Covid-19: Restrictions
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
I will look into the matter raised by the noble Baroness. Whenever somebody receives a shielding letter, the advice will be to observe the guidance in it. However, I repeat that that advice is currently under review. That will be the case for all those who have received a letter. If necessary, it will be updated, or reaffirmed, by the end of June.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Conservatives seem a bit confused about older people. They raised the pension age to 67 and Iain Duncan Smith now wants it raised to 70. Meanwhile, Ministers tell those aged 70 plus not to go out, even those who are fit and healthy, who look after grandchildren, who work and have an active life. At the same time, they leave the generations that fought the war under- resourced and underprotected against Covid-19. Will the Minister please listen to relevant representatives—not just scientists—of older people, both those in need of care and those whose health and independence give them much to contribute? Will he undertake that those talks will take place?
Lord True
My Lords, the Government are talking with people, scientists and organisations right along the front. The noble Baroness injected a political note into this question, which I thought unfortunate. All parties should share in the aspiration to protect those she rightly describes as the most precious in our community, who have served the country longest. That is why the advice is in place. As I have said, that advice will be reviewed and further announcements made before the end of June.
Beyond Brexit (European Union Committee Report)
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this was a farsighted report. It was produced over a year ago, and although today the world feels quite different—we have left the EU and we see the impact of the virus on both our economy and the talks, which were delayed and have now become virtual—nevertheless, the thrust of its analysis remains pertinent, despite the Government having dropped their plans for
“an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”,
and a move away from the October political declaration, signed by the Prime Minister, of which we have heard today. Furthermore, many of the 2019 report’s actors have changed, so it was David Frost, not a Minister, who was at the Zoom conference today negotiating the UK’s diplomatic, security and trading future.
The pandemic reminds us how global our future is and how important international co-operation needs to be. The historian, the late Michael Howard, said that
“all difficult problems must be addressed with partners and allies”,
while, in one of the most moving moments on VE Day, the German President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, looking back 75 years to when Germany was so alone, said,
“for us Germans … ‘never again’ means ‘never again alone’ ... We want more cooperation around the world, not less”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said in introducing the debate, this is no time to pull up the drawbridge. Although social distancing is important, conscious political self-isolation will never be a long-term goal. The report that the noble Lord chaired urged the Government to engage with the remaining EU member states to seek to establish mechanisms for regular bilateral dialogue. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether this has happened.
Britain stands on the brink of the worst recession since 1709, with huge implications for the type of deal that the Government should be negotiating, perhaps with a different trade deal from that envisaged a year ago, especially as the US—the potential market identified by the Prime Minister—becomes ever more protectionist, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. We want to hear that our approach to the future deal is pragmatic and jobs- and economy-oriented, taking account of the likely reduction in air transport to the US and other distant markets. Can the Minister reassure us on that?
I do not need to repeat that one of the thorniest issues of Brexit—how to keep the Irish border free of checkpoints after Britain leaves the single market— has not been resolved. Throughout the UK, it is the implementation as well as the content of the final deal that is alarming business, farmers, lawyers, accountants and consumers.
With our EU exit having been moved from March 2019 to January this year since the report was written, the preparations for the agreed term is therefore shorter than the two years initially foreseen. The current deadline is not simply, in the Government’s words, June to start preparing for no deal but 31 December, when all the customs posts and tariffs must be in place, to say nothing of the paperwork. The Government, we hear, are training 50,000 form-fillers via Mr Gove’s customs agent academy.
The previous Secretary of State promised full and proper accountability to Parliament. He said that Parliament rightly expects that Ministers will be fully accountable to Parliament in the exercise of their duties on the future relationship joint committee. However, since the Prime Minister has taken political control of the talks, he has shown precious little inclination to report back and has failed to share the Government’s drafts either with Parliament as a whole or with a limited, confidential grouping of Parliament, or even, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reminded us, with the 27 member states.
The Prime Minister also has failed to accord the devolved Administrations their proper role, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris said. Despite a Written Answer I received from the Minister yesterday committing the Government to
“working closely with the devolved administrations throughout negotiations to secure a future relationship that works in the interests of the whole of the UK”,
I am told that engagement with the devolved Administrations has been superficial and tokenistic. They have not had sight of the legal texts and have had no opportunity to feed in meaningfully to the negotiating positions, even on issues which will fall to them to implement. Jeremy Miles, for the Welsh Government, called the engagement “deficient”, and while a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations will take place later this month, it will be the first such meeting since January, and this at a time of supposedly intense negotiations.
Gibraltar also raises big issues at this stage of the negotiations. It has already faced having to make seismic and costly adaptations with only a very short transition period, but this is now compounded by the huge impact of Covid-19. It will be critical for Gibraltar to have some sort of cushion or breathing space, given it has had to borrow vast sums to handle the crisis. Indeed, should the 14-day quarantine cover Gibraltar, unlike Ireland, there could be added tensions with Spain or about the future deal.
In addition to Parliament’s role vis-à-vis government is the call by the new chair of the EU Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for a structured inter-parliamentary dialogue as part of the future relationship. We look forward to the Minister’s response as to how the Government and Parliament can work to establish such an inter-parliamentary body.
We hear that the talks are not making good progress, with substantial differences between the two sides on the level playing field, fishing and much else, and with EU officials wary of British efforts to make rapid headway on securing a trade agreement, retaining access to the aviation market and other core UK concerns, while leaving fishing and other issues in the slow lane. Yet again, the Government seem to be scaling back their ambition for a UK-EU trade deal. First, we were promised the “exact same benefits” as EU membership, then Canada-plus-plus-plus, and now Michael Gove has confirmed that the aim is any deal which gives them the power to reduce employment and environmental standards. This approach puts ideology before jobs and our economy, as well as straining our ability to secure a good deal by December. A deal with tariffs on some goods would be significantly more complex to negotiate than the status quo of zero tariffs and zero quotas, and raises serious issues for the Northern Ireland protocol.
Therefore, can the Minister assure the House that, whatever it takes, our exit from the transition will be on terms that benefit our whole economy, our security and—vitally—our future relationship with the EU and its member states?
Census (England and Wales) Order 2020
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome this draft instrument. It contains lots of positives, as we made clear when we debated the issues before, including the additional questions on military service, which is of course particularly pertinent in this week of commemorating VE Day, although of course before VJ Day. We are also aware of the millions who have served since then.
We are also pleased to see the voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity, together with that on Roma people. Indeed, Roma people are now the most disadvantaged in the country, so it is encouraging to see their inclusion as a crucial step forward in data collection and the resource allocation to their community. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. However, the addition of that tick box in the ethnicity section brings us to the one contentious issue today: the lack of an equivalent tick box for Sikh people in addition to that in the religious option.
I have read the debate held on this issue in the Commons and listened carefully to the Minister’s introduction today, and two questions remain unanswered. First, why exactly was that recommendation decided on by the ONS, given, as we have heard, the recognition by the House of Lords of Sikhs as an ethnic group back in 1983, the 83,000 writings received in the last census, and the feedback received from over 100 gurdwaras? This is not necessarily to say that the ONS got it wrong and I assume that it had good reasons. However, neither its report nor the White Paper have convinced either the federation or the MPs representing Sikh areas. In her response in the other place, the Minister failed to explain that, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord True, can make a better fist of it today. It is vital for the confidence of the Sikh community in the outcome of the census.
Secondly, and vitally, if it is the case that 12% of Sikhs, which represents 50,000 or more people according to ONS modelling, could be missing from these datasets, and given that it is on the basis of the census that it is ethnic rather than religious data on which 40,000 public bodies decide on the allocation of resources and use it to assess their responsibilities under equalities legislation, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Dubs, how will the Government ensure that suitable corrections are made so that this large and vital community gets its fair share of appropriate services and is not discriminated against through the absence of proper data?
How do the Government plan to address the inequalities that we sadly see in Sikh communities while we lack accurate data? Do they recognise that the chronic statistical underreporting of communities such as the Sikh population could allow discrimination to go unnoticed? Indeed, will the Minister comment on the point raised about the Scottish Government’s decision to add a prompt for Sikhs as well as for Jewish people to their own regulation?
We welcome the census because in this time of rapid social change we welcome the availability of up-to-date information. Indeed, as I warned the Minister earlier, I will shortly start campaigning, no doubt along with the noble Lords, Lord Balfe, Lord Naseby, Lord Bourne, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Clark of Windermere, to ensure that we do not lose this vital source of rich, granular data in 2031. For the moment, however, we need all sections of the community to have faith in the census, and the Minister’s answers to the debate today will be important.
House of Lords: Membership
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, there are a number of questions there which I am sure have been noted. I am sorry if my noble friend thinks it is only the second division that has come out to answer the Question, but I think the second division is adequate to put paid to a third-rate story. There is no substance in it. It is not the intention of the Government to introduce such a policy.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
In the light of that answer, would the Minister ask the Leader of the House, who is meant to represent the whole of the House of Lords, to put in her own words in the public domain, either through a statement or press release, the answer that has just been given, which is that there are no plans of this nature? Could the Minister give us that undertaking and say why on earth anyone in Whitehall is thinking about reform of this House at the moment, rather than the national emergency facing us?
Lord True
My Lords, I have stated on the record the position of the Government—I am sure that any number of Ministers could do the same—and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will be following our proceedings. The current total priority and focus of this Government is to deal with the Covid-19 emergency. I assure the noble Baroness that, were such an idea ever to be suggested, it would be given the very lowest priority.
Public Services: Update
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating yesterday’s Statement. He will know that we share the Government’s aim to save lives and rebuild our economy and well-being. In this context, there is much in the Statement that we applaud, particularly its acknowledgment of the role of volunteers, the health service, food growers and retailers, pharmacists, care workers, educators, charities, the police and the military. I would also add the BBC and indeed Ministers and civil servants, who have had to respond to previously unimaginable demands.
Unlike anything we have ever seen, this crisis has literally involved every single one of us. It is a national challenge like no other. We therefore have a population who are part and parcel of the country’s response and, in return, we owe it to them to be honest and transparent about the risks, the difficult trade-offs, the certainties and uncertainties, the data, and what the Government are actually doing, and planning to do. The Prime Minister, on his return to Downing Street from Chequers, pledged to act with “maximum possible transparency”. We therefore hope that we will soon have reliable data on the rate of BAME infections and deaths—an issue of major concern to our Caribbean and Asian communities.
We very much welcome that, from today, the statistics will include deaths in care homes and in the community, as well as those in hospitals. This is right in itself, but it is particularly important because of the numbers involved—perhaps 19,000 Covid-related deaths; a near tripling of the number of deaths in care homes over three weeks—and because of the failure to ensure that these people in society’s care, and the staff who look after them, were properly protected with equipment and testing. This is no time to look backwards and consider why that was, but it is time to look forward and ensure that the situation is remedied. This is especially true as it looks as if the UK’s overall coronavirus death rate could outstrip that of Italy, France and Spain, and may even be the highest in Europe.
We need the Government to take all necessary steps, and that includes heeding the very wise words “to underpromise and overdeliver, rather than overpromise and underdeliver”—as we saw, I am afraid, with PPE and testing. The Cabinet Office has a key role in this, not just on procurement, as mentioned quite rightly by the Minister, but on cross-departmental working and liaison, ensuring that lessons are learned as speedily as they are in the medical world, where advances in treatment of the virus in one week are disseminated around the health service profession by the following Monday. The Cabinet Office has a similar role in ensuring that everyone knows the lessons being learned elsewhere.
The Cabinet Office also has a role to ensure that all our citizens are fully informed about what is happening and what is being discussed. In that context, could the Minister explain why, if the Welsh, Scottish and indeed other Governments can ensure that signers are available and on-screen in daily press conferences, somehow No. 10 cannot quite arrange this? It can easily be done at a distance and so not break social distancing rules. Our deaf communities feel very strongly that they are being excluded from daily updates.
Going forward, plans to test and trace will affect all sectors of society, including those with a disability, and we will need every agency to help inform, encourage, test, safeguard and trace. That is a real cross-government task, involving local government, devolved authorities, charities—especially those working with the vulnerable—service providers, civic society, businesses and trade unions.
Until now, there have been some forgotten groups in all this, such as those who receive care in their own homes and domiciliary care staff. All these people must get the PPE that they need, and social care must be properly funded to deal with the extra costs of the pandemic.
These are some of the “here and now” issues, but we also need a viable and sustainable national recovery plan, which I assume will be Cabinet Office-led. For these next decisions, involvement across the piece is needed, not simply to help craft those plans, but to ensure that businesses, schools and other organisations have time to prepare, such that the infection rates do not increase again. Transparency and consultation will be vital, so will the Government publish their next- steps framework?
We stand ready to help—it is in the national interest—to ensure that the NHS, public services, businesses, workers, families and communities recover and become more resilient. But we need to understand, and contribute to, the Government’s thinking, so we ask that there is that involvement. Will the Government agree to hold talks with teachers, trade unions, businesses, charities and local authorities on how their forward strategy can be developed and implemented to rebuild the economy and jobs?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I, too, welcome this Statement and the remarkable change of tone it contains about public sector workers used by Conservative Ministers and advisers until a few weeks ago. Last December’s Conservative manifesto, and even more the writings of Conservative advisers such as Dominic Cummings and Rachel Wolf, condemned the Civil Service as “incompetent” and wasteful, as ignorant about science and looking after their own interests rather than the public as a whole.
Happily, Ministers have now realised that civil servants and others across the public sector believe in the concept of public service, which right-wing libertarians and public choice economists have rubbished for so long. Across our entire public service, from the NHS to the police and military to Whitehall and local authorities, we have seen people rising to the challenge, moving jobs to help others, and working all hours. Many of them, we should also recognise, are far more modestly paid than their equivalents in the private sector, but they have shown their commitment and their loyalty to the communities they serve.
I am glad to see the reference to local resilience forums, and the recognition that this is a series of local crises across the country as well as a national crisis. I hope that this will persuade the Government to reverse their marginalisation of local authorities and to recognise the vital contribution that effective local government makes to a thriving democracy. I was struck when I read the section on democracy and political reform in last December’s Conservative manifesto that it contained no reference at all to local democracy. I hope that the Minister will argue for its inclusion in the agenda for the constitution, democracy and human rights commission which the Government have promised to set up this year.
The Statement expresses gratitude to
“to colleagues from the devolved Administrations for their participation and their constructive contributions to all our discussions. Those discussions have helped us to understand how the virus has affected every part of our United Kingdom.”
Can the Minister tell the House how the Government have ensured that they have understood the impact on every part of the UK, given that the large majority of the UK’s population lives in England and that there appears to have been no visible mechanism for consultation with the English regions or even with the city mayors from outside London?
The Minister mentioned that the military has now been brought in to help out with logistics but also with expanding testing for the virus. The Statement does not explain why the initial programme of testing was contracted out to a large private consultancy firm: a contract which, the Daily Telegraph has reported, was awarded without the normal tendering process. Was that because of an instinctive Conservative assumption that the private sector is always better than the public sector? The underutilisation of the first testing centres, reported and repeated difficulties with the booking system, and the apparent assumption that all care and health workers had access to their own cars and had time to drive up to 50 miles to be tested all show this to have been one of the weakest aspects of the response to the epidemic. I am glad that the military have now been brought in to expand testing. Why were they not brought in at the outset? My own experience in government, dealing with the digitisation of Whitehall, suggested that outside consultancies often charge more and deliver less.
The Statement refers also to the redeployment of a large number of civil servants across Whitehall to cope with the crisis. What other tasks of government have had to be put on hold as a result? I understand, for example, that the Government’s promised White Paper on data strategy, for which the Minister is responsible to the Lords, is now several months behind schedule, since officials had been transferred; first, to help with preparation for Brexit and now to respond to the epidemic. I understand that officials working on the Brexit negotiations have also been redeployed in response to the epidemic. Will the Minister commit to informing the House in the near future whether the team negotiating Brexit is still sufficiently staffed to handle the complex negotiations that we are engaged in or whether the demands of this emergency will enforce a change of pace if we are to avoid confusion or failure?
Finally, I welcome very warmly the Government’s tribute to
“the stoicism and steadfastness, the hard work and heroism, the compassion and commitment of those working at the front line of public service.”
We all make that tribute, and long may the Government’s change of tone continue.
European Union: Future Relationship
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. As he said, there were 40 sessions of negotiations last week , but I am afraid that we heard from both sides about the difficulties and the lack of progress. There was even a slight hint of bad faith—this at a time when there are dire consequences to our trade and finance because of Covid. Given that the Government’s chief negotiator is not a Minister and so is not answerable to Parliament, can this Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, confirm that the Government are genuinely prioritising a deal, as envisaged in the political declaration? Will he give serious consideration to releasing the legal texts that he has mentioned to assist the House in its work? Can he also say whether the Prime Minister’s original Brexit blueprint has in any way changed in the light of the new economic circumstances?
Lord True
My Lords, there were several questions there, but it is always welcome to hear from the noble Baroness. The Government are determined to reach a constructive and amicable relationship with the EU, to maintain that and to reach an amicable agreement. These negotiations have only just begun. There were good areas of convergence in the first discussions, as well as areas of disagreement; that is normal in a negotiation. On legal texts, we have always said that we would consider whether it is appropriate to publish certain documents during the course of negotiations and whether it is useful to make them available more widely. However, those decisions will be taken at the appropriate time.
House of Lords: Membership
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, on the first point, it is a matter for your Lordships’ House. We have had two follow-up reports from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Lord Speaker, which have been very informative and helpful. As far as a specific number is concerned, the previous Prime Minister did not commit to that; nor I think will this one.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to two out, one in, there is the issue of the hereditary Peers having a different policy: one out, one in. Given that the Leader of the House got agreement before our recent Recess to postpone hereditary by-elections until September, would it now be possible to suspend all such by-elections as they arise, so that we are at least working towards two out, one in, rather than the hereditary Peer system of one out, one in?
Lord True
No, my Lords. This matter has been given extensive debate—I think “extensive” is a fair word in the context of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The Government’s position remains that reform of the House of Lords should be considered at the due and appropriate time, and not conducted in a piecemeal fashion.
EU: Negotiations
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contingencies they have put in place in the event of any delay to the negotiations with the European Union due to COVID-19.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are giving the highest priority to the welfare of all citizens—and, indeed, those of friendly nations—in the coronavirus crisis. Given the latest developments, we are of course in regular contact with the European Commission to explore alternative ways to continue discussions and we will be guided by scientific advice.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am pleased about that last comment, because we need not just Brexit but the right Brexit. This week’s talks have been cancelled because of Covid-19, and the attention of not only our Government but all the EU Governments is on that crisis. I ask the Government to take account of that, and of the fact that businesses are concentrating more on their survival than on preparations that they will have to make for the end of the transition. Should it become advisable not to walk out of the talks in June if we have not made enough progress, will the Government not be hidebound by their repeated holding on to a particular date and, if necessary, allow the talks to continue? With this global crisis, surely it is important to get the right Brexit, not just a rapid one.
European Union: Negotiations (European Union Committee Report)
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
At end insert “and notes the undertaking of Her Majesty’s Government in paragraph 40 of the Department for International Trade’s summary of responses to a public consultation on trade negotiations with the United States, published on 18 July 2019, to ‘draw on the expertise and experience of Parliamentarians’ by working with a parliamentary committee which would be afforded ‘access to sensitive information’ during the process, before taking a ‘comprehensive and informed position on the final agreement’; and therefore calls on Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that, in a manner consistent with the European Commission’s treatment of the European Parliament, both Houses of Parliament are able to receive regular updates from ministers, scrutinise all relevant policy documents and legal texts, and debate the terms of emerging agreements, as negotiations on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union progress.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this is a timely debate. It is two days before the second round of face-to-face negotiations was due to open in London. As we know, the negotiations cancelled because of the virus, a matter of serious national concern. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has just set out, there were also these EU talks, which are matters of vital national interest.
Despite the description clearly and persuasively set out in the report, our Government seem curiously shy about the content, unlike the EU side: while Monsieur Barnier had a press conference and took questions after round one, this Parliament had a 200-word Written Statement and no discussion in either Chamber until today. I am thankful to our brilliant EU committee, the Bill Cash amendment and the Chief Whip, who agreed to table the Government’s Command Paper for debate. It is this reluctance to engage with Parliament that leads to my amendment.
It is somewhat strange that a civil servant rather than a Minister has been sent out to bat for Britain in these talks. I am sure that Mr Frost, who likes to quote Edmund Burke, is excellent. However, as a Member of neither House, he is neither here nor there to explain or be questioned. Is it not shameful that our Government hide behind him to avoid accountability and debate?
In their response to an earlier consultation about discussions with the US, the Government promised
“to draw on the expertise and experience of Parliamentarians”
by working with a parliamentary committee that would be afforded “access to sensitive information” during the process. This would, in the Government’s words, enable Members to take an
“informed position on the final agreement”
before being asked to ratify.
That is what we are requesting for the EU negotiations: this Parliament should have the same access as that given by the European Commission to the European Parliament, receiving regular updates from Ministers, as well as seeing relevant documents and legal texts. Our debates would therefore inform the UK negotiators and ensure that at the end of the process we have a treaty acceptable to the Government and the Commons, who have to agree it.
The report of the EU committee was brilliant. It did all the work that the rest of us would otherwise have had to do. From the Command Paper in the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, it is clear why we need such dialogue, given the disparity between the opening gambits of the two sides and the shift in the Government’s stand since the political declaration signed by the Prime Minister in October and ratified on 31 January this year. As the Financial Times noted,
“the longer Prime Minister Boris Johnson holds power, the faster Brexit is evolving into a project more extreme than most British people”
anticipated
“at the time of the … referendum”.
No wonder Monsieur Barnier said that “very serious divergences” had emerged and, as we have heard, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about the widening gap.
I shall mention only a handful of issues, as other speakers have much more experience in dealing with some of the very thorny issues on the path towards a settlement satisfactory to both sides. My first point is about the tone of the Government’s paper. “Mean spirited” is the kindest way I can describe it. It goes on and on, saying, “We’ll only do what’s fair to us”—as if any sovereign state would settle for anything less. It reiterates again and again its hang-up about any contamination by the ECJ, while at the same time proposing no ideas on dispute resolution that do not use that sort of mechanism It repeats five times that various of the elements will not be subject to the Chapter 32 dispute resolution mechanism, which itself excludes the ECJ. It goes on and on about what we will not accept, but offers no ideas about what to put in its place.
That abhorrence of the ECJ means that we will even pull out of EASA, to the consternation of ADS, the aerospace industry and every specialist carrier and business involved. They all see this as a threat to the very future of the air sector. Similar prejudice about the ECJ undermines our withdrawal from the EMA and from the Early Warning and Response System, which is particularly significant at this moment.
Secondly, the crucial, and possibly the most problematic, issue is fair competition and the level playing field. Competitiveness is good for consumers, who get a better deal; it is good for business and good for the economy. The competition remit of the EU has driven much of its focus and much of the bloc’s economic growth. As we leave that regime, it will be imperative that the UK strengthen its competition authorities, as disturbance of trade could lead to less competition, and greater opportunities for rip-offs.
In addition, after December the UK will face major cross-border competition and merger cases. This is urgent, and demands Ministers’ attention now. Following the CMA’s proposals for new duties to put consumers first and to act quickly, and the Conservative manifesto’s welcome commitment to provide those powers, can the Minister update the House as to whether such legislation, to end rip-offs and bad business practice, will be introduced, when it will be introduced, and also assure us that it will be in time to be effective from January next year?
Thirdly, the Government say that they want no tariffs, charges or restrictions, but this would mean shared standards, recognised enforcement, independent checks and a level playing field. EU countries are hardly going to accept our goods tariff-free if they are produced to lower standards, or simply by paying workers less.
The Government have finally admitted that no alignment means checks, costs and paperwork. Indeed, we hear that 50,000 extra pairs of hands will be needed across the piece—a number well in excess of the 32,000 employed by the European Commission. Unsurprisingly, British Chambers of Commerce is calling for more funding for customs agents, as declarations on goods will rise from 55 million to 300 million a year from January. Oh, and by the way, the NAO reckons that we have already spent £4 billion on Brexit preparations —with, of course, more to come.
Fourthly, turning to financial services, the Government plan to streamline how firms are regulated, raising concerns in Brussels that Brexit will allow London to reduce oversight of the industry. Trillions are at stake if the EU, perhaps as a result, decides to deny the UK so-called equivalence. As Michel Barnier has said, granting access to EU financial markets is a unilateral decision so there will be dialogue but no negotiations. I wonder whether the tone of our language and apparent light-touch regulation will damage the chances of a satisfactory outcome.
Fifthly, the Government’s document fails to include a demand that that UK tourists should be able to travel to the EU visa-free, despite other Statements referencing that. It is slightly hard to imagine why that is not in this important Command Paper.
In addition to what my amendment is about—dialogue with this Parliament—there is the crucial issue of the involvement of devolved authorities. I hope it was simply an error when on 27 February, the noble Lord, Lord True, said:
“We will keep the devolved Administrations informed”.—[Official Report, 27/02/18; col. 287.]
That is not good enough. Involvement is needed, not just information.
The Welsh Government have tried to reach agreement with the UK Government to facilitate a united position as we enter the negotiations. However, Welsh Ministers had no early involvement in negotiating objectives and saw the text less than a week before publication, with a mere telephone conference with Ministers hours before the Cabinet sign-off. Ever since the referendum, the Government have consistently ignored, as we have repeatedly said in this House, the terms of reference of the JMC(EN) which require it to seek agreement on negotiation positions with the devolved Governments. This does not bode well for the future negotiations where the devolved regions have particular concerns, be they over agriculture, non-tariff barriers, regional and economic development, or other things, and those must be central to the Government’s thinking.
This side of the House continues to worry that the Government will either accept no deal or else something as bad as no deal. The document itself threatens that if by June there does not appear to be the outline of an agreement which could be finalised by September, then the UK should move from negotiating to preparing for a no-deal exit. Michael Gove has been telling business groups that, while he wants a Canada-style agreement, they should nevertheless prepare for no deal on 31 December, while Boris Johnson has said he was prepared to walk away from talks in June if there was insufficient progress. No wonder the EU committee said that this raises matters of vital national interest. So it is imperative that Parliament is not shut out; my amendment is about dialogue and engagement with Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I fear that the noble Baroness is a little enthusiastic in jumping in before I have concluded setting out my rationale for why I think that this is not analogous. I will not go into “taking back control” because we are a bicameral Parliament and the European Parliament is not, so it is a different entity entirely.
As the EU institutions practise in an area of trade policy that is not analogous, there is a distinction between straightforward trade agreements and mixed agreements, with differing procedures as the CETA debacle apropos Wallonia demonstrates. I remind noble Lords that CETA remains a provisional agreement; as yet it has not been ratified by all member states. So I would argue that how the Commission works through blockages is still a work in progress. My prediction is that the EU will find it increasingly difficult to pass the kind of comprehensive deals with either the US or other large countries that it seeks if such divergent and multiple checks on its autonomy prevail.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s question about the UK Parliament and the attempt to replicate the European Parliament’s powers here. One singular distinction is that we are bicameral and the European Parliament is a single Parliament, as I have just reminded her. Moreover, we have an elected Chamber, the Commons, which is similar to the European Parliament, and a further appointed Chamber, the Lords. Were we in the Lords to seek to put up objections to a trade deal that had been agreed by the Commons potentially where the detail may not have formed part of that Government’s manifesto, where would we be if the Commons cleared it but the Lords did not? Moreover, if one takes the EU analogy for mixed agreements and replicates it at national level, is one not saying that the devolved nations should also have a veto on the deal?
I am all for involving the devolved powers in the details of free trade agreements as in the end they have to implement them. The current mechanism for consultation should be improved. Would that be against changing our settlement for reserved matters? If that is the case, I will need to look again.
It seems to me that this ongoing quest for analogous powers to those of the European Parliament on the part of some sides of this House is misguided.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Will the noble Baroness accept that the amendment only asks for access to documents, not for powers over their content?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I will read the wording of the amendment, which
“calls on Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that, in a manner consistent with the European Commission’s treatment of the European Parliament, both Houses … are able to receive regular updates from Ministers”—
and so on. In my view, that goes too far, because it draws the analogy with the European Parliament. I also say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, because I have noticed sections of this House consistently making that analogy.
The noble Baroness may be interested to know that I would seek powers of scrutiny over future trade deals through a Select Committee on international trade—perhaps a Joint Committee of both Houses that would have several and various powers of scrutiny that the Government have said that they are perfectly willing to consider. I see benefits to Parliament, the public and the Government in that pathway, as Governments undoubtedly benefit from the early warning of problems that comes through Select Committees. But ultimately it is the Government’s prerogative to be the sole negotiator of trade agreements and, while the UK should improve its own constitutional arrangements, it should not seek to emulate processes designed for other institutions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I shall not respond to the debate—that is for the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to do. I shall speak only about my amendment. There were some elements of my speech, such as on competition law, to which the Minister could not respond due to a lack of time, but I am sure that he will write to everyone who raised points that he was not able to answer.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I found the Minister’s response on my amendment much more positive than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. However, because of that, I must say something on the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, must have misread the amendment. We are asking not for a veto but for documents. I gave the example of the negotiations with America, where a parliamentary committee was specifically involved. I talked about the documents for both Houses of Parliament, not only the non-elected House. The fact that we are not elected and the European Parliament is seems irrelevant because the documents are for the Commons as well. So let us put that to one side. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, it is more the principle of scrutiny that matters and less the detail of how it is done.
More seriously, I have to respond to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—not to the Minister because his reply was more helpful—who said that the general election and the huge majority to get Brexit done somehow means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, highlighted, that parliamentary scrutiny is neither necessary nor desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, thought that, with a decent majority in the other place, this Government would not listen. That is scary stuff: “We have a majority of 80 and therefore we will do what we like—don’t trouble us.”
But Parliament matters and must not be shut out for two reasons: first, we do not want to reach a situation, when this treaty is ready to be ratified, where Parliament says, “Oh, we don’t like that now that we’ve seen it.” That would put the country in a difficult position. We have got to the negotiations and the dialogue is necessary now so that we do not find the Government taking us down a road that would be unacceptable not only to this House but to the other House. It is also wrong in itself. The idea that because you have an overall majority—we had a much bigger one in 1997—you do not listen to Parliament is highly dangerous.
Perhaps it is different and this is not about the big majority but a fear that the new deal would not stand up to scrutiny. That is just as serious. It is obvious that it has been heard and responded to by the Minister but we will keep talking. Some of us will be sent away because of our age but there will be enough people on these Benches to make sure that if he does not come here, we will bring him back to answer more questions. He is younger than me, so he will have to be here even when I am not. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment to the Motion.
EU: Future Relationship
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his role. He is the fourth Minister covering Brexit that I have faced. Two retired hurt—one fell out of a helicopter, and I think the other fell out with his political masters—although the last left the field having successfully delivered for his Prime Minister. While I wish the noble Lord well, I obviously hope we will be able to persuade him to listen to views other than just those emanating from No. 10.
Somewhat unusually, the lead negotiator—the Minister calls him a Sherpa—is a civil servant, David Frost. He is not a Minister; he is a civil servant, answerable neither to the Commons nor therefore, via a junior, to this House. We therefore welcome the Minister’s confirmation that he will be Mr Frost’s man in this House and report regularly as the negotiations proceed. Perhaps he will speak, or I can do so via him, to the Chief Whip to ensure we can have a proper debate on this document in the near future.
Today’s Statement is, needless to say, on a crucial and vital issue, but sadly I fear it does not bode well, since it leaves us with a query as to whether the PM really wants a deal, or at least whether he is willing to risk no deal simply to please his friends—whether Trump or the ERG—such that he prioritises a US deal over and above one with the EU. Without an EU deal, we would see tariffs, checks and barriers to trade implemented very fast, by January, in a way that would damage the whole economy. The price of a US deal, even if we got one, would be lower consumer standards, workers’ rights being jeopardised, and environmental concerns being downplayed. What would be the purpose of that?
The only reason seems to be the avoidance of the ECJ—a court—and, as we just heard, this reassertion of so-called “sovereignty”, which was mentioned 11 times in the Statement: a bit of a hang-up there. This is an interdependent world, where the value of currencies, confidence in economies, global interest rates, international tax and wage rates all impact on UK businesses every day. The idea that we live in this independent sovereign world unaffected by anything outside is a figment of the imagination. The best way to confront these global uncertainties is to work closely with our nearest partners and as part of a half-billion market to absorb the ups and downs in world trade and to secure a thriving market for UK goods.
Any idea that a deal suitable for a faraway country—3,500 miles in the case of Canada—would suit the sort of trade that we have with a continent 12 miles away at its nearest is surely pure fantasy. Do the Government understand that the imports and exports of meat, cheese, milk, nuclear medicines, flowers, fruit and vegetables depend on short distances, fast travel and a virtually identical time zone for that easy flow of trade? Or that our car manufacturers need rapid supplies of parts as well as exports of finished products which depend on easy access to the continent? Easy means quick and cheap. No wonder the Treasury predicted that a Canada-style free trade agreement would shrink the economy by up to 6.4%.
The Government seem to accept that there will be customs posts, tariffs and checks, and they even occasionally acknowledge that these will be between Northern Ireland and GB. But those cost money to businesses, to consumers, and to the taxpayer. I hope I have read it wrong, but this Statement seems to smack of a negotiating position which is seeking a very distant relationship with the EU, happy to establish barriers for those businesses trying to continue to trade with our largest economic partner. Despite the warm words which the Minister has just repeated, the Government’s commitments on rights, protections and standards, which were written into the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed, now appear to be at risk because the Minister seems to be saying that because some of ours are higher, we can junk all of the commonly agreed minima.
The political declaration promised that the Government would seek a free trade agreement that was underpinned by provisions that ensured a level playing field—the Prime Minister signed that—and safeguarded workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental protections. Today’s Statement seems to back-track on both. That is not just bad for the people concerned, be they workers, consumers or those interested in the environment, but it is bad for business, with this new variable and reckless approach to negotiations taking business straight from one set of uncertainties to another. We know what businesses want from our deal with the EU: first, ambitious co-operation on regulation with regard to goods to reduce red tape for exporters; secondly, comprehensive coverage of services to maintain the competitive edge of UK providers—a vital part of our economy and, unfortunately, an element not mentioned in the Statement; and, thirdly meaningful customs facilitation to keep costs and complexities low.
It is no good the Prime Minister’s spinners attacking the CBI, as they did earlier this month, accusing it and others of neglecting their duty to prepare their members for the realities of a Canada-style free trade deal. Briefing from No. 10, referring to the CBI and others, said that they have a responsibility to their members that they are not fulfilling, and individual businesses might consider whether they are getting the best representation from the umbrella groups that they are funding. That sounds to me like Downing Street trying to encourage the CBI to mute its criticism of the Government’s strategy. That is not an open Government willing to listen to the views of others.
Without thriving businesses, we have no chance of levelling up or continuing to grow, so I urge the Minister to engage with representatives of consumers, of industry, of farmers and of the service sector so that real hard economic facts, rather than ideology and wishful thinking, will be the lodestar in the negotiations. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as of Gibraltar will be fully involved in all stages of the negotiations so that the interests of all parts of the UK are safeguarded?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position and look forward to a series of robust exchanges in the months to come. As I was coming down to the House, I was interested to learn that there is now a revised version of the Statement. Perhaps it might be of interest to the House to point out what has been revised. The original text stated that
“as a sovereign, self-governing independent nation we will have the freedom to … lower all our taxes”.
The Minister correctly read out the revised version, which is
“to set all our taxes.”
That seems a wise revision by a Government who are about to produce a Budget which intends to increase spending very considerably. If they were to promise in a wonderfully populist way to lower all our taxes at the same time, it would be a little more Trumpian than even Johnsonian.
I would like to tackle the language and assumptions of the Government’s current approach. This is a very harsh, autonomous independence. As has been pointed out, sovereignty—independent sovereign equality—runs all the way through it, as does the notion of the people’s Government, the “servants” of the people. Saying that
“we follow the people’s priorities”
is the not the language of Churchill or Thatcher. It is the language of Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, or even President Erdoğan of Turkey. This is not constitutional parliamentary language. This is not Edmund Burke. The Conservative Party has to recognise that it is slipping into different territory.
In his speech last week, David Frost started and finished by quoting Edmund Burke, but he also rubbished the idea of shared sovereignty. I recall listening to Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher talking about shared sovereignty and how we benefit in constructing a multilateral international order by sharing our sovereignty through international treaties and agreements, international organisations and international law. Britain has done a great deal in that regard. The language of the Statement suggests that we reject most of that and that we think we are now dealing with a power—the sovereign European Union—which is threatening our sovereignty and independence.
I have not yet heard any Minister say that in dealing with the United States we will expect the United States to treat us as a sovereign equal. I hope the Minister can assure us that we expect the same from the United States because it would not be desirable to establish our independence from the European Union hostile force—as it clearly in many ways is—by reinforcing our dependence in security, intelligence and a range of other ways on the United States. We see it in current extradition procedures and in the presence of American intelligence operatives in this country, who are not fully covered by treaty arrangements and not fully reported to Parliament. That is a degree of dependence which is certainly an evasion of British sovereignty, if we are going to talk about our sovereign independence.
How are we going to establish our political and economic independence by January next year? If we are going to be economically independent, are we going to ensure, for example, that all our key telecommunications equipment is made inside this country? Are we going to ensure that we have an independently owned steel industry, or at least a steel industry of some sort, or is that not part of economic independence? Do we think that supporting offshore financial centres under British sovereignty is part of independence, given that integration into the offshore world which is the ultimate denial of sovereignty in taxation and other terms? If we are not, that is misleading, populist language. It is wonderful to suggest that we stand for the people, but actually, we do not.
Free trade limits sovereignty. Protectionism is what protects sovereignty. North Korea is in many ways one of the most sovereign countries in this world. Once you open yourself to foreign investment and trade, you limit your sovereignty, and that is what we have done. We are one of the most open countries to foreign takeovers and, as a result, we have limited sovereignty and we have to share it with others. If we are talking the language of sovereign equality, we should remember what that great realist Thucydides said: strong states do what they like, small states—and we are smaller than China or the United States—do what they must.
There is no understanding of Britain’s position in the world now we have left the European Union. We have no foreign policy at present. That is not part of this current populist dimension. How do we approach climate change and how do we deal with pandemics? We have to share sovereignty. I hope, when it comes to the climate change conference, the Government will sign up to new international obligations, which will also limit Britain’s sovereignty. Perhaps it is only signing up to shared obligations with the European Union that we object to and we do not, apparently, object quite so much to signing up with China or India.
Can the Minister also assure us that what I understood the Statement to mean on regulatory divergence is that we demand the principle of regulatory divergence but, in practice, we shall be fairly closely aligned? We are standing up for the ideological dimension that we choose but, when it comes to it, we will probably go along with them. Of course, the alternative, if we do not align with European regulations, will be to align more closely with American regulations, rather than, I suspect, to choose our own.
I hope the Minister recognises that the change of tone from the political declaration we signed last October is very worrying for anyone who cares about our position in the world. He will have read the Times editorial the day before yesterday, which said that if we now suggest that we are not bound by agreements that we signed up to last year on Northern Ireland and on the political direction, no one will be prepared to trust us and we will not be able to get a future agreement. When a not particularly left-wing newspaper, such as the Times, says that about the Government’s approach to their negotiations, we should all be very worried indeed.