European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, since the referendum this nation has been on a rather incredible journey. Our learning curve has been huge; at least for most of us in Parliament, certainly for me. There are ideologues who do not want to listen to the fine detail about anything, but there cannot be many of us who have not discovered through debate, conversation or the media that the strata of connections and collaborations between the nations of Europe run very deep and to the benefit of us all.

I find myself repeating, “if only”. If only the national debate before the referendum had been as rich in information. If only people had known just how much poorer this rupture will make them and their children. If only they had seen how it would diminish us as a nation and reduce our power in the world. If only people had known about the damage to our constitution that the referendum would unleash, with all the talk of “the will of the people”, forgetting that we live in a representative democracy and that that will is expressed through having representatives in Parliament, precisely because they immerse themselves in the complexity of issues.

If only there had been a proper debate about cross-border trading always requiring an overarching international court of some kind. All the bluster about wanting our own courts to decide everything that affects us did not deal with the fact that if you trade with Poland the Poles are not going to settle for a UK court deciding the outcome of a dispute. The World Trade Organization, out there in the great blue yonder to which Brexiteers aspire, also has its own court to deal with disputes. Norway and its little grouping in their semi-detached relationship with Europe had to invent the EFTA Court for precisely that reason.

If only people had been truly informed about the high level of medical and scientific advances—the creation of medicines and cancer remedies—that are made because of experts working closely together. There are the benefits to our universities in advancing knowledge and understanding. Defence and security collaborations prevent conflict and crime. There is consumer protection. There is the risk now to peace in Ireland. Was it ever fully explained that the customs union was key to a borderless Ireland?

If only we had not had a slanging match but instead had grown to understand the extent and benefits of the financial and trading relationships that flowed from our membership. If only we had spoken softly about how important it is to work with our closest neighbours because it stops wars and that together we can keep a check on the rise of extremism. With neighbours, there are inevitably aspects of the connection that grate on us and which we would like to change, but that should never be the reason for pulling up the drawbridge.

I am a lawyer, and because of the nature of my practice I am all too aware of the incredible advantages of Europe, Eurojust and a European arrest warrant. The underbelly of markets is black markets, and today they cross borders. We have trafficking in drugs, arms, fissile material, body parts, human eggs, babies, and women and children for sex and domestic servitude. You cannot deal with that kind of crime without close collaboration and developed mechanisms, and these require reciprocity and a level of legal harmony.

A few weeks ago, the House of Lords European Union sub-committee on justice issues, which I chair, heard from a very distinguished judge on the EFTA Court. He had been its president for 12 years and had sat on it for years beforehand. I asked him whether we could be part of the Euro-warrant system—EFTA is not part of that system—without the European Court of Justice. His answer was no.

So how are we going to collaborate on all these issues of crime? Legal processes affecting families, individuals and businesses are reliant on essential regulations that have been very successful and to whose creation we have been party: Brussels 1, Brussels 2 and the maintenance regulation. A woman married to an Italian can go to her local court and get an order if he shoves off back to Italy and is not paying maintenance for his children. A company that suddenly has a default from its trading partner in Poland can go to a court in Middlesbrough and get an order that will be effective over there. That is done because of mutuality, and it is reciprocal. I fear that bringing law in here, nailing it down and saying, “We are introducing it”, does not deal with that reciprocity. We are going to have to have 27 separate relationships in order to make it happen.

The Henry VIII powers still have not been adequately constrained in the amendments that passed in the Commons, and I am very concerned about what the implications will be for the rights of individuals in this country. We have been given an account that employment rights will not be eroded. I am afraid I do not have much confidence in those promises because we know that a section of the Conservative Party is very keen to deregulate and remove employment protections around the working time directive, the agency work directive, pregnancy protections and so on. Across the whole of Europe there is a European protection order to deal with violence against women and girls. Did your Lordships know that? Of course not; most people do not.

What about the promise of meaningful debate at the end of all this? There has to be a clarification about the options that will be available, because one of the options has to be to remain. I hope the amendments will nail down some of these problems. I am most concerned about the excision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Bill. That should set alarm bells ringing because it is telling us that rights are not a high priority for this Government.

It is hard for people to change their minds, but with more complete information people do so. We do it in our daily lives. I will deeply regret it if we do not put information clearly in front of people. I am not going to settle for a bad deal, and if that means a second referendum then noble Lords can count on me being behind it.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be in this House; we all know it. Many have expressed misgivings about the unelected nature of this part of the legislature, but the rationale is one I want to remind us about. The rational for our being here—appointed—is that we bring expertise from so many different walks of life. Expertise is an idea that is now derided. The strength of this House is that we have people from many walks of life and with great diversity. We have seen holes being plugged in recent times, with people coming from our different communities. That abundance of experience is to be brought to bear on the legislation that comes before us. I ask this question quite pointedly: are we supposed to abandon that experience when it really matters and when we are dealing with the most important issue of our lifetime?

We in this House have a higher duty. We are more than fine-tuners of legislation. The idea is that this House takes the long view, and that we have to consider the well-being of our kingdom—of our nations within this kingdom. We are the guardians, too, of hard-won rights and liberties. In the modern world that has included the ones that have come from our collaboration with our European neighbours. They are important ones—the rights to live, work, study and love across Europe, our rights around employment, our maternity rights, and our rights on the environment and on many other areas that enhance our lives.

We do not have to look over our shoulder in the way that our elected House does. We are also stewards of the constitution. We also do not have to worry about the threats that are made by the hectoring media, and we can ignore trolls on the internet because most of us are at an age when those things do not count. We in this House should be able to exercise independent judgment, and I believe that we have a duty to do so in this historic decision. The consequences may be dire for these islands. They may be dire for future generations. I say as a Scot that I am worried for Scotland. I say as someone of Irish heritage that I am worried about peace in Ireland. I am worried for our economy. As a person from a working-class background, I think that the ordinary folk of this country are going to suffer greatly. I am worried for a vast array of good law that has come from this alliance. I say that as a lawyer and as the chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee.

While there is a myth that we are the victims of a wash of law that comes from Europe, in fact we have contributed greatly to the creation of that law: harmonising standards, ensuring that the judgments in our courts are enforced easily and speedily throughout the European Union and protecting small businesses doing business with other countries. We have created consumer rights, and the quality of goods that are being sold has to meet our standards. It means that we can easily sue through our courts and have the judgments made effective.

We have to think very seriously about our role. Membership of this trading bloc has protected us against the downsides of globalisation. I ask us to ask ourselves: “Do you think that this conjunction of Brexit with Trump is not perilous for the United Kingdom? Is it not dangerous to become more reliant on a nation led by a man who is temperamentally unsuited to high office and so unstable and irrational? Should we not be thinking about how that affects foreign affairs and why we are not better placed by being part of this Union?”

I want us to think about this business of, “The people have spoken”. I am tired of hearing this distortion. It is a degrading of our public discourse. It is a poisoning of honest debate, as 48% of our nation who voted, voted against leaving. It would be incredibly divisive if we ignored them. I want us to think very seriously about the implications of this process. Like others, I reject the triggering of Article 50 in the way that the Government have laid it out, telling us that the single market is already off the table. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, telling us that the Prime Minister made a UKIP speech. What a shame.

The Government have now agreed that the final deal will come before both Houses, but I will ask a question. A statement like that has political force but does not have legal force. What does the promise mean if it is not in the Bill? I am concerned about what happens if our negotiators do not reach an agreement, or part of Parliament votes against the agreement. We have been told by Ministers such as David Jones that, if a deal is agreed and Parliament rejects it, we simply go off to the World Trade Organization’s trading rules. That should be a matter of serious concern, so I want to see that in the Bill so that we might have a proper opportunity to vote on those matters.

I am also concerned, as many are, about the position of people who have lived in this country for a number of years and whose rights are going to be trampled on. I hope that an amendment to protect them will be forthcoming and will be voted on by this House. This House has gained increasing public respect in recent years. The reason is that we protect the common good. We are expected by the public to bring the weight of our experience to bear and to say that, basically, that experience is worth something. If our consciences are telling us that Brexit is a folly, with potentially disastrous consequences for the country, we have to listen to that voice of conscience and instinct. History will record what each of us does and our children and grandchildren, and theirs in turn, will ask, “What did you do when this was decided? What did you do at this crucial juncture? Were you shackled by convention, fearful that the House was going to be abolished? Did you dance to the tune of the Daily Mail, or did you stand up for principle and posterity, for the values of tolerance and inclusion, for the interests of our young and for the neglected communities in our midst?”. I will support vital amendments and, if they are not accepted, I am going to vote against the Bill. This House should be urging a rethink on this whole project. This House should be saying, “Not in our name”.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, the British electorate have given the political, financial and business establishment a massive kick in the teeth by voting to leave the European Union. The vote will plunge Britain into uncertainty for years to come. It also reverses the solidarity on which the European continent’s stability was based—that great vision for peace and justice which excited so many of us when we were young, and which undoubtedly still excites so many of the young who have taken to the streets in recent days.

Warnings came from every quarter but, if anything, those warnings goaded a defiant mood in people. Europe's failings—undoubtedly there are many—were simply not sufficient to explain what Britain has done to itself. This was a revolt, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others have said, against global capitalism and neo-liberal economics. I say that as someone who firmly believes in pluralism and mixed economies, and that you cannot create the kind of chasm that we are creating between rich and poor in the world, but also here in Britain. We have left too many people behind. They know it, they feel it, and they are angry.

A majority of people showed their disdain for politicians who had embraced an economics that caused the 2008 financial meltdown, forced austerity upon them, gave them stagnant working-class wages, increased immigration, denied them decent housing, made them wait longer to see doctors, made them have difficulty in getting their children into schools, and allowed tax havens and tax-fiddling for the rich. They also knew that many of the people seeking to come here, wanting asylum because they are fleeing persecution or war, do so as a direct result of that disastrous war in Iraq, and what we have done to the Middle East. The fact that some of these issues had no direct link with the European Union did not matter. It was a convenient target in a febrile angry moment, much like the makings of Trump in the United States. We now may see Europe unravelling. Our vote got a hurrah from Geert Wilders in Holland and Marine Le Pen in France, who want to follow suit, and no doubt there also was applause from the right-wing party that is back in the running in Austria. We also know that Putin, Trump, Sarah Palin and a whole collection of people who do not bring down much admiration from me are also celebrating. We have leapt into the dark, and it is truly dark. Jettisoning the status quo for an unknown is full of risk of financial downturn, possible recession, higher unemployment and political turbulence.

I want to speak about law because it is my area. I have just come from a European Union Select Committee that met this afternoon in the later hours, and there heard from the Minister, David Lidington, and from Oliver Letwin, who is of course in charge of the Brexit unit. Mr Letwin described a review of law that began eight days ago—law in huge quantity. The whole of the Government Legal Service has been mobilised to map the statutes and the statutory instruments, the “by direct effect” instruments, the jurisprudence—all of it—and it will be kept to that work for a long time to come. Yet what we did not tell people was that many of those laws have greatly improved their lives, particularly in employment law, providing protections for part-time workers, agency workers’ rights and people who are in fixed-term work. Then there are the rights to holiday leave, collective redundancy, maternity and paternity leave, equal pay for women and anti-discrimination in employment. All those things, which would not have happened because of the Thatcher attacks on trade unions, were protected by our involvement in the European Union.

The European Union has given us environmental protections and climate change targets. I know that they are not attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, a denier as he is of climate change, but they are very important to many of us and to future generations. Then think of the collaborative work that has been done on crime and security, terrorism and trafficking. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, suggests, we leave all that behind, we will be cut out of the Euro warrant, Eurojust and Europol, and out of the mutual legal assistance that is so important. The intergovernmental work on harmonising, for measures such as the Sale of Goods Act and protection for consumers, copyright law and digital commerce, is all to go out the window, along with data protection law. Then there is all the stuff that we know about in relation to education—the ways in which long-term research will be put in jeopardy.

Then there is the issue of sanctions. I chair the Justice Sub-Committee of the EU Select Committee, and sanctions is one of the issues that comes before us all the time. Think of how effective those have been in bringing Mr Putin to heel. It is all much more effective when done at the European level. Think of the contracts that have been entered into in trade relations, which reach beyond any leave-by date, and how we are going to have to revisit that. And now there are constitutional arguments about who gets to trigger Article 50, and so on. We are grieving; we are all going through that passion of grief, when people are told that they have a terminal illness, they start off in shock and are numb and then get angry and reach for other alternative possibilities that might keep them alive. That is what we are all going through—a terrible process of grief, for those of us who want to remain in Europe.

The Minister said today that the Government agree that there is a role for Parliament. There has to be one, because we have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. There has to be one because of all this legislation. I am afraid that we have opened a door on turbulent times for our Parliament but also for our society and, I suspect, for the whole of Europe. I want to invoke to all noble Lords the Latin mantra of festina lente—to hasten slowly—and to be very careful of what we are doing, because we do not know where we are going. I echo something that my noble friend Lord Howarth said—that this may provide an opportunity for us to rethink where we went wrong, across our political parties. It is a responsibility that could be put at the doors of previous Governments of any colour. We failed to look after a whole section of our communities and now is the time to think again about where we went wrong.

Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord makes a good point about Calais. Clearly, we have co-operated with the French over the summer to address the situation that worsened earlier in the summer. The Home Secretary was one of the Home Affairs and Justice Ministers who called for the meeting that will take place next week because we think it right that Europe should co-operate more. However, those within the Schengen agreement are not operating in a co-ordinated, coherent way. We want to support them but we are very clear that we do not believe it is in the best interests of this country or those who are most in need to join the action that has been taken by other member states. We are co-operating all the time with our partners in Europe by helping them strengthen their operations on the borders and trying to provide them with the expertise they need. However, in the end they have decided that they want to pursue the course they are following. We believe that by pursuing that course they are increasing the flow of refugees from Syria and that is putting people’s lives at risk unnecessarily. We think that a much better approach is the one we are pursuing, which is to provide refuge but to do so for people from the camps directly.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

Press Regulation

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the whole purpose of what we have sought to achieve is that it will be in the public interest. That is because one of the things that is very clear from what has happened is that we want any new system to command the confidence of the public. My noble friend has said that the debate has gone on for too long. In fact, I think that we have gone beyond the debate because we now have a structure in place. As for Parliament considering these issues, part of the whole issue of why we think it is important that the Recognition Panel, through the royal charter, is the body that considers whether the self-regulator meets the criteria, is that this is very much a matter for the Recognition Panel which is independent of Government or Parliament.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm who runs Britain? The question is whether it is run by the rule of law and will of Parliament, both of which have determined that the PCC replacement must be audited by the royal charter’s independent Recognition Panel, or by the press barons themselves. They seem to think that, despite everything that the Leveson inquiry uncovered, they can ignore the recommendations of a public inquiry, which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by this House and the other place and which has the support of the general public.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I understand what the noble Baroness and your Lordships are implying, but one of the key facets of Leveson was precisely that there should be a voluntary self-regulatory system. However, Parliament has obviously put in place incentives whereby we very much hope that there will be recognition through the Recognition Panel for whatever self-regulator there is.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, this Bill is a serious disappointment to me too. I think there is a need for constitutional reform and I have campaigned for such reform over many years. It needs more careful consideration than that which has produced this Bill. I have always believed that the public should play an active part in choosing the kind of reform they want when dealing with the architecture of the political system. This Bill does not trust the general public.

If you believe in representative democracy, it follows that you believe that Parliament should be representative. Yet it is remarkable how efficient our political system has been in placing individuals in key positions of power who simply do not accept that argument or come up with convoluted arguments for how, magically, first past the post delivers representative democracy.

You can look at any election over the past 30 years and see the distortions at work. With only a third of the votes, a political party can win an overwhelming majority in this country. To make it clear that I am not being partisan, I shall use an example where it was my party that was the beneficiary, but it can work in different directions. In 2005, six voters in 10 supported parties other than Labour, yet Labour won six in 10 of the seats in the House of Commons. My party was the beneficiary on that occasion, but was it fair? Only 35 per cent of those who voted cast their ballot for Labour. More people abstained than voted for the party that came to govern with a majority of 60. A system which can deliver such a result cannot be described as rational or fair.

What shocks me is that members of the Conservative Party still refuse to see the urgency of changing the voting system, because they hope that, next time, the unfairness of the system will work in their favour. I say to the Liberal Democrats across the way that they may at the moment be enjoying their period in the sun, but the reforms in the Bill will not work to their advantage in the long run.

When research was conducted into why people are not voting in the numbers that they once did—we should not be happy that only 60 per cent, and sometimes less, of the people who could vote do vote—the reasons were not about apathy, or about people feeling contented with their lot, as some people will tell you. Those explanations are wide of the mark. The explanations are much more complex. When you are gathering evidence on this, people say that they do not feel that there is any point in voting because, in their constituency, the same party always wins, so what is the point of voting? That is a constant refrain. They also feel that they are not being listened to; they have little choice; and they distrust a political system where politicians say one thing but do the opposite. I urge that on the Liberal Democrats at this moment, where people are feeling strongly about student fees and other things. People are becoming increasingly aware of the unfairness of the system. It is not, as one of my noble friends has suggested, that people know where they are with the system as it is. They do not, and that is one of the reasons why many are not voting.

The membership of our House of Commons should in some way reflect the way that votes are cast, so that people feel that there is a purpose in voting, even in a safe seat. Indeed, the very idea of a safe seat should be rattled. In the 21st century, we should be moving from majoritarian to pluralist democracy. It has been mentioned already that we get only one chance for certain kinds of reform in a generation, and we could easily be missing a very important opportunity here. The alternative vote system is not proportionate, as so many people have said. Indeed, the reason why it is being promoted is because it is the least voting reform possible. I support a much more radical change and would like to see a proportionate system. I strongly support the position presented by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Alton, that AV+ or STV would be a far better reform.

I also believe that we are incredibly patronising about the general public, believing that they are incapable of making sensible decisions. They make sensible decisions when they are given good evidence and information. I would be happy for a number of choices to be presented in a referendum, but I would like deliberative processes enriching the discussion, consultation and debate before any such referendum took place.

I recommend that the House look at the work of Helen Margetts, Stuart Weir and Patrick Dunleavy, a group of political scientists already mentioned, who have examined the workings of AV over a long period. They conducted simulations, one in 1992 and another in 1997. In the 1992 simulation, the outcome is changed in 28 constituencies, creating improved proportionality of only 3 per cent, so it will not improve proportionality. In 1992, though, it would have denied John Major his majority. In 1997, Labour would have had an even greater victory, as the Conservatives would have lost a further 55 seats if AV had been in place. Labour would have won 17 more seats and the Liberal Democrats would have doubled their number of seats in the 1997 election. In 2005, Labour's majority would have been even greater than it was despite the low turnout and despite the fact that it got only 34 or 35 per cent of the vote. So the research shows that AV can exaggerate outcomes, particularly where comparatively few people go to the polls. When you have a low turnout, you get these exaggerated results, so we should not regard AV as a satisfactory way to move forward with reform.

However, it is still better than first past the post, and if push comes to shove I will end up voting for it. I think that it might concentrate political minds on the importance of getting the vote out, and I think it will stop many candidates falling into complacency and overconfidence about winning, which is no bad thing. But I am not sure that we can say that this is the start of a journey towards a better system. I hope it will be.

Constitutional change has to be holistic. Consideration of any reform of the electoral system of the House of Commons has to be part of a bigger picture. If the House of Commons is being looked at with regard to constituency boundaries, should we not have considered reducing the size much more considerably than is being done here, down to 600? If we had gone down to a lower figure, we might have found that it did not have that whiff of the numbers being chosen to advantage particular parties.

The other factor which has been raised by many other speakers is the concern about holding the Executive to account. This is one of the concerns expressed generally about recent failures in our political system. The payroll vote is now far too large, and it will be even more disproportionate when the size of the House is reduced as recommended here. We should be concerned about that. It is an important element that we should have in mind in any period of reform.

I also think that we should be concerned about this business of reforming the constituencies without communities having the opportunity to argue their case for keeping things as they are. It is an issue of principle that people should be involved in that. People in an area may well feel that they value their community of interest more than they do having a greater voice. It is important that we should have that in mind. A failure to give people the opportunity to be heard on this would disappoint many across the country. I also think that we are risking the disfranchising of large numbers of poor people in our inner cities. I hope that there will be some rethinking in the weeks to come.

This reform has all the hallmarks of a reform that consolidates old inequities and could add new unfairness. Constitutional reform is important. It is too important to be gone at in a way that will ultimately undermine trust. That is the risk that we are currently taking.