abuse and one of 19th century liberalism’s greatest gifts to our 21st century democracy is a Civil Service that is recruited on merit and politically neutral. I was one of the early political appointments when the system of political advisers was introduced by the Labour Government in 1974. My own experience of public servants during five years in the Foreign Office and No. 10 from 1974 to 1979 and during the seven years I spent in the Ministry of Justice between 2010 and 2017 was of their dedication and commitment, which I held in the highest regard.

Of course it is necessary to bring in new skills and fresh thinking to our public services, but we should not have to find out the hard way that simply rubbishing the Civil Service and bringing in “weirdos and misfits” is not a solution to the challenges that face us. We will not get the response we want from our public servants by belittling them or claiming that there is some miracle cure for real or imagined shortcomings that is ready to be applied. The truth is that many of Dominic Cummings’s saner aspirations can be found in the 1968 Fulton report, yet in No. 10 we seem to have reached a stage similar to that depicted in “Little Shop of Horrors,” where Dominic Cummings is ready to gobble up the Northcote-Trevelyan principles and 150 years of good governance.

I hope that Mr Cummings has read and digested the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which puts strict limitations on the role of political appointees such as himself in relation to civil servants and that he understands and respects the specific protections and safeguards for public servants contained in that Act. Certainly, it is the duty of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise proposals for Civil Service reform and that must include Mr Cummings appearing in person before the responsible committees of both Houses. Prior to that, the Prime Minister, as Minister for the Civil Service, should make a Statement to the House of Commons explaining the extent of the powers Mr Cummings enjoys and their compatibility with the existing rules covering the powers of political appointees.

For those of us who were hoping for a period of tranquillity following the recent turmoil, I fear that the gracious Speech contains too many threats to our freedoms for that to happen. As for Mr Cummings, I recommend a reading of the lives of Robespierre and Trotsky, with their reminder that revolutions have a habit of devouring the revolutionaries.

18:48

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, there is in the gracious Speech a great deal of interest and concern for one like me who has spent a lifetime in the law, but today I have time to put down only one or two markers.

On criminal justice, I applaud the decision to appoint a royal commission. I hope that it will look at the substantive law and not just at our now disordered procedure, and that it will deal, for example, with the age of criminal responsibility, along with IPPs, which are an enduring problem creating a continuing injustice for many. That said, I recognise that dyed-in-the-wool terrorists—people like the London Bridge killer—and religious zealots driven by ideology, whose reform seemingly can never be assured, may well require life sentences. I suggest that they present a very different problem from that presented by even the most serious sex offenders—Worboys and so forth.

I recognise too the case for a new treason offence and commend Policy Exchange, an admirable body with a number of distinguished contributors, on its work on that. I also support its work on the protection of our Armed Forces and its associated proposals for tinkering with the Human Rights Act in certain important respects—in particular, to deny it retrospective effect and, as Lord Bingham would have done, to deny it extraterritorial application too, save in the most limited circumstances, such as embassies and the like, which we considered years ago in the al-Skeini case.

My central focus today is on the prorogation case, Miller II in the Supreme Court. As everybody recognises, this lies at the heart of the Government’s proposal to establish a constitutional democracy and rights commission, whatever is contemplated by that—as the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Judge have already astutely observed.

The Policy Exchange paper The First Hundred Days asserts somewhat dramatically and, I suggest, overdogmatically:

“The Supreme Court’s prorogation judgment was a recent, startling example of judicial lawmaking, which compromises the integrity of the political constitution.”


It urges its reversal immediately by legislation. In fact, Policy Exchange suggests that, by the same token that Miller threatens powers of prorogation, so too—even when we get rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as plainly we should—will it threaten dissolution. For my part, I question that.

I confess that I was surprised and remain to a degree uneasy—a good deal more so than my noble and learned friend Lord Judge—about the Miller decision. I still find the also authoritative Divisional Court judgment convincing in many respects on that question. I nevertheless caution strongly against hasty action when it comes to entering upon this very delicate, sensitive and difficult area of the relations between the differing arms of state. Personally, I read the Supreme Court decision as a very narrow one on the facts. It was only really because the Government declined to vouchsafe any basis for Prorogation apart from the manifestly unjustifiable need for seven weeks to write a Queen’s Speech. Only on that limited basis did the court feel entitled to strike it down as manifestly unreasonable—a judgment it felt able to make.

Be that as it may, it would really be a terrible mistake now to rush into hasty legislation or to deal with what some describe as judicial overreach, the Prince of Wales letters case being an obvious one in point. Let these questions simmer a while. Let the various legal, political and constitutional pundits work through the implications to see what precisely may be needed and what will be the unexpected results of any legislation to overcome them. It would not be healthy for our constitution for any branch of the state now to be thought embarking on some power grab. That is the note on which I want to end. I indicate only that, as the months come to pass, there is an awful lot more that I shall hope to say.

18:54

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just said, there are ways of having a discourse about legal judgments even by our Supreme Court. One should conduct oneself in a sane and careful way. Last week we were subjected to the unseemly spectacle of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, red in face, frothing with indignation, fulminating against the judges of the Supreme Court and saying that they had committed a heinous outrage. They had reached a decision he did not like. The Supreme Court had found that the Prime Minister had behaved unlawfully in his attempt to prorogue Parliament; we all know the story and about the Policy Exchange debate.

What made the outburst all the more risible was that not very long ago the noble Lord, Lord Howard, had very loudly claimed that he wanted to leave the European Union to get us out of the European Court of Justice, to restore faith in our courts and particularly our Supreme Court, and to put it back at the apex of our legal decision-making—somewhat different. It almost seems that the noble Lord is protesting too much. Maybe it is the law, the rules and the decision that he does not like, whatever court he disagreed with.

I remind the House that that decision was unanimous and made by some of our finest legal brains, but that does not matter a jot to some. The decision was portrayed by the right wing of the Conservative Party as Brexit bias. Jacob Rees-Mogg branded the decision a “constitutional coup” and the MP Desmond Swayne called for the Supreme Court to be abolished. Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney-General no less, questioned the moral authority of the court and suggested that we might have to look at how our judges are appointed, even suggesting that we might look to America. That has been terrific, it would seem. The idea was that we would test the political opinions of those being appointed. Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group, declared that we had an

“elitist Remainer logic at the top of our judiciary.”

We can laugh about all this stuff, but it is actually distinctly and seriously damaging. We are talking about trust in our constitutional arrangements, and if anything is destructive of trust it is disgracefully dismissing our senior judiciary in this way. Law matters, the rule of law matters, and I am glad that Robert Buckland, currently in the position of Lord Chancellor, is more robust in his protection of it than many of his colleagues.

Of course, the role of the courts has grown in our societies, because our societies have all become more complex. There has been a consequential growth in governmental functions, and at times they have to be challenged. The responsibility of judges is to resolve disputes not just between citizens but between citizens and the state. Judges have the duty to protect citizens against the overreach of Governments.

I heard it suggested by one of our newcomers—I welcome the noble Lord—that the remedy is to vote the rascals out. Tell that to the Hillsborough families who time and again had to seek a proper inquest. Tell that to the parents of the young woman soldier who committed suicide; then, after an inquest made after a judicial review, it was found that she had been subjected to a culture of bullying and harassment.

Much of the legislation that we pass in these Chambers has gaps that fail people, and there have to be methods to deal with injustice. The judges in a nation have to be free to exercise their judicial powers independently of the state, the media, powerful individuals and entities such as large corporations and so on. We know that matters. It is not enough just to talk about the rule of law; we have to mean it.

I share the concerns of others about what the purpose of this constitutional convention might be. The questions of any sensible person should be: “Are such proposals for constitutional change really a democratic necessity or a cynical attempt by the new Government to bolster their power? Are there plans to curtail the power of our judges? Does updating human rights law mean more rights or fewer rights for certain people?” I think I know the answer. There is clearly a policy yet again to limit access to judicial review, a process by which people can challenge decisions made by public bodies. Again, is that not liked because it was used to secure the judgments in the Supreme Court on Brexit? Was it displeasure with these rulings that motivates the updating?

I want to say this: Mr Johnson is willing to break laws, evade scrutiny and mislead the public in order to secure power and get his way. I am afraid that that is true of narcissistic, authoritarian Governments the world over; they are usually led by such people. I am concerned that he has oft got at his elbow the malign force of Mr Cummings, who believes in a scorched-earth policy when it comes to some of our most valued institutions. We must be careful: if we value our liberty and democracy, we will all have to be on our mettle. Complacency will carry a very heavy price.

18:59

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks, as she always does, with passion and sincerity. I begin my brief contribution by adding my congratulations to those of others to my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower.

I do not suppose I was alone in inwardly rejoicing when in his first statement as Prime Minister, and echoed in his new year speech, the Prime Minister talked about the need to come together and for unity—he even touched on the importance of Parliament. That is all good and I applaud it; I hope it will be the hallmark of his period of office. However, I am concerned, as many of your Lordships are, by a fundamental flaw in the wording of the gracious Speech.

I remember the words of the late, great Harold Macmillan, who said:

“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”


Quietness and calmness are qualities that we need. Juxtaposed in the gracious Speech are the royal commission on criminal justice, which we all welcome and applaud, and the commission on constitution, democracy and rights. That indicates that this will not be looked at objectively, in a balanced, calm and deliberate way.

I echo the plea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who talked about the importance of recognising the balance in our constitution. Parliament is not, never has been and never can be, if we are a democracy, the creature of government. We need a judicial system that, although it will make mistakes occasionally, is unafraid. I am concerned about rushing headlong into a commission that would have to look at so many important aspects of our democratic and constitutional life. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred to many of these in a most admirable speech earlier in the debate. Will my noble friend who is winding up please talk to the Prime Minister and tell him there is concern in this House—not that these issues should be looked at but about the manner in which we fear they might be looked at?

The problem could be solved immediately in one or two ways. We could either have a royal commission on the constitution, as referred to by one or two noble Lords, or—something that has not been touched on—we could have a Speakers’ conference, chaired jointly by both Speakers. In the old days when I first entered the other place, almost exactly 50 years ago, that was the way things were done, and it was a sensible way of doing things. Now that we have a Lord Speaker in our House, we have two Speakers in whom both Houses have total faith and confidence. A Speakers’ conference or commission, chaired jointly by two men whom we all respect, consisting of Members of both Houses and distinguished outsiders—I would not be against them sitting on such a body—could take time on this. I am not talking about kicking things into the long grass for ever, but it could look at things with the calm deliberation I referred to earlier. It would help enormously in many respects.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked passionately about the threat to the union. That cannot be mitigated by gimmick and slogan. However, by calm deliberation, perhaps we can protect the one aspect of our constitution that means more to me, with half my family in Scotland, than any other thing. We are at a crossroads and we must take a road that leads to calmness and unity. We have time to do it because of the disarray of the Opposition and the big majority that the Prime Minister enjoys. Will he please not neglect that opportunity?

19:05

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech programme contains a sackful of measures on criminal justice and justice matters generally. I start by simply making the point that we can legislate until the cows come home but, in almost every part of the judicial system, it is resources that are causing more problems than any lack of legislation: resources for the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, access to justice, prisons and early intervention through services provided by local authorities. Unless we address that, we will not make the kind of improvements we need in the system.

I turn to the issue of royal commissions, as discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and several others. It is not a bad idea to have a royal commission—it would be perhaps a less good idea to have an unroyal commission, which would seem rather strange—if it is set up in the proper way, rather than to have half-baked, ill-thought-out policies, hastily implemented. But it depends who is on the commission, how much independence it has, how much expertise it has access to and whether anything is done with its recommendations once they have been made.

I worry that the commission on constitutional matters does not look to be off to a good start and may have its origins in partisan resentments about the proper role of the courts in interpreting the law, ministerial resentment at any challenge to the Executive by Parliament and a dismissive attitude towards constitutional conventions. In his very powerful speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, analysed this problem and referred to the Prorogation issue. The Prorogation case was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, pointed out, decided on quite narrow facts, but what lay beneath it was the recognition that in modern times Parliament is no longer simply convened when the Crown runs out of money. That was the basis on which there was a prerogative power: Parliament could be called on when needed and got rid of once there was enough money to manage without it. Parliament is now assumed to have a continuous existence, interrupted only by agreed short breaks for elections, conferences and holidays, and not summoned or dismissed to suit the political convenience of the Executive.

The commission suggested in the Queen’s Speech has a very wide agenda, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, and I will not go through the list. I will, however, note the things that are not on the list. There is nothing on it about the electoral system. My party got 11.6% of the vote in the general election, which should have produced 70 seats or more in the House of Commons; the Labour Party got 500,000 votes in Scotland and only one seat there. The system we are landed with is absurd, but it is not there. Nor is there anything there about the governance of England, which has become increasingly paradoxical in the system we have developed. The Government say in the briefing that accompanied the Queen’s Speech:

“Careful consideration is needed on the composition and focus of the Commission.”


You can say that again. Whether any such careful consideration will lead to the kind of royal commission that would command wide confidence and lead to a sensible reassessment of constitution issues, I am distinctly doubtful. An exercise such as this needs to be broad based.

The royal commission on the justice system looks to have had a slightly more promising start, although not much has been said about what it will cover. Everybody who has spoken about it today has referred to the wide range of matters that it needs to cover and I have seen newspaper suggestions that things such as the relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police might be covered, and that we might move towards a Scottish, procurator fiscal-type system. Clearly, this is an open goal into which all sorts of ideas about the justice system might be kicked. Clearly, the Government do not anticipate this royal commission looking at the crisis caused by overcrowded prisons, or, elsewhere in the Queen’s Speech, the potential to create the sentence inflation that will make that overcrowding worse and commit resources on a massive scale—resources that need to be used in other areas of the criminal justice system to prevent crime.

I conclude with two separate, specific questions. First, what has happened to the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill? It was supposed to be integral to the modernisation of the court system and went through all its stages in this House in 2017, following the Queen’s Speech, yet has still not materialised and is not in this Queen’s Speech.

My second question is about the espionage legislation. Will the Intelligence and Security Committee be set up in time to study the Bill and advise both Houses, with informed consideration, on the value of the proposals and whether they are sound? Speaking as a former member of the committee, that is essential, but past experience suggests to me that the Bill may be introduced long before the committee is set up.

19:10

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will indulge me in expressing my great pleasure at hearing, back in such good voice, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. When I was very young, and he was relatively young, we were in a small set of chambers founded by Lord Hooson, a set of chambers which, incidentally, eventually produced as many Peers—as many piers!—as Blackpool. We used to trundle across that much-mentioned A55 road, sometimes appearing against one another in civil and criminal cases. I recall how effective he was in court from a sedentary position, as he was in your Lordships’ House this afternoon.

Substantively, I start by urging Her Majesty’s Government to go further than the gracious Speech in relation to the police; indeed, to go where others have feared to tread because of slender majorities in the other place. I agree with Martin Hewitt, the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, that the time has come for the 43 territorial police forces to be reorganised. Parochial considerations, understood by all Members of your Lordships’ House who have been Members of the other place, make it difficult to reform police structures unless the Government who do so are possessed of a substantial majority there. That opportunity is now available. There are significant variations in size, competencies and qualities among those 43 forces. Some are simply too small to fulfil all reasonable policing requirements. Inspection reports illustrate this. In contrast, the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network consists of 12 regional units—for example, WECTU, the Welsh Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit. For the most part, these function very well, covering four, five or six forces, and are a sound exemplar of reformed police organisation potential. I urge the Government to give urgent consideration to reform along similar lines.

My second substantive point relates to sentencing and release in terrorism cases. It has been suggested by the Government and many others that longer sentences should be passed by judges in such cases. In my view, far more important than a blanket length-of-sentence temporal approach is that the sentences passed should ensure that the public are protected from demonstrably dangerous people while they are in prison—it is of course less difficult then—when the time comes for it to be considered whether they should be released from prison, and indeed after they are released from prison. My suggestion is that, in prison, anti-radicalisation measures and post-release measures must be developed far more rigorously and evaluated much more exhaustively than has been the case to date. Pre-release procedures should include detailed and reliable psychological and neurological assessments before release can occur. In other words, there should be proportionate protection for the public.

My final point picks up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in his excellent speech. It is about delay. There are terrible delays throughout the criminal justice system. The Bar Council has issued an excellent paper giving the statistics. I will not repeat them, but will give one brief example. I know of a case—because I was approached about it—in which a teenage girl and her mother complained of the decision by the CPS not to prosecute a young man for allegedly raping the teenage girl. The decision was questionable on the merits. The girl and her mother exercised what is called the victim’s right to review on 10 October 2019. The Crown Prosecution Service’s website clearly states that there is supposed to be, within 30 days, either a clear answer or information as to why there will be a delay. We are talking here about the lives of two young people: the one making the allegation and the one who might be accused. They have heard nothing since the complaint for the victim’s right to review was made, apart from a letter of acknowledgement. That is a small example of the kind of delay that does not come to public attention. I urge the Government to ensure that the criminal justice system is not the home of expensive and damaging delay.

19:16

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been my view for many years that the union of the United Kingdom has been probably the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen. It is quite remarkably stable and, at its best, it has been a remarkable defence for the ideas of democracy and the rule of law. We must do all we can to protect and enhance it. It is increasingly under threat because of the use of referendums on things such as Brexit without a clear idea of the rules on referendums.

I have never really liked referendums. I much prefer a system in which you answer to your electorate and they throw you out if they do not like you. However, if you are going to have them, a couple of golden rules apply. First, make sure that you know what you will do if you do not get the result that you want; that was a big failing of Brexit. Secondly, make sure that you have the balance right about what percentage of voters and what majority you need. We have had a mess over Brexit—big time—but just think of the mess that we will have in Scotland if a vote for independence is equally narrow, which it may well be. As someone who lives in the Highlands, I say that it is a mistake for the SNP to think that because it has had a good result at a general election, it automatically has a majority for independence. It has not. To be fair to Nicola Sturgeon, I do not think that she does think this.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was right to say that we could lose this by default. We can make a good case for the union of the United Kingdom, and a strong case for why breaking it up would be a mistake. It is my view that “Scot-Exit” will be at least as big a problem as Brexit has been, or even bigger, and the reasons are economic, political and cultural. It is a very important issue, which is one reason why I would welcome a serious look at the constitution.

The oddity is that in Britain we began to experiment with a federal-type approach 300 years ago, before federalism was invented, so we have separate legal, church/state and other systems, but we have not moved into a full federal system of the modern type. Whether we should—I appreciate the difficulties—is an important part of the discussion. One of the issues, so people say, is that England is too big. Actually, the problem with England is that about a third of the United Kingdom population live in the south-east corner—from Southampton up through Oxford, across through Milton Keynes to Cambridge. Something like 20 million people live in that corner. That is why it is difficult for us to come up with a structure that gives us some identity over and above that.

I remember as an 11 year-old trying to work out whether I was British, from the United Kingdom, English, Scottish, Welsh or a Londoner. Like so many people, having spent much of my life in London, it was easy to say that I was a Londoner and leave it at that. One problem we have is with the language. Many Scottish people feel, as indeed do the Welsh and Northern Irish, rightly angry when people talk about Britain by using the word “England”, particularly when the BBC does it—it is not so often done now, and I raised the matter in the House some years ago. If you talk about England, you should mean England and not the United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is a mistake that I often hear in this House too, including by Ministers.

We need to get that language right because the SNP has been very successful in presenting an image of Scotland as though it has always been a totally independent nation—that something went wrong a few hundred years ago and now it will try to put it right. But it forgets. A few weeks ago, I even noticed a claim that Bonnie Prince Charlie took part in the first war of independence, or words to that effect. Bonnie Prince Charlie, to his credit, on his march through England leading his Highland clan, told his troops to be kind to the English people because he was their king too. He was very clear about that. In other words, he was not going to be the king of Scotland: he was going to be the king of Britain. That actually runs deep in the thinking of the British people.

We need to relate to that properly and get our message across about the strength of the union, about our history and about the acute dangers that would be produced for the Scottish people if they suddenly pulled out of the United Kingdom. They would have a really difficult problem with 60% or 70% of their exports going to the rest of the UK. I welcome any attempt by the Government to give careful consideration to the constitutional approach, because we really need to get serious about this if we want our country, as we have known it, to survive.

19:22

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, even in this short contribution to today’s debate, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Prime Minister—a man who, not so long ago, I was able to describe in my professional capacity as the defendant—on his victory at the general election. I confess that throughout the last several months I have not always found it easy to be wholly enthusiastic about the policies and conduct of the Conservative Party nor about the people advising it. I have occasionally been reminded of Peter Kropotkin, the Russian anarcho-communist, when looking at some of the anarcho-Conservatives who appear to have some influence on the Prime Minister. But there is no getting away from the numbers: the Government won a huge victory and they have now come forward with an ambitious programme for this Parliament. I also congratulate my two noble friends, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on their excellent maiden speeches this afternoon and I do so with alacrity. I am sure that we all look forward to their contributing often to our debates.

There is plenty to commend in the Government’s programme, but in my remarks I want briefly to concentrate on that aspect of it that concerns one part of the criminal justice system, namely; prisons. In that regard, I draw attention to my registered interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.

By chance, Kropotkin said that the test of their success was whether they were answering their purpose in diminishing the number of anti-social acts. In his view, prisons in Tsarist Russia were not doing that. They were universities of crime, breeding places of criminality. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen, in opening this debate, said that the Government’s top priority is the protection of the public, and we can all agree that that must certainly be one of them. He also said that sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime, and again, he was not being controversial in saying that.

Between 2005 and 2009, when I was the shadow Prisons Minister in the other place, I made a study of our prisons. I visited about 65 of the approximately 140 prisons, young offender institutions and secure training establishments in England and Wales. I found a mixed picture of success and failure. I met prison staff, be they governors, prison officers, teachers, drug rehabilitation and addiction experts or mental health specialists who were utterly dedicated to their work and determined to do all they could to reduce the chances of the prisoners in their care reoffending on release.

I also saw the consequences of prison governors and prisoners being moved from prison to prison far too often so that the first could not lead and develop their prisons positively and the second could not learn to read and write, deal with their alcohol and drug problems or come to terms with and deal with their crimes and the effects they had on their victims. Huge sums were spent on incarcerating people and achieving very little apart from that. Based on my experiences, I wrote a paper, Prisons with a Purpose, which advocated, among other things, the view that prisons should not be simply places to house criminals for the period of their sentence, nor should they be filled with drug addicts or people with mental health problems who could and should be treated more effectively in secure hospitals. They should be places of improvement but also places where the most violent and dangerous criminals could be kept out of harm’s way for the public’s safety.

I wanted to see prisoners working for wages which could save the welfare budget. Instead of being paid a few pounds a week, prisoners could earn a living wage with the money being held for the benefit of their families or dependants who would otherwise rely on the state for their upkeep. And I wanted to see them doing the sort of work that they might aspire to do when back in society. Seeing work rooms full of grown men sorting red and black plastic wires or making hair nets did not fill me with confidence that they would rush off to apply for those jobs on release. There was no obvious connection between their work and monetary reward. It was mindless, time-filling drudgery, and made reoffending more attractive, not less.

We are now told that under the legislation proposed by the Government—the counterterrorism (sentencing and release) Bill and the sentencing Bill—sentences will get longer. I will not go into the detail of the proposals now nor do I criticise the changing of sentencing law by Parliament, but I ask the Government to think about how this will work. Will what is proposed have a practical and beneficial effect on us as citizens and taxpayers and as the potential or actual victims of crime and on those who are sentenced? Will we see a reduction in crime flowing from this legislation, and can we be assured that what will pass into law will do what is promised? Will those who are given these heavier sentences be made better citizens, more capable of returning to the outside as responsible members of the public prepared to go to work and look after their families and contribute to the national well-being, or will they have to stay inside, unreformed and irremediable at vast public expense?

Will the court system and the Crown Prosecution Service, let alone the police, be ready and able to cope with the additional people they will have to deal with and which the public, by these measures, are being encouraged to believe will be taken off the streets in greater numbers and for longer periods? Above all, will the prison estate be capable of accommodating these prisoners for longer, both in terms of budgetary and human resource? Many of the crown courts have unused court rooms and are in a poor state of repair. The CPS is not working as well as it should and the liaison with the police has always been patchy. The longer or harsher sentence is not a solution that works by itself, so I urge the Government to ensure that, as they pass these Bills, they also will the means within other areas of the criminal justice system to enable the whole system to work well rather than legislating for temporary effect.

19:28

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak today with so many other noble Lords who are distinguished constitutional experts and, indeed, to hear two such excellent maiden speeches. I generally speak on health, social mobility and wider social issues, but today I wish to make some remarks on constitutional matters with a particular focus on Civil Service reform, which has been hitting the headlines in somewhat lurid terms in recent days, drawing on my near 20 years’ experience as a civil servant and my six years’ experience as chair of a public body.

Some may consider constitutional matters rather dry and technical—dare I say, geeky. I have never seen them in that light. I consider our constitutional settlement, unwritten as it is, as the very cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy. The checks and balances that it contains are essential to ensuring that the Government of the day, whatever their colour, are held to account by a sovereign Parliament. It is what a liberal democracy—something we should all cherish—is all about.

Frankly, I have been troubled by some of the press accounts concerning the proposals for constitutional change coming out of the Conservative Party manifesto that I have been reading. Do not get me wrong: in principle I welcome the constitution, democracy and human rights commission announced in the gracious Speech to look at the broader aspects of the constitution, particularly the relationship between government, Parliament and the judiciary; the very foundation stone of those checks and balances. We move away from that delicate balance at our peril.

Like my noble friend Lord Wallace, I am very apprehensive about any agenda designed to increase the powers of the Executive and to reduce the powers of Parliament to hold them to account and of the courts to conduct judicial reviews. It may be a pesky irritant to a Government with a large majority—in terms of seats, that is, rather than of vote share, given our absurdly unfair voting system, a point made very eloquently by many noble Lords today—but history tells us that shackling the powers of Parliament to create an overmighty Executive is a very dangerous path. I would like to see the powers of Select Committees reviewed and enhanced, not least so that it would be unconstitutional for a Minister, or indeed the Prime Minister, to refuse to appear before a relevant Select Committee when requested to do so. We should also remember that Permanent Secretaries are directly accountable to Parliament as accounting officers, which is one reason why any proposals to get rid of them would be so undesirable.

Civil Service reform is often seen as a niche issue, but enter Mr Dominic Cummings, the great disrupter, whose radical ideas for transforming the way government and the Civil Service operate have caught the headlines, not least his wish to see “weirdos and misfits” whom he clearly prefers to what he terms “confident public school bluffers” and “Oxbridge humanities graduates”. His preferred HR practices are pretty unconventional too, particularly his suggestion that those “wild cards” who feel that they meet his rather unusual person specification bypass formal recruitment processes and get in touch with him direct via email. Other plans are reported to include an overhaul and merger of government departments alongside radical reform of how civil servants are recruited, assessed and rewarded, including them taking regular exams to prove they are up to the job.

In fairness, he does acknowledge that

“there are many brilliant people in the Civil Service,”

but Mr Cummings clearly has a very dim view of the system as a whole. Intriguingly, back in 2014 he argued:

“The idea of a Cabinet of over 30 people is a farce; it should be a maximum of probably six or seven people.”


Well, I am looking forward to that one.

In response to this, some former Permanent Secretaries and others have rightly pointed out that it is far better to take people with you when advocating major change than destabilising simply for the sake of it. It is also worth reminding ourselves that the historic values established by Northcote and Trevelyan in 1854—political impartiality, recruitment on merit, integrity and objectivity —remain as relevant today as ever.

Others have also been putting forward interesting ideas, including Policy Exchange, a right-wing think tank, which has just published a document called Whitehall Reimagined - A Strengthened Civil Service for a post-Brexit World. I agree with some of its recommendations, but certainly not all of them. Its report also rightly points out that recruitment freezes, below-inflation pay rises and major cuts to budgets have put the system under severe strain in the past 10 years, but I strongly take issue with the partisan proposals for public appointments which fail to recognise the need for appointments which can serve successive Governments.

Civil Service reform is important. From my experience, I have three key conclusions, with which I shall finish. First, civil servants move around far too often, leading to a real loss of expertise and corporate memory. Secondly, ministerial churn is arguably a substantially greater problem. During my six years as chair of Cafcass, I interacted with some 15 Ministers in the sponsor departments, many of whom did not stay in post for longer than a year, or for even less, including at Secretary of State level. No wonder there has been such little progress on family justice reform with that neverending merry-go-round.

Finally, machinery of government changes are a phenomenal waste of time and money and a total distraction from policy delivery. When she responds, will the Minister outline the intended timescale and process for the Civil Service reforms we have been reading about so recently, including the consultative arrangements, as I have a number of specific ideas I would like to feed in?

19:33

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it came as no surprise to me that there was nothing to delight my soul in the Government’s programme. For example, a fair justice system that keeps people safe takes more than a royal commission; it takes resources. When budgets have been cut by one-third, the system does not function well and justice suffers. I hope that the royal commission will examine the impact of austerity on fairness and access to justice. I also question any attempt to impose longer sentences when we are failing to deal with the care and rehabilitation of the large number of people already in the system. The probation service and the Prison Service are unable to cope properly with the existing numbers. If you add to that number, you are adding to those pressures and problems.

The tighter rules on carrying knives repeat the same rhetoric we have heard for years and fail to address the fear on the streets and the lack of a visible police presence, which can lead many to arm themselves for so called self-protection. The deaths and injuries from knife crime are a horrendous outcome of bigger social problems. We should be debating legislation that strengthens the family and community bonds that stop knives being seen as the solution to anything except eating dinner. Increasing Section 60 stop and search is not the answer. Research by the Times into the use of stop and search in London throws doubt on its effectiveness. In Enfield and Camden, two of the boroughs where the tactic was used most, knife attacks over the past year rose by 28% and 13% respectively. Use of this tactic risks alienating communities that could assist in combating knife crime.

We should be getting drugs off the streets and out of the hands of organised crime by regulating their use and selling them at pharmacies. We should be focused on breaking the cycle of violence experienced by far too many who come to see it as an inevitability in their lives. While I welcome the government support for action on domestic violence, the rest of this proposed legislation lacks the vision to deal with the problems we face. In fact, many of the big issues are not discussed at all.

The preventable deaths of five people a day on our roads is a scandal. The facts that these deaths are taken for granted by the Government and that our efforts to address road danger have stalled in recent years display shocking complacency. This level of criminality receives no attention from the Government, when the obvious solution is to hand out a lifetime ban to anyone who fails to stop and take responsibility for their actions as a driver.

Instead of action on the big issues that impact on the well-being of hundreds of thousands of people, we have a government proposal to criminalise unauthorised encampments. This is targeted at Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities, which is discriminatory and adds an extra threat on top of existing prejudice against those communities. I am also deeply concerned about how criminalising encampments will affect a whole form of peaceful protest that was previously a civil matter. It means criminalising the setting up of protest camps for the pettiest of reasons. It is because the Government and their corporate backers have been losing the debate. For example, Extinction Rebellion has changed the debate by being inconvenient. That can involve blocking roads, but obviously that is nothing like our Prime Minister, who today blocked the cycle lane on the Embankment so that he could get to work. I do not know where he was coming from. Extinction Rebellion sets up temporary protest camps to co-ordinate its actions, provide advice, handle liaison with the authorities et cetera. Last year, these actions sent a message to people and to Parliament, and Parliament responded by declaring a climate emergency. It showed that protest can be a powerful positive legitimate force in our democracy.

Local people setting up anti-fracking protest camps as a way of mobilising a continual presence on the doorstep of the frackers was very important. The frackers lost, despite all their powerful connections and party donations. Powerful people do not like losing, and they look at ways to make life more difficult for the protestors. That is the inspiration behind the proposed legislation to make this form of trespass a matter for the police and to give them the ability to seize property and vehicles. There are other protest camps. For example, local people protesting against HS2 are camped out near water meadows and ancient woodlands that face destruction, for example at Harvil Road in Hillingdon. They have been pushed out today.

I welcome the setting up of a constitution, democracy and rights commission, but could we not open that up to citizens’ assemblies to consider the way forward? The process should be designed to obtain maximum public consent and create a democracy fit for the 21st century. Obviously, the first issue of constitutional reform should be an elected second Chamber using proportional representation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for so passionately advocating proportional representation and for pointing out that Greens have to work much harder for a seat than any other party. The problem for me is that this Government will attempt to use this constitutional commission to cement their own power and give even greater autonomy to Ministers. We need a Parliament elected via a fair voting system which can take back control.

19:39

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, although those on this side of the House celebrate the scale of the Government’s success in December—a sentiment that may be shared by many on the Benches opposite, although covertly—it is important that we do not learn the wrong lessons.

Notwithstanding the earnest and sometimes frivolous contributions of the Prime Minister, the person and policies that contributed most to that remarkable outcome was Mr Corbyn and the Momentum-inspired manifesto. Among those who voted Conservative there were millions who, like me, feared the damage that Mr Corbyn would cause to Britain, yet more than they feared the damage that would flow from Brexit. While I accept that the election is authority for leaving the European Union on 31 January, it is not authority for a no-deal or hard-deal Brexit. I am profoundly concerned by the provision in the withdrawal Bill that purports to prevent the extension of the transitional period beyond the current year.

I turn directly to the aspects of the Queen’s Speech more precisely relevant to the terms of today’s debate and wish to make a very brief comment on the following: the police, prisons, Northern Ireland and the constitution. However, before doing so, I express my concern about the number of Bills contemplated by the Speech. I have counted 24 in number. It beyond the capacity of Parliament—even of this House—to deal with that volume of legislation in a proper and effective manner. In the Commons there will be mandatory timetabling, and there will be thousands of pages of unamendable secondary legislation. This is thoroughly bad for democracy and should be considered by the commission on the constitution.

Turning now to the police, although I welcome the royal commission on the criminal justice system, it is even more important to establish a royal commission on policing in England and Wales. Nobody could or should be satisfied with how the police service in England and Wales is presently performing. A royal commission should examine the resources dedicated to the police, the number of forces, the appointment of senior officers, the training of constables and, perhaps above all, the prioritisation of objectives. There will be hard decisions to take and they will be robustly resisted, but the recommendations of a royal commission will add credibility to the resulting polices.

I now want to say a word about prisons. I note the Government’s commitment to more prison places. When I was the prisons Minister at the back end of the 1980s, there were just over 40,000 prisoners; there are now over 80,000. I doubt the justification for this. It is essential that priority is given to improving the fabric of the estate, to the provision of meaningful out-of-cell activity, to remedying the defects in the basic educational attainments of many prisoners and to the development of workplace skills. The provision of more effective non-custodial sentences, backed by a reinforced probation service, is yet more important.

As regards the prosecution of servicemen for offences alleged to have been committed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, I find it deeply offensive—indeed, an abuse of process—that service and police personnel should be prosecuted while individuals alleged to have been involved in terrorism are welcomed into the political community and have held high political office. The only sensible way forward is a statute of limitations that will prevent all prosecutions for all alleged offences relating to the Troubles committed prior to, for example, the Good Friday agreement. Although it grieves me to suggest that an alleged terrorist should be treated in the same way as a police or security officer, I do not think that the law can or should permit a distinction.

My find word is on the commission on the constitution. For familial reasons, alluded to by the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord McNally, I have long been concerned by the threat to our democracy that could be posed by a Government with a large parliamentary majority. This indeed is the elective dictatorship of which my father wrote and spoke. We do not live in a society that has firmly entrenched rights, and we should be very slow to reduce the power of the courts to declare unlawful the actions of an over-mighty government. Those of my friends who take a different view should consider where they would stand on this matter in the event of a Momentum-inspired Administration.

In the coming months we will have much to consider. I very much hope that we hold this Government to account and seek to improve the volume of legislation that will be brought before us.

19:45

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has referred to the constitution, democracy and rights commission and I very much agree with what he has said. If one looks at the perhaps now infamous page 48 of the Conservative manifesto, I think one can argue that it is so lacking in specification that the Government can scarcely claim a mandate for any of the specific proposals that they might subsequently bring forward. However, one phrase jumped out at me and caused me some concern:

“We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.”


Those words have echoes of some ministerial responses to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of the illegal Prorogation.

Ministers would be well advised to reflect on the words of Mr Michael Gove when he was sworn in as Lord Chancellor in May 2015. Indeed, Mr Gove himself might want to reflect on them. He said:

“It must be a sorry nation … in which judges themselves agree with politicians 100% of the time.”


He then went on to quote Lord Denning in the 1977 case of Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers:

“Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”


Of course, Lord Denning was in turn quoting Dr Thomas Fuller from 1733. This is a theme that has infused our thinking about the relationship between the state and the courts—that the law is above even the lawmakers. As the Supreme Court made clear in the Prorogation case, a fundamental principle of our law is the sovereignty of Parliament—not the sovereignty of the Executive. This House will do well to challenge any measures brought before us that try to change that and make it the sovereignty of the Executive.

In the remaining time, I want to say something about Scotland. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I await with eager anticipation proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. This is a time for some innovative thinking. Would the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be better served by a very high-ranking Secretary of State for the nations and regions rather than territorial Secretaries of State? If there is to be a review of the role of the House of Lords, why do we not constitute it, as often happens in a number of other second Chambers, with a very weighted bias towards the nations and regions of the United Kingdom? A starting point could be the evidence which, over 50 years ago, the Scottish Liberal Party submitted to the Kilbrandon Royal Commission on the Constitution.

More immediately, the Government are about to start negotiations on the future trading relationship with the European Union, as well as numerous bilateral trade negotiations. It is not disputed that under the devolution settlements the conduct and conclusion of negotiations are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, on a number of these issues, the subject matter of such negotiations will fall within devolved competence. Indeed, those with whom we are negotiating may well have an interest in implementation in all parts of the United Kingdom. Last year’s report by the Constitution Committee on the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties made the point that there should be full engagement of the devolved Administrations. In their response, the Government said:

“The Government will continue to share papers, including relevant interdepartmental correspondence, and invite the DAs”—


the devolved Administrations—

“to meetings on subjects in which they have a devolved policy interest. The Government remains committed to timely consultation where possible … These new structures will ensure there is meaningful engagement with the devolved administrations at all stages of a negotiation, including prior to developing the mandate and finalising the agreement.”

That, of course, was the government response from the previous Administration under Mrs May. When she comes to reply, will the Minister confirm that that is still the position of the United Kingdom Government, and can she say what steps have already been taken to engage the devolved Administrations in any upcoming negotiations with the EU or indeed in other bilateral trade negotiations?

It is not just a question of institutional arrangements, although the downside of not treating the devolved institutions with respect in future trade negotiations could be damaging given the capacity of many to milk a grievance. The Prime Minister has said that on no account will he cede powers without a second independence referendum, although the Secretary of State for Scotland went on the record during the election as saying:

“The democratic mandate for a Section 30 Order is a matter for 2021. We’ll see whether the SNP get a majority then”.


It has been said in this debate by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Reid, that there would be great pressures in 2021 if the SNP were to get a majority. The best way of avoiding that is not to allow it a majority. Let us not play the First Minister at her own game. Nothing suits her better than to constantly debate the constitution. Let us challenge her on her stewardship of the things that are fully within her devolved responsibility. If she says that she wants to set up a central bank so that we can reapply for EU membership, let us challenge her. How could Scotland set up a central bank so easily when it cannot even build hospitals safely or build two ferries on time?

If the First Minister wants to talk about independence, she should also be willing to face up to the record of ScotRail, the centralisation of police services and the mental health waiting times for children. Finally, as the noble Lords, Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Soley, said, we must establish the case for our United Kingdom not only from the head but from the heart. That was perhaps not always what we did in 2014, but the question of why we believe the United Kingdom is so valuable might be worthy of a debate in your Lordships’ House.

Finally, we can look around the world at the islands and peninsulas that have been scarred by years of division. Here, for the last 300 years and more, we have built a great democracy together based on a culture of human rights and the rule of law. We have built the National Health Service and a welfare state. We have resisted invasion and conquest. We did not fall in the last century for the totalitarian ideologies which blighted other countries. Yet, at the same time, we have retained our identities as separate parts of the United Kingdom while also feeling British. That is something that we should be proud of and that we perhaps need to articulate more often and more eloquently than I have managed this evening.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I politely remind contributors to this debate that there is a guidance of five minutes for speeches and we have a great many speakers to come. It would be hugely appreciated if speakers could please stick to the guideline.

19:52

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, your Lordships will recall that, over the centuries, Parliaments have been given nicknames to reflect their character. In 1388, there was the Wonder-Working Parliament—if only. In 1404, the Dunces’ Parliament was so called because—this will please my noble and learned friends—upon the instructions of King Henry IV it contained no lawyers.

So what shall we call the 2017 Parliament? Possibly the Gridlocked Parliament, but it was also a Parliament which saw well-established constitutional conventions and understandings ignored or trashed, the actions of a Prime Minister in the high duty of advising his Sovereign found to be unlawful and, in the House of Commons, the explicit wording of certain Standing Orders made subject to imaginative reinterpretation. We do not yet know what long-term damage has been done to our constitutional arrangements but of one thing we can be sure: there are some expensive noises coming from the engine.

I will swiftly touch on four issues. First, I warmly welcome the undertaking in the gracious Speech that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act will be repealed. That Act will go unlamented to its legislative grave but, in doing so, it may pose an interesting problem. The Act removed the discretionary prerogative power of dissolution; presumably, that must be restored in terms. I shall be very interested to see how the repeal Bill defines the nature and extent of those prerogative powers and whether there are implications for other aspects of the prerogative.

My second issue is the routine surrender of parliamentary power to the Executive by the extent of delegated powers granted to Ministers. This is a sad story which will no doubt be continued by the many Bills foreshadowed in the gracious Speech: extensive powers delegated to Ministers, including powers to amend primary legislation, often with little effective parliamentary scrutiny, often to achieve ends which are not made explicit to Parliament when the powers are granted, and all too often upon the criterion that a Minister thinks that such provision is “appropriate”—that baneful word—not “required”, not “necessary” but merely upon the unsupported judgment of a Minister of the present Administration, or of any future Administration, while the powers remain upon the statute book.

Your Lordships are sensitised to these issues, particularly by the excellent work of the Delegated Powers Committee, but there appears to be no similar sensitivity at the other end of the building, so the legislative power of Parliament continues to drain away. Let us hope that in this Parliament—an appropriate expression has just come to mind—we might consider “taking back control”.

Noble Lords, especially noble and learned Lords, have considered, and will consider, the implications of the Supreme Court judgment on prorogation. Tempted as I am, I will take only one aspect of that judgment for my third issue. For some years in my previous life, I was closely involved in protecting “proceedings in Parliament”, in the words of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, from incursion or encroachment by the courts. This often involved complex issues.

As the Supreme Court quite rightly pointed out, the Bill of Rights is statute law and so falls to the courts to interpret but, of course, there is room for more than one opinion on the matter. It is a close call but, on balance, I think the court, in paragraph 69 of the judgment, was right to conclude that it was not precluded by Article 9 from considering the validity of the prorogation. I did, though, have the mischievous thought as to what the situation would be if, the ceremony of Prorogation not being considered by the Supreme Court to be a proceeding in Parliament, a Member of your Lordships’ House were, during that ceremony, to interrupt proceedings with words which were not only disorderly but actionable. Would he or she be protected by absolute privilege, as in a proceeding in Parliament? Perhaps it would be best for such a thing to remain in the realm of hypothesis.

My final issue is the preservation of the union. This is becoming a matter of increasing concern, and the centrifugal forces pulling our nation apart are ever greater. Noble Lords may recall that, in the last Parliament, I introduced the Act of Union Bill. That Bill resulted from the extensive work of the Constitution Reform Group, founded and chaired by the distinguished former Member—indeed Leader—of your Lordships’ House, Lord Salisbury.

The Bill sought a new devolution settlement—indeed, a new constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom —with the sharing of powers and responsibilities on a bottom-up, not top-down, basis and avoiding what I have described as the imperial condescension of Whitehall. The group has continued and broadened its work and, in addition to its membership from several parties and from none, it now also draws upon the help and advice of some senior figures in the world of finance and, I am glad to say, former First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as of a great number of conferences and seminars.

I hope to introduce a new and improved version of the Bill in the present Parliament. I hope that, at the very least, it will support continuing serious debate about the future of the union and that, at need, it will provide a plan B; with the passing months this seems ever more necessary.

19:58

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, at this hour of the evening, I am deeply concerned as to the propriety and responsibility of making the speech with which I have come prepared. I have no greater desire than to see the whole of this Brexit process end with a satisfactory completion and an unarguable vote, but I am deeply concerned that we have a serious error in the process by which this House counts votes, and it could have a significant effect on the outcome.

It would be irresponsible of me to share too much of my story in a way that could be copied by the press and perhaps acted upon to the detriment of what we are trying to achieve. So I will share a little of it and offer to sit down with the clerks to look at what I am saying—quietly, separately, outside this meeting—with a view to seeing whether it can be corrected or we can do something about it. But I do not want to be the trouble-maker I am likely otherwise to be.

All this started on the day when we finished and went home for the election. I went to the clerks’ office and asked a question that I should have asked long ago: “What does it take for this House to be quorate for a vote?”—a question that I used to ask all the time before any board meeting of any of my companies. The reply that I got was: three Peers present to ratify a Statement to be read into the record, and 30 Peers for any part of a Bill. I then asked, “But what do we do with regard to the disallowance of votes from Peers who have become disqualified for failing to live by the oath they took on being signed in?” “No, Peers are allowed to vote once they have taken the oath.” “Yes,” I said, “but a lot of Peers have broken their oath.” “No Peer ever breaks his oath.” I thought, “I know I have, and I’m not the only one.” I have broken the oath because I did not object to the Lisbon treaty when I was here. I am therefore in breach of that oath and have been ever since, and so has anyone else who has been here since that time. I said, “Then do you count my vote when I come in here to vote?” They said, “Yes, we do.” I said, “Then your votes must always be wrong.”

This is much more complicated than that because you then have to go back to the Maastricht treaty. Anyone who was here when that treaty began has Brownie points-plus, because the Maastricht treaty introduced the levy that effectively increased the omnipotence of Parliament, not reduced it. So anyone who voted thereafter and then went to the Lisbon treaty is probably cleared to vote again now, because the Lisbon treaty only took away what had been given by Maastricht in the first place so it is probably a Mexican stand-off.

After that, it is a question of just how many votes are excluded and included. As some of our votes are not that big, it would not take more than a variance of 10 or 20 to be significant in swinging a vote. I think that we ought now to have a new approach to voting in this House based upon the fact that everyone should have a voting code included on the register when we go through the Lobby saying whether we were valid or invalid according to the time when we took our oath and what has happened since. It could be easily fitted and done up in the next few days before we come to a vote, and it would give an accurate and realistic vote that could be unarguable in whatever took place afterwards.

I do not want to go into too much detail and give a hostage to the press to have fun with us, but I am seriously concerned that we have an error in our system. God help us, I hope that we get a right vote and a clear one, with no argument. I will help the clerks in any way that I can to understand my problem.

20:02

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I believe that we are too ready to ignore some real present dangers to democracy. Johnson is of course no Hitler, but there are disturbing signs that he does not understand some of the basic elements of democracy, and we have no idea what we may stumble into. Certainly, neither Johnson nor the bulk of the present Conservative party—let alone the most influential figure in the party today, Dominic Cummings—seems to grasp the danger to democracy of a Government who lie. Nor do they care a hoot about parliamentary democracy, which has been the rock on which British democracy has traditionally been based.

Johnson clearly does not believe in the importance of scrutiny by Parliament of government policy, as he showed in his attempt to prorogue Parliament, which in the event was foiled by that bastion of our liberties, the Supreme Court. Ominously, he has announced that we should re-examine the role of the Supreme Court in its relations with Parliament, because he seems to regard the court as an undemocratic obstacle to what in his opinion may be important government policy.

Now that he has a majority, he can also sweep aside any obstacles created by inquisitorial MPs, such as those who passed the Hilary Benn Act, which he tried to invalidate. Furthermore, Johnson has encouraged a general campaign against experts and elites, especially against politicians who seek to question the people’s will as expressed in the 2016 referendum, which it seems is inviolate, however much circumstances may have changed.

In fact, one of the most dangerous developments in our politics today is the constant invocation of “the will of the people”. All democracies start with the proposition that Governments should govern in accordance with the wishes of the people, but that proposition is not unqualified. As Locke maintained, it must be subject to the rule of law and the rights of minorities and of the individual. Furthermore, because of the complexities of government, Burke argued that MPs should not be delegates who vote as instructed by some outside body but representatives who take account of majority wishes but exercise their own judgment after hearing the argument and evidence. Without those qualifications, “the will of the people” becomes an extremely useful term for autocrats.

Today it is commonplace to hear any qualification to the need to obey “the will of the people” as a denial of democracy. But that is the creed of Rousseau, the hero of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. and of almost any autocrat since, from Mussolini and Hitler to Erdoğan today. The Conservative Party seems to have swallowed Rousseau hook, line and sinker and forgotten its own history. Exit Locke and Burke; MPs must now be delegates, no longer representatives.

We may soon find ourselves in very dangerous territory. Suppose, as is far from impossible, that no substantial progress has been made in the difficult negotiations for a free trade agreement by the statutory deadline at the end of this year. We may indeed end up after all with a no-deal Brexit and a situation of chaos. Only today, Mr Boris Johnson has announced that he is happy to leave without a free trade agreement. No doubt the lie machine will get to work to prove that failure is in fact a famous victory, but people may finally decide that this is not what they were promised. If so, it will of course all be the fault of Europeans, civil servants or other elite enemies of the people, but especially obstructive parliamentarians, an easy target for blame in the present political mood. It will be an ugly world. There is perhaps more than just a whiff of Weimar in the air.

20:07

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I shall touch on four issues. The first is the Government’s focus on imprisonment and tough community sentences. Such policies fail to address the causes of crime and the vulnerabilities of children excluded from school, and will therefore not reduce knife crime or violent crime more generally. This is a human tragedy but also a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money. I urge Ministers to listen to the most senior police officer in the land, who understands how to reduce the level of serious crime. Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, could help the Government to achieve their objective; he is clear that arrests are not the key to fighting crime.

The Children’s Society makes the point that a long-term solution to youth violence must prioritise effective support for vulnerable children at an early stage. The 29% cut in funding for children and young people’s services and the 49% cut in specific early intervention funding since 2010 will only fuel youth crime. Urgent is the need for investment in mental health support for children at risk of exclusion from school. Excluded children are the criminals of the future. Can the Minister give me some assurance that the cuts will be restored in full, and that children’s mental health services will be funded adequately? There is no indication of the full restoration of funding in the Queen’s Speech.

Secondly, I want to refer to a totally different subject: my Private Member’s Bill, which I will introduce tomorrow and which gives legal recognition to humanist marriages. Scotland is 14 years ahead. Humanist marriages in Scotland account for 22% of all marriages, more than are accounted for by any religious or belief group. Northern Ireland, Jersey and the Republic of Ireland also have legal recognition of humanist marriages, but at present in England and Wales the growing number of couples who have humanist marriages also have to have a civil wedding, with all the additional costs and administration involved. This is a human rights issue that is currently going through the courts.

Seven years ago, the Government tabled an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, to enable Ministers to legalise humanist marriages. This was in response to strong parliamentary support for such a reform. Seven years later, nothing has happened. It would be very simple and very popular. I hope the Government will ensure that parliamentary time is given to this Private Member’s Bill to ensure that we can make progress at last.

On my third issue, the persecution of patients, the Minister will be aware of the appalling experience of 55 year-old Lesley Gibson, a multiple sclerosis sufferer in a wheelchair who was arrested and charged with possession and cultivation of cannabis for growing 10 plants to treat her symptoms. Lesley faced up to five years in jail. Medical cannabis is legal, but most patients have to spend about £1,000 a month to get hold of it because of our ludicrous regulations. They cannot afford it. Will the ministerial team give an instruction to the Permanent Secretary to do what is necessary to decriminalise the possession or cultivation of cannabis for medical purposes only? Some police forces are already operating such a policy. Police know that patients’ self-care does not and should not represent a crime.

Finally, let me turn to the issue of assisted dying—last but very much not least. I want to pay tribute to Ron Hogg, former police and crime commissioner for Durham Constabulary, whose funeral I attended yesterday in the cathedral. Ron campaigned for the legalisation of assisted dying, as he himself lay dying of motor neurone disease. He was unable to move, speak and all the rest of it, yet he was somehow helping us to get this across. He did not want others to suffer as he was suffering. Seventeen police and crime commissioners joined Ron in his end-of-life plea for reform. MPs, police officers and doctors are increasingly aware of the cruelty of the current law, from all sorts of points of view. One is the pain for police officers having to arrest and interview bereaved relatives. They cry on occasions because they find it so painful.

We have an urgent need for an independent inquiry into the consequences of the Suicide Act 1961 as it affects terminally ill, mentally competent people who need help to bring their suffering to an end a little earlier than might happen naturally. The previous Justice Secretary agreed to such an inquiry. I call on the current Government to reaffirm that commitment.

20:12

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice president and former chairman of the Local Government Association.

I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on winning the general election. We can now get Brexit done, honour the referendum result and make sure that we level up all areas of the country. The ambitious Queen’s Speech makes it clear that the new Parliament is about getting Brexit over the line while delivering a powerful one-nation agenda, an agenda that is a force for positive change in communities across the country.

In the time I have today, I will focus on two issues that I am passionate about: the need to tackle the scourge of domestic violence, and the opportunity to reshape the way our country is run by devolving more powers to communities through their local elected councils. Domestic abuse is a hugely important issue, one that we all take seriously. The domestic abuse Bill is a legislative landmark. It will provide the first definition of domestic abuse that is not limited to violence. This will provide clarity for everyone involved, including councils. Women’s Aid said that it has the potential to create a step change in the national response. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this is promising. In particular, the creation of a domestic abuse commissioner will help to raise the profile of this issue and ensure momentum behind it.

The Government’s approach should also recognise a greater focus on prevention and early intervention measures. This would include funding and investing in evidence-based perpetrator programmes and sharing at the national level the key learnings from domestic homicide reviews. By doing this, we can tackle the root causes of the issue and stop domestic abuse happening in the first place.

The Queen’s Speech made a commitment to

“give communities more control over how investment is spent”.

As a member of the APPG on devolution, reform and decentralisation, I have championed the call for further devolution. The simple truth is that local leaders are best placed to know what is needed in their communities. The Conservative manifesto rightly recognises this, calling for national politicians to move away from the idea that Whitehall knows best and that all growth must start in London. This is a call to trust people and communities to make the decisions that are right for them. That is something I wholeheartedly support.

Moreover, the need to act is urgent. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, the gap between London and the rest of the country has widened to the point where no other region in the country, apart from the south-east, is generating as much wealth per capita today as London was 20 years ago. Devolution could help us to change this picture. As just one example, local control over skills and employment support is something councils are desperate for. Evidence from the LGA suggests that a devolved skills and employment policy could deliver fiscal benefits of up to £280 million a year for local areas.

The Conservative manifesto also committed to levelling up every part of the UK, particularly our rural and coastal areas that are too often left behind. Previous deals have focused on urban areas using a mayoral model. While this approach has worked well for many areas, it may not be suitable for rural and coastal communities, which instead would benefit from the freedom to propose their own governance arrangements.

Brexit represents a real opportunity to rethink the way decisions are made. Where EU laws are repatriated back to the UK, they cannot simply rest in Whitehall, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont. We need a bold new English devolution settlement in this Parliament. With this in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister, in wrapping up the debate, could provide an update on when we can expect to see the promised devolution White Paper and whether it will be co-produced with councils and the LGA.

I conclude by once again welcoming the Queen’s Speech. Proposals such as the domestic abuse Bill and the commitments to devolution will make important changes to people’s lives. It will allow us to make sure that we are protecting those who are often vulnerable and need our support, while ensuring our long-term success and prosperity as a nation. I look forward to working with the Government to deliver the proposals in the Queen’s Speech.

20:18

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I very much enjoyed the entertaining contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, which he made immediately in response to the gracious Speech. He was himself gracious in acknowledging his own defeat in the general election of 1997 by my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough.

Some time ago, I also enjoyed reading the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. To be precise, I enjoyed the pages in which he blamed his demise in that election on the way in which voters in Harrogate had been inundated with letters in the name of my late, and much missed, noble friend Lord Ashdown. I suspect that the noble Lord is unaware that I was the person who drafted all those letters. These were happier times for my party. We had high hopes that the UK’s constitution would be radically reformed in a way that would greatly improve the health of our democracy.

In the months before the 1997 election, Paddy had asked me to be the joint secretary of the consultative committee between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, established under the joint chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the late Robin Cook, to agree a consensus on such reforms. A considerable number of the proposals in that package were subsequently achieved, including the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly with systems of proportional representation, but the promised referendum on a proportional voting system for the House of Commons was never held. Hindsight is easy but I believe that those people within the Labour Party who blocked that referendum then, and a move to a fairer voting system for the House of Commons, must share at least some of the responsibility for events in the last 10 years—and for what may now lie ahead. Things really could have been better and our place in Europe would never have been threatened by a deeply flawed referendum.

During his speech the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, described the recent general election as a second referendum. I think he used the phrase “a second people’s vote,” but over the last three years the position of the Conservatives has been strongly opposed to letting people have the final say on the issue of Britain’s EU membership. Now that people have voted, we are told that the vote is to be considered as the result of another referendum. Ever since the 2016 referendum, the Liberal Democrats have stood up for the 48% who voted to remain. We believe that if there really had been a second referendum, based on the facts, then more than 48% would have voted to remain. It was repeatedly argued by those in favour of Brexit that the views of the 48% in 2016 should be ignored. But on Brexit now, and on every other political issue, we are told that the views of the party which received 43.6% of the vote on 12 December should be imposed upon us all. It was said before that 48% should be ignored, even when they might have become a majority, but it is said now that less than 44% of the vote is to be taken as a mandate to determine every issue. That is both illogical and undemocratic.

The Liberal Democrats want this place to be more democratic but we want the other place to be more democratic too. The recent Conservative manifesto referred to the need to have votes of equal value, but the facts are that in the recent general election it took 38,265 votes to elect a Conservative MP, 50,717 votes to elect a Labour MP and 336,038 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP. The present system is not unfair to the Conservative Party but the Government continue to threaten to make it even more favourable to the Conservatives with a boundary review. The principle of roughly equal numbers of voters in a single constituency system is right, but so is the principle that everyone entitled to vote should be registered to vote. A boundary review without dealing with the problem of underregistration is unfair and is clearly intended to further favour the Conservatives.

Electoral processes, we are told, may also be changed to favour the Conservatives by introducing compulsory photo ID at polling stations. There is no evidence that this is based on anything other than the principle of seeking to reduce the ease with which people less likely to vote Conservative can vote at a polling station. Can the Minister please undertake to ask electoral registration officers how many times somebody went to a polling station on 12 December only to find that their vote had already been claimed by somebody else? This would provide an indication as to whether there really is a problem or simply a fear on the part of the Government that they may not be re-elected so easily another time.

20:24

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I am so sorry.

[Lord Rogan]

It is quite all right. My Lords, I have spoken in your Lordships’ House about the urgent need to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland. I will not restate those arguments but the latest reports I have received from the talks in Belfast suggest that we are no closer to finding a resolution today than we were yesterday. Again, I will urge all the parties in Northern Ireland, particularly the DUP and Sinn Féin/IRA, to do all they can to reach agreement in advance of Monday’s deadline.

I will concentrate my remarks on what the gracious Speech described as the “utmost importance” of the,

“integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom,”—[Official Report, 19/12/19; col. 7.]

or, to give our great nation its full title, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is a simple fact that the union is under greater threat now than at any time during the IRA’s 30-year campaign of violence. Your Lordships will need no reminding that the Troubles were an indescribably barbarous period in our history. More than 3,600 people lost their lives, with countless more suffering horrendous injuries. People often ask what purpose was served by such death and destruction. From a Sinn Féin/IRA perspective, my answer would be that no purpose was served whatever. The Belfast agreement, which I was proud to be part of, enshrined the principle of consent that keeps Northern Ireland an integral part of the United Kingdom unless its people decide otherwise in a democratic vote. Meanwhile the purpose of the pro-union people in enduring the IRA’s hideous terrorist campaign, rather than giving in, was to protect that precious consent principle.

I have always regarded my unionism as something positive. The unionist community is often portrayed as possessing a siege mentality but this is a false impression. In general, unionists are forward-thinking and, in a post-Troubles society, there have been significant efforts to reach out and sell the benefits and attractions of unionism to those of alternative political outlooks and none. For example, the 12 July parades now have a genuine festival feel about them, and quite rightly so. However, where unionists can perhaps be accused of becoming more insular is when they feel that the British Government of the day would rather see the back of Northern Ireland. The most obvious recent example of this was in 1985 when Margaret Thatcher co-signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, giving the Dublin Government a say in the internal affairs of one part of the United Kingdom against its will. In 1998, the then Baroness Thatcher said that she regretted signing this agreement. Thankfully, a Labour Prime Minister helped to put something much better in its place on Good Friday of that same year.

Fast-forwarding to today and the actions of the latest Conservative Prime Minister to roll off the conveyer belt, Boris Johnson’s decision to renege on his public commitment not to annex Northern Ireland by placing a border in the Irish Sea after Brexit has had a profound impact on the psyche of the loyal pro-union people. Mr Johnson, I am afraid, has a long and complicated relationship with the truth across many aspects of life, but saying something and doing precisely the opposite has much deeper consequences when you hold the office of Prime Minister. Despite his supposed commitment to the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’s place within it, as laid out in the gracious Speech, a significant proportion of unionists simply refuse to believe him and are deeply worried about what comes next.

There is also another group. As the recent Westminster elections highlighted, there is a growing number of people in Northern Ireland who do not see themselves as either unionist or nationalist. Thankfully, a succession of surveys makes it clear that a healthy majority would still vote in favour of Northern Ireland staying within the United Kingdom should a border poll be called. However, this position will be hard to maintain if the Prime Minister continues to behave like someone who, at best, does not seem particularly keen to fight to save the union or, at worst, is relaxed about retreating into a mindset of English nationalism.

20:30

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for trying to speak earlier. I look over the Irish Sea from where I live and I wondered whether I also had to cross that sea today, but I am delighted that he is here.

In the referendum campaign and the general election campaign, one of the claims made was that we would “take back control”. We can take back control to some limited extent, but there are areas where we cannot but where we are the victims of circumstances. For instance, how do we take back control when we have climate change turning parts of Africa into extended deserts and a mass movement of immigrant people looking for some way of sustaining their life? How do we do that? What do we do with Syria? What might we to do with Iran? We accept many refugees from that region, but we never know how many we will have to take. What will President Trump do next? We have to be flexible here. How do we take control?

I was here when David Cameron made the promise that, by the year 2020, we would have accepted 20,000 refugees from Syria. I look forward before long to having the breakdown of those figures.

If we cannot take control, there are other things that we can do which are easy for us to accomplish. First, we can change our whole immigration ethos. Why do we welcome immigrants to this country yet not allow them to work until they have been here for 12 months? Why do we still have indeterminate detention on the books? We are one of only a small number of countries in the world that do it. Why do we let 18 year-old lads here from Afghanistan or other places be in fear because their status changes when they reach that age of 18? There are things that we can do. Why do we still allow a Home Office that has 47% of its immigration decisions overturned on appeal? These are things that can be done. We can have control over our own legislation. I would like to see that control, so that we change from being a hostile environment that seems to be shutting the door against people to an environment of welcome where people say, “Yes, we are here. We know there are problems, but we are here, and we can contribute so much to the life of the United Kingdom.”

We heard in the House yesterday of the shortage of nurses, yet we have nurses—thousands of them, I imagine —in the immigration procedure. We are not taking advantage of them and not giving them the opportunity. There is so much that can be done. We might not be able to take control of everything, but there are certain things we can do.

I have come across a lot of people in the time that we have been talking about this. I shall give just one instance before I finish. There was a lad from Afghanistan originally; he was 14 years old. His mother and father had been killed by the Taliban. He went to Pakistan and from there to Turkey. From Turkey—what a journey for a 14 year-old—he found his way to Calais. In Calais, he jumped on the back of a truck and he landed in London. He joined our Citizens of the World Choir. I remember going with him to the Llangollen International Eisteddfod. There in Llangollen, he came to me after that performance and said to me, “Do you know, that was the best day of my life?” He is a remarkable person. He has now been in a sixth-form college. There was a mock election there and he sent me a photograph. He had a rosette; he was a candidate. The rosette was the right colour, of course; I do not know why because there was no influence directed towards him. He did that and he said, “the best day of my life”. We had brought hope instead of despair—I could go on, but I must not—as with so many of the lads and lasses from overseas who come here.

In this new term, will the Government now give us hope and respond to those needs that we have debated over the years, so that so many people will be able to say, “Yes, this is the best day of my life”?

20:35

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)]

My Lords, to borrow a line from PG Wodehouse, it is always easy to distinguish between a ray of sunshine and the imminent return of the European Union withdrawal Bill. Yet fuelled by a wish to find reasons to be cheerful, including real possibilities on the constitutional front, perhaps I may open with a few swift thoughts about what of enduring value might be built out of the rubble, as the dust and grit of the general election campaign start to settle.

I think the outline of a consensus is visible and its achievement possible—a thin wisp of tomorrow that is just discernible today, to borrow a phrase from the great French historian, Fernand Braudel. If it is, such a consensus could rescue the coming political generation from the pit of Europe-envenomed rancour into which the recent and current political class fell with such dispiriting regularity.

There are five questions which, if tackled with determination and consensual good will, could, taken together, represent a worthy, shared project for the political generation of the 2020s to the immense benefit of our country and our people. Here would be my quintet of ingredients. The first is social care: to do for social care in the early 2020s what the NHS did for healthcare in the late 1940s. The second is a sustained social housing drive: a generous public/private mix at least comparable in scale to Harold Macmillan’s housing programme in the early 1950s. Thirdly, there is technical education, and getting this right for the first time. Parliament has been on the case since the 1860s. Now, surely, is the hour. Fourthly, there is climate change. As the incomparable Winston Churchill liked to say, “You cannot ignore the facts, for they glare upon you.” They do in this case, quite literally. Finally, there is the constitution: the codes, statutes and conventions that we live and work by. For we can no longer rely, sadly, on what an old Cabinet Office friend of mine, Clive Priestley, used to call “the good chaps theory of government”, whereby good chaps of both sexes knew where the unwritten lines were drawn and came nowhere near touching them, let alone crossing them.

During the autumn, I took a stab at an early 2020s constitutional agenda in a pamphlet for the Constitution Society, with Dr Andrew Blick of King’s College London. We called our paper, Good Chaps No More? Safeguarding the Constitution in Stressful Times. The paper’s premise was that

“the constitution has special properties. It is a creation of history, the work of many hands and minds that reflects a myriad of experiences. A government-of-the-day is its custodian but not its sole owner. The constitution is a shared possession of the nation as a whole which imposes a special duty of care on Prime Ministers, Cabinets and Parliament … changes to it need to be very carefully crafted and to carry wide consent.”

Trust is the scarcest and most precious political metal at the moment. Faith in the constitution is essential to its restoration and sustenance. I shall not describe all the triggers for constitutional anxiety in our recent past, but any list would contain the attempted Prorogation of Parliament of late August 2019, deemed illegal by the Supreme Court on 24 September, the episode which may have sung the requiem for the “good chaps theory”. Her Majesty should never have been put in that position.

What terrain might be covered by a constitutional inquiry? We would all have our own cartography, but this is the landscape that Andrew Blick and I sketched out: the Executive, taking in Ministers, the Cabinet and the Civil Service; the relationship between the Executive and the monarchy; the relationship between the Executive and Parliament; the internal organisation of Parliament; the position of the courts as upholders of the rule of law; and the relationships between the UK Government and the devolved levels of governance. It is quite an ambitious enterprise, but one we need at the start of a decade that will take us out of the EU, and may—though I fervently hope not—see Scotland leaving and fracturing the very union in which all of us have lived, breathed and had our being. Such a change would, I believe, be more disturbing, psychologically, for the shrivelled UK that remained than anything the European question has thrown at us.

I share the concerns of other noble Lords about the Conservative Party’s election manifesto promise of a constitution, democracy and rights commission, a pledge etched into the marble of the gracious Speech. A first step in the restoration of trust would be for the Government to make plain that any such inquiry should be, and be seen to be, independent of the Government. Andrew Blick and I suggested an array of possible instruments and here there is an overlap with my noble friend Lord Cormack: a royal commission; a parliamentary inquiry, perhaps a Joint Committee of both Houses; a Speaker’s conference; or a citizens’ convention.

My final thought is that although I am not a written constitution man, maybe the time has come to capture more of it in cold print. I think we need a new equipoise between the moving parts of the British constitution, on which our system of government depends, and our people’s faith in it. In seeking that new equipoise, we might draw ourselves together, refreshing the constitutional arrangements by which we govern ourselves, and, in so doing, take ourselves by surprise with our creativity, our civility and our sense of common purpose.

20:40

[Lord Dunlop (Con)]

My Lords, it is great pleasure to follow my Constitution Committee colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. As we have already heard in the debate, the union will inevitably loom large in this new Parliament. The gracious Speech rightly recognises the importance the Government attach to the integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom, acknowledging that constitutional and economic questions are inextricably linked. The last five or six years have demonstrated that people want two things: more responsive and accountable government; and the opportunity for every part of the country to share fully in its prosperity. One might say that they want not just a northern powerhouse and a Midlands engine, but a western powerhouse, a Northern Irish turbo and a Scottish dynamo, too—additional magnets for economic activity, complementing the power of London and the south-east, part of a common agenda to reunite a country divided by our withdrawal from the European Union.

This is the backdrop to the independent review I was commissioned to undertake to consider how the UK Government are organised to strengthen the working of the union, which a number of noble Lords have already referred to. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that the report is with the Prime Minister and I hope it will be published soon. I make it clear that the review is not about changing the existing devolution settlements, but about the machinery and arrangements enabling the UK Government to discharge sensitively their own unique duties to people across all parts of the country, and to work constructively with devolved Governments where responsibilities overlap. This is all part of the essential glue binding our United Kingdom together.

The first challenge, as I see it, is to embed union considerations at the very heart of the way Whitehall thinks and acts. At present, there are plenty of good intentions: the issue is how good intentions can translate into consistently effective policy development, decision-making and delivery. This means that Ministers and officials need to be fully aware of the implications of their policies and actions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, for that matter, for the north of England as well.

Beyond awareness, the UK Government should be sophisticated enough to design policy for the UK as a whole and differential policy for its constituent parts. An example might be the development of a new immigration system, which I think has already been mentioned in this debate. There have been persistent calls for immigration to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament to address specific Scottish demographic challenges. However, let us not forget that the UK Government are Scotland’s Government too. Why should they not be capable of designing a system that protects the integrity of UK borders and is also sensitive to the particular needs of Scotland?

The second challenge is to promote a greater sense of the union as a joint endeavour. The devolution settlements have evolved significantly since 1998. The respective competencies of the UK Government and the devolved Governments are increasingly interdependent, so the willingness and ability of Governments to work together has never been more important. That is why intergovernmental relations need to be fundamentally reset.

I suspect all participants currently approach meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee as one might contemplate a trip to the dentist for root canal treatment without anaesthetic—something to be endured rather than enjoyed. Too often the JMC is a platform for airing a grievance or public dispute. It must surely be possible, despite constitutional differences, to build more positive relationships to advance shared interests, from tackling knife crime and drug abuse to addressing climate change, improving productivity and rebalancing the economy. But, again, this requires a change of mindset—to identify opportunities rather than seeing everything as a dispiriting and defensive damage-limitation exercise or, worse, as an argument for national exceptionalism. In short, we should be finding practical reasons to work together rather than searching for ideological excuses to fall out.

Making intergovernmental relations more transparent, with a bigger role for Parliament, would help encourage more constructive behaviour. After all, Governments working together on their priorities is what people want and expect, and there will ultimately be a political cost to those who consistently do not collaborate.

Our union—the United Kingdom—is the most successful multinational state in the world. Its success is built in part on an ability to adapt to change. Over the last 20 years the UK has changed. Devolution has empowered local decision-making while preserving the UK’s ability to act collectively when size and heft matter. We should celebrate that a feature of devolution is diversity and accept that managing difference is one of its natural consequences. We should also prize the fact that one of the core values of our union is solidarity and never forget that the promotion of common interests is one of its essential roles.

20:46

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, in the short time available I intend to focus on the justice section of the gracious Speech, particularly the announcement that there is to be a royal commission

“to review and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process.”

I note that in yesterday’s Times there was a suggestion that this should include the organisation of the police, last subject of a separate royal commission in 1962. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that this should be repeated.

I am concentrating on prisons and probation for two reasons. First, their evolving problems have been catalogued in detail, over many years, by successive quality assurers—the Chief Inspectors of Prisons and the Chief Inspectors of Probation—so it will not be difficult to draw up a comprehensive list of what needs to be reviewed. Secondly, on 3 October 2019 I tabled a Motion that

“this House takes note of the case for reforming the management and treatment of offenders in prison and the community”—[Official Report, 3/10/19; col. 1808.]

in which I called for an outside inquiry, akin to a royal commission, to be appointed as quickly as possible, not least to determine whether punishment or rehabilitation should be the primary aim of the Prison and Probation Service. I did that because, in the past,

“Whenever an issue of public policy required thorough examination and the Government were not committed to a definite policy, the task used to be entrusted to an invited group of persons from outside the relevant departments, such as a royal commission.”—[Official Report, 3/10/19; col. 1810.]


The last Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice System reported in 1993, since when all reviews have been carried out in-house, despite the known imperfections of that process. Because Ministry of Justice officials have presided over failure for so long, and because some existing practices need to be questioned, I do not believe that they are the right persons to carry out a review.

The Ministry of Justice rejected my request on the grounds that Ministers were not convinced that a review was necessary in view of the reforms already outlined. I therefore welcome this change of heart and, in view of their fundamental importance, ask the Minister whether she can tell the House anything about the commission’s timings, chairman and terms of reference.

The lack of consistent strategic direction of the criminal justice system, amounting to successive Governments not being committed to a definite policy, was made manifestly obvious in 2012, when the coalition Government introduced a legal aid, sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders Bill, which was quickly renamed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Of course, any sentence is a punishment, awarded by the courts following a crime, but then what? This lack of a definite policy was highlighted by the tragic event at the Fishmongers’ Hall last month. The Prime Minister immediately focused on punishment, while the father of Jack Merritt, one of the victims, memorably took the opposite view. In my debate I mentioned a suggested joint aim for the prison and probation services:

“It is our duty to help all those committed by the courts to live useful and law-abiding lives, with the qualifications that they must be treated with humanity and not allowed to escape from prison or breach the terms of their supervision order in the community.”—[Official Report, 3/10/19; col. 1810.]


As far as prisons and probation are concerned, I encourage the Government to make the terms of reference of the royal commission as wide as possible, including the outlining of a definite policy for the criminal justice system, the governance of prisons and probation and the processes by which offenders are to be treated and managed. They should also include initial assessment, the provision of healthcare and the treatment of women and children, foreign nationals, the elderly and indeterminate-sentenced prisoners. Above all, I hope that the Government, on behalf of the public, whose protection they are responsible for providing, will listen to the words of a former prisoner:

“We should at least try to rehabilitate, and not just give up on prisoners.”

20:51

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as a number of noble Lords have acknowledged in the House today, the gracious Speech states:

“The integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance”


to the Government. As a unionist, and as somebody who served as a special adviser to the past six Conservative Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland since 1991, I warmly welcome that commitment. But to listen to some commentators, and indeed some Members of this House, one could be forgiven for believing that the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is entering its dying days, and that, following the election results, a united Ireland is now inevitable. I strongly disagree with that proposition. Allow me therefore for a moment to put the election results in Northern Ireland into some perspective, because we need to look beyond the headlines.

Yes, there are now for the first time more nationalist MPs than unionist MPs in the other place, yet the combined Sinn Féin and SDLP vote was still just under 38%, while the Sinn Féin vote fell by more than the DUP vote. While at the March 2017 Assembly election, Sinn Féin was just over 1,000 votes behind the DUP, at this election it was 60,000 votes behind. It is true that at 43%, the combined unionist vote was at an historic low. The real winners were the SDLP in South Belfast and Foyle, where it hammered Sinn Féin, and the Alliance Party, which gained a seat in North Down. Yet not everybody who votes SDLP necessarily has a united Ireland at the top of their agenda, and if anybody is suggesting for one moment that the people of North Down vote Alliance for a united Ireland, they simply do not understand Northern Ireland.

The election was about a combination of issues: abstentionism, Brexit, the absence of devolved government and deteriorating public services, in which the most pro-united Ireland party, and the one campaigning for a border poll, saw its vote fall sharpest. I remain confident, therefore, that if there were a border poll—I am not advocating one—there would remain a clear majority for the United Kingdom.

However, if the union is not in immediate peril, there are certainly pressures, as a number of noble Lords have alluded to. To counter them, four things need to happen. First, Stormont needs to be restored at the earliest opportunity. Devolved, power-sharing government is in the best interests of both Northern Ireland and the union as a whole. I wish the Secretary of State well in his efforts in the discussions that are currently taking place at Stormont.

Secondly, Brexit needs to be achieved in ways that genuinely ensure no border on the island of Ireland and no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitments in these areas and their commitment to ensuring unfettered access for goods moving within our United Kingdom.

Thirdly, although the debate around Brexit has certainly energised nationalism, the response within unionism has so far been muted. This needs to change. There needs to be a conversation within unionism, extending beyond politicians, about how we articulate a modern, moderate and compelling case for the union that can appeal across the community and across all generations. It is a conversation that has to have as its starting point two facts: that the Northern Ireland of today is very different to the Northern Ireland even of 1998 when the Belfast agreement was reached; and that the future stability of the union will increasingly rest on those from moderate nationalist backgrounds accepting that their best interests continue to lie within the United Kingdom.

Fourthly, the UK Government need to begin soberly and sensibly setting out the benefits that Northern Ireland gains from membership of the United Kingdom, which remain huge. Historically, the Northern Ireland Office has been reluctant to do so; this needs to change. The Government need to become a genuine persuader for the union.

The Conservative manifesto for Northern Ireland, in which I confess to having had a small hand, contained a commitment to

“inclusive and modern unionism that affords equal respect to all traditions and parts of the community”

and expressed an “unshakeable” belief that the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom are truly stronger and better together. As the United Kingdom embarks on a new chapter in our history, it falls to a Conservative and Unionist Government with a renewed mandate and a substantial majority to make a reality of those words.

20:57

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who is recognised for his expertise and knowledge on all constitutional matters relating to Northern Ireland. I will restrict my comments about the gracious Speech to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

Unusually among Members of this House, I supported the then Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in 2011. As a Back-Bencher, I argued that introducing fixed-term Parliaments was one of the most tangible and meaningful moves we could make if we were serious about wanting to show the public that we were serious about putting their interests before our own. As we have heard other noble Lords argue, the change would mean the Government and Opposition facing the electorate on a predetermined date, whatever the political conditions at that time.

I supported the Bill because of the serious decline of public trust in Parliament following the expenses scandal. Indeed, looking back at my speeches during the debates at the time of the Bill’s passage, I discovered some evidence that I quoted then but had since forgotten. Populus research for the Times in 2009, at the height of the expenses scandal, showed that 74% of the public supported fixed-term Parliaments as a change to improve the political system. At that time, the only measures ranking higher among a list of 13 possible reforms were: a recall for MPs found to have broken parliamentary rules; national referendums on major constitutional issues; and local referendums on local issues where interest warranted them. That evidence is worth being reminded of, not least for the clear signs it offered, which some of us later missed or chose to ignore.

During the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, several noble Lords argued that our political system was not broken, and I agreed. My argument was that none the less, the public did not trust us to operate the system to their advantage, so we needed to look for opportunities to change in order to show that we did. That said, I am not going to argue against the Government’s decision to repeal the Act. It has not worked and it needs to go. Sadly, the electorate cannot trust us to use it for the reasons we introduced it. However, we must learn the correct lessons from our failure. If in the future we are to introduce constitutional change and argue that it is for the benefit of democracy and the electorate—I for one am very interested to hear more about that agenda—we must be sincere both in why we are doing it and maintain our commitment to that cause in how we operate once the change is made. That is the real lesson we should take from the failure of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and I hope that we are able to show that we have learned it.

21:00

[Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)]

My Lords, a new year, a new Parliament and a new gracious Speech. I do not think that six months ago many of us could have predicted the shape of today’s Parliament. For those of my persuasion, there is no point in pretending that we do not have much to celebrate, but I recognise that a victor’s satisfaction is matched by acute sadness and disappointment on the part of political opponents. Most of us have experienced political failure and disappointment, and probably for the most part will do so again. A new Administration with a substantial majority have the authority to act quickly, decisively and with confidence, and I hope that this one will. That said, no majority justifies high-handedness and the quiet display of humility already shown by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was well judged.

I would hope that there is much in this hugely ambitious gracious Speech that commends itself to the whole House, and here I include the Official Opposition. I would also hope and expect to witness in the months and years ahead the kind of constructive opposition for which this House was once famous. But for that to be possible, and here I touch on perhaps a rather sensitive area, we need to understand what comprises the post-election Opposition and what its members believe in. I do not know to what extent Labour Opposition Peers campaigned for Mr Corbyn’s manifesto in the general election. Did they, like so many of us, tramp the streets in search of votes? I have no feel for the outcome the noble Lords opposite wished for. But by the conclusion of this three-day debate, it will be important for your Lordships’ House and the country to understand the extent of consensus, or the lack of it, that exists in both our Houses of Parliament. We heard an entirely reasonable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which gave us great encouragement, but we will have to wait for the future nature of the Labour Party while its leadership issues are resolved.

Much space has been devoted to proposed institutional reforms, although it is clear to me that without radical rethinking in many areas, this exciting programme has little chance of success. Where the Civil Service is concerned, the process of reform and review should surely be a permanent feature in its management, and up to a point I suppose that it is. While I feel that there are areas of deep concern—procurement springs very much to mind—I also feel instinctively that the service is as much sinned against as sinning. I earnestly hope that reforms will be approached with sensitivity and the recognition that, whatever its defects, the Civil Service makes an outstanding contribution to our national life. Where I am less comfortable is with some of the other public bodies that impact so heavily on individuals and businesses. Noble Lords may have heard me refer in the past to the “incivility of civic life”. Some of these organisations, mainly those with rather tenuous lines of accountability, are outrageously high-handed and arrogant and are long overdue for reform because they are capable of doing huge damage.

There is a wonderful ring to the term “one nation” and I fully subscribe to it. 1 do so especially at a time when my party owes its considerable majority to communities whose support is emphatically on loan. I dream of the day when we earn their more permanent endorsement. It needs to be understood that one-nation policies have a price tag. You cannot cut taxes, spend considerable sums on public services and embark on a major programme of capital investment, all the while keeping finances under control, without some economic headroom. The fact that there is some economic headroom is a legacy, for which we should be grateful, of the last Administration. One hears so much about austerity, as though it were the wish of the last Government to inflict pain and misery; of course, it was no such thing. As an aside—I am no economist—I would still prefer it if our national debt did not increase by over £5,000 per second, or £1.5 million before I resume my seat.

I will curtail my contribution—others have curtailed theirs well—but I close with a plea that has as much to do with tone as anything else. The real key to realising the dawn of a new and better age is a changed culture. It is really time to recognise that it cannot be left to Ministers, politicians and civil servants to do all the heavy lifting. For a long time now, the potential of people in communities to add value has been neglected. For far too long, a surly and centralised establishment places all manner of obstacles in the path of people wishing to better the lot of themselves and their neighbours.

As the Government embark on such a challenging programme, I hope they will steer reforms away, having in mind that it should be largely in the gift of the citizen, not the Government, to make our country a better and more contented place.

21:06

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, like several noble Lords who have spoken, I will focus on the proposal for a constitution, democracy and rights commission. Commissions take different forms. Having chaired one on behalf of the Conservative Party to examine how to strengthen Parliament, I believe they can be beneficial. However, it is important that we are clear as to purpose. I caution against setting up a body that is in effect a constitutional convention—that is, a body created to come up with a set of constitutional reforms or, indeed, a new constitution. I have previously made the case for a constitutional convocation, an informed body able to stand back and make sense of where we are before we embark on further change.

The past quarter-century has been marked by changes to the constitution on a scale not seen since the end of the 17th and early 18th centuries. Conservatives are at one with Burke in accepting that a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. What is a problem is when a great many reforms take place quickly. There is not the opportunity, as has been the case before, for a reform to be assimilated into our constitutional architecture before another major change occurs.

The changes of recent years have been several and substantial. They have also been disparate and discrete, often rushed, borne of political expediency and reactive. They have not been grounded in an understanding of the system of government that has developed over centuries and been confirmed by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. That generated the basis for the emergence of the Westminster model of government. That model has been criticised, and indeed assaulted by some of the reforms of recent years, but it is at the heart of the Conservative view of democracy. It links electors to those they choose to govern the nation, with Parliament as the key buckle between them.

The system is one in which government is accountable to the House of Commons. Parliament under the Westminster model responds to what government brings forward. Because of the Glorious Revolution, the Executive cannot legislate without the consent of Parliament, but Parliament itself does not seek to wrest control of policy from the Government. That came under threat in the last Parliament.

The system has now righted itself, but recent events, on top of the other changes of the past two decades, demonstrate the need to take stock of what has happened and to do so within a clear understanding of the fundamentals of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Westminster model has been much criticised by those who embrace different approaches to constitutional change. They, at least, have the merit of intellectual coherence—I believe them to be wrong, but they are clear and principled—whereas successive Governments have lacked any intellectually coherent approach to change.

I have previously quoted in debate the words of Sir Sidney Low, who in his short book The British Constitution, published in 1928, wrote:

“In England we often do a thing first and then discover that we have done it.”


We are in danger of spending years playing catch-up to make sense of what we have done. Now is the time to use the opportunity afforded by this manifesto commitment to stand back and assess clearly where we are, and to do so within an appreciation of the need to maintain a political system that has accountability at its heart. Events not only in the United Kingdom but globally demonstrate an urgent need for Governments to hear what people are saying and to be seen to be doing so. The greater demands for people to have a voice make the Westminster model more, not less, relevant to modern conditions.

We have lacked serious thinking about our constitution as such. I trust, therefore, that the Government will see the proposed commission as a means not for short-term fixes but for undertaking a mature, philosophically informed assessment of where we are, identifying any flaws, certainly, but also appreciating the system of government that—despite the critics—has served this nation well. Any change should be informed by a Burkean appreciation of what it is for.

21:11

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, I have something very different to say, as usual. I am going to be very non-politically correct, and I want your Lordships to think about political correctness because I think we have tied ourselves up in knots by giving in to it. It is not a good thing for us. We see things happening but we do not speak about them because it is not politically correct. Who says so? Who says that we should not speak about things that need to be put right just because they involve somebody from a minority background? Who says that you cannot say “black coffee” or “white coffee”? What is this nonsense? I remember when political correctness first came about. We all thought it was rather funny, but all of a sudden it has become a mantra. Everybody is saying, “This is not PC.” But what is PC? If there is anything going on in this country that does not help it, we should all be talking about it.

There are a number of issues. There are a lot of people in, say, Bradford who do not learn English. In many European countries, people have to learn the language if they want to get their benefits. We do no such thing because it is non-PC. We say, “Please learn”, and we have the Casey report and this report and that report, but nobody will learn anything unless you make them. I have always felt that way and will go on feeling that way. If people do not speak the language, they are deaf and dumb in this country; they do not know what is going on and have to rely on children or somebody who does speak English. It is completely and utterly wrong.

Another issue is first-cousin marriages. These marriages mean that the NHS has to take the burden of any child, from birth to death. We should not allow that to happen. I asked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to introduce DNA testing for first-cousin marriages, given that Anglicans allow them. He said, “No, there will be trouble.” He is also PC and therefore cannot do it. But we should do it for everybody, not just for Muslims. If there is a first-cousin marriage, there must be a DNA test, so that people will know how badly affected any child born will be. But no, we do not do that.

Then there is halal meat. We do not label halal meat. I do not know whether noble Lords know that we are all now eating halal meat. All the takeaways sell halal meat, all the hospitals serve halal meat to patients and all the schools serve halal meat to pupils. I do not think that is fair. It is not fair to those of us who do not want to eat it. I have tried to get Michael Gove to label it. He said, “Oh, but it will make it expensive for the Muslims and the Jews.” Well, what the hell? Are we running this country for their benefit or are we running it as it should be run? In any case, there are two kinds of halal: pre-stunned and non-pre-stunned. If the halal meat served was just labelled as pre-stunned, it would not have been ritually killed and there would be no problem; we could all eat it because all our meat is pre-stunned. Instead we hear, “Oh, we are going to set up a committee.” How many committees are there going to be before these decisions are taken? If you go to Bradford, parts of it are like “Little Pakistan”, with no people other than Muslims. I have nothing against Muslims and nothing against people living together, but these have almost become no-go areas. There is not much work there, so they do not work. Somebody very important, who I cannot name, asked me why they come here. Why would they not come here? We give them benefits, we give them healthcare, we give them schooling, we give them homes. Why would anyone not come here? Everybody thinks Britain is a piece of heaven and wants to come here.

The values of this country need to be protected. There was even a sentence in the gracious Speech about the Government doing everything to protect the values of this country. I think it was meant for outsiders, but we must protect our values inside as well.

21:17

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the issues that I will touch on today, in the home affairs arena, are the increase in assaults on police officers and, also importantly, the social care of an increasing ageing population, as it is dealt with by the Home Office.

Statistics show a rise in assaults on the police of some 34% since 2013. As there has been a reduction of some 20,000 in officer numbers since 2010, those increased assaults are spread over a reduced number of targets. It is inevitable because more officers are now responding alone to incidents, and clearly offenders are prepared to take the risk of assaulting the officer to escape. According to the latest statistics, around 72 police officers are attacked every day in England and Wales; this translates as an attack every 20 minutes. Home Office data from all 43 police forces found that a total of 26,295 police constables were assaulted on duty between April 2017 and April 2018. No police officer will go through his service without being assaulted at some point.

I mention this because when I joined the police—back in the swinging 60s—I did not remotely believe that I would have to confront a knife, still less a gun. I am afraid that is not the case today, and recently there has been some mixed publicity on the increased use of tasers by police officers. I was serving in the 1990s when trials were held in the use of pepper spray by the police as non-fatal force against a violent assailant. The service has now developed the use of electric taser stun guns. These were deployed in 23,000 incidents in the 12 months to the end of March 2019, up by more than a third on the previous year and double the 2016 total. The important statistic, however, is that in the vast majority of cases, the taser was pointed at the suspect without being fired, and used on only 2,500 occasions.

Civil libertarians point out that tasers can be lethal, but so could my striking an attacker with my truncheon all those years ago. Your Lordships will agree that police officers, in running towards danger, uniquely put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public; and it is vital that we equip them with the powers, training and equipment they need to fight crime and stay safe on the job. The alternative, of course, is the routine carrying and use of lethal firearms—and we need only look across the Atlantic to see the consequences of that policy.

In my short contribution to the debate tonight, the second area that I wish to touch on is the restrictions on care workers travelling from EU countries following Brexit, which will have an impact on social care. I am aware of a case in the north-east of a 73 year-old pensioner, confined to a wheelchair and suffering from Parkinson’s disease, whose health was rapidly waning both in hospital and in care homes. She was rapidly losing weight and deteriorating. There is overwhelming evidence that elderly people cared for in their own homes are happier; they thrive and live longer in the environment of their own homes, which they are used to.

The family in this case realised that it was far more fruitful and economical to arrange for an English-speaking, carefully vetted carer from Europe to provide one-to-one care, 24/7, living free of charge in the pensioner’s home, rotating with a replacement every two months. The difference in results proved quite remarkable. The lady gained weight, is far more content in the environment that she knows and loves, and is visited by family and friends constantly.

The family explored a similar care plan through the local council care department, but it was simply not viable or affordable. The worry now, of course, is that the change in European travel rules may restrict European carers interchanging every two months. If that happens, it will inevitably result in the 73 year-old pensioner being catapulted back into the overburdened health service that failed her so badly in the past and would lead to additional costs to the nation, whereas the present arrangement costs the state nothing.

In developing a fair and sensible travel policy for EU workers, we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and thereby cut off the supply of essential carers for our increasingly needy elderly population. Will the Minister give an assurance that, following Brexit, essential care workers such as those I described, will be permitted to travel to the UK for short periods of two or three months at a time to continue their vital work in providing 24/7, live-in care for our growing elderly population, thereby relieving the burden on the state? This would presumably be similar to work permissions being granted to essential seasonal fruit pickers in the agricultural sector.

I fully understand if the Minister is unable to give an answer this evening, but I am happy to receive a reply in writing. These are extremely important issues that demand urgent consideration as we move towards the Government’s self-imposed deadlines, and I look forward to a sympathetic response for the benefit of worried families throughout the country.

21:22

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to participate in this gracious Speech debate, because one has been able to hear outstanding contributions from my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower. I hope that in due course they will like my amendments to scrutinise appointees to the Supreme Court and toughen up prison sentences.

I am able to give a warm welcome to this Queen’s Speech, not just because it will finally get Brexit done, and not just because of the other Bills that I support. No, I am pleased, because it comes from a Government who now command a decent majority, because the people have purged the most rotten and disreputable Parliament—or Commons, to be exact—I have ever seen in my 35 years in this place. Over 300 years, the people of this country have consistently proved that they are supreme, not Parliament, nor the Supreme Court.

Turning now to the gracious Speech, indeterminate sentences for terrorists work and we should never have dropped them. But if we cannot have them back, we must have long sentences where the person is not released automatically halfway through. Indeed, there should be no automatic early release for any convict, but only when earned.

I admire those who try to rehabilitate convicts, but we have to recognise that Islamic fundamentalists are like paedophiles and sex offenders—they cannot be converted or rehabilitated. They are not like lads who get into a bit of petty crime and then move up the scale of criminality and who often by the age of 25 have stopped offending. These people can be rehabilitated by training, getting a job and housing, but Islamic terrorists, like sex offenders, believe in the fundamental rightness of what they are doing and think that it is society that is wrong, not them.

Also with sex offenders, can we please stop the obscenity of the Prison Service sending male convicts to women’s prison wings because they have decided to call themselves women? It is an appalling indictment of the Prison Service that it permits male convicts, in full possession of all male physical attributes, to call themselves women, get moved to female wings and then carry on raping and assaulting. They should all be moved back to male wings until such time as they are fully converted medically to women.

We need honesty in sentencing. It is not right that a judge tells a criminal that he will serve 10 years but everyone in the court, except the victim, knows that it is just five years. That is a cruel con on victims, and it should stop. Thousands more habitual offenders need to be locked up. We have just seen appalling official data, which shows that some offenders had up to 60 convictions for theft before they got a prison sentence. One person had 53 previous convictions for fraud before going to prison. Another had been convicted for 12 previous attacks on police officers before eventually being jailed. There is something fundamentally wrong with our judicial system when judges are not sending criminals like these to prison. What planet are they on? Does no one care about the tens of thousands of victims, because these people are out on the streets committing serious crimes instead of in prison?

That is why we need to look at our constitution and the role of the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Many of us, but probably not on the Benches behind me, or possibly immediately under me, were struck by the perverse judgment of the Supreme Court in the prorogation case that overturned Article 9 of the Bill of Rights that proceedings in Parliament cannot be challenged in any court. The court usurped the role of the Prime Minister when it said, in paragraph 58 of the judgment, that he had to have a good reason for Prorogation.

While I welcome the proposed commission, I can offer my noble friend a much speedier solution. The Government can take up my Private Member’s Bill, which I shall introduce shortly, which proposes a joint Select Committee to interview three candidates proposed by the Judicial Appointments Committee so that Parliament can vote on them and one of them will be on the Supreme Court. I am sure that will get unanimous support from all sides of the House, because it replicates the system in the European Court of Human Rights, which everyone says is a wonderful system.

While it is bad enough to have the Supreme Court rewriting our laws, we now have some idiotic employment tribunal doing the same by adding “ethical veganism” to the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Will my noble friend assure me that the Government will reverse this crazy judgment at the earliest opportunity? This Parliament set out the protected characteristics in Section 4 of the Equality Act. Any changes must be made by this Parliament, not by a low-level employment tribunal in Norwich. If we do not get rid of this nonsense, we had better recruit an extra 5,000 police officers, since they will be running around investigating vegan hate crimes from those who claim they could not get a Greggs vegan sausage roll in their canteen.

That is not as far-fetched as it sounds, because we have just published statistics showing that the police have investigated 87,000 non-crime hate incidents. They have been wasting their time on that. I want the police running around catching criminals, not soothing hurt feelings. I am looking forward to seeing all these Bills when they come forward and moving a few little amendments to toughen them up a little bit.

21:28

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, thank goodness we will have a royal commission on the criminal justice system. I recall that during the previous Queen’s Speech, not so long ago, I called for a royal commission, noting that for all of us who care very deeply for victims as well as for the potential of former perpetrators, it is about time this murky system was turned inside out and we had a fresh look at the potential of change.

I noted that at the beginning of today’s debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, referred to the incident on London Bridge, which we are all deeply aware of, as a reminder of the painful reality of terrorism. However, the context is that it was also a reminder of the beautiful volunteerism, compassion and engagement of Jack, Saskia and all those others who gave themselves with determination to support the multitudes who have been reformed, many of whom rushed to get to the man, whose subsequent death was necessary to end that act of terrorism. We need to have a much more positive view of the potential of people who have recognised their crimes and come to terms with the need to have a future.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, also said that not only should we strengthen victims’ rights but we should call for a fair justice system that works for everyone. Everyone means everyone and includes those put behind bars, who will emerge and have a life beyond, and families and communities, who also need to see fairness and justice done.

The last royal commission on the criminal justice system ended its deliberations 27 years ago. Under Lord Runciman, it recommended the creation of the CCRC—the Criminal Cases Review Commission—specifically to look into miscarriages of justice. Anyone who has had involvement with the CCRC knows that it has been starved of cash and that it is now barely taking up substantive cases that urgently need consideration. Far too many people are languishing unfairly when their cases need to be reviewed.

Next week, the well-affirmed American advocate, Bryan Stevenson, will be here with us in Parliament and there will be an opportunity to meet him. The film about his great work on miscarriages of justice in the American system, “Just Mercy”, will be released by Warner Bros in just over a week. I have seen it twice on preview. It is a very painful statement of what happens to people when a system decides to crush them rather than recognise that they may well have gone through a deceitful and unnecessary process. We need a royal commission to ensure that we have integrity and honesty in our criminal justice system.

Thirty-three years ago, in 1987, a former Member of this House, my great friend Lord Hurd, phoned me with a very simple request. He asked whether I would be willing to start an organisation—subsequently called Crime Concern—along with other Members of this House, although they were not Members at the time, to create what he called a culture of alternatives to custody. I remember that in that conversation Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, said that we could not continue to let the numbers in the prison estate balloon, as that would destroy the core of our society. Crime Concern flourished for 21 years. I was its chairman for 15 years and we created Catch22, of which I became vice-president. I am thrilled to have had 33 years of engagement on this issue. I have attended multiple prisons and am now a regular prison visitor, working with offenders and former offenders to get justice in their cases.

However, I have seen what can go right and what can go terribly wrong. I had a text on my phone last night from a young man who came out of a five-year sentence in Brixton Prison. He came here on the day of his release, and I was pleased to give him lunch because I had seen over that period how he had been reformed. However, since coming out of prison in October, because of an unknown, unnamed probation officer he has been denied proper housing by his local authority. He is now sofa-surfing in an area where previous crimes had taken place. That is not sensible and that anonymity is not good.

I also have a letter here, which I will not make easily shown, from a prisoner who has been moved from a prison in the south of England to Durham. His family is now nearly 300 miles away. He was moved without reason or justification, despite the fact that he has a full record of exceptional behaviour. I know that, because I know him and have seen his behaviour. How will that enhance his rehabilitation so that he becomes a man of usefulness to society?

Therefore, we need a royal commission. We need to get it right. We have injustices that must be corrected and we have an opportunity to do the best that we can.

21:34

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in the context of the passages in the gracious Speech which refer to issues of policing and mental health. In particular, I ask the Minister to consider the following example of where our current legislation is failing a very vulnerable section of our community, and to encourage the Government to take steps to remedy it.

I am intimately familiar with the case of one young man who has been diagnosed with high-functioning autism and ADHD. As a consequence of his condition, adulthood has proved a struggle for him and he has been unable to hold down a meaningful job or to maintain a circle of friends. In the pursuit of craving friendship and social acceptance, he was taken advantage of, which resulted in drug taking, which has made him psychotic.

His parents attempted to have him treated but it proved impossible for them to obtain mental health support and services during the period in which his condition continued to deteriorate. The result was that he was sectioned several times under Section 136 and detained on four occasions in a police cell, which only exacerbated his problems. No mental health support of any sort was offered to him at any stage, nor was there any follow-up. He was sent home on each occasion, and the process continued until his condition deteriorated so much that he broke the law and was imprisoned.

His parents saw all this happening like a blow on a bruise. Behavioural disorders of this sort can result in the use of drugs as a form of self-medication and perpetrators with mental health disorders are not positively discriminated against until it is too late. Intervention, support and follow-up would have been far more likely to prevent the outcome which resulted in this young man going to prison. Furthermore, the police and, indeed, prison officers were being asked to devote a high degree of their time to dealing with a mental health issue for which they are not adequately trained. On 26 November last year in the Daily Telegraph, the chairman of the Police Federation pointed out that 40% of the time of police officers is now taken up with dealing with people with mental health issues as opposed to catching or containing criminals. At the most basic level, unnecessary costs are being incurred by the taxpayer, which could and should be avoided by a more understanding society.

I ask the Minister—perhaps in conjunction with the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood —to provide some comfort that, with the national statistics showing a clear increase in mental health problems of this sort, not only new funding but new organisational thinking will be provided by the Government for those with behavioural disorders as opposed to psychiatric illness, perhaps along the lines of supporting more Safe Haven initiatives. This funding and thinking should be designed to help not only individual sufferers but their parents and helpers, who can see a problem becoming a crisis but can find no one to listen to them and who have no channel to enable them to prevent the befalling of their own personal disaster.

21:37

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Minister opened this debate by emphasising that the first duty of the Government is to keep the country safe. In this context, I welcome the attention to be paid to foreign national offenders, the revisiting of the Official Secrets Act and the possible updating of treason laws, something a number of us suggested during the passage of the recent counterterrorism legislation.

We may have to acknowledge that, while rehabilitation should always be at the heart of the way we treat prisoners, deradicalisation is not a process with anything like a guarantee of success, and sentences may have to reflect this. As to immigration, we greatly value the contribution that those already here make to this country and we will continue to welcome those who contribute their skills.

However, not everyone is welcome. For example, can we not try to deter the kleptocrats who buy up large swathes of prime London and other real estate? The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has heard me banging on before about the need for a register to ensure transparency as to who the real owners of property are. I have since had the privilege of chairing a Joint Committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill. It is now, in that overworked phrase, oven-ready. The Bill makes an appearance only in the final bullet point on page 27 of the 150-page memorandum but is there any reason to delay this matter any further?

Much alarm has been expressed about the possibility of setting up a commission to look at our constitution, but who can deny that our constitution has been subjected to some pretty serious stress tests in the past year or two? Setting up a commission does not sound to me like rushing headlong into change. I gently remind the party opposite that its idea of constitutional change—getting rid of the ancient office of Lord Chancellor—was not the result of a commission or a Bill; it was simply announced overnight. This is an improvement on that. Policy Exchange has given some ideas in its paper, although not all of them will be welcome. Policy Exchange should also be praised for its continuous work on trying to protect our troops from vexatious claims. I am glad that at last this is going to get a legislative response.

On online harms, noble Lords may have read the White Paper published last year, and I look forward to the development of legislation on this. We should not forget that five terrorist attacks in 2017 had an online element.

Parliament has been naive about the internet. I remember the Liberal Democrats pulling the plug on the communications data Bill, potentially compromising national security, so as not to offend the giants of social media and their hypocritical concern for privacy. We were also too gentle on them in the Defamation Act. Not before time, those giants now face public scrutiny. The need for reform is clear. I quote a former adviser to Mr Zuckerberg, who said that Facebook had

“paid lip service to reform, while doing everything possible to protect a business model that benefits from hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories.”

I must declare an interest as the recently appointed chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which explains my slight sideways movement. A number of noble Lords have kindly offered to give me the benefit of their views on press regulation but, whatever shortcomings they may identify, it must be remembered that IPSO is concerned with a curated source of news and an identifiable and accountable publisher. Regulation of the online world represents a much greater challenge.

Finally, I come to the law. I declare an interest as a practising barrister and a former Justice Minister. Our legal services contribute approximate £25 billion to the UK economy and the reputation of our judges is very high, but there are issues that need to be addressed. I ask the Government to revisit the question of legal aid on both eligibility and rates. Can the Government improve the tatty infrastructure of our courts and ensure that there are enough sitting courts to cope with the case load that we have? We must not risk damaging the well-deserved reputation of our justice system.

There is much legislation to scrutinise. I look forward to this House returning to what it does best: improving the Bills that are brought before us. Echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I hope the temptation to inflict multiple defeats on the Government, however pleasurable that may be, will be resisted.

21:42

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am looking around but it would take a brave person to speak in the gap after such a long debate. It is no surprise that the expertise and passion of noble Lords has been evident in this debate, together with an appropriate dose of questioning and scepticism. It has been so wide-ranging that I will not attempt to refer to individual speakers or speeches—I do not envy the Minister her task in winding up—except to congratulate and welcome the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I am sure they will remind us in the debates to come of those two great places and, no doubt, will both play quite a part in Home Office legislation.

Oven-ready or ready to pop into the microwave? One method cooks from the outside in, the other from the inside outwards—and, as we have been reminded, some things are left to simmer on top of the stove and cause an awful mess when they boil over. These are very different approaches to policy-making: imposition or development in consultation with the people affected.

I want to talk about immigration, which is so important to our society and our economy. The Government put that dish into the oven some months ago. We were told—I learned it authoritatively from the Home Office website well before the election—that we were to have an Australian-style points system. Of course, the Migration Advisory Committee is yet to publish its advice on this, but I have forgotten how much immigration law is created by ministerial fiat, through rules which do not even get the scarce scrutiny of secondary legislation. Perhaps that feeling had rather leached over. Every sort of policy benefits from consultation. That was acknowledged earlier today when one noble Lord spoke about victims. Things look very different when you have an informed or personal take on them, as we were reminded by recent reports of Her Majesty’s concerns about visas for polo events. Who had thought about polo events?

The tagline “Australian points-based system” does not tell us whether the points will be driven by the Home Office or by employers, or whether there will be an overall cap on numbers. There are many questions. The Home Office has not made a success of being both policymaker and administrator—or processor, if you like. Departments closer to the various sectors understand their needs and, one hopes, are able to unpack that awful phrase “the brightest and the best”. To me, that always raises the question: “Best at what?”

There is so much to understand about, for instance, different employment needs. I learned recently that seasonal workers are needed in far more sectors than agriculture, including at Christmas and during heatwaves and cold snaps, both of which put a strain on the health service. There are big, short-lived demands prompted by a duchess’s dress. Kim Kardashian tweeted about a lipstick and that was work for 400 people for three or four days. These things are not straightforward and they are not uniform across all the nations and regions of the UK.

I have been told that Australia has 90 different visas. I counted 74 online plus 46 which had been repealed. Am I being unnecessarily gloomy in thinking that having visas with different restrictions attached to each application will make the whole process a challenge for the Home Office? Individuals caught up in the Windrush scandal have understandable views about the efficiency of Home Office schemes. Apparently we now require legislation which will not, we are told, affect the operation of the existing compensation scheme —not even to speed it up? The Windrush experience inevitably worries EU citizens subject—or subjected—to the Home Office and we will of course debate this more next week. However, given that the Conservative manifesto proclaims—I think this has been quoted already—

“We want EU citizens who came to live in the UK before Brexit to stay”,


we will continue to try to turn that into reality. The Government’s response that the UK does not issue pieces of paper, something for which EU citizens have been pleading, does not meet the point. It defies credibility that 40% of those who have applied for settled status are entitled only to pre-settled status, which is what 40% have been granted.

Having been critical, I will say that I was glad to see an announcement before the election about the length of post-study visas and to see that there will be a boost for English language teaching. How will this be paid for? Please do not lay it on local authorities. This will be for “existing migrants”, so who qualifies?

Refugees are generally very keen to learn English. I want to say a word about refugees and asylum seekers, adults and children, families and lone young people, because so much of the election seemed to focus on little England. I want to remember that there are issues of morality as well as practicality, such as the importance of a safe rather than a hostile environment. We are part of a world community. I am worried, as other noble Lords have been, about the proposal for DfID to become part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its work must not be downgraded. One reason—only one of many—is because of the impacts that conflicts and climate change will have on the movements of people.

The issues I have mentioned are in one policy area in one of the topics of today’s debate, so I will allow myself one point on each of those topics to pick up some threads from the debate. Regarding a royal commission on criminal justice, we have had some mention of the proposals which the Government have already announced through the manifesto. Is that not rather pre-empting a part of the work of a royal commission? What is the basis for thinking that more years added to a long sentence will deter or reduce the risk of terrorism? There are too many dog whistles and too much that is simplistic. On home affairs, the National Crime Agency is to be strengthened but I have not heard what that actually means. I appreciate that the Minister will not have time to go into this tonight but should our priority not be to ensure that we are involved as possible—as we currently are—in contributions to and benefits from Europol, Eurojust, ECRIS, Prüm, Schengen and European arrest warrants? On the constitution, references have rightly been made to the rule of law. I just say: yes, along with and part of that are human rights.

I end with perhaps the gloomiest thought of all, but clearly I am not alone in this: it is the paradox of the Conservative and Unionist Party so endangering our precious union.

21:52

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on the quality of their maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, told the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that as a young man he could still be in this House in 2070. I am not sure whether that was meant as a threat or a promise. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, spoke about the day of, as I understand it, his maiden speech in the House of Commons and the sudden realisation that it was also his wedding anniversary. I can say only that I am heartened to find that there are others who teeter on the brink of having to look closely at the provisions of divorce law, particularly someone who was a distinguished and forensic senior detective.

This has been an interesting and informative afternoon and evening—nearly a night as well—enhanced by Members of this House who, without drawing attention to their expertise, can and do speak with real authority on the subjects covered by this debate. I hope that the Government will reflect on the many points made and not simply forget about what has been said today immediately the debate is brought to a conclusion, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

The gracious Speech contained a number of legislative announcements. One was a sentencing Bill which, in essence, will provide for what the Government describe as tougher sentences. That appears to be code for longer periods of time in prison and more extensive conditions attached to community sentences. Many would argue that the most effective sentence—indeed, a tougher sentence—is one that reduces to a realistically attainable minimum the likelihood of the offender reoffending once they have completed their sentence. That is certainly the sentence that best protects society, since the issue of bringing down reoffending rates is surely crucial to enhancing protection of the public. Can the Government say what measures in the gracious Speech they consider are geared to reducing the rate of reoffending? Is it their view that longer prison sentences and more extensive conditions attached to community sentences will impact on offending and reoffending rates? If so, in what way and to what extent?

Assaults on prison staff have increased considerably and are at their highest level ever recorded. That hardly suggests that our prisons and prison staff are being provided with the necessary resources to deliver effective rehabilitation programmes designed to reduce reoffending rates. There does not appear to be anything in the gracious Speech to address this issue. Indeed, if the prison population increases as a result of the terms of the proposed sentencing Bill, the position could get worse.

The gracious Speech does not appear to address the problems arising from the Government’s less-than-happy reorganisation of the delivery of probation services and their apparent belief that public sector delivery is always second best. If ever there was a reorganisation that was driven by the heart rather than the head, it was that one.

The gracious Speech promises a royal commission on the criminal justice process. Is it the intention that the royal commission will cover everything from reporting a crime through to sentencing? What is it from the Government’s perspective that has led them to the view that a royal commission is needed?

Of course, this is not the only commission that is apparently to be set up. There will also be a constitution, democracy and rights commission, about which much has been said today but which will not be an independent royal commission. Its role will be to ensure that checks and balances in our democracy work for everyone. I hope that proves to be the case rather than “work for the Government”, because this Government are acquiring a track record of threatening any power that challenges them, including the Supreme Court. There is a whiff of vengeance in the air, with talk of changing the arrangements for the appointment of judges and restricting judicial review. We have seen in some other countries how easy it is for democracies with effective checks and balances to have them weakened by elected leaders who believe that they should be immune from criticism or challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, reminded us that constitutional reform should be done by consent.

There are also concerns over government plans for photographic identification at polling stations and the impact it may have on the likelihood of some people voting, particularly those without passports or driving licences. No one of course would condone the actions of people who vote using someone else’s identity, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has said, this does not appear to be a major problem. In addressing the issue, we should not introduce arrangements and processes that result in rather more people who are entitled to vote no longer doing so when compared with the number of cases of people voting under false identities.

On the issue of voting, can the Government say what the measures are in the gracious Speech that prevent people with two or more properties in different constituencies who are entitled to vote in each location at local elections from voting in more than one constituency at a general election? What check is there to ensure that this cannot happen, and how many people have been the subject of criminal prosecutions for voting in more than one constituency in the three general elections prior to the one last month?

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the Government’s commitment to a consultation on many of the same issues regarding trust in our institutions and democracy as those covered by the Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he suggested that the consultation be based on the report of the Select Committee due in June this year. I hope that I am accurate about what the noble Lord said; if I am not, I apologise in advance, but can the Government indicate their willingness to consider such a course of action in relation to that report?

A number of speakers referred to the rundown in police numbers and the pledges made to reverse the cuts. My noble friend Lord Bach spoke very powerfully on this issue, as a serving police and crime commissioner. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said the Government would be recruiting 20,000 extra officers over the next three years. As has been pointed out, to reverse the cuts since 2010, a figure of nearer 40,000 police officers will need to be recruited over three years to achieve a net increase of 20,000. Can the Government confirm that 40,000 officers will need to be recruited? Can they confirm, or otherwise, what my noble friend Lord Bach said, which is that £120 million of the £750 million the Government are likely to allocate to fund police officer recruitment will have to be funded by so-called efficiency savings after a decade of austerity?

A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, referred to the lack of emphasis in the gracious Speech on the current threat to the future of the union. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, has undertaken an independent review into the UK Government’s union capability—I think he said he has completed it. I stress that I speak only for myself when saying that I feel he has been asked to carry out a finger-in-the-dyke job, and that the issue of independence for Scotland is now nearer to being a case of when, not if. I hope I am proved wrong.

In the opening speech the Government spoke about ending free movement and taking back control of our borders. What does taking back control of our borders mean when a recent tragic event has shown that a large number of people can apparently die in a container brought into this country through a recognised and established port of entry without being detected? Can the Government say which measure or measures in the gracious Speech would prevent a similar tragic event happening again? Clearly, if the Government cannot prevent people being brought into this country in containers through recognised ports of entry, they can hardly claim to be taking control of our borders.

Finally, an Oral Question today asked about children involved in county lines drugs gangs being seen as victims, not criminals, a point the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to in his speech. In Wiltshire alone, hardly the most heavily populated county, police have stated that almost 100 children are at risk of being exploited by county lines gangs and £50,000 is spent on heroin and crack cocaine every day. Bearing in mind the reduction nationally in funding, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, what is there in the gracious Speech to address the growing issue of child exploitation through county lines, about which we have known for some time now? Are the Government considering a definition in law of child criminal exploitation?

Many points and questions have been addressed to the Government in this debate. Now is the opportunity for the Government to respond in a meaningful way and indicate that, at the very least, they will reflect on what has been said over the last six and a half hours or so.

22:03

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been quite a long debate today. I will try to respond in the most meaningful way that I can at this time of the night.

I start by thanking my two noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower for their wonderful maiden speeches. My noble friend Lord Parkinson and I go back quite some time. We have been involved in various campaigns. In fact, he was in the Home Office when I was a Whip under Theresa May. If he is only in his 30s, I must have first met him when he was about 10—at least, he looked about 10. I was picturing Whitley Bay when I used to go swimming there at the leisure centre; I do not know if it is still there. I was also trying to envisage what getting into the North Sea on New Year’s Day must have been like. It was freezing in the summer, so on New Year’s Day it must have been absolutely perishing and I admire those people who took the plunge—literally. He mentioned that he has sat in two Parliaments over 12 days of sitting; I was reflecting that I am now on my fourth Home Secretary, so we must compare firsts with each other at some point.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower also gave a lovely maiden speech, talking about how his maiden speech in the Commons coincided with his third wedding anniversary. I do not know the noble Lord particularly well but am very much looking forward to getting to know him. I am quite lucky because my wedding anniversary is in August, but my birthday falls in May so I am generally sitting on this Bench for it, which is a joy, obviously. I also welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is good to see him back, and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and, if noble Lords are content with this, will split the various themes that came up and try to namecheck as many noble Lords as possible—though I might possibly fail in that. The first issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was the role and function of the Electoral Commission. It is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referenda are run effectively and in accordance with the law, registering political parties and regulating the spending of and the donations and loans to political parties and other campaigners. The Government continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders in the electoral system to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of referenda and elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, along with many other noble Lords, spoke about the constitution, democracy and rights commission—how, when, what powers, scope, et cetera. I am afraid that I am about to drop the biggest damp squib of the day, given how much time has been devoted to this issue. In broad terms, the commission’s role will be to examine broader aspects of the constitution and restore trust in institutions and democracy in terms of the composition and focus that are required. There will be further announcements in due course. That is about all I can say on it this evening. The Government will always stand for democracy and the rule of law, but, with the significant constitutional upheaval we have had over the last two decades, it is vital that we maintain a balance.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and other noble Lords have broadly welcomed the decision to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It led to parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for the country, which was not good for anybody. Repealing the Act will ensure that that does not happen again. It was passed by the coalition under unique circumstances. My noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out that recent events have shown that it is not appropriate for our democracy.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke about the independence of the judiciary. The Government will always stand up for democracy and the rule of law. We are proud that our independent courts and judiciary are admired around the world, but it is important that we maintain a careful and appropriate balance between the major pillars of our constitution, especially given some of the upheaval we have had.

Also on the question of justice, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about whether planned encampment legislation would be discriminatory towards the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We currently have a consultation running on it in which all views, including those of the Gypsy and Roma community, will be taken into account. I recall engaging with them when I was in the DCLG, so I know that we have quite a lot of engagement with them.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham talked about the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland and the role of the Armed Forces personnel. Another noble Lord—I cannot remember who—also spoke about bringing an end to the unfair pursuit of our Armed Forces through vexatious legislation. We stated in our manifesto and in the Queen’s Speech that we will bring forward comprehensive legislation on that as soon as possible, and we are committed to delivering on the Stormont House agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier talked about delays in the criminal justice system. The number of trial cases in hand at the Crown Court at the end of 2019 was the lowest since 2000. There is not a shortage of judges; we have the lowest waiting times for trial since 2014. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier talked about criminal justice reform and courts and prison capacity. The sentencing Bill will protect the public and provide greater confidence to victims by ensuring that serious violent and sexual offenders who receive custodial sentences will spend more of that sentence in prison. A number of noble Lords talked about the length of sentences. The Government have announced a £1 billion modernisation programme for courts, implementing 21st-century technology and improving efficiency. At the end of 2018-19, the Crown Court had 25,071 cases in hand, which is the lowest since 2000, and the Government have also announced an investment of £2.5 billion for 10,000 additional prison places.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the court estate and closures. Continued access to justice will be the top priority when making decisions about the future of court and tribunal buildings. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talked about access to justice and the impact that the constitution commission will have on that. We spent £1.7 billion on legal aid last year, and we are committed to ensuring that people can access the help they need into the future. On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about reviewing access rates, legal aid and support. We are conducting a fundamental review of criminal legal aid fee schemes, which will consider criminal legal aid throughout the life cycle of a criminal case.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the scope for the royal commission on the criminal justice system to look at the care system and care leavers in prison. That is a good point. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair justice system that works for everyone and which commands public confidence. We value the vital work of local multiagency services in supporting children on the cusp of offending and those who have already offended, and youth offending teams are clearly central to that. The Youth Justice Board total funding for front-line services, including youth offending teams, is £72.2 million, and we continue to support residential areas to provide an environment where young people feel able to engage with integrated care, health and education services in order to progress during their time in custody.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about exclusion and early intervention. I do not know whether she was here for the Question that I took on this today—I do not say that to chide her—but we covered quite a lot of that today. We have announced £165 million of funding for the troubled families programme in 2021, which I am sure she will be pleased to hear about, to help more people and families get access to early, practical and co-ordinated support to transform their lives for the better. We are focusing on improving the quality of alternative provision, which came up today in Questions as well, and we have launched a £4 million alternative provision fund ahead of setting out our plans to go further in due course. We are also investing over £220 million in early intervention through the Youth Endowment Fund over a period of 10 years, and £22 million into our early intervention youth fund.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester asked whether there would be a definition of child criminal exploitation. There is a government definition in the Serious Violence Strategy, which is commonly used to describe child exploitation associated with county-lines drug dealing. Robust legislation is also in place to prosecute those who exploit children for communal purposes. In April 2019, the Government published a Child Exploitation Disruption Toolkit, which provides front-line practitioners with tools to disrupt child exploitation.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked whether the Intelligence and Security Committee would be constituted in time to scrutinise the espionage Bill and make recommendations to both Houses. We appreciate and recognise the important role that the committee will play in scrutinising national security legislation, and we are confident that that will be the case. He also asked where the courts and tribunals Bill was. We are committed to modernising the whole criminal justice system, as I have previously outlined, and to ensuring that it is fit for purpose. We will bring forward any necessary legislation to ensure that that happens.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked whether the domestic abuse Bill will be accompanied by the necessary resources. We will of course ensure that the appropriate funding is there to meet the new duty.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked whether economic integration on the island of Ireland will lead to political integration. It remains firmly the Secretary of State’s view that a clear majority in Northern Ireland continues to support the current settlement, as my noble friend Lord Caine pointed out, and that the circumstances for a border poll are not satisfied. I thought that he explained it very satisfactorily in more detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, also asked about the Government refreshing strands 2 and 3 of the Belfast agreement, both to give some democratic legitimacy to the continued existence of some aspects of EU law in Northern Ireland and to ensure that Northern Ireland is represented in deciding these laws. The UK Government’s priority remains the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is engaged in intense negotiations with all the parties to get Stormont back up and running before the current 13 January deadline.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, asked about the representation of the devolved Administrations in negotiations on our future relationship. We recognise the need for their close involvement in negotiations on our future relationship with the EU in order to deliver a satisfactory outcome.

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower asked about the UK Government commitment to delivering economic growth in Wales. We are committed to supporting a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom across a wide range of areas. That includes providing significant investment in city and growth deals across the whole of Wales to deliver that real, long-term growth to the respective regions. We are providing £790 million of investment in city and growth deals covering the whole of Wales, including £500 million to the Cardiff capital regional deal, which will provide an investment fund to the region and support the electrification of valley lines railways, and £150 million to the Swansea Bay city deal. We have also committed £120 million and £55 million respectively to allow the north Wales and mid-Wales growth deals to be agreed. Finally on Wales, there is the A55, a road on which I have travelled many times—and a beautiful road it is. I can announce that on Monday, the new Secretary of State for Wales met with the Welsh Government Minister for the Economy and Transport to discuss transport improvements in Wales.

My noble friend Lady Eaton talked about the publication of the devolution White Paper, including work with local authorities and the Local Government Association. It will be published this year as per our manifesto commitment, and we are absolutely committed to working with all relevant sectors and stakeholders.

My noble friend Lord Dunlop gave us a taster of some of things we should think about in terms of strengthening intergovernmental relations. I look forward to reading his report, which the Government will of course consider in due course.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked about when and why we are introducing compulsory voter ID. It will not be implemented before May 2020 and I am sure that they will support the premise that electoral fraud is absolutely unacceptable. It strikes at the principle of and undermines democracy, because everyone’s vote matters. I know that, having lost Bolton West by 92 votes. We already ask people to prove who they are before they collect a parcel, claim benefits or rent a car. You need two forms of ID to get into a Labour Party meeting, so I think that it is reasonable to take the same approach to voting rights. The noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Rosser, asked for examples. I do not have any to hand, but I shall see if we have any data and I will provide them for both noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about Section 60 and the response reports showing the lack of efficacy and negative effect on young black men. The police believe that stop and search can play an important role in fighting crime. The Government have listened to the police and eased voluntary restrictions on the use of stop and search. That means that officers can authorise these powers, and for longer, but he is absolutely right that no one should be targeted due to their race. However, the use of legal powers to protect those most at risk has to be right, so obviously a clear balance has to be struck.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked about the reform of the 43 police forces, which struck a chord with me. He gave an example of how regional structures work quite well and I am thinking, of course, about the regional organised crime units that operate extremely well. The more efficiency and less disjointed working across the 43 forces, the better, and actually the more financially efficient they will be as well. There is greater ambition for policing to work as one system to manage new threats and to deliver consistently high standards. Obviously, the recruitment of 20,000 extra officers will help to deliver that commitment.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about police corruption, which increased during the 1990s following the last major recruitment drive. It might help him to know that the vetting rules were put under a statutory code of practice under this Government in 2017, and we are working with forces to ensure that these stringent standards are applied as they increase their recruitment. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the figure of £750 million was correct, was it not closer to £630 million with an expectation on PCCs to realise efficiencies, and how much would go directly to them. We have committed to increasing investment in policing by £750 million next year to support the unprecedented commitment to recruit an additional 6,000 officers by March 2021, and details of the allocation of funding will be set out very shortly in the police funding Statement.

Other questions were put to me on immigration but I have been speaking for 20 minutes and I am aware that another debate is happening next. If there are a few questions that I have not responded to, I hope that noble Lords will be okay if I respond to them in writing. Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

22:24

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That this House, for the purposes of section 2(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, takes note of the Report under section 2(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, published on 8 November 2019.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I will give noble Lords not entranced by the prospect of a further European Union debate at this time some more moments to leave the Chamber.

My Lords—I hesitate to use the plural—I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As this is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box since last term, I begin by wishing all noble Lords a very happy new year.

In moving these Motions today, the Government are meeting the legal obligations placed on them by Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union Withdrawal (No. 2) Act 2019, or the Benn Act. For the benefit of the House, I will set out—briefly, given the late hour—how these obligations have arisen.

Noble Lords will no doubt recall that on 19 October last year, the other place considered a Motion seeking approval to leave the EU with the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister. An amendment was tabled to that Motion in the other place in the name of the then Member for West Dorset, which was subsequently passed. As a result of the amendment being passed, under the terms of Section 1(3) of the Benn Act the Government were required to seek an extension to the Article 50 period to 31 January. As a result of this extension being granted, the Benn Act then required the Government to publish a report by 30 November

“explaining what progress has been made in negotiations on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.”

The vote on 19 October also engaged Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which requires the Government to

“make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”

The Government complied with both requirements on 8 November, with the report and Statement made available on GOV.UK and provided by the Printed Paper Office for the convenience of your Lordships. Under the Benn Act and Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the Government were then required to move a Motion in relation to those reports in five calendar days and seven sitting days respectively. That is why we are here today. I know noble Lords will have noticed that we have somewhat exceeded the five-day deadline. The Dissolution of Parliament prevented this debate taking place sooner, but the Government have sought to comply with the law as soon as practically possible.

For the benefit of noble Lords who have not read the statement and report, they make clear that the Government have no further plans for renegotiations. This is for the very simple reason that the Government had, and continue to have, no plans to further renegotiate the terms of our exit. So, despite the fact that a deal was already in place and we are now in the process of legislating for the implementation of that deal, it is a legal necessity for us to consider these Motions. As noble Lords will know—I repeatedly said it during the passage of those Acts—the Government will always comply with the law.

Having dispensed with these Motions today, in short order this House will be asked to consider provisions in the withdrawal agreement Bill that seek to repeal both Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. I hope that when these matters are considered in this House, noble Lords will agree with me that these requirements are no longer necessary and that, whatever one’s view on Brexit, they have served their purpose and it is now time for us to move on.

Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union Withdrawal (No. 2) Act 2019 have detained the UK in the EU, and us in this House, for many hours already. This debate is about a government report and statement that make clear that we have no further plans to renegotiate the terms of our exit—a position clearly supported in the general election. So given the late hour, I will not seek to delay the House any longer than required as we dispense with these necessary legal obligations.

22:28

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we are an even more select little club than anticipated. I thank the Minister for that introduction, but I am just a little puzzled by Section 13 of the 2018 Act being proposed for repeal under the WAB, the current withdrawal agreement Bill. The statement says:

“The Government has no plans to have further negotiations”


on the withdrawal agreement, which I understand and recognise. But the Explanatory Notes to the withdrawal agreement Bill say that Section 13 is proposed for repeal to

“ensure that the Withdrawal Agreement can be ratified in a timely and orderly manner, and to remove provisions that are no longer needed.”

That clouded my brain, although it may be the late hour. Are the Government saying that the provisions in Section 13 of the 2018 Act are not needed because the withdrawal agreement Bill overtakes it? It is a little unclear. I recognise that the withdrawal agreement will not be reopened but the Explanatory Notes appear slightly to cloud the picture as to exactly why Section 13 is being repealed to allow the withdrawal agreement to be ratified in a timely and orderly manner. As I say, it may be that I am puzzled due to the late hour.

I turn now to the Benn Act, as we all call the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Will the Minister explain why the whole Act is proposed for repeal? What about Section 2(5)? It says:

“The Secretary of State shall make a further report … at least every 28 calendar days starting on 7 February 2020 either until an agreement with the European Union is reached or until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House of Commons.”


The point is that Section 2 of the Benn Act has the heading:

“Report on progress of negotiations on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.”


Unlike the 2018 Act, which goes on to refer specifically to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, it seems to me that this provision is not limited to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. It talks only about the progress of negotiations on the UK’s relationship with the European Union. Surely that extends to negotiations on the future relationship. I do not appreciate how this Act—particularly Section 2(5), which talks about future reports—can be deemed ripe for repeal in these circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will reply on that.

This is particularly apposite given that, as we will discuss next week, the December version of the withdrawal agreement Bill removes what was in the October version about parliamentary oversight. It rips away what was in the October Bill because the Government say that, because they have a mandate now, they do not need any continuing parliamentary accountability on the progress of negotiations on the future relationship, and it rips away the Benn Act as well. It is not clear to me why this is, because Section 2 of the Benn Act is not limited to the withdrawal agreement. Will the Minister explain?

Finally, I thank the Daily Mirror for drawing my attention to something called the Regulatory Policy Committee. I had never heard of it but apparently it is an independent body sponsored by BEIS which issues opinions on the quality of departments’ assessments of the potential impacts of regulatory proposals. It gave an opinion on the impact assessment that the Government issued on the October version of the withdrawal agreement Bill. Given the short time available, the committee decided not to give a rating and to suspend judgment on whether the impact assessment was or was not fit for purpose, but it identified a number of areas where it could benefit from improved evidence to the level that the Regulatory Policy Committee would normally expect to see.

It therefore gave the Government a pass in October, recognising that everything was done in a hurry. It was particularly worried that there was a lack of quantification of the impact on business of the regulatory requirements under the Northern Ireland protocol, and stated that

“if significantly more time was available … we would expect the Department to expand the analysis and submit a revised IA”

for RPC scrutiny. This has not happened, so yesterday the RPC issued another statement:

“The Government have not revised the October IA to reflect either the comments in our October opinion or the changes made to the Bill at its re-introduction to Parliament in December. Our opinion, therefore, remains that the quality of evidence in the IA is not at the level that we would expect to see in a final stage IA.”


This brought some rather robust comments from my colleague in the other place, Alistair Carmichael, who said:

“At every step of the way, the Tories have tried to disguise the damaging and dangerous consequences of their Brexit plans. The Government must stop running away from the false promises that they have made and be honest with the public about what they have in store for them with their hard Brexit plan. It’s about time that Boris Johnson started being honest with our people, rather than hiding the true price of a hard Brexit. What do they have to hide?”


I bat that question to the Minister, to answer if he would.

22:36

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate could have been, and—the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right—should have been, about the state of the negotiations with the EU. It was not simply about the withdrawal deal, although the agreement did include the political declaration, and that is essential to the discussions that are going on. That is what we should have been debating this evening, and we should have had an update from the Government. Instead, as the noble Baroness indicated, we are faced with a Bill that shuns all such future requirements for reporting to Parliament. Indeed, it is hard to reconcile Clause 38(1) of the withdrawal Bill, which recognises

“that the Parliament of the UK is sovereign”,

with the rest of the content of the Bill, which takes mammoth powers to the Executive and away from Parliament.

It repeals the Benn/Cooper requirements to report to Parliament, it disapplies CRaG for the withdrawal deal, it abolishes the meaningful vote for the withdrawal and final deals, and it deprives Parliament of any say on whether the implementation period should be extended, other than what is in the Bill. Of course, that is a decision taken before we have left, before the interests of the devolved Administrations have been taken into account, before we have seen any negotiating mandate—either from the EU or from our Government—and before we know how such negotiations are progressing, or what obstacles, from Northern Ireland or elsewhere, may stand in the way of a satisfactory agreement. So, before all that, the Government have decided to rule out any possibility of an extension. Yet only in October, Robert Buckland promised the Commons that the Government would bring forward an amendment to

“allow Parliament to have its say on the merits of an extension of the implementation period”.

The Government claim that the Bill will

“ensure Ministerial oversight of the Joint Committee”.

Of course, the Joint Committee is in the withdrawal deal, not in the political declaration. So the Bill will ensure ministerial oversight of the Joint Committee, but not parliamentary oversight of what our EU Committee calls

“a uniquely powerful and influential body”,

which can even amend the withdrawal agreement. These are issues that should be reported here for discussion.

So in future we will have no MEPs in the European Parliament and, under this Bill, no British parliamentarians will be able to consider and debate the actions of the Government and the Joint Committee other than take-note Motions. This absence of political oversight goes beyond the Joint Committee, beyond the implementation date of the withdrawal deal and beyond the implementation of the deal itself. Parliament will lose its role on the mandate for and progress of negotiations on our trading, diplomatic, cultural, consumer, environmental and security relations with the EU. There will be no MEPs to put the British view in Strasbourg and we will not be allowed a view here. It is taking away what in the earlier Bill was an undertaking that Parliament would have some input into these talks. That means that Parliament will be left with only take-note debates or responses to Ministerial Statements. That is not proper scrutiny and of course leaves the devolved authorities out of the game altogether.

As we have said, the withdrawal deal may be implemented through this Bill, but there is the political declaration, which was part of the agreement reached with the EU. That is the framework for future negotiations. Those negotiations will not be quick or easy, but the Government still seem to think that they can complete them within the timeframe that they have dictated, regardless of advice from anyone else. The Commission warns that

“reaching a final agreement usually takes several years. It involves over 30 stages.”

Michel Barnier says:

“It is unrealistic that a global negotiation can be done in 11 months, so we can’t do it all”—


only the “vital minimum” to establish a relationship with the UK.

Sabine Weyand, the deputy negotiator, thought that there would be only a “bare bones” deal covering only goods, which will itself cost money for people trading in goods. But more importantly, most goods now also have an element of service, whether intellectual property, servicing of what is sold, expertise or data movement. These are all issues that were covered in the Benn Bill expectations of what would be brought here, but they are not being discussed by us.

The Institute for Government reckons that

“it will not be possible to complete everything necessary to leave with a deal”,

because of course it is not just the negotiations but the practicalities that have to be sorted out in 11 months, which would mean that we will be only partially ready by December.

David Henig from the UK Trade Policy Project says that for a free trade agreement to come into force on 1 January next year, the political agreement would be needed by October this year. There is not just the issue of implementation; it will need ratification by national parliaments in many cases and sometimes by regional parliaments. So an even louder clock is ticking than we talked about before. Professor Catherine Barnard reckons that these agreements usefully take 48 months, not a mere nine months—what the British Chambers of Commerce called a “crazy rush”. Today, we heard from no less than the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, that striking a comprehensive trade deal before the end of the year was “impossible”.

But the Prime Minister just will not listen to that, and he reiterated that he wanted a broad free trade agreement covering goods and services by 31 December, and that any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment. That is at complete variance with what the Commission president said. Although she would like to

“design a new partnership—zero tariffs, zero quotas, zero dumping”

and a partnership with the UK that

“goes well beyond trade and is unprecedented in scope”,

she said that

“without a level playing field on the environment, labour, taxation and state aid, you cannot have the highest quality access to the world’s largest single market.”

That is what we face at the moment without any debate in Parliament.

Business understands the need for alignment. In October, the car sector, chemicals, food and drink, pharmaceuticals and aerospace warned of “serious risk” to competitiveness and

“huge new costs and disruption”

if the Prime Minister ended regulatory alignment, and five trade bodies, worth £98 billion to the economy between them, urged the Government to recognise the

“importance of continued regulatory alignment in negotiations”

on a deal and not to tear up regulations which enable them to work with EU customers and suppliers. This is vital for the future of our economy. These are debates which should be happening here on more than just take-note Motions.

I find it quite hard to understand the objection to a level playing field with our largest trading partner. I find it even harder to imagine that that is a slogan. I was staggered that just before Christmas there was a demonstration outside Parliament with printed posters that called for “No level playing field”. This is a strange way to negotiate and to think about the future of our economy.

This debate was called to take note of the negotiations. They are not formally in place, but they are clearly happening in shadow form, with the Prime Minister already sketching out his objectives. As I have just said, those objectives are at variance with what might be possible and he does not plan to present them to the Commons for approval. That is typical of the withdrawal agreement Bill, which will severely undermine parliamentary democracy. The Minister seems to think it is enough to say that this is a take-note on something that was published some months ago. He really has to do better to reassure the House that our withdrawal is not going to happen simply under governmental diktat rather than with parliamentary approval.

22:46

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their points. I am grateful that they have taken the time at such a late hour.

As I set out in opening, the Government continue to have no plans further to renegotiate the terms of our exit and we will always obey the law. Of course it was necessary to consider the Motions before us this evening, even though we are now in the process of legislating for the implementation of the deal. That is currently in the other place and will come to this House next week.

On the specific points asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on the repeal of Section 13 there is no need for a further meaningful vote in Parliament. The public showed in the general election that they want to get Brexit done and to leave the EU with a deal on 31 January. The Bill will give Parliament the chance to repeal the conditions under Section 13 set out in the previous Parliament.

With regard to Section 19, we think it is unnecessary law, and it has no legal effect in practice. For this reason, it is being repealed. We have complied with the Article 50 extension requirements under the Benn Act, and we will shortly comply with the outstanding debate requirement. Beyond that, the Act serves no useful purpose, and there is no reason for it to stay on the statute book.

With regard to the repeal of the Cooper Act, the duties in the Act have been spent and no longer have any legal effect. The Act therefore has no future purpose and there is therefore no reason for it to stay on the statue book.

The noble Baroness’s point on Section 2(5) of the Benn Act was that, for further reports, it would apply only if the Commons defeated or amended the Motion referenced at Section 2(2), which it has not.

I move on to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. She referred to a further parliamentary vote on extending the implementation period. As she will understand, we will not be extending it. That was a commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto. As I am sure she has noticed, we won the general election on that commitment and therefore will not extend the implementation period. There is therefore no need for Parliament to have a vote on doing so.

I take the opportunity to reassure her that we are completely committed to parliamentary accountability. Ministers—whether me or others—will be here to answer questions on these topics, reply to debates in this House and appear in front of committees and so on of this House and the other place. Of course, the normal rules of parliamentary procedure will apply. In fact, we are essentially reverting to the procedures that operated under a previous Government involving her party—those of normal parliamentary scrutiny. There is no need to put special provisions on to the face of the Bill or into statute telling Parliament how it can carry out its role of scrutinising the Government.

I am sure that we will have extensive debates about ratification of the future relationship next week and probably in future weeks to come. The noble Baroness made some very interesting points about regulatory alignment. Again, as we have discussed many times, I do not agree with her on that, but this is really not the occasion to have those debates. There will be plenty of opportunity for them during the passage of the legislation over the next two weeks and indeed on many future occasions. Given the lateness of the hour, I think that now is probably not the appropriate time to go into all those details. I am sure that we will have those discussions in full in the future and it therefore probably makes sense for us to complete this debate.

We all look forward to the many hours that we will spend in this place considering the withdrawal agreement Bill, when, I am sure, this and many other related points will be raised and the Government will be provided with the appropriate scrutiny by the Opposition.

Motion agreed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

22:51

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, made on 8 November 2019.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 10.52 pm.