Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

I apologise to the Joint Committee: I should have said one paragraph.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

In fact, the extract that has been given to us does not include the paragraph. What has been made available in the Printed Paper Office simply states that the Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 is an instrument,

“to which the Committee does not draw the special attention of both Houses”.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, Members of this and the other House have spoken of their shame or embarrassment about how the Prime Minister and the negotiators she appointed, Messieurs Davis, Raab and Barclay, have handled our dealings with the EU. Today’s statutory instrument is a manifestation of their failure. The Prime Minister has failed to unite her Cabinet, her Government, her party or the Commons, let alone the country. It starts with red lines and a failure to reach out to the 48%. It ends with a lonely, tax-funded, failed plea to the public and the humiliation of eating hundreds of her words. Those words, “We are leaving on 28 March”, have been repeated endlessly by Mrs May and here by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for whom some of us —almost—feel sorry, for having to digest the words he parroted so many times.

The noble Lord’s embarrassment, which he carries with a good grace, is as nothing to the uncertainty now facing our ports, businesses, holidaymakers, citizens living across the EU, farmers, importers, manufacturers, traders and hospitals, and EU citizens here. Today, they see us changing our law, not simply to remove Friday’s date from the statute book but to insert two new dates. It still is not clear when we are due to leave the EU. It is almost beyond parody. I now wonder what phrase the Minister will use to replace the old mantra. Will it be, “We will leave on a date yet to be confirmed,” or “We will leave, don’t know when, don’t know how”? Perhaps we will meet again some sunny day.

Today’s change via this SI is, of course, necessary, but it would have been unnecessary had the Government heeded the advice of your Lordships’ House. In May last year, the amendment proposed and so convincingly argued by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, replaced 29 March with the words,

“such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.

My colleagues behind me have begged me not to use the words “I told you so” today, but I cannot resist. In May, I warned the Minister that,

“the negotiations … will be affected by the timetable”,

and that, given that,

“the negotiations could go on a bit later than everyone wants”,

having a particular date fixed in an Act of Parliament, passed in mid-2018, would be,

“a very unhelpful position for our negotiators to be in”.

I predicted—I promise these are my words in Hansard—that,

“the withdrawal agreement could contain a leaving date of a week or two … after the two-year period, which would allow the last-minute arrangements to be made”,

and continued,

“if that suits all the parties and if our Government would like to sign up to it, it would seem silly not to be able to do that”,—[Official Report, 8/5/18; cols. 37-38.]

without amending the Act.

Of course, it was not just me. Our own EU Committee said:

“The rigidity of the … deadline of 29 March 2019 … makes a no deal outcome more likely … enshrining the same deadline in domestic law would not … be in the national interest”.


Your Lordships agreed. By 311 votes to 233, we passed the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, by a tidy majority of 78. We are here today because the Government did not listen.

Unfortunately, we now face the same again, which is why the last part of our amendment calls on the Government to pursue any course of action in those negotiations sanctioned by a resolution of the Commons. We stress this because Ministers and Mrs May keep telling us that they will not be bound by today’s votes in the elected House, which might be a bit of a problem for them anyway, if Robert Peston is correct. He reports that the Cabinet Secretary and the Attorney-General informed Cabinet that if, at the end of the Letwin process, MPs passed a Motion mandating the Prime Minister to pursue a new route through the Brexit mess, whether a referendum, a customs union or another option, then the Prime Minister and the Government would be in breach of the Ministerial Code and the law if they failed to follow MPs’ instructions. The impression created by the Prime Minister that she could ignore the results of the indicative vote process is not true if those Ministers who briefed out of the Cabinet are to be believed. Perhaps it is because those briefings are right that the Government down the other end have just tried, shamefully, to end the indicative vote process, although they lost that vote. It is that reluctance to heed the views of MPs that makes the last part of our amendment so important, even if, as I said, it might be unnecessary should the law indeed require the Government to follow the outcome.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Could the noble Baroness say what law is applicable here? I understand the political argument, but what law would compel the Prime Minister to comply with the House of Commons’ view?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Indeed, I am as questioning on that. That apparently, from very good leaks, was what the Attorney-General said to the Cabinet. Unfortunately, I do not have access to it. It may not be the case, but that is what was being briefed—I do not think that the Attorney-General will be speaking utter nonsense, which is what I think I heard from the other side of the House. It is what Robert Peston says.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

I am sure that there would be ample room for argument in the courts. I am concerned that we do not leave matters of this importance, in relation to a Bill that confers such exceptional powers on the Executive, to legal argument for the future. It is our task and our responsibility to ensure that these matters are clearly stated in the legislation that we are considering.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I endorse the words of both noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Pannick. I urge the Minister and the Committee to do the same.

Amendments 14 and 107 seek to ensure that, in any move to abolish, merge or alter the various organisations listed in the various schedules, the Minister must have regard to the original powers or objectives laid down in law for those bodies. It would therefore not be enough to say simply, “We can save money by these changes”, although I always agree with saving money. The amendments would make it necessary to consider more than just the need for specialist and technical expertise, much though I also support that; and more than simply independence from government, as has been spoken of, much as I also concur with that.

Parliament needs to be satisfied that the raison d'être of each body—its objective, as set down in statute—will be protected and continued under whichever body takes over from the abolished, reformed or merged organisation. I would like to give four brief examples listed in the schedules where legislation has been passed, including through this House, to give powers or duties to those organisations. We need assurance that, in any change to their status, the very purpose and duties for which they were set up should be retained, even if carried out in a more resource-efficient way.

I start with the Legal Services Board; I declare an interest as chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, which is funded by the Legal Services Board. The Legal Services Act 2007 requires the establishment of the board, and says that it,

“must … act in a way … compatible with the”,

Act’s “regulatory objectives”, which are about,

“protecting and promoting the public interest … supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law … improving access to justice … promoting competition in the provision of services”,

and,

“encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession”.

The Act also demands that the board promotes adherence to the professional principles of lawyers, which are to,

“act with independence and integrity … act in the best interests of their clients”,

and,

“comply with their duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice”.

This goes further than judicial independence—important though that is; those objectives would need to be retained. My amendment would ensure that those objectives were still met if there were any alteration to the board’s set-up. They are absolutely central to the administration of justice.