Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing this SI. There are a couple of issues I would like to raise, although we will support it when it goes through the House.

First, there is that funny thing that this SI relates to the internal market Bill, which, as the Minister knows better than most, has yet to complete its passage through the House. Indeed, looking at the post-Report version of the Bill, which is some 51 pages long, compared with the original 57, it is far from being a ready-cooked product. However, I have to say to at least three noble Lords in the Committee that I have every reason to believe that, if the original clauses are reimposed in the Commons, they will promptly be taken out again by your Lordships’ House.

Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, we have been told that the anti-avoidance measures which are to accompany this are due to arrive here “in due course”, but we do not know when that will be. Brandon Lewis said that they would

“be in place by the end of the year”,

which gives us just a month to get them done, although for some of us that includes Christmas. It is fairly obvious that, if anything that happens to be in Northern Ireland—other than things subject to customs controls—can enter freely into GB, the temptation to use the no-checks entry points as a back door will be attractive to some, either on competition or quality issues, or perhaps for worse reasons. That would be especially worrying if it was a way of avoiding tariffs. I know that the National Crime Agency has warned about the risk, alongside the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That is especially important in the light of another point I wanted to make, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords.

The definition which this order seeks to capture is not only temporary but unclear. The Government say that they will come up with a more refined definition in due course, but there is no explanation of why they have been unable to do so, and it is very hard to imagine how they will enforce something that is so temporary. My noble friend Lord Hain set out some examples of where the definition is grossly inadequate, and I think that few of us will forget his little pig, born in the Republic of Ireland, slaughtered in Northern Ireland, made into sausages in the Republic and packaged in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister’s answer as to whether, tasty as it may be, it is a Northern Ireland or a Republic of Ireland sausage.

Fourthly—and the Minister will know of our concerns in this matter—to say that everything on sale in Northern Ireland can be sold anywhere and everywhere in GB risks undermining the devolution settlements, which in certain areas allow for and indeed welcome divergence. If higher-emission vehicles, plastic bags, peat pots or single-use plastic forks can be sold in Belfast, the Minister is telling us they must be sold in Bangor, even if the Welsh Government have decided to the contrary. We remain committed to using the common frameworks mechanism for sorting out these issues. Can the Minister explain whether this order would trump anything decided by the common frameworks process?

I also ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the risks of counterfeit—or, as has been mentioned, lower standard goods—being placed on the market in Great Britain, possibly at considerable consumer detriment, if they only have to be placed in the market and not even actually sold and therefore checked in Northern Ireland. Given that the Government seem to have prioritised flow over control, in the words of my noble friend Lord Hain, this risk is real. I assume that our trading standards inspectors could do nothing if goods arrived legally but unchecked in Great Britain.

We know that Northern Ireland businesses are already concerned about the January deadline, with representatives from retail, manufacturing and farming saying that they will simply not be ready for the new Irish sea border and need a further transition period. Manufacturing NI has called for a grace period in which the UK and EU could “provide comfort” that goods could keep moving. The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said that business was being given only six weeks to implement changes which would normally take two years, and it needs some sort of phase-in period. That is even more the case with the lack of clarity in the definition included in this order and, as we have said, the lack of any indication of anti-avoidance measures.

Can the Minister outline his response to how such businesses feel about this order and detail the involvement of the devolved Administrations with its preparation, given the concerns that I have that it would undermine the devolved settlements, forcing anything sold in Belfast to be sold in Wales, say, despite its laws to the contrary? Perhaps he could supply that timetable for the anti-avoidance measure, which the Northern Ireland Secretary said would be done by the end of this year.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 26th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, before I concentrate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, I will make some general comments about the Bill. The Government’s response to the improvements made by your Lordships to the Bill, with large majorities, has been profoundly disappointing. However, my disappointment will pale into insignificance when many Conservative MPs discover in a couple of years’ time just how they have been fooled into thinking that their seats will be unaffected by boundary changes. The most careful independent analysis has demonstrated that the Government’s insistence on sticking to the narrow 5% variance in the electoral quota means that some two-thirds of all seats will be changed—all for no real correction of the perceived imbalance. Those MPs will not merely be disappointed; hundreds of Conservative MPs and their constituents will suffer unnecessary disruption. Even more significantly, there will be many blue-on-blue contests for the more winnable new seats in the mid-term of the Parliament, just when the Government is least popular.

As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out, Mr Rees-Mogg made no reference to that when, during an inevitably sparsely attended debate, he managed to overturn the improvements passed with large cross-party majorities in your Lordships House. It will be interesting to witness the reaction of his fellow MPs when they realise what he has let them in for. There would be an element of wry amusement for the rest of us if it were not for the avoidable impact on historic, natural and well-established communities. All being well, the political integrity of Cornwall will be protected, but such a desirable outcome will not be guaranteed elsewhere.

This was perhaps the major issue during our debates on the Bill. However, removing some of the other improvements may in due course also be recognised as counterproductive and constitutionally defective. I fear we may live to regret that the House could not endorse the proper concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Beith.

I and my colleagues are especially pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, from the Cross Benches, has tabled his amendment to the Motion on the vital issue of electoral registration. Had this been at a different stage of the Bill, a quartet of senior Members from all parts of the House would have signed it. This is underlined by the strength of supporting speeches on all sides this afternoon. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord should lead on this. He has been a powerful champion and campaigner in non-party efforts to get more young people—especially from BAME communities and through Operation Black Vote—to take up their civic responsibilities and rights by registering. He gave evidence on the registration issue to the Select Committee of this House, chaired by our much-missed colleague Lord Shutt of Greetland.

At this point I should say how much I and my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches appreciate the tributes to David from all sides during the Commons debate and again this afternoon in your Lordships’ House. After a lifetime of principled devotion to this cause, his sincerity and clear advocacy of these practical steps towards a more comprehensive democracy shone through during his successful speech on Report.

As the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and others have emphasised, this modest proposal would give practical effect to the aims to which Ministers have committed themselves. Without this kind of simple administrative adjustment, there is a real danger that the missing millions of unregistered young citizens will remain outside the system.

Ministers have reminded us that registering to vote is a civic duty. Unlike voting, which is entirely voluntary in Britain, co-operating with the registration process is a legal obligation unless the eligible citizen has a specific reason to be exempted. As my noble friend Lord Rennard reminded the House, the register is used to select for jury service. That is an important civic responsibility, which is not entirely voluntary. Failure to co-operate can lead to a fine of £1,000.

This proposal is not a form of automatic registration. Despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, it is not on the table for decision today. However, if the Government continue to block sensible ways to maximise registration, it could be argued that they are in a sense condoning law-breaking.

It has been clearly indicated that many of your Lordships on all sides of House wish to support this simple improvement. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is not able to move his Motion E1 to propose Amendment 8B in lieu, I should be happy to do so and to seek the opinion of the House at the appropriate moment.

I again pay tribute to all who have helped to ensure that your Lordships’ House has fulfilled its proper scrutiny function. This includes the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True. As I have said previously, that is the fundamental right and responsibility of this House, not least when MPs and the governing party may need the corrective of relatively dispassionate, non-partisan and independent scrutiny on electoral law. We do not have the same special interests to declare as they have, which could take them into very unfortunate realm of special pleading, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made apparent.

Finally, I put on record on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, particularly all those who have worked on the Bill, our thanks and admiration for all those who have assisted the House, not least our excellent legislation adviser, Sarah Pughe. I thank the two Ministers and their team, the Public Bill Office and other officials of the House, as well as Members from all sides who value the integrity of the democratic process. I add thanks to those academic experts who gave us all such well-researched, non-partisan advice through all stages of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on some important amendments, which were agreed by your Lordships’ House but which, in their complete lack of wisdom, the Government chose to overturn in the Commons—and two of which, rightly, have merited special attention today.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, for tabling their counter- propositions. The former made a persuasive and constitutionally important case, to which I will return.

Before doing so, I would like to add my tribute to the late Lord Shutt of Greetland. His contributions on 8 October were, sadly, his last in this Chamber. His untimely death was of course a shock, but it is somehow fitting that that last speech was on expanding voter registration and encouraging people to engage in the democratic process—a cause which, as we have heard, he had championed for years, and one which the Government should take up with more than just warm words. If the future of our democracy is to mean anything, it will be through the full involvement of all our citizens in elections, be they at local, regional or national level.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made reference to “no representation without taxation”. I very gently point out that his party wants to extend representation without taxation by extending the right to vote to people who left this country maybe 40 or 50 years ago and have long since ceased to pay tax. But that is not on the agenda today.

I am saddened, although not surprised, by the Government’s rejection of all five amendments. Far from making the Government’s life difficult, they sought to address genuine concerns in a constructive manner. I particularly regret the lack of a bit of greater tolerance, which would, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, have helped even Conservative MPs—but it would particularly have helped those who are drawing lines round the valleys and mountains of Wales to have seats that had coherence for the Member seeking to represent them.

However, it is clear that there is not a mood for compromise, regardless of the merit of our arguments. To borrow a famous phrase, you can lead the Minister towards a sensible position but, unfortunately, you cannot make him adopt it—or, at least, not now.

One of the major arguments that we had with the coalition Government, which of course included the Liberal Democrats as well as the Minister’s own party, was over the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, despite the population having grown and despite almost the same number being put into your Lordships’ unelected House at the same time. We warned the two parties then and we voted against them, but they were determined. So I am delighted that they have now seen the sense of our arguments. Welcome to our viewpoint—and perhaps in due course they will see the good sense behind Amendments 1, 2 and 7.

In particular, given the cogent arguments, and the concern of this House, we had hoped in all sincerity to see some movement on the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Given that Parliament will no longer have any backstop role over boundaries, the independence of commissions —which will no longer be advisory; they will effectively be law-makers—is even more vital. The noble and learned Lord sought to depoliticise, and therefore legitimise, the appointments process.

The Government’s position is a little concerning. It is true that some might be comforted by the departure of certain personnel from No. 10; nevertheless, the only true guarantee of independence is a transparent process guaranteed in law. Indeed, dealing, as we are, with this issue just at this moment, or, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in the times in which we live, when others such as Peter Riddell and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, have questioned how supposedly independent appointments are actually made, a very clear signal in this Motion that no elected politician would have any say would have been warmly welcomed.

Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we can support this draft instrument, but I am afraid that I have to raise the bigger question that is around. It was touched on by my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Foulkes as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and it is whether this Government can be trusted to adhere to public procurement rules. The Grand Committee hardly needs me to repeat what it read in the papers yesterday and again today; that has been mentioned. However, the record of Ministers bringing in their friends and relatives, whether paid or unpaid, to advise on or carry out government-funded work is making a mockery of our Nolan rules in procurement processes, and any integrity in the use of taxpayers’ money. I note that, in introducing this instrument, the Minister particularly mentioned the importance of value for money. This is partly why we make sure that we have competitive tendering.

We have read of lobbyists and their clients benefiting from vital information from such advisers before either the public or Parliament knows; of investors at a paid-for conference getting a heads-up on vaccine developments; and of £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money being awarded to companies linked to the Conservative Party during the pandemic—companies with no record as government suppliers before this year. Urgency is not really sufficient excuse; I understand that it may have worked for the first couple of weeks, but not for this long after. In normal times Ministers must advertise contracts for privately provided services, so that any company has a chance of securing the work. A person’s connections are not supposed to help. Today it sometimes seems that unless you have a close connection with a Minister, it is not even worth tendering. My colleagues in the other place have endless stories about their local firms—firms with a track record—not even being considered. Sometimes their phone calls are not even answered.

It is not as if all this playing footsie with friends produces good results. Test and trace is hardly a success and we have had stories about unusable PPE. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has just said that

“the perception is taking root that too many in public life, including some in our political leadership, are choosing to disregard the norms of ethics and propriety that have explicitly governed public life for the last 25 years, and that, when contraventions of ethical standards occur, nothing happens.”

Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that whatever the rules agreed in this instrument, or any other, good governance and ethics, not chumocracy, will determine how contracts are awarded?

On the issue itself, I emphasise just two points. One is about the devolved authorities. Have they agreed with this SI and were they involved in its preparation? I know that in Wales, for example, they have been worried about whether they will be able to use procurement to raise standards, along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Hain about a fair deal for employees of outsourced companies. There are also the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, about the use of procurement to promote healthy or local services, including for food. When is the Green Paper likely to appear and is it also being drawn up together with the devolved authorities?

I also have a question to which I ought to know the answer but do not. I apologise as it is a genuine question, and I am not trying to make any point at all. Who oversees this instrument? I know that it is always far too difficult to expect SMEs, which feel that they have been excluded, to take action. What will be the supervising and enforcement authority to ensure that all tendering keeps to this or any other instrument concerning procurement?

Home Secretary: Allegations of Bullying

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I stated just now that there is an Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, and that is Sir Alex Allan, who has a role. I have also studied the Cabinet Secretary’s evidence to PACAC on 22 October. He said what I have said, which is that, in the interests of all those involved in the process,

“We are not giving a running commentary on the process.”


That is a quotation from the Cabinet Secretary and I agree with him.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The Minister keeps saying that this is an ongoing process. The review was completed eight months ago. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is a very slow reader or whether, as Laura Kuenssberg has said, this has simply been parked. If it is the latter, can we take it out of the underground garage, please?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing further to add to the replies I gave earlier about the ongoing process.

EU: Visa-free Short-term Travel Mobility

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Earl raises a very important point. The Government certainly recognise the importance of tourism and travel for the creative industries. We set out our position on mode 4 in the approach publication at the start of negotiations and we are committed to seeking protection for exactly the kind of persons the noble Earl refers to.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the posted workers’ directive particularly helped our travel business, and some 15,000 UK residents are employed in an EU member state. As the Government will not continue this agreement after December, which risks thousands of jobs, particularly those of young people, will they extend the reciprocal youth mobility scheme, which enables young workers to move between signatory countries to find work for up to two years, and might also help musicians?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, at the moment we are continuing discussions in this area. I promise to advise the noble Baroness opposite on the specific point that she raises very shortly.

EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for returning to the Dispatch Box—apparently unbruised by the government defeat of 226—to defend the Statement and Mr Gove’s words in the other place: that, in any negotiation, both sides have to honour their commitments. Had the Prime Minister done so in respect of the withdrawal agreement, he may not have had to face that defeat.

Yesterday’s headlines were, “Talks break down”. As my right honourable friend Keir Starmer said:

“The collapse of these talks is a sign of Government failure.”


He was in fact responding to the Manchester talks, but it is the story of this Government, who could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. They boast, threaten and bluster, but fail to reach a consensus with their counterparts. They set deadlines: a deal by July, then September, then mid-October—all missed. They criticise the EU for sticking to its negotiating mandate, but meanwhile boast that they will not move from their own negotiating objectives. It seems it is only the other side, and not ours, that has to move. They criticise the other side for not discussing legal texts, despite the fact that the EU published its 441-page legal text in March but it took until mid-May for us to do the same. Even then, the UK blocked early talks on security co-operation—security: the most important issue on which citizens rely on their Government.

The former Home Secretary and Prime Minister hit the nail on the head on Monday, pointing out that security was not even in the Statement and that, without a deal, law enforcement agencies would have no access to vital databases. I cannot re-enact her mocking response to the extraordinary answer that Mr Gove gave, but I will repeat his words and leave it to your Lordships’ imagination. He claimed that

“we can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 761.]

That hardly tallies with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who knows a thing or two about security:

“Without the ability to exchange data and intelligence across frontiers, law enforcement will be increasingly unable to cope … Everything from extradition to notification of alerts, crime scene matches and criminal record searches will be much slower, at best.”


Closer to home, Naomi Long, the Northern Ireland Security Minister, stressed the importance of a security partnership with the EU to stop the politicisation of extradition in Northern Ireland, as was the case before the EU arrest warrant.

Mr Gove’s view that we could not possibly, as the price for using EU security systems, also accept its court on the issue of how we use that data seems remarkable for its short-sightedness. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on progress towards a security and data-sharing agreement.

The Government have taken to saying that we had been offered a Canada-style agreement but it is no longer available. In fact, that was never going to happen. The Commission’s February slide on “Geography and trade intensity” never suggested that a carbon copy of CETA was on offer, simply that the same legal form as the FTAs with Canada and South Korea could be used. What is more, the Canada deal contains level playing field measures of the sort the Government now say they will never accept. If they are now willing to go the Canada way, will they also honour the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed and accept a level playing field?

This trade and security deal is too serious for playing games. Last week, 70 business groups, with more than 7 million employees, urged the Government to return to the table to strike a deal. These industries—automotive, aviation, chemicals, farming, pharmaceuticals, tech and financial services—are desperate for their futures and urge a compromise, as this matters greatly for jobs and livelihoods. As they say:

“With compromise and tenacity, a deal can be done.”


Sadly, yesterday’s perfunctory call with Boris Johnson left them disappointed. Some described it as unbelievably disrespectful to the concerns of business. The Prime Minister apparently asked companies to “end the apathy” and get ready, while Mr Gove described our departure as like moving house—a bit of disruption. Of course, it will not be Mr Gove or other Government Ministers who have to cope with a bit of disruption. There will be people losing jobs, consumers paying more for their food, Kent and Anglesey residents finding their roads blocked by lorries and their verges taken up by portaloos, and citizens’ rights at risk. Small business groups have pressed for transition vouchers to pay for extra preparation. I gather that Mr Gove said he would take that back to the Treasury, so perhaps we could know the outcome of that request.

At least they got a meeting. The SMMT did not even get its letter answered. On Monday, there had been no response to its 1 October letter, so perhaps we could be told whether it has now been answered. Meanwhile, the country’s leading transporter of diesel and petrol faces a 4% tariff on the fuel it imports if we do not get a deal. This will affect the industry itself, but it could also mean increased prices at the pumps, possibly up to 3p a litre. The knock-on effects on industry are evident.

Mr Gove was asked by my honourable friend in the other place how much of the £50 million for customs intermediaries had now been drawn down and how many customs agents had been trained. Unfortunately, she got no reply. So, we ask again: how many of the 50,000 will be in place on 1 January?

Finally, what is the status of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service, given that work on its IT system had not even started a few short months ago? The Government stress that businesses need to prepare, but seem unable to demonstrate that they have done their own work. Perhaps we can have an update on that as well.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that the UK was “increasingly well prepared” for what he called

“leaving the EU on Australian terms”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 756.]

Putting aside the fact that “Australian terms” is just a euphemism for no deal, whereby the UK trades on WTO terms and our exports face tariffs and quotas, the cries of pain from business are audible for all to hear. They are far from having the “high hearts and complete confidence” at the prospect of no deal that the Prime Minister expressed—or indeed at the prospect of the skinny deal that represents the height of government ambition.

The Government have launched a “Time is running out” campaign urging businesses to get ready. But get ready for what? The Government must acknowledge that they are the ones keeping businesses in the dark.

The Road Haulage Association described a meeting with Michael Gove about post-Brexit arrangements last month as “a washout” in which they got “no clarity” on how border checks will operate when the transition period ends. In an interview on Monday, its managing director of policy and public affairs, Rod McKenzie, responding to Mr Gove’s claims, in a Statement, of

“putting in place new IT systems to help goods flow across borders”

and

“giving business access to customs professionals,”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 757.]

said: 

“It’s a bit of a cheek to say that ... It would be fine to accuse people of having their head in the sand and not having done anything if we knew what we had to do. The problem is the Government has spent not just months, but years, failing to tell the businesses that need to make this work what exactly they have to do…they haven’t prepared the IT systems that will make this work … and they haven’t hired enough customs agents to plough through the mountain of red tape that will be created by this new system.’


Then there is business as a whole. The BBC’s business editor, Simon Jack, tweeted yesterday about how business leaders had described a call with the Prime Minister and Mr Gove as “terrible,”

“unbelievably disrespectful to the concerns of business”

and “more of a lecture”, with the Prime Minister accusing them of “too much apathy”.

There is still no clarity as to what the trading relationship will be. The Government need to acknowledge that business does not have the certainty that it needs. Will the Minster retract the absurd claims that businesses have their head in the sand or are displaying apathy in preparing for Brexit? Will he accept that the Government’s current plan is very far from being “oven ready”, as claimed? 

Attentive listeners will detect a bit of a pattern here. It is not just the EU that is getting accused by this Government or their acolytes of being in the wrong. It is business, experts, devolved Governments, mayors, judges, lawyers, the Church, the Civil Service and Parliament—especially, of course, the House of Lords. Gibraltar, Jersey and the Falklands are not exactly brimming with happiness and contentment, either. Perhaps, the Government should examine the mote in their own eye, rather than try to bully, bamboozle and blame everyone else. Their negotiating style has the effect of alienating almost every group they encounter, except, perhaps, rich Tory donors, including Russian ones. 

On security, Mr Gove made the truly astonishing claim to the other place on Monday in response to former Prime Minister Theresa May that security would be better outside the EU. Mrs May was seen to mouth “What?” in response to that astonishing and hopelessly untrue claim. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, tweeted yesterday:

“If UK loses all access to EU systems from 1 Jan, as looks likely, there is no good Plan B.”


The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said: 

“Without the ability to exchange data and intelligence across frontiers, law enforcement will be increasingly unable to cope. Everything from extradition to notification of alerts, crime scene matches and criminal record searches will be much slower, at best.”


I remind the Minister that these people are experts. Mrs May was the Home Secretary for several years who masterminded the process in 2014 whereby the UK opted to stay in all the important EU law enforcement measures. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is a former National Security Adviser; and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. 

If the Minister wants to tell me now what precisely is the 

“variety of methods and arrangements”

whereby the UK

“can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside,”

and which

“can intensify the security that we give to the British people,”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 761.]

then I am all agog to hear what those measures are. Otherwise, I shall continue to think it is the fantasy it appears to be. The Government need to get real, stop blaming everyone but themselves, stop talking pie in the sky and get on with the negotiations like an adult, not a tiresome toddler. 

How does Mr Gove’s claim, in the Statement, of

“the UK’s commitment to upholding all our obligations under both the withdrawal agreement and the Belfast agreement”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 757.]

sit with the Government’s efforts to get the power to abjure them in the Internal Market Bill, with which this House expressed its severe displeasure yesterday?

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The Bill made parliamentary history by being the first to have a Lords Committee stage in the hybrid Grand Committee, so just in case it makes the Government’s history by being the first to have all our amendments accepted in the other place so that it is not returned here, I shall take this opportunity on its last outing to thank those who smoothed its passage. As the Minister said, the broadcasters and the parliamentary staff did enormous work to enable those hybrid sessions to take place in the new Moses Room.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord True, and congratulate him on his maiden Bill. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, made valiant, not always successful, efforts to defeat our arguments, although at every stage they heard our points, explained the Bill and its rationale and assisted us in the handling of business. We particularly welcome the Government’s adoption of—if I may call it this—the Young-Cormack amendment, which gives greater confidence about the impartiality of the move to automaticity. The Bill team, who are not here, but who I am sure are listening somewhere, were, as ever, helpful, including to the Opposition. On our side, my noble friends Lord Lennie, who has been mentioned, and Lady Gale did much of the heavy lifting, and we were assisted behind the scenes by our colleagues Catherine Johnson and Dan Stevens.

As the Minister indicated, this is a serious Bill on a serious matter. We congratulate the Government on restoring 650 seats to the other place. As the Minister said, we all want a fully functioning democracy, and how MPs are elected, who they represent and where they represent are part of that, so we welcome the Bill and look forward to its use in a general election—perhaps even an early one.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2)

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

One objection to automaticity was that it left a delaying power in the hands of the Government. Given that the Minister has added his name to Amendment 6, thus precluding that mischief, I will not move Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has brought some very important, practical questions to your Lordships’ House this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be able to reply to them. The noble Lord speaks with a great deal of experience and expertise on these issues. It is significant that he has done the research to spot some potential difficulties.

In the meantime, I am full of admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. We have known each other for many years and I have a huge amount of respect for his experience of the way in which ministries, Whitehall generally and the House of Commons and House of Lords operate. He has almost unique experience. It is interesting that so many distinguished former MPs and Ministers have contributed to the development of this amendment at all stages, some of whom spoke again this afternoon. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, who must be one of the best experts to tell us about what happens behind the scenes, is wholly confident that the amendments he is now promoting, as he said, put these matters out of reach of political mischief. If they are totally out of reach of political mischief, we will be all be relieved; if he is confident of that, I take his word as very persuasive.

However, I take seriously the issues originally raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and then referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Cormack—quite a trio. They were asking what exactly the exceptional circumstances were that would permit any return to a more lackadaisical approach to the timing of the tabling of these proposals from the Boundary Commissions. If the Boundary Commissions are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, just said, absolutely specific and there is no room for manoeuvre for Ministers or the House of Commons, surely it should be a much smoother operation than is implied here, even in exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister will explain in his response exactly what he has in mind.

We should pay tribute to the Minister. It is always a mark of a good Minister and a listening Government when there is a move between Committee and Report. There has been a move; the Government have accepted a change here and we should all welcome that. It is a sign of a Government who are prepared to think again, and that must be healthy.

It also indicates that this Bill is being improved in your Lordships’ House. I know there were some Conservative Members who thought it was rather inappropriate for the House of Lords to make any changes to a Bill that dealt specifically with elections to the other place. As a former Member of Parliament, I take exactly the opposite view; after all, there is a degree of self-interest at the other end of the corridor which we hope at this end we are largely able to avoid. We have a greater degree of impartiality in that respect.

As a result of two Divisions and likely support for this amendment, we now have some changes that will undoubtedly have to be considered in the other place. It is very healthy that MPs be asked to think again about these issues. As was mentioned in a previous debate, there is already substantial Conservative Back-Bench rethinking on the important issues of the 7.5% quota tolerance in preference to 5% and on the 10-year review period. I therefore hope that the fact that there is now government support for a government change to their Bill will be taken as an indication that our role in this House is to make sure that this Bill is improved before it goes back to the other place.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not need to detain the House on an amendment where everything has been said and has been said by everyone. I simply applaud the Government, as we have just heard, for seeing sense on this amendment, which answers one of the two fundamental issues which concerned us about moving from a final parliamentary sign-off towards automaticity—that is, the ability of the Executive to delay the implementation of the Boundary Commissions’ plans, despite having handed effective authority to the commissions to put those plans into law. Without this amendment, no one, neither the commissioners nor Parliament, could have forced the Government’s hand had they chosen to delay.

I retain one concern, which is that retained by the guinea pig—not the guinea pig, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who obviously gets his feeds on automaticity even faster than I can. The issue he raised about what might happen should the Government decide to call an election during that four-month period should continue to concern us.

I had assumed that “exceptional circumstances” meant that, but that in itself is quite worrying. As my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said, we need more explanation about what exceptional circumstances are—putting aside Covid because, as my noble friend said, that would be dealt with in another way. Given that the Government are committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which puts the decision back into No. 10, there must remain a worry that a difficult boundary review could somehow be circumvented. The Minister needs to allay these fears which, as he has heard, are from across the House.

The issue of the time cap introduced by this amendment was a major concern to us. It was not the major one for the Constitution Committee—we will come on to that shortly in Amendment 11, about moving to automaticity—but it was certainly one of our two major concerns. The fact that the Government have accepted and even put their name to the amendment means that it would be churlish for me not to say that we support it too.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The House will not object if I say first that I thank and, indeed, congratulate my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Whenever I hear him speak in your Lordships’ House, I realise how much I have to learn in responding to your Lordships at this Dispatch Box. He has done a service to this House and to the electoral system, along with others who have raised this point. He was also skilful enough to get into a debate about Orders in Council and aperçu on the EU negotiations, which I do not think was strictly germane—my noble friend Lord Cormack followed on that—but I also agree with his sentiments there and hope very much that they will be translated into the languages of all 27 nations of the European Union.

The Government were happy to accept this amendment. The case was clear. The Government’s intention is to put beyond reach the idea that there might be unconscionable delay in laying these orders. It is of the utmost importance to us that it should not be felt by anyone that Parliament or the Government should have the opportunity to interfere politically in that way. I was grateful to have the opportunity to discuss with my noble friend Lord Young, other Members of the House and, indeed, the noble Baroness opposite the points raised. The noble Baroness has been very gracious and I greatly appreciate the courtesy with which she withdrew the first amendment and responded here. We may not be in agreement for all of today, but I appreciate that response.

I think there is widespread agreement and welcome for this. Therefore, I do not need to detain the House at great length. One or two points were raised about a Government calling a general election. Obviously, at the moment the rules around a general election are controlled by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. So long as that obtains, we are legislating in that light. As far as the future is concerned, no doubt points have been put on the table, privately and publicly, which may be considered. There would always be a difficulty if there was suspicion in legislating on the matter. I am here to talk about future legislation, but the example of 1983 shows how difficult it would be to prevent a general election in the period before orders had been laid. That is something that people would have to wrestle with. The Government have no intention of seeking a general election. No Government should seek a general election to frustrate the presentation of these orders to a meeting of the Privy Council. The whole political world would deprecate that action and any Government that sought to do it would not be rewarded by the electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, our Constitution Committee accepted the move from parliamentary sign- off to automaticity, but it stressed that this change would

“only protect against undue political influence”

if the Boundary Commissions were “genuinely independent”. As it said:

“This makes the selection and appointment of impartial Boundary Commissioners, independent of political influence, all the more important.”


As we have heard, it is hard to see how an appointment by an elected politician—a member of the Cabinet—can look independent, especially, I am sad to say, when this Government seek to appoint their own to run the BBC, Ofcom, NHS Test and Trace or other major bodies. Sadly, because we are all here now, we have not been able to watch Peter Riddell appear before the relevant committee in the House of Commons this afternoon, but I gather that he has interesting things to say about the expansion of appointments beyond the normal lines of restriction. As people have said, what looks bad is bad, even if it is not actually the case. However, as a good Welsh girl, I think that we should always have the Welsh to judge our rugby matches, as we would then win every single match.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon said, when the present system was set up, the appointments were overseen by the Lord Chancellor, who at that stage was a Member of your Lordships’ House and the head of the judiciary. The impartiality was guaranteed and outwith the purview of an elected politician.

Given that the recommendations of a boundary commission could affect even the seats of the Secretary of State’s own party, then no matter how much, like Brutus, they were an “honourable man”, or even an honourable woman, it is really hard to see how the appearance of disinterest could be demonstrated. As the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said, it is perceived impartiality, and that is vital. The solution in this amendment is surely right, in that it would demonstrate that, as the commissions now effectively make law, with no parliamentary role, their decisions were patently free from any political taint. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, now that their decisions cannot be appealed, they effectively make law with the same force as any tribunal.

The second proposal—for non-renewable terms—is equally important to ensure that there is no temptation to curry favour with the reappointing Minister, nor, again, even an appearance of that. Our Constitution Committee, without endorsing the proposal, noted that the Commons committee had discussed ideas to strengthen independence, such as by single, non-renewable terms. However, even more important than any one thing, our Constitution Committee urged us to consider

“what safeguards are required to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Boundary Commissions and their recommendations.”

Sadly—and, I think, inexplicably—the Government have refused to produce any change in response to that call. Fortunately, however, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has done so, and we are happy to support that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

12: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Electorate per constituency
In rule 2(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per constituency), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, technically I rise to move Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lennie and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but I must say that I will withdraw it at the end of this group. However, I will move, and shall now speak to, Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott. It is on that amendment that we will seek to divide the House.

Everything that we heard in Committee made it clear that the change in the 2011 Act—setting such a very low tolerance level within which the boundary commissioners could do their work—will mean that communities, ward boundaries, rivers, lakes, mountains and motorways will have to be crossed to engineer exactly the right mathematical numbers. Those final boundary moves—sometimes mere tweaks—to reach the required numbers make even less sense when set against the number of people not even on the electoral roll.

It is estimated that some 20% of eligible voters are not registered, which is, on average, about 10,000 per constituency; the Government are obsessed with the last 3,000 or 4,000. I remind the Minister that this is a smaller number than when there were to be 600 constituencies under the 2011 Act. The average number per constituency was therefore larger, so the 5% tolerance then gave a larger number of electors for the margin in which the Boundary Commissions work, but the very welcome return to 650 Members reduces the average number per constituency and therefore reduces the 5% either way within which the Boundary Commissions can do their work. Therefore, the last 3,000 or 4,000 the Government are so wedded to is actually very small compared with the about 10,000 per constituency who are not even on the electoral roll. Indeed, perhaps if the Government could spend as much energy on getting those 10,000 on to the register, any talk of democratic equivalence and fair votes would have a little more resonance.

The resulting splitting of communities that 5% requires also flies in the face of the reality—as we heard in the debate on today’s first group of amendments—that MPs represent areas, not just individuals. Of course, areas do not vote, but it means that MPs can best represent those individuals if they understand and have a good relationship with the organisations within those constituencies. Therefore, breaking through, for example, a school’s catchment area—sometimes for small numbers to get the percentage right—means that issues of education could pull in more than just the MP in whose seat the school is located, because the narrowness of the margin does not allow for the catchment area to be included in that seat. That will sometimes happen at the borders of constituencies, but to make it happen for a mathematical formula seems particularly unhelpful.

It can also be argued that it is not good for accountability as it does not help an MP represent the totality of an area. Communities have natural boundaries and sometimes they will have to be cut through, as I say, but we should minimise that by giving the Boundary Commissions a bit more space to allow them to respond to local circumstances.

The very slight change to an extra 2.5% either way would give the commissions an extra bit of leeway to respond to travel patterns, geographical community or the needs of an area without having the knock-on or ripple effects on neighbouring seats so that again, and sometimes for no good reason, a neighbouring community is impacted just because the numbers do not quite fit in the first seat.

This will be of particular help in rural areas or, I have to say again, communities in Wales where the mountains and valleys impose geographical constraints which perhaps are not particularly well understood in SW1, or indeed some other conurbations. Amendment 13 would make the margin 5,500 rather than 3,500 and provide some helpful flexibility—if it is needed; it does not have to be used—so that those who are holding the pencil can draw boundaries that really do represent communities and which allow people to have a community-based relationship with their Member of Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, our own amendment in this group is Amendment 14 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard, but I will refer also to others in this group which offer slightly different solutions to the fundamental problem with this Bill that all the signatories agree is so apparent. As Members of your Lordships’ House will have observed, we have modified our suggested solution in the spirit of compromise appropriate to Report. We had previously recommended a basic quota variance of 8%, but we took careful note of the developing consensus in Grand Committee, and we now endorse 7.5% as providing the essential and reasonable flexibility that so many Members are seeking and to which the noble Baroness has just referred.

From Second Reading right through our discussions, a clear majority of contributors have expressed concern about the very narrow 5% tolerance currently in the Bill. As has already been indicated, that concern is now echoed across the House of Commons. We must all hope that the Government are also determined to reach a sensible consensus by compromising on this figure. They have nothing to lose by doing so. As the forensic academic analysis by the late Professor Johnston and his colleagues has demonstrated so conclusively, the perceived electoral imbalance between Conservative and Labour constituencies would not be especially adversely affected by this simple and flexible adjustment. What would be changed would be the widespread disruption of so many constituency boundaries. Those newly elected Conservative MPs, especially from seats hitherto not held by the party in the north and the Midlands, may now recognise the attraction of a more measured approach in this forthcoming review. They may also be especially apprehensive about potential “blue on blue” contests. This was the core of the evidence presented to the Commons Bill Committee.

We take very seriously the point just made by the noble Baroness about the number of people who are currently eligible to be on the register but who are not there. We believe that in the months of the process of the review, this may be improved; in which case, of course, there might be quite considerable increases in particular constituencies. It is also true that if the Government eventually pursue their intention of increasing the franchise to those who have moved abroad, that too could mean a considerable difference during the actual process of the review. If, for example, anyone decides to move permanently from the London area to the Ancona area in the east of Italy and they wanted to retain their voting rights after 15 years, that could make a major difference to one of the boroughs in London. That may be true of other areas and for other individuals as well.

Meanwhile there is common ground across your Lordships’ House that the insistence on the 5% variance straitjacket, imposed on the four Boundary Commissions, will result in more changes with 650 constituencies than were proposed with the previously proposed 600 constituencies; then more regular changes for more constituencies at more reviews; and there would be more consequent knock-on changes even to adjoining constituencies which are themselves within the limits. Incumbents who believed themselves to be safe would suddenly find that they are far from it. There would also be more disruption of historic, geographically and socially cohesive communities. Finally, there would be more disconnection between MPs, councillors and the public at more regular intervals than is either necessary or desirable.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore urge your Lordships to resist the desire to fix something that is not broken, however you look at it, in each of these amendments and to withdraw them.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I agree completely with the Minister that the union is most successful, and that we want to stay in it and keep it strong. However, I do not agree with the rest of his speech quite so much, particularly because one of the things about keeping the union strong is recognising the differences as well as the similarities. That particularly affects Wales; not just because it is Welsh, but because of its geography.

My noble friend Lord Hain, because he is working in Grand Committee on the Trade Bill, was not able to participate and therefore could not speak to Amendment 18. On his behalf, I want to say that the reason this has been put is that half the Welsh population live in just 14% of the Welsh land mass. That is different from virtually all of England. Only a small proportion of England is sparse, but 80% of Wales is. The geography is different. For a Parliament to be able to respond to a part of the nation that is so different by allowing greater flexibility about how it is represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom strengthens rather than weakens the union. I am sorry we could not hear from my noble friend today; he had wonderful maps he could have referred to in order to show this.

As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, this is about more than just arithmetic. Just as he said, the exempted constituencies show that. Geography is about more than islands; it is about valleys, mountains and other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is wrong to say that this is about bogus arguments—I may not have called them “balderdash”, like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, but I do not believe these arguments are bogus. It is about the strength of community representation. It also depends on turnout, which is important, and the greater the feeling of some sense of community. There is no point having absolutely numerically equal constituencies if we then find that some people have to travel so far, for example in Wales, to meet their MP that the turnout ends up being much lower. The number of people voting is very different in each seat. We are trying to give the independent Boundary Commission a little more leeway to use its common sense—I am not saying that this would be for all constituencies—and not to have to split communities unnecessarily.

The noble Lord said twice, I think, that we were trying to safeguard the current position by keeping the 5%, but in fact it has never been used. It exists only on paper. The 2011 Act brought it in. It is not the “current position” other than on a piece of paper; it has not been used. Trying to pretend that this is retaining something is not true. As I said at the beginning, if 5% was right in 2011 for an average number with 600 seats in the House, almost by definition it cannot be the right number when we move to 650 seats. It may be dancing on the head of a pin, but sometimes allowing that pencil to go a bit more broadly will draw a better boundary.

I end on what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. It would have been nice if we could have worked towards compromise in a cross-party way on this rather than by edict. Then we would have reached something that would be good for the whole of Parliament, rather than doing it this way. But this way we must do it. I will seek leave to withdraw Amendment 12 and then move Amendment 13 formally so that we can test the opinion of the House. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Electorate per constituency
(1) Rule 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per constituency) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (a), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”.(3) In paragraph (b), for “105%” substitute “107.5%”.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

As I indicated, in moving Amendment 13, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard a Cornish voice that is almost as loud, although obviously not as musical, as the Welsh. Much of this makes perfect sense. Indeed, the issues raised here may also be felt strongly in the Ridings of Yorkshire or in the Black Country, even if they are not blessed with the same formal recognition.

The underlying problem is the Government’s refusal to understand communities, be these Welsh valleys or Cornish heritage. That is something I have heard a lot about, as my late sister-in-law, Ruth Simpson, was the first Labour mayor of Penzance. I have also spent a long time in Cawsand, which was—I hope this does not undermine the amendment—the old boundary between Cornwall and Devon, way beyond the bridge. That was a long time ago, but I certainly know the strength of that Cornish voice.

We hear these demands, but urge that we join together—as the Welsh, the Cornish and other locales—to continue to impress on the Government that communities, geography, nationhood, languages and the future of the Union matter, so that, even at this late stage, the Government might hear reason as the Bill returns to the Commons, and accept a flexibility to enable all these special areas to be recognised.

For that reason, though I think the noble Lord will not press his amendment, I hope we keep together on the main argument that constituency boundaries are too important to be decided merely numerically. They have enormous impact on the sense of fairness, representation and respect for national, regional or local history and for community.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this short debate. Its brevity does not detract in any way from the importance of the points put forward. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I have discovered that, as far as jam and cream are concerned, I am a Cornish man, rather than Devonian—not that I am allowed to eat such things any more; you can ask my wife about that.

I do not want to belittle the thing, but the one thing I would demur about is the suggestion that this Government do not care or have a concern about community. This Government have a profound concern for community, and every fibre of my being, in the life I have led in local government, reinforces that sense within me. I totally understand the passion, commitment and sense behind the amendment to protect constituencies in Cornwall.

I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee. There is a problem, and there is a reason why, in principle, it would potentially be difficult, in that other communities might argue and ask why they had not had the same protection. I mentioned Suffolk and Norfolk. I do not equate Cornwall with any other place—Cornwall is special—but, on the other hand, I remember a storm arising in a field in East Anglia when I was a very small boy, and my grandmother, who came from a long line of Lowestoft fisherfolk, as we call them these days, took my hand in hers and said, “Don’t worry, a storm can never cross the water,” by which she meant the River Waveney. There are places where boundaries are felt to be important. I believe community arises and is not measured against other people but within ourselves, within place and a range of things that make up who we are.

I understand where this amendment is coming from, and I understand the argument from community. I hope and expect that the Boundary Commission will recognise, with the latitude it has, the importance of community—including the sense of being Cornish. The Government are, however, committed to constituencies as equally sized as possible, and that aspect of the protection of constituencies, apart from with the islands, is held to be important.

The Government certainly understand the point. My noble friend Lord Bourne was manifest in this when he was a Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was kind enough to say so, quite rightly. The Government recognise the importance of Cornwall and being Cornish. Indeed, last year we provided £200,000 of financial support, I believe, to fund a range of Cornish language projects, as well as work to tackle barriers to systematic education provision around the Cornish language. Although I cannot accept this amendment, I assure the House that the distinctive nature of Cornwall is understood. I am reinforced in feeling able to advise the House that we do not need this amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, our expectation is exactly his expectation: we do not expect, given the 600 constituencies and the tolerance suggested, that there should be a case or a need for the new constituencies to cross the Tamar. It appears likely that they will remain within those bounds and, if I am allowed to express a personal view from the Dispatch Box, I hope that they will. I am sure that will be shared by many in the Government.

I respect the views expressed here, and I understand them, but I do not believe, given the potential knock-on effects, such as questions as to why other communities and places are not recognised, that we should put it in statute. I hope that, having heard those assurances— and I repeat the sense that the Government are well aware of the importance of Cornishness and Cornish sentiment—that the noble Lord, who has spoken so ably on behalf of that great county, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

EU Exit: End of Transition Period

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to question the Statement, despite it dealing with only one, albeit a visible, part of the preparations needed for 1 January: the physical movement of goods. On finances, accounting, the mutual recognition of qualifications, equivalence, citizens’ rights, consumer protection and pet passports, there is nothing. I was asked recently about what would happen to a UK national working and living abroad who, for example, retires back to the UK in 10 years’ time, after the cut-off for the temporary measures, with his or her EU spouse and children. Will that family be able to return with the British national? The fact that these questions are still being asked is testimony to the amount of uncertainty remaining.

The Statement is very UK-focused, with no mention of the challenges to the Crown dependencies, nor indeed to Gibraltar, which has had to issue a technical notice warning that while EU goods will hopefully still be imported with the same processes, anything from Britain will have to be checked into the EU through a border post and checked back out again. While I welcome the chance to ask about the challenges our exporters, importers, ports and customs face, we should not pretend that this covers everything, nor that everything is done and dusted.

From the Statement, we have learned of the risk of 7,000 lorries in Kent. In order to help visualise this, my honourable friend Kevin Brennan helpfully pictured it as a single line from Dover to Westminster. Clearly, the Government do not want them all in Kent, so they are introducing a “Kent access permit”, which I guess is today’s equivalent of a “Passport to Pimlico”—presumably with Michael Gove as today’s Stanley Holloway. It is unclear how these access permits will be policed, because there can hardly be a “ring of steel” around the county. Can the Minister therefore tell the House how many roads go into Kent, how many police will be needed to carry out the checks and where he envisages finding the extra police, as I presume that others will not have the authority to halt or turn back an otherwise legal lorry? Can he also outline how these measures will prioritise perishable goods and key degradable items such as radioisotopes and medical products, and just-in-time supply chains?

Given that much of the documentation required will be electronic, it could easily continue within lorries en route, so it may not be complete when they enter Kent but would be finalised by Dover. How is that going to be policed? Once in Kent, the lorries may still have to go to the yet-to-be-built lorry parks the Government are planning in 29 local authority areas, without bothering to consult residents. What are the costs of the lorry parks and their staffing? Are those included in the costs noted for “the border” because they will be inland?

Mr Gove has said that

“we have invested in the sites in Ebbsfleet and North Weald, Ashford, Warrington and the west midlands … we are working with the Welsh Assembly Government to invest in a facility near Holyhead in Anglesey.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 969.]

When will these sites be ready and what are the costs?

It is no good telling business to act now without information or systems in place. They are pleading for the details to which they need to work. The Statement says:

“Every business trading with Europe will need to … familiarise itself with the new customs procedures”.


Quite so, but they do not know what those new procedures are. The food and drink industry would love to be ready for Brexit but there is no guidance about what labels businesses will need to use to sell their goods legally into the EU and Northern Ireland next year. As I mentioned in Grand Committee yesterday, this applies particularly to the organic sector.

The Government need to explain why on earth all the essential prerequisites for a smooth transition are not already here. The Statement talks of £700 million for infrastructure and new technology, 1,000 extra staff, £80 million to help businesses, plus a new information campaign; all on top of what has already been spent—more than £4 billion, according to the NAO—including on staff, external advice and advertising. In addition, we still have the cost of Mr Grayling’s non-existent ferries and other no-deal preparations. The Minister may not have the answer today but will he write to me with the full, total costs of government expenditure needed for the change to our trading arrangements?

The Government also acknowledge that there will be some £7 billion worth of additional bureaucracy for businesses. Can the Minister also write with the full cost to the Government and to business of all the changes that will be needed? It would also be interesting to see alongside those costs an estimate of how many years before those “great prizes” and export opportunities mentioned in the Statement pay off all the investment of the change before we are able to reap the real benefit.

I have a specific question for the Minister. The Statement says that our new trade deals will

“help developing nations to grow faster”

and provide “lower prices for consumers”. Can he explain how that will happen and why only now it becomes possible? We would love to see both outcomes—developing nations growing faster and lower prices for consumers—but I fear that it might simply mean less being done, lower standards and less protection for the environment. To reassure me that that is not the case, perhaps the Minister could explain how that is achievable in a less harmful way. If he has time, he might like to put on record the Government’s response to the latest LSE/UK in a Changing Europe view, published today, that the economic cost of no-deal could be two or three times as bad as the impact of Covid.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am not sure whether to sympathise with the Minister for having to defend a Statement with which he cannot entirely agree, to admire his loyalty in following each step the Government take towards a harder break with the EU than was ever hinted at by the Vote Leave campaign in the referendum, or to be appalled by his willingness to swallow the shifty rationalisations of the Johnson-Cummings-Gove cabal.

Yesterday in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord True, attacked the European Union for challenging

“the United Kingdom’s well-established position on state aid”.—[Official Report, 23/9/20; col. GC 506.]

True or false? I asked two friends in the City if they knew what the Government’s established policy on state aid was and they burst out laughing at the idea that there is any clear policy. The interview that Lynton Crosby gave the Financial Times on Monday helped me to understand the Government’s current position. He said that

“in negotiations like this you need a little bit of crazy to keep your opponents guessing”.

I thought, “Ah, this is the art of the deal. The Donald Trump approach to negotiation—monster your opponents, talk tough, insist that they act reasonably, and either they will compromise further than they intended to or you can walk away and blame them for the failure. It is the Johnson-Trump playbook.” If the Statement is an attempt to bluff the EU into believing that we are well prepared for a no-deal outcome, it is clearly a failure. It shows that we are woefully unprepared and is an attempt to shift the blame onto business and potentially on to the French and Belgian Governments.

It has been clear to almost everyone concerned with the UK’s external trade since Theresa May’s Government decided to leave the single market that the channel ports would pose problems, except that Dominic Raab did not realise that and Boris Johnson did not bother to think about it. It was also clear that it would take well over a year to create the new infrastructure needed and to recruit and train the additional staff. Yet, here we are, 100 days short of 2021, and the Statement deplores a “lack of business preparedness”. The rest of us deplore the lack of government preparedness. The same mixture of incompetence, ideology and negligence that has marked the Government’s approach to Covid-19 marks their approach to the channel ports.

The same sweeping aside of inconvenient facts marks Ministers’ handling of the Irish border. The British Academy held its first seminar on the problem of the Irish border if the UK were to leave the EU in March 2016, attended by officials, among others. Yet the Prime Minister now claims that in October 2019, three years later, he still did not understand the complexity of the issue. The Statement refers to hundreds more Border Force staff “being recruited now”. Why were they not recruited months ago? How many of the additional Border Force and customs personnel required will be fully trained and in post by 1 January, and how many are still being recruited or trained?

The Statement refers to new technology being important. Is this now being fully tested and will it be in working order on 1 January? The Statement refers to “queues” and “associated disruption and delay” in Dover, at least for the first six months. What arrangements have been made to ensure that fresh food, vegetables and fish are not delayed beyond the point where they are spoiled, which would lead to shortages in British supermarkets? Can the Minister explain what is meant by the warning that

“if our neighbours decline to be pragmatic”

we will face the worst circumstances? Do we demand that the French and Belgians decline to enforce their own border checks because we are not ready to enforce our own? Is this the Trump-Johnson playbook again: “We are unreasonable but will pin the blame for chaos on you, unless you help get us out of the mess”?

The noble Lord, Lord True, will now defend Michael Gove’s extraordinary Statement with his weasel words about an “exit on Australian terms” and his fantasies about how a “truly sovereign state” may behave. I hope that there will come a point where the noble Lord will consider that his self-respect as a Conservative requires him not to follow Johnson and Cummings’s efforts further down the road to alternative reality and fake facts, be true to his best instincts instead and follow the principled example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.

EU: Future Relationship

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lessons for life at the beginning and for his update. However, I am particularly pleased that the wording that he chose for the debate is about the Government’s approach to the talks, given how very sadly the Government have managed to undermine trust—the trust that guarantees that “my word is my bond”. Well beyond our relationship with the EU, these tactics will affect our international relations beyond trade to “diplomacy and integrity”, in the words of our DPRR Committee. How the UK is seen globally, and whether we respect international law, affects our credibility, our moral authority and how other countries behave. It will also affect how Parliament is seen. As my PhD supervisor, and renowned Westminster watcher, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, mused to me, “All these years I’ve naively assumed that Parliament exists to make laws, not break them.”

Today, I want to touch on four points: obedience to the rule of law; state aid; UK citizens; and devolution. As Mrs May, other former Prime Ministers and Conservative Party leaders have stressed, disregard for the rule of law undermines trust in us as a nation, with the Government’s own chilling words, to

“disapply international and domestic law”.

To the outside world, renouncing of established international law or a treaty matters for the future. No. 10’s statement that

“unless the EU agree to each of the UK’s demands in the joint committee, the UK will breach the withdrawal agreement,”

will be quoted around the world, to the detriment of a rules-based international order. The Prime Minister says he will renege on the very detail he himself signed, by removing checks from the GB/NI border if no deal is reached, but why did he not see that that is what he signed up to?

Late last year, the Prime Minister told firms that they could put forms “in the bin” because they would not be needed. We told him checks would be needed. Northern Ireland politicians told him. The Road Haulage Association told him. As we have heard from the Minister, the Trader Support Service has been set up to help this. Over £500 million has been allocated to the system for moving goods into Northern Ireland, as they will need customs declarations—indeed, Fujitsu has won the contract to help with this. His own Cabinet Office wrote to the Northern Ireland Executive about new border posts at ports in Belfast, Warrenpoint and Larne, for checks on agri-food. How come the Prime Minister professes not to know this and moved a Bill giving Ministers power to disapply Article 10 of the protocol unilaterally, by regulation, breaching Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement?

Foreign Governments, with whom we will need to negotiate, hear Mr Johnson threaten to break the withdrawal agreement if he does not get his own way—a breach of the UK’s commitment, in Article 5, to implement it

“in full mutual respect and good faith”.

Those foreign Governments witness our Government unpicking their own “oven-ready” deal, jeopardising trust in our willingness to keep to the rules and keep our word. What does this do to the trust that we will need when we negotiate around the world?

Along with the Minister, we want a deal with the EU. The City of London Corporation stresses the need for a positive relationship for the sake of households and businesses, wanting close regulatory and supervisory co-operation to make a success of our relationship. Business wants a deal, and at speed, as its needs certainty and time to adjust. Siemens needs to be able to work closely with the EU for its future prosperity and for jobs here. PwC and others urge a deal, not least for our SMEs, which are woefully ill-equipped at the moment for a no-deal outcome. The Food and Drink Federation is aghast at the impact of no-deal procedures on its imports and exports, possibly in 100 days’ time, giving no time for adjustments. It is worse for some sectors—for the organic sector, for example, where, if mutual recognition of regulation is not sorted, it might not be able to sell into Northern Ireland, let alone the rest of the EU.

The economy is already in trouble, so our EU negotiations need to help, not hinder. We need a good deal, tariff-free trade, consumer protection for goods imported from the EU, and no two-day delays and the major back-ups that the Government anticipate. Today, we hear that they are even trying to put the blame on hauliers rather than on their own negotiating failure. Why are the Government willing to sacrifice a good deal, which I and others think is already there and ready to be done, as well as our reputation, on the altar of being able to write our own state aid rules and move away from a level playing field?

On state aid, it is hard to understand why a Government, unwilling to use the freedoms they already have over state aid, would risk a deal for the ability to do more. As it is, the Japan trade deal commits the UK to stricter state aid curbs than those being discussed with the EU. If this is all about tech companies, have not the Government noticed that Silicon Valley did not grow on government handouts? It is the same across the piece. Whether in our negotiations with the USA or any other country, the same questions will arise on environmental, worker, safety or consumer standards and over dispute resolution mechanisms or redress. That is the meat of trade deals.

Thirdly, what does the Government’s approach to the talks mean for our citizens? Those living in the EU and following this delayed “I won’t move” process worry about their status. As Ruth Woodhouse, a Brit living in Spain wrote to me from Malaga:

“UK citizens residing in the EU thought we had secured a relatively good, guaranteed level of protection in the withdrawal deal. However, if the government can tear up the rule book, clearly anything can be changed on a whim and nothing is guaranteed. I fear that our hard-fought rights could be just as easily be removed.”


Yesterday, we learned that thousands of Britons living in the EU were told their UK bank accounts will be closed, with Lloyds, Barclays and others taking action due to the lack of a post-Brexit trade deal. It is no easier for employees, with JP Morgan sending staff off to other EU capitals, due to lack of confidence that an agreement will arise on services. Jobs, money and people’s lives are all at risk because the Government are failing to negotiate.

Without a deal, there will be trouble for travellers, whether by air or sea. When the police imposed full border checks at channel ports last week—nothing to do with Brexit—the main road to London was snarled up within hours, with trucks parked up on the M20 motorway, a reminder of how any delay quickly causes chaos and will not solved by lorry parks across Kent or, indeed, around Holyhead.

Finally, the UK’s approach to the talks has challenged the devolution settlements, by excluding the devolved Governments from its thinking and talks. We see it in the internal market Bill described by the Welsh Government as,

“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

I remind the Minister that it is not just the referendum result that should be recognised but those votes for devolution. Indeed, the treatment of the Welsh Government led to the resignation of the Conservative MS, David Melding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, just as the Welsh Government felt offended because they were not consulted on the internal markets Bill, and because the powers that it gave to the Government took away from the devolution settlement, there is a similar feeling about these talks, because they have been neither fully involved nor consulted in the Government’s discussions with the EU. Do the Government not see that every time they upset the devolved Administrations, that challenges the very future of the union?

The economic disruption of leaving the transitional period without an agreement, or indeed with a deal which falls short of the Government’s promises, would worsen the hit already caused to the country by Covid-19. We have left the EU but it remains our closest neighbour and most important trading partner. We still share a continent in which security and judicial co-operation help to keep all our people safe. The Government’s approach to negotiations is weakening rather than strengthening our ties and mutual trust, and is therefore to be regretted.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Lord Wallace? We might have a chance to come back to him later. In the meantime, I call the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Lord Kerr? Oh, there are some technical difficulties. We will adjourn until they are sorted out.