Dunlop Review

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to the Belfast agreement, which sets out the circumstances that would require a border poll. Those are that, if at any time it appears likely that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the UK, they are obliged to call a referendum. The Government continue to monitor the evidence in this regard, but I can tell my noble friend that there is no clear evidence to support the idea that that is the case at this time. I can assure him that, were that ever to happen, this Government would campaign on the basis that the United Kingdom is a family of nations that works for everyone.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, those of us who so strongly support the union and its continuation know that it depends on trust, good will and understanding. Does the Minister think that those are helped by what appears to be a suppression of a report on the working of the union?

[Lord True (Con)]

If it were characterised in that way, I do not think it would help. There is certainly no intention to suppress the report; it will be published, as I have told the House. The Government have been involved in constructive discussions with the devolved Administrations on how we secure continuing intergovernmental relations and good institutions to provide for that. I hope to be able to advise the House further on this shortly.

SolarWinds Cyberattack

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about international co-operation. She is quite right to say that malicious activity knows no boundaries. We regularly discuss cybersecurity with a range of international partners, including the G7, sharing our analysis of threats and our experience. I can give an assurance that we will continue to do so.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

FireEye, which uncovered the attack, judged that the tradecraft involved was consistent with state-sponsored actors. Microsoft’s Brad Smith described it as “a moment of reckoning”; it was “not ‘espionage as usual’” but

“an act of recklessness that created a serious technological vulnerability for the United States”

and beyond. Joe Biden has now promised to make cyber-security a top priority given the recent digital espionage. How have the Government responded to President Biden, since this does not appear to have been covered in the phone call that he had with the Prime Minister?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness has better information than I do on the call between the President and the Prime Minister. The Government are certain that cybersecurity is absolutely at the heart of our overall defence need and defence capability. I repeat: we will work with all friendly allies in that area. The UK considers attribution on a case-by-case basis, but I do not have anything further for the House at this stage.

Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, those are two separate workstreams as part of the constitutional reform consideration that we are undertaking. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, we are eating the elephant in chunks. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act review is another part, so there are already three strands and they each deserve careful and individual attention.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Assuming that the commission will go ahead—although I am not absolutely sure, from what the Minister said, that it will—then, following up on what my noble friend Lady Quin and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said, it will have public support only if it is truly independent. Will the Government commit that the commission, when it is appointed, will be independent and non-partisan and ensure that its members are not beholden either to the Government or indeed to any other special interest?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have said that the Government are delivering the commitment in the manifesto to look at the broader aspects of the constitution in a range of separate workstreams. Obviously, this and others to be announced in due course will all reflect what the noble Baroness has said and what I have said—indeed, that is the case for those reviews that have been set up already and the cross-party Joint Committee that is looking at the FTPA.

Elections: May 2021

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this May has a record number of polls, involving every elector in the country. If America can organise its massive ballot, surely we can also vote, especially since some of these elections are now a year overdue. I therefore ask the Government to assure the House that they will not run away from these votes. Will they also ensure that we use all the normal polling stations and not reduce their number, as I hear is happening in some places? That would not only produce dangerous crowds but would also disfranchise those who could not travel further to polling stations, particularly, of course, people with a disability.

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

My Lords, I certainly assure the noble Baroness that the Government believe that safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of any democracy. The law is that these elections should go ahead on this date. The Prime Minister said that all matters are always under review, as they are in a pandemic. People then seemed to ride away and say that that was an indication that they would be postponed, but, as the Minister for the Constitution said in the other place yesterday, a very high bar would have to be set to not proceed with these elections. As far as her comments about returning officers, they obviously look at polling stations, but I will take note of the points the noble Baroness made. Certainly, voting should be easy.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

At end insert “and this House welcomes that the agreement with the European Union has avoided the United Kingdom leaving the transition period without a deal, but regrets the many shortcomings including the bureaucratic burdens, regulatory hurdles, relative neglect of the services sector, limited provision for mutual recognition of qualifications, uncertainty on regulation of data flows, and limited concessions on integrated supply chains outside the European Union, included in that agreement; further regrets the failure to secure all the vital shared tools on security and policing required to keep people safe; notes that there are considerable details yet to be negotiated; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to work with Parliament and the devolved authorities (1) to establish robust oversight procedures over the remaining areas to be agreed and the implementation of those aspects already in the agreement, and (2) to move quickly to establish the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly jointly with the European Parliament.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we are sitting at an unusual time, are we not—although not on 25 December, which would have been a first since 1656, nor on Christmas Eve, which would have been a first since 1929 when, as Esther Webber assures me, the discussion included the quality of oysters in the Commons restaurant. Perhaps that was because they were not Morecambe Bay oysters—something about which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, might enlighten us in his valedictory speech. As he leaves, another Member arrives. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing and working alongside for many a year.

Today, we are asked to put into domestic law the Christmas Eve agreement. I hope that we will also agree the amendment to the Motion standing in my name. I am a child of the British Army on the Rhine, born in a war-ravaged Germany and schooled in a divided Germany. However, I am also a child of democracy, the rebuilding of which in Germany my father and his generation played a role. What I also saw was the gradual regrowth of friendship of nations, the dismantling of trade barriers, the increased movement of people and the development of security, personal and cultural links to ground the continent’s future in its people and economic well-being. How can I not feel European?

So today, because of all that has happened since 1945 and 1973—and because of what happened in 2016—as we start on a new journey, we owe it to the past as well as the future to ensure that we continue with the motivation and drive that built such a successful, peaceful and co-operating bloc. This will not be easy as we erect new trading barriers with our neighbours, reduce access to jobs and education across Europe and step outside the customs union and single market. That is the treaty that the Prime Minister, having led the Brexit campaign, has now signed. Today, we are asked to pass the Bill, agreed to overwhelmingly by the elected House of Commons, to put his deal into law.

In normal times, our role would be to scrutinise this Bill, to test whether it fulfils its role, and to ensure that it is workable and allows for transparency and accountability. Sadly, that is not what we can do today, thanks to the Government having delayed and delayed, perhaps even to avoid such scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. Nevertheless, this is the beginning, not the end, of our process of our scrutinising how we leave and how we build our future with the EU. There remain many areas yet to be negotiated and many decisions on the implementation of the deal, so we will have the chance to exercise proper scrutiny post-ratification, including thorough examination by our European and other committees, and full debates on whatever reports they produce.

The agreement allows for a review and I hope that either a special committee here or a parliamentary-appointed major independent study prepares for that review, looking at all aspects of the UK-EU relationship and how it might be improved and developed across economic, social, cultural, environmental and climate change areas. Never again should we stumble into a profound shift in our international, security and trading relationships without full debate of the options and the paths to be taken.

Turning to today, we should remember two things, both relating to the mode of our leaving and our future relationship with the EU. First, the treaty is supported by all our EU colleagues and partners. Their Governments, including the Irish, have unanimously endorsed this deal. And for us on the Labour Benches, our continental sister parties support it and look to us to help make it work. Business has similarly welcomed the fact that we have a deal, removing the horrendous possibility of trading on WTO terms next week and at least beginning to see a new certainty.

Secondly, we face a seismic change in our relationship with the EU, but we are not leaving the continent; we are not turning our back on these major trading, security and friendship partners. Looking to the future, Labour, as an internationalist party, will forge a close relationship with the EU in the national interest—from the personal, where we want Erasmus-type arrangements so that our young people can live, work and study together, to industrial and service provision, where Europe-wide businesses will flourish where trade is easy, and with our consumers not only being spared import tariffs but having the ability to travel, holiday and explore the lands around our islands.

The agreement is not a Labour one. It is tariff-free for UK-made goods, and quota-free, and that we welcome, but it is sadly lacking on those invisibles—the service sectors, financial, educational and cultural, which are such a vital part of our economy. There are gaps in security and data exchange. There are real weaknesses in the protection of workers’ rights—one of the great benefits of our EU membership, where we worked in step across the Union. There is added bureaucracy for business—rather more, I fear, than Mr Gove’s “bumpy moments” and hardly amounting to frictionless trade. There are new regulatory hurdles, especially in chemicals and pharmaceuticals; limited mutual recognition of qualifications; and the ending of current police and security co-operation, with uncertainty over the European arrest warrant replacement. There is a lost opportunity for a far-reaching and comprehensive approach to foreign policy, defence and security co-operation, and a lost opportunity to safeguard the future status and economic prosperity of Gibraltar. Despite the people of Gibraltar being assured that there would be no UK-EU deal without Gibraltar, in fact this deal excludes Gibraltar. Yesterday, the Spanish Foreign Minister warned that if there is no deal in the next 72 hours, the Rock will become

“the only place where there is a hard Brexit.”

With Gibraltar becoming the external border of the EU, there could be passport-stamping and many other checks, leading to lengthy queues.

So this Bill implements a deal that we would not have negotiated: a deal that is less than it should or could have been and one made in No. 10 with an eye, I think, on the ERG rather than the whole of the UK. But it is the deal that we have, and it is so much better than the no deal favoured by some on the government side. For that reason, we accept the Bill, but with sincere regret that it is so late that we cannot do our job properly and that it excludes some of the country’s most vital interests.

Because there remains so much still to be negotiated, we call on the Government to work with Parliament to ensure full transparency and oversight of the umpteen special committees and working groups that still have big decisions to take. We call on them also to work with Parliament and the devolved authorities urgently and quickly to establish the parliamentary partnership assembly, so that parliamentarians across the EU and the UK can play their part in the remaining stages. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I regret the tone of much of that response, which I think does not become the Minister and does not respond fairly to the debate he has heard tonight. I do not know what his history was of “47 tempestuous years” within the European Union, but I seem to recall that we started rather as a basket case economically and it was through the European Union that we grew. However, I am not going to rehearse that argument. I think he accused me of denying the referendum. He knows, not only because I gave him my European history today, that I am Welsh, and he knows how the Welsh voted. He knows jolly well, because he has heard all this, that I have never questioned the referendum and I never called for a second one. I think he knows that he was perhaps a little unwise in some of his words.

Our amendment is not as described by the Minister. My regret amendment goes along with giving this Bill a Second Reading, which we are going to vote for. It does four things, none of which—despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asserts—undermines the decision to take us out of the European Union. First, it starts by welcoming the deal as it has avoided a no-deal exit. That is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, called “worse than chaos.” Secondly, it regrets that it leaves much to be desired, as was reflected in many of the speeches today. Thirdly, it asks the Government to work with Parliament—this is not delaying anything—to ensure the sort of transparency and accountability outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and by my noble friend Lady Taylor, and with regard to secondary legislation, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and to answer the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I say that asking for accountability is not delaying anything. Fourthly, the amendment asks the Government to work speedily to set up the agreed parliamentary partnership assembly—an assembly agreed by the Prime Minister. We are asking for progress on that. This does not in any way deny that we should, as we will want to do, give the Bill a Second Reading. It simply asks the Government to work with Parliament on how we see the next stage. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Future Relationship with the EU

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I would like to ask the Minister what progress there has been since that Statement was made on Thursday.

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

My Lords, discussions are continuing as we are enjoying our session here.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for clearly setting out his objections to the last set of amendments. In his closing words he said that the Government view the common frameworks process as complementary to the market access principles. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, it was very clear that there is a discontinuity—a lack of complementariness—between the two positions. As the noble and learned Lord set out, a central feature of the framework agreement is to come to an agreed process for divergence between the four nations, within which the UK has a major role. That divergence is killed off by the automatic nature of the market access principles. That is the central point that the noble and learned Lord’s amendments address. In doing so, the new versions of the amendments have taken on board the comments that have come back from the other place, having recognised the level of uncertainty that could have been injected by a previous proposed new clause, which has now been removed. The amendments adopt the regulations within the Bill to facilitate that decision, so that it is consistent with the way that the Bill seeks to operate, but also consistent with the principles of devolution that have served this country so well to date.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps we need to remember why we are here. It is really quite simple. When the case for Brexit was all about “taking back control”, we failed to understand that the Government meant taking control to themselves, even over issues that were fully devolved. However, when the Bill was published—without any involvement from the devolved authorities, remember—we soon discovered that it ran roughshod over devolved competences, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, trumping the common frameworks programme.

I have often wondered whether this was deliberate or an oversight, though the lack of prior consultation suggests the former. However, that makes the statement on the publication of the Bill, on 9 September, signed by the Scottish Secretary but not the Welsh Secretary, and by Mr Sharma and Mr Gove, a bit strange in the light of this Bill. It says that the devolved Administrations will enjoy a “power surge” when the transition period ends.

Let us take that at face value. Perhaps the particular construction of the Bill was clumsy—as an oversight rather than deliberate—and perhaps it is right that the Government did not intend to bring back to themselves all the powers long devolved to the other three authorities, but in that case the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would rectify the problem. They would simply restrict the market access powers in the Bill, which of course are only about devolved competences, to those where the four-party process failed to reach agreement.

As the Government are one of those four parties, they will be in a very strong position to revert to the Bill, and to Parliament, for the powers they feel are vital for an internal market on areas where disagreement cannot be overcome. That seems, to this side of the House, a simple, clean solution. It would hard-wire in a common frameworks process which the Government themselves described last week in the latest of their three-monthly reports on the frameworks—reports which, I think, we added to Schedule 3 to the EU withdrawal Bill as a requirement for the Government to publish—as

“an agreed approach to ensuring regulatory coherence”

in devolved areas. That is absolutely spot on—coherence, not uniformity—and that is probably where we are trying to get to. The problem is that, as written, the Bill adopts “uniformity”.

The same document, which has just been published, despite having talked about coherence, then asserts:

“Common Frameworks cannot guarantee the integrity of the entire UK Internal Market.”


However, the document does not provide any evidence of why the frameworks will not work. It gives no examples of where, within devolved competences, any agreements might not work. Indeed, the Minister, in introducing the debate, again asserted that it would have to be for Parliament alone to decide when the market access rules would not be used, but he did not explain why the four-party process would not be able to deal with that and why they would come to Parliament only when there was a failure to agree. The same document notes the “freezing power” contained in the withdrawal Act, and it also notes that it has never needed to be used, but it fails to suggest where it might be needed.

Therefore, in the Bill the Government are saying that on the one hand the frameworks are very good and have been able to produce coherence but, on the other hand, the Bill allows the market access principles to trump that process, even if it produces agreement.

We have it said before and I say it again: we on this side of the House want an internal market which thrives and serves the needs of business, the professions, consumers and the environment, but it has to be one that respects rather than dismantles devolution. These amendments seem to us to offer the path to achieve that, so we will support the noble and learned Lord when, as I am sure he will do, he asks the House to vote. I hope that in the light of that vote we can, as the Minister suggested, continue the dialogue so that we can reach an agreed position that would safeguard all that has been going on with the devolution settlements and the common frameworks process but, in the last analysis, would of course come back here.

UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Well, yesterday’s Statement already seems an age away as we now contemplate a no-deal exit with even bigger threats to our economy and to Northern Ireland’s by the introduction of tariffs on our food and consumables, and a big hit to our exports as they face charges and bureaucracy that for some could spell disaster. We know that the border plan still leaves Northern Ireland businesses uneasy, as the temporary measures to ease transition from 1 January only highlight the long-term red tape and costs that will then appear.

Mr Gove’s three-month “grace period” for supermarkets from export health certificates—at £200 a piece—on animal products, and his six-month exemption from meat having to be frozen before export, simply indicate what we will face without a deal, when all goods for Northern Ireland would need import declarations. Northern Ireland trade groups worry that, while Mr Gove focuses on tariffs, it is the bureaucracy created that will change the relationship of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers with those in Britain. Even as Ministers keep repeating the PM’s December mantra:

“We’re a UK government, why would we put checks on goods going from NI to GB or GB to NI?”,


in fact civil servants and business know full well that paperwork and checks are exactly what is coming down the line.

I turn more broadly to the so-called negotiations with the EU, which are sounding more and more like the prelude to a no-deal exit, with the Prime Minister this evening even asking us to prepare for that. We on this side of the House are desperately aware of businesses struggling through the pandemic that do not know whether they will face tariffs in three weeks’ time, or even whether their import/export channels will work.

At the start of Brexit we on this side were worried about workers’ rights and jobs, but today we seem closer to the concerns of businesses—traditionally upheld by the Conservatives—that simply despair at the Government’s disregard for their futures. Again and again over the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, Ministers have said that businesses need certainty—but that is the last thing the Government have provided. It is not simply about tariffs and paperwork; it is about data adequacy, so that information flows can continue, and about driving licences and rules. I have to say that I personally am less than happy about the suspension of drivers’ maximum hours. I do not fancy driving down the M20 alongside lorry drivers who have been driving well beyond their regulated hours.

Nor is the lack of a deal just about the economy. Our security is also at stake. SIS II, Europol and the European arrest warrant are tools that are essential for our safety. And as for waving through changes to customs rules that the Government admit will put the security of the UK border at risk, does the Minister agree that the new customs safety and security procedures regulations sound like a smuggler’s charter, in addition to compromising our border security?

I hope the Minister is not tempted to repeat the nonsense that his colleague in the Commons voiced earlier today, about Labour undermining negotiations by asking these questions. It is the Prime Minister who is undermining negotiations, whether by Part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill or by unrealistic demands that only the EU, and not the UK, must compromise. It takes two to tango. The EU knows where the problem is, and it is not in this Parliament.

Today, Mrs Mordaunt urged

“all colleagues, whatever their political … imperative, to put our nation first over the next few days”.

Hear, hear to that. But please will she also address that to Mr Johnson, so that he puts our nation first, and agrees a departure deal to safeguard our security, our businesses, our consumers and our environment? His words tonight bring no reassurance, as he triggers the preparations for no deal. That is not a good signal to negotiators; it is not a good signal to business.

It is interesting that, after the referendum, Ministers from this Dispatch Box claimed that it was immigration, and the desire to end free movement, that led so many to vote for Brexit. But today we are told it is all about sovereignty—that that is why people voted for Brexit. Sovereignty is a word the Minister uses quite often—but is it a sovereign nation that jeopardises trade, security and well-being by refusing to work alongside our near neighbours and main market?

Ursula von der Leyen speaks of a partnership agreement. Partnership: I like the sound of that. So I ask the Minister, given that there are 27 sovereign member states willing to put their citizens first by supporting trade and engagement, should not the UK be willing to put our citizens first, protecting their security and economic well-being by constructing a future partnership deal that avoids: the food price rises we are warned of; the tariffs on exports; the no entry to EU countries due to Covid, with which we have now been threatened; new driving licences and insurance documents; expensive or unavailable health insurance; customs posts and traffic delays; and threats to our manufacturers who are dependent on imports? Is that really too much to ask from this Government? Will the Minister, even at this late hour, urge the Prime Minister not simply to go the extra mile that he has promised but to go as far as is needed to get a deal that is in the interests of the whole of this country?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for facilitating a substitution on our Bench, and I am glad that the Minister is keen today. Will the noble Lord allow this House to debate the content of the technical papers as a result of the agreements that have been reached? We know that the Statement in the House of Commons was just one part. The statement from both the Vice-President of the Commission and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was very brief, but it alluded to a series of technical papers that will have far-reaching consequences for the operation of Northern Ireland and GB trade, as well as the other areas that are the responsibility of the joint committee. Will we be able to debate them?

During the passage of the Trade Bill, I have said repeatedly that one of the founding principles of my party was fair, free and open trade. We want to see businesses, large and small, across all countries in the UK, prosper. I do not think anybody could fail to have been moved, listening to “The World at One” on the BBC today, when a businessman in Northern Ireland, representing family businesses, laid bare the reality of the new costs that the Government are imposing on businesses doing their work. He said that, for his business, even with a deal with the European Union, he was looking at extra administrative costs of £150,000 —or, as he put it, four or five people whom he will not be employing.

The totality of these costs was highlighted by the announcement today of a further £400 million, which is going to offset the cost of bureaucracy and business burdens rather than being invested in people and our economy in Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the Statement that he wanted to see the border operating model for Northern Ireland

“fully operational on 1 January 2021”.

We know from the euphemisms about a grace period, or, on the border operating model, a phased introduction, that it will not be fully operational. In fact, it will not even be partially operational. It will not be ready. Ministers in this House and the other place have repeatedly blamed businesses for not being ready, when the Government themselves are not. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer specific questions today from across the House.

There was reference during Commons questions on the Statement to new border facilities for Northern Ireland

“in order to ensure that these limited and proportionate SPS checks”—

checks on live animals—

“can be carried out at the port of Foyle, Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/20; col. 851.]

These are in addition to what we have always had at the port of Belfast, which has typically been checks on live animals coming across from Scotland. When will these four new ports be operational? Why is there the need for this expansion, if the Government’s mantra is that there are no additional checks? What extra checks, other than SPS, will be carried out on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland under this agreement?

The director at the port of Larne, Roger Armson, spoke to the Northern Ireland Assembly in October, raising concerns about the lack of clarity on the new system for IT at the border and the goods vehicle movement system. He said that given that 40% of cargos head south, it is vitally important to secure clarification. There is still no clarification, so can the Minister say when they will be able to have it?

In the Statement, the Minister said that the agreement will

“allow some EU officials to be present at Northern Ireland ports as UK authorities carry out our own procedures.”

This is the first time that foreign entity staff will be supervising UK staff at our ports. Where will they operate from? This Minister—the noble Lord, Lord True —said on 12 May:

“There is no reason why the Commission should require a permanent presence in Belfast to monitor the implementation of the protocol”.—[Official Report, 12/5/20; col. 655.]


We now know that there is, so how will it operate for these foreign inspectors?

The Minister could not answer simple questions with regard to goods that are packaged in Northern Ireland going to GB, and vice versa. He said that there is no clarity in the first phase but he was hoping that there would be some information very early in 2021. He said, “This is what I am advised”. What can he advise the House now as to when businesses will be clear about the information that they need to put on their goods—goods that are either packaged in Northern Ireland or goods that are going to be moved from GB to Northern Ireland? We need answers.

In its paper on Monday this week, the Chamber of Commerce agreed that it needs answers. That paper made grim reading. Of 35 sets of key questions which they had signposted with a traffic-light system, only 11 were marked green—meaning that they have been given satisfactory answers. There were 19 at amber and five at red. One of the red questions was about what food labelling will be in place. We know that there is a grace period but is it purely, as the Statement said, to allow supermarkets to prepare? To prepare for what? Has the decision been made about whether foodstuffs going from GB to Northern Ireland will have to have EU or UK labelling? A grace period is only that if we know what happens at the end of the three months. Where is the clarity?

It is not just businesses that have not had answers. On 12 November, I asked the noble Lord, Lord True, what labelling would be required for goods. I will quote from Hansard:

“My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on his very specific point about labelling.”—[Official Report, 12/11/20; col. 1141.]


I have not had a response. I reminded the Minister’s office on 30 November and had a courteous reply from his private secretary, saying that the letter had been commissioned and that he would chase it. I still have not received it. It is not only businesses that are not getting answers but parliamentarians.

We knew that there would be no contingency arrangements for Northern Ireland in the event of no deal when the Government made their announcement earlier this year about some of the potential new checks that would be put in place, plus the new infrastructure and new costs on business. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, we know that there are no contingency arrangements in place for Northern Ireland when the Prime Minister comes to prepare for no deal, so all these questions are valid.

Regarding the rest of the UK and the announcement from the Commission today regarding contingencies, we will potentially have what is often euphemistically referred to as an Australian deal. But even Australia and the EU have an air agreement and a number of agreements that do not require contingencies to be put in place in just a matter of days’ time. The Commission said that the United Kingdom would be subject to these arrangements if they are equivalent. I quote the Commission’s paper:

“These arrangements would be subject to the United Kingdom conferring equivalent rights to air carriers from the Union, as well as providing strong guarantees on fair competition and on the effective enforcement of these rights and guarantees.”


That is the same for air, haulage operators and others.

Will the Government give such equivalent rights, so that if we are to prepare for the worst we can at the very least ensure that there is equivalence for the contingency arrangements that will be in place? That will remove at least one element of confusion on top of other burdens and costs that businesses will have to face in just a few days’ time.

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the NFU, Toyota, traders, patients, ports, shippers and, indeed, the national interest are all crying out for a deal; so, in effect, are the OBR’s analysis and the Government’s own reasonable worst-case scenario planning. In the light of this, does the Minister agree with Tobias Ellwood that it would be

“an abject failure of statecraft … to leave the EU without a deal”?—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/20; col. 546.]

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

My Lords, we are all working to get a deal but the only deal that is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty and takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. Although an agreement is preferable, we are prepared to leave on so-called Australia-style terms. People and businesses must prepare for the changes that coming on 31 December, most of which relate to our departure from the EU single market and customs union, not the outcome of the talks.

European Union Withdrawal (Consequential Modifications) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a somewhat technical range of issues. I am not going to pretend that I understand all of them, but a particularly interesting one was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, concerning the word “gloss”. I have seen the word used in the explanatory notes to a number of other orders and I assumed that it was a legal term. However, if the noble Baroness, who is legally trained, does not know the answer, it clearly is not in common legal use. As the Minister has now had time to find out about it, perhaps he could enlighten us.

Part of all this work arises from the completely misplaced idea that a system of law-making that we have had for almost half a century can suddenly be replaced by a domestic equivalent, with none of the time, debate, consultation and thought which normally goes into it. In fact, the Minister himself gave it away when he said that we have already had 650 SIs. In a sense, what we are doing is concertinaing into a couple of years what took almost 50 years to develop across the EU.

This also arises in part from the Government’s early denial that any implementation period would be needed. It was the Labour Party that first said we would need something like that, and to begin with there was resistance. I am grateful that the Government understood at the time that a period of adjustment was needed. The problem I have with “implementation”—or “IP completion date”, as it now is—is that it is still the wrong term. We are not implementing anything because we do not have a deal yet. We are actually still at the end of leaving: we are not implementing new rules because we do not know what the new arrangement is yet. It may be a question of semantics, but the word “implementation” is a bit odd and “transition” would be better. We are a month away from the end of the transition and we still have to sort out, as this provision is, the end of the withdrawal legislation.

As we have heard, this SI incorporates retained direct EU legislation or the relevant separation agreements into the Interpretation Act 1978 and its equivalent in the devolved Authorities. As the Minister said, it amends the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019. I think the Minister said that each of the devolved Authorities was “fully engaged” in the preparation of the regulations. He did not say whether they were content with them. Will he confirm that they were not only involved but happy that we are proceeding with the regulations today?

I am sure that the answer is yes, but will he also let us know whether the Law Society—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the answer to this question is yes, but can the Minister confirm that, in addition to the devolved authorities, organisations such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, and European law specialists in particular, have been consulted in the preparation of these regulations?

There is also the issue of using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation: not just the Interpretation Act 1978 but also parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This is the issue the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised, in a way. Can the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the effect on accountability and scrutiny of amending the withdrawal agreement by statutory instrument? Is he really content that that is a good way to proceed? I think he knows all the sensitives in the House about secondary legislation, so he will understand the question.

The Minister will also know of the concerns, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, within and beyond the legal sector about the uncertainty that clients, lawyers and courts will face after January. One example is that, without the Lugano framework, we will revert to the national laws of each individual country to decide which court has jurisdiction over a legal issue and whether a judgment will be enforced. This is obviously key in family, bankruptcy, companies and transport law, and no doubt much more besides. Can the Minister update the Committee—if not now, perhaps he will write—on this and similar issues that the legal profession and its clients will face from January? In particular, can he update us on the Lugano framework? I have rather lost track of where we are on signing up to that; an update would be useful.

Just from looking at these regulations, it seems that the complexity of statutory instruments such as this will increase legal uncertainty. Perhaps the Minister could provide some assurance that, even if I do not understand every technical word, every lawyer in the land will.