Brexit: Legislative Timetable

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

Discussions on the time allowed for legislation are a matter for the usual channels. Co-operation in this House has always been good, and I can assure noble Lords that that co-operation will continue with any required legislation.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, with only 30% of the time left, there remains 60% of the anticipated SIs to deal with. Meanwhile, Mr Grayling has been conducting a no-deal exercise with 89 lorries, although 10,000 of them use Dover every day. It is hard to disagree with the former Polish Deputy Prime Minister when he writes about our Prime Minister’s deeply deceitful Brexit path, which has disintegrated before her eyes. When will the Government allow the people to pass judgment on this tragedy turned to farce?

[Lord Callanan]

I assume that the noble Baroness did not listen to the answer I gave earlier, and not for the first time the Liberal Democrats have got their figures wrong. We have already tabled more than 50% of the required statutory instruments, as we informed the two sifting committees before Christmas.

Brexit: Economic Forecast

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a myth that there is a conflict between democratic control of our laws and prosperity? In fact, democracy and prosperity go hand in hand, because in a democracy, if the Government do not deliver prosperity, the people can chuck them out. But the EU is not like that. Its principal economic policy, the euro, has been a disaster which has deprived millions of young people throughout southern Europe of jobs, but nobody in the European Commission has lost their job. Should we not be free to have our own laws, not constrained within a straitjacket of uniform laws across the European continent?

[Lord Callanan]

As always, my noble friend makes a powerful point. One of the results of the referendum that I am particularly proud of is taking back control to this country. It delivers control of our immigration policy, our fishing policy and our agricultural policy. Once again, the destiny of this country is in the hands of its elected representatives, which is a good thing.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the original Question was on sectors of the economy. What do the Government think will be the particular effect of the loss of freedom of movement on our service industries with regard to business in Europe?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Earl is correct that freedom of movement is ending. We are in favour of agreeing a mobility partnership with the EU which will allow the movement of business professionals, tourists, and so on, from which both our economies develop. But there will no longer be freedom of movement as in the original treaties.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords—

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ludford]

No; I will not give way to a third Tory. Can the Minister tell us whether this is the first Government in history who have deliberately pursued a policy that they know—as the Chancellor confirmed this morning—will make this country and its people poorer? If not, please can he name any other Governments who have acted in such a way?

[Lord Callanan]

I do not think the noble Earl would be happy to be called a Tory by the noble Baroness. This policy will not make the country poorer. On every scenario, this country will continue to grow. A range of possible growth predictions is modelled in this analysis, but of course many other factors can influence economic growth, and this is likely to be a relatively small contributor to the overall economic growth. Of course, what would be truly disastrous would be a Labour Government, who would affect the economic growth of this country. We are proud of our economic record; we have delivered record low levels of unemployment for 40 years, the Government can be proud of their economic record, which will continue.

Brexit: Proposed Agreement

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I thank my noble friend for his question. It of course remains the case, because this House passed the withdrawal Act, that if Parliament refuses to agree the withdrawal agreement then we have no deal.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, Parliament needs to see the actual text; perhaps the Minister can tell us when that will happen—preferably not too far behind the journalists. We already know enough to understand that this is a miserable Brexit; indeed, it is impossible for any Brexit deal to be as good as EU membership. When will the Government be honest about this, stop the disinformation and put it to the people for them to decide?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Baroness says that she wants to see the text, but she has already decided what it says before she has seen it, which is of course typical of the attitude of the Liberal Democrats—they have decided what they believe before they see the final deal. The Cabinet is meeting this afternoon to consider the draft agreement that the negotiating teams have reached in Brussels and will decide on the next steps in the national interest.

Brexit: Article 50

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord’s Question would result in us remaining in the EU, if we withdrew our notification under Article 50. Of course the Government do not support a no-deal exit. We are preparing for that unlikely eventuality, as is the responsible thing to do, but we hope to negotiate a good and ambitious deal with the European Union.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, since the Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I would like to know from the Minister whether there has been any progress since the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told my noble friend Lady Northover last Wednesday:

“It is important that we review our procedures to ensure that individuals such as Tommy Robinson do not enter the heart of democracy”.—[Official Report, 24/10/18; col. 859.]


It was the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who hosted this racist, Islamophobic character, who has multiple convictions, to a celebratory lunch after Robinson was released on bail—not acquitted—on a contempt of court charge that has been referred to the Attorney-General, which concerns actions which threatened to derail the Huddersfield trials. Can the Minister tell me when we will see action to ban Tommy Robinson from this House, not least to protect House of Lords staff from having to wait on this man?

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, as far as I am aware, the Government have no policy on the dining companions of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I understand that the opinions of the House were made very clear last week but ultimately this is a matter not for the Government but for the House authorities.

Brexit: People’s Vote

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for introducing it. There have been strong contributions across the House. My strongest memory of this debate might well be the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of a banner from last Saturday that he felt was directed at Boris Johnson: “Testiculi ad Brexitam”. I have to be very careful to get the plural. The pithier Anglo-Saxon version is probably not suitable for this Chamber.

My noble friend Lord Tyler referred to various scenarios that could lead to a people’s vote. Intriguingly, in her Statement on Monday, the Prime Minister vowed not to give in,

“to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians’ vote”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/18; col. 48.]

But a people’s vote is a different thing, and I do not exclude the Prime Minister herself calling for it. The UCL Constitution Unit remarked in its report that,

“in a crisis scenario it may prove the government’s only way out”.

This may well account for the war-gaming that is apparently going on in Whitehall. It may well be, of course, that the Labour Opposition reach the same conclusion. Objectors, including some speakers today, claim it is undemocratic to hold a further vote. How can any vote be undemocratic? Even if that claim is true, it would apply to the Prime Minister’s wholly unnecessary general election last year.

My noble friend Lady Doocey made the point that in 2016 people voted for a blank canvas on which a variety of pictures of Brexit were projected. I think this is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who claimed people knew what they were voting for in 2016. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out that even if the Chequers deal or something similar to it was the final product, it is so far from what people were promised that a second vote is justified—let alone if there is no deal. It would in fact be more democratic to hold a further referendum, because people would have a real choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this saga began with a vote by the people, and it should end with a vote by the people. This is the very opposite of the claim made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, of politicians telling voters that they know what is best for them—it is voters deciding what is best for them.

My noble friend Lord Campbell asked “what are those who oppose a second vote afraid of?” I think that was just answered by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who remarked that it was neither responsible nor honourable to oppose a second vote because of fear of the outcome. My noble friend Lord Marks said that a second vote is an affirmation, not a denial, of democracy. That is surely right, and it would be anti-democratic not to give people the final say, with informed consent. We know that various Brexiters have posited just that scenario on occasions in the past: a first vote in principle and a second vote on the facts: David Davis, John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage, even Jeremy Hunt in 2016 suggested a vote on the outcome. It is not just the usual suspects. The British Medical Association and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, the Royal College of Nursing are calling for a people’s vote because of the mess Brexit has got into. Sir John Sawers, former chief of MI6, is so worried about the threat to Britain’s strategic position and its security that he has now come out. It is surely unusual for the former head of the Secret Intelligence Service to put his head above the parapet like that.

It was the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, who made the point that this is not a rerun or repeat of 2016. That is a fallacy. She gave half a dozen examples of scenarios where people have an opportunity to review their choice. It is not about changing their mind, but reviewing, with a view to confirming or withdrawing their choice. The obvious one is house purchase. You see what looks like a wonderful house, put in a bid and then the surveyor’s report says the house is about to fall down and it will cost hundreds of thousands to repair. It still looks like a lovely house, but it is not credible to carry on with the purchase.

I will not dwell on feasibility, because the report from the UCL Constitution Unit, which is an objective one by academics, has answers to questions of timing, how the question would be drawn up, and so on. It would be wonderful if the people’s vote would be held on 23 May, which is the date on which we would otherwise be voting for MEPs; we might then have to have a later vote for MEPs, before 2 July. Clearly we would need to regulate online campaigning, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said. Perhaps there would be an opportunity to have citizens’ assemblies, as they did so successfully in the recent referendum on abortion in Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, claimed it would exacerbate divisions to have a second vote, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it is less divisive than not having one. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said this is not a reason to funk it—we must face up to it.

I would like to end by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in his foreword to The Roadmap to a People’s Vote, from the people’s vote campaign:

“Indeed, to waste time or to do nothing are perhaps the worst options of all. History will not…be kind to any politician who hides behind purely logistical arguments, legalese or arcane parliamentary procedure in order to deny people a vote on the outcome of these Brexit negotiations at such a fragile and crucial moment for our country”.

Brexit: Preparedness for EU Exit

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I am not sure what the noble Baroness is asking us to do here. We do not want no deal, but as a responsible Government, we need to prepare for it. Is the Labour Party saying that it would accept any deal given to it? We want a deal, we are working for a deal, we are negotiating for a deal, but putting in place preparations in case there is no deal is the responsible thing to do. That is what a responsible Government should do.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, does not this damning report from the National Audit Office perfectly make the case for the people to have a people’s vote, to have a final say on what happens next to this country? There is a myth that the Prime Minister stopped talking about no deal being better than a bad deal, but she repeated it just four weeks ago. In the light of that, it is highly irresponsible—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her Question—to be in this state of unpreparedness when the Government say that they are determined, come what may, that we either exit with a deal or have no deal.

Is it true that the Government have been advised that ferries will have to be requisitioned because the capacity at Dover will be 15% to 25% more than normal for six months after no deal? Where will the Government find those ferries? Where will they find the alternative port capacity? What are people who depend on life-saving drugs going to do in the meantime?

[Lord Callanan]

As the noble Baroness is aware, we have already had the a people’s vote and the people voted to leave, but we will be exploring this subject extensively in the next few hours in response to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. As I said, we remain confident of reaching an agreement with the EU, but it is only sensible for government and industry to prepare for a range of scenarios. We continue to work closely with a range of partners on the appropriate contingency plans to ensure that trade can continue to move as freely as possible between the UK and Europe in the event of no deal—which, I repeat, is not an outcome that we wish.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Callanan]

This legislation is being repealed in consequence of the repeal of the 2008 and 2011 Acts, which has rendered them redundant and no longer necessary. Removing this legislation from our statute book is consistent with our goals of ensuring an effective, functioning statute book on exit day by providing clarity and avoiding confusion by making reference to legislation that no longer exists within our statute book. For reassurance, I make it clear that the repeal of the legislation that approved matters in accordance with the 2008 and 2011 Acts does not have any effect on the validity of anything done in relation to those decisions or treaty changes approved by them.

Secondly, these regulations also make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act 1948, and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, to reflect the introduction of a new category of law, called “retained direct EU law”, into the UK’s legal system. Retained direct EU law is the directly applicable EU law that existed immediately before exit day that will be converted into UK law on exit day by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

The Statutory Instruments Act established a number of rules that apply when making SIs, and similarly, the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order applies when making statutory rules—the Northern Irish equivalent—under powers in primary legislation. To provide certainty, it is important that we ensure that these same rules apply to instruments made under powers in retained direct EU legislation so that it is clear what procedures must be followed to ensure that instruments made under powers in retained direct EU legislation are properly made.

These regulations therefore make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 to make it clear that the normal rules apply to making statutory instruments and statutory rules under powers in retained direct EU law. This will create certainty about the proper procedures to be followed where such powers are used in the future and will assist Parliament in considering the use of such powers.

Similar provision has already been made to deal with Scottish statutory instruments made under retained direct EU legislation through the amendments to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act in Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Therefore, these regulations take an approach consistent for the purposes of England, Wales and Northern Ireland with that taken for Scotland by the Act itself.

The Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act established the rules for laying documents before Parliament where an Act or piece of secondary legislation required that documents be laid before Parliament. Similarly, therefore, the consequential amendments made to the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act will ensure that the same rules on laying documents before Parliament apply where retained direct EU legislation requires those documents to be laid before Parliament.

Given that these regulations amend primary legislation that is of constitutional importance, we thought it would be appropriate to allow Parliament the opportunity to debate these regulations through the use of an affirmative instrument. However, I hope that after my explanation noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible use of the consequential power, and that what we are seeking is appropriate to ensure continuity as a new category of law is introduced into our legal system on exit.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which, in so far as is possible on the subject, was admirably straightforward. He is quite right, as he said at the beginning, that there was—and will continue to be—a lot of controversy over the ministerial powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. This one is perhaps not yet of mountainous dimensions in terms of controversy, but I have some questions.

First, no doubt simply because of my unfamiliarity with the field of secondary legislation, can the Minister remind me whether there are any limits on the ability of SIs to amend primary legislation under the Act? I have entirely forgotten—perhaps mercifully—a lot of the debates on the Bill. The regulations amend primary legislation. I would welcome a reminder of whether there are any limits on that.

My second question is about the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013. I appreciate that the implementation of those measures—the accession of Croatia and the Irish protocol to the Lisbon treaty—is not affected by these regulations, but what will happen to their implementation when and if the ECA is repealed? How will they continue to be implemented? They have been implemented through the European Communities Act by making them EU treaties for the purposes of that Act. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum rightly states that their,

“implementation is unaffected by these regulations”,

but that prompted me to wonder what happens when and if the ECA is repealed. I would be grateful to learn how they carry on being in force, or will that matter be dealt with during the standstill transition by repealing a lot of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in the EU withdrawal agreement Bill? I hope that I do not stray too far, but this subject is quite complicated.

Similar issues arise in relation to the decisions mentioned in paragraph 2.11. I remember spending time during the passage of the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 speaking about Albania and Serbia being observers in the work of the fundamental rights agency—I cannot remember whether I referred also to the Canada competition laws; it was in the same Act, so I must have done. These approvals are no longer necessary if Sections 1 to 13 of the European Union Act 2011 are being abolished, so the 2017 Act becomes redundant. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The repeal of the Act approving those decisions has no effect on the validity of those decisions or anything done in relation to those decisions”.


So if we repeal the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017, paragraph 2.11 of the memorandum states that such repeal,

“has no effect on the validity of those decisions”,

which is interesting. How are they still valid? The Government are repealing the Act which approved the decisions about Albania and Serbia being observers in the fundamental rights agency, et cetera, but they state that it has no effect on the validity of the decisions. On what basis, then, do those decisions approving Albania and Serbia continue to be valid?

That takes me back to my previous point. That statement implies that we want those decisions to continue to be valid. If we want to continue the validity of the Serbian and Albanian observership in the fundamental rights agency, I presume that we want to continue the validity of the recognition of Croatian accession and the Irish protocol. I am wondering whether my question about how they get knocked out by the repeal of the ECA is correct, because presumably they are on a similar level. If the Albania and Serbia observerships are to remain valid—which they would be in a standstill transition anyway—presumably that also applies to the Croatian accession, et cetera. So how do they continue being valid, and if they do, will they still be valid after 29 March? I apologise if I am just being dense.

Then there is the question about the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applying. Obviously, that is welcome. It is interesting that it is being done now. Perhaps the Minister could remind me why the Government did not agree to incorporate this in the EU withdrawal Act. Our attention is drawn to the 12th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published last February. One of the things it objected to was tertiary legislation—the ability for Ministers or other bodies to make further subordinate legislation without there having to be any parliamentary procedure or any requirement for it to be made by statutory instrument. The committee wanted all tertiary legislation to be subject to the same parliamentary control and time limits as are applicable to secondary legislation. If I understand this correctly, it talks about the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applying to SIs. Does it apply? The DPRRC report also referred to tertiary legislation which is not made in statutory instruments. Is this extension of the 1946 Act limited to what is made under statutory instruments or does it meet the entire objection in the DPRRC report of last February? I hope the question is clear, because I am confused about why the Government are doing this now and did not do it in the Bill.

I am also trying to understand the scope of this welcome reform—whether further transparency and normal rules of scrutiny should apply. The answer would appear to be only where that secondary legislation is in statutory instruments, and not if it was made by some new agency, for instance. In paragraph 2.12, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the ability to subdelegate regulations made under certain withdrawal Act powers—tertiary legislation made by an agency, for instance. It says that,

“it is important that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is amended to cover these scenarios”,

so you would think that meant all tertiary legislation, but then it goes on to say,

“so that there is certainty about the proper procedure for making SIs under such powers”.

I am dependent on the report from last February to understand that not all tertiary legislation is made in SIs. I suppose it makes sense, but I am a novice in secondary legislation. What is the extent of the concession—the welcome reform—that the Government are proposing for the extension of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946? Does it apply to all tertiary legislation, including that not made under SIs or by Ministers but by other bodies?

I think that covers all my questions. I hope that I have not been too confusing and that the Minister is able to answer my questions.

Brexit: Dispute Resolution and Enforcement (European Union Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, was delighted to serve under the splendid chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who has introduced our report so comprehensively and indeed does a very good job of keeping us in order. It is also a pleasure to participate in a debate with colleagues from the sub-committee. I note that we now have two Lord Andersons. We have the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, of that ilk, who is a valued colleague on the sub-committee, and we have the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I am particularly pleased to take part for the first time in a debate with him because our paths crossed when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and I focused on EU justice and security matters as an MEP. His interest in the EU dimension set an example that was not always followed by British officials and institutions.

During the debate, we have noted various features common to Brexit negotiations as a whole that pop up in this area. I should just like to enumerate them. The first—the big elephant in the room—is, of course, the red line against the jurisdiction of the ECJ. It has bedevilled the whole of the negotiations, but particularly in this area, where its impact is greatest and most damaging. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, such prejudice against the court is fuelled by the empty and ill-informed rhetoric of the Brexiters. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, rightly described it as a “thick red line”: given the Brexiter confusion between the ECJ and the ECHR, perhaps it is “thick” in more ways than one.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, noted that the Prime Minister still said a few weeks ago that the role of the ECJ in the UK would cease. He rightly described that as misleading. I would go further: it is totally wrong in the light of the Government’s own contributions. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said, “Now you see it, now you don’t”. The second common feature of the whole sorry saga of the Brexit negotiations is dishonesty and unreliability. What can we trust that we hear from the Government? Is it still going to be true tomorrow? “Will you still love me tomorrow?”

The third feature is that all of the alternatives to EU membership are more messy, more complicated, more difficult to follow and less transparent and accessible for citizens and businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, we will have multiple systems of dispute resolution and enforcement. Some of those are the special regime for citizens’ rights, the withdrawal agreement, the transition and the future relationship. Then we have the dispute resolution between the parties and the attempt at private enforcement by citizens and businesses.

The fourth feature is a belief that everything is political, with a disdain for a so-called legalistic approach. This apparently applies to the debate on the Irish backstop. This pejorative term—it is used pejoratively—fails to recognise that the EU has a legal and constitutional order. It cannot just throw this over. I think that many Brexiters do not like courts and judges, full stop. We are undermining our negotiating ability by failing to recognise the fundamentals about the EU legal order. Linked to that is the complacent idea that the UK can expect a bespoke arrangement just to suit us because we are big, important and we are—well, us.

The fifth feature is the failure to put forward credible and workable proposals. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, they have not surfaced. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us and as my noble friend Lord Newby mentioned on Monday, proposals always seem to be happening “soon”, “in due course” or “when the time is right”. That time is now. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, just said, we are deafened by the silence. This is creating enormous uncertainty and anxiety out there in the real world because the enforcement and dispute resolution options for the future relationship will be shaped by the closeness of the partnership. We are in that cart-before-horse situation where the Government’s failure after two years to decide precisely what model they seriously want to pursue has held back sensible discussion on mechanisms.

The July White Paper clarified what the Government meant by the term the Prime Minister had used in two speeches that the UK would “respect the remit” of the CJEU when participating in agencies and programmes. The White Paper explained that this meant respecting the court’s ability to adjudicate in cases of disputes about decisions made by those agencies “that affected the UK”. There was then rowing-back, a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea. He pointed out the words at the end of—I shall be precise—paragraph 38 in chapter 4.4.3, which added,

“noting that this would not involve giving the CJEU jurisdiction over the UK”.

We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that we have had lots of smoke and mirrors about direct and indirect jurisdiction, but how can the Government say that respecting the “remit” of the ECJ does not mean its jurisdiction? Please can the Minister precisely explain the distinction between those two terms?

Interestingly, the Government’s response to the report that we are now debating came just a week before the White Paper. It said that,

“if we agree the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency this would mean abiding by the rules”,

including that,

“the UK would have to respect the remit of the CJEU”.

But it added another rider:

“our Parliament would remain ultimately sovereign. It could decide not to accept these rules”.


It then had the grace to acknowledge that there would be consequences for our membership of the relevant agency; that is, Europol. It seems telling that, just a few months ago, the Government should say, “We’re going to respect the remit, but of course, at any time, our Parliament might decide in its sovereignty that it’s going to throw over those rules”. What is Mr Barnier meant to work on when he has this chopping and changing all the time?

Two areas have been cited in the debate where there will in any case be an element of jurisdiction of the court, direct or indirect: obviously, on the European arrest warrant, assuming that the problems about non-surrender of nationals do not bedevil our participation—a problem solved within the context of the EAW. But if, for instance, a UK surrender request to a French court is contested by the wanted person, the French court could refer that case to Luxembourg. To use a phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, we could not rely just on a “cordial, friendly understanding”; there would be legal norms to be enforced. The second area is seeking a data adequacy assessment, which will be made in the light of EU law.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said that the EU and UK legal systems would be diminished by our non-participation in the EU’s legal order. UK lawyers have made a big and positive contribution to developing EU law, and its ending is much to be regretted. It was such an element of strength for us. In the whole justice and security area, we kept wanting opt-outs and so on; we have never played to our profound strengths in the legal area. Nowhere was that more obvious than in Luxembourg.

Unfortunately, the Government do not seem terribly interested in the loss of access to justice and enforcement of rights for citizens and businesses, which will be difficult particularly for small businesses. I, too, will be interested in the answers to the questions raised in our report, and expertly put by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about how that is supposed to work for citizens and individuals. That the Government seem so uninterested in that topic tells us all we need to know about “taking back control”. It actually means robbing people of their rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Government I very much welcome the EU Justice Sub-Committee’s report Dispute Resolution and Enforcement After Brexit. The detailed analysis and consideration of the areas covered by the report is a welcome contribution to the wider discussions on how disputes between the UK and the EU should be resolved after we leave in March 2019. The report was ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and we are fortunate to have the benefit of her vast experience of these matters. I also thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their constructive and insightful speeches during the debate.

I will say as much as I can on these matters and respond to as many questions as possible, but I ask noble Lords to accept that this is a live negotiation. Many of these matters are being discussed and negotiated on at the moment. Some parts are agreed; others are not. Some parts are agreed at the technical level; others are outstanding and waiting for related parts to be agreed. In some respects, therefore, it would not be helpful to go into too much detail on some aspects of the negotiations. Nevertheless, I will try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible.

Noble Lords have expressed concerns about how disputes will be resolved after the UK leaves the EU, in particular—this was referred to by many noble Lords—the proposal that the jurisdiction of the CJEU would be replaced by a judicial or quasi-judicial body to oversee disputes between the UK and EU. I assure noble Lords that, since the EU Justice Sub-Committee published its report in May, we have made significant progress in the negotiations on establishing appropriate and workable dispute resolution mechanisms. I would like to update noble Lords on these negotiations and note that the UK and the EU are close to concluding a withdrawal agreement that sets out the terms of the UK’s orderly exit from the European Union. The withdrawal agreement will provide important certainty to individuals and businesses, setting out the deal on citizens’ rights, on the financial settlement and on the implementation period. We are close to reaching agreement on a number of other separation issues, which will provide for winding-down provisions across a number of areas as we leave—for instance, cases pending at the CJEU and ongoing customs processes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked specifically for an update on these ongoing judicial proceedings. I can assure her that the relevant provisions will set out the process winding down UK involvement in legal proceedings before the CJEU in an orderly manner. These will support the legitimate expectations of, and efficient access to justice for, those who have spent time and money progressing cases through the UK and the European court systems, allowing all cases in train at the end of the implementation period to continue to their natural conclusions. Once the final areas of the withdrawal agreement have been settled, we will consider the necessary legislative requirements for those areas. I realise that this will be a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in particular, but it remains the Government’s position that, in leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the United Kingdom.

A number of noble Lords asked me about judicial co-operation and the European arrest warrant. We are pleased that we have reached agreement with the EU on the content of Part Three, Title V, of the withdrawal agreement on ongoing police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Title V provides clarity and legal certainty for individuals, for law enforcement stakeholders and the judiciary in the unlikely event that we do not reach agreement on future police and criminal justice co-operation as part of our future security partnership with the EU. We want to continue to play a leading role in Europol and Eurojust, and we will continue to do so during the implementation period.

[Baroness Ludford]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister—he might be going on to answer this question—but he has just repeated the mantra about ending the jurisdiction of the court, and he has cited the fact that we want to stay part of agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. How is the remit of the court, in respect of enforcing the rules regarding the UK, going to work if we do not recognise the jurisdiction of the court?

[Lord Callanan]

If the noble Baroness will have a little patience, I will come on to talk about the agencies and the remit of the ECJ.

Withdrawal from the EU will mean a return to the situation where the UK and the EU have their own autonomous legal orders. The Government agree with the committee’s observation that the withdrawal agreement and the future partnership must respect the autonomy and integrity of both legal orders.

On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Anderson, this is not about demonising the CJEU in any way. Our position has always been that we respect the role of the CJEU as the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of EU law, and we respect the autonomy of the EU legal order, as indeed we expect it to respect ours. However, it would be wholly unprecedented for a non-member state to be subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU, and we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the court of one party to resolve disputes between the two.

There are, of course, limitations under EU law on the extent to which the EU can be bound by an international judicial body other than the CJEU. Therefore, we will also need to find a principled and pragmatic solution to respecting our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order. For these reasons, the EU and the UK need to agree on how both the provisions of the withdrawal agreement and our new deep and special partnership can be monitored and implemented to the satisfaction of both sides, and how any disputes that arise can be resolved.

As the committee acknowledged in its report, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for dispute resolution after our exit. Despite the fact that dispute resolution mechanisms are common within international agreements, the form these mechanisms take varies considerably across the spectrum of agreements, given the different areas of international co-operation, and consequently the varied nature of potential disputes that could arise. That is why we are negotiating bespoke mechanisms across the different areas where we need a dispute resolution mechanism.

The sub-committee and noble Lords have raised concerns on the rights of EU citizens. Let me assure the House that, in setting out governance principles, we will ensure that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and of course UK nationals living in the EU, are safeguarded. This reflects the fact that the Prime Minister made it clear that that was her first priority for negotiations. The agreement reached in December and set out in our joint report with the Commission, alongside Part Two of the withdrawal agreement, will provide these citizens with certainty about their rights going forward.

In the UK, EU citizens’ rights will be upheld by incorporating Part Two of the withdrawal agreement into our law. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, noted, there will be a time-limited period when our courts may choose to refer questions on specific points of law concerning citizens’ rights to the CJEU for a decision, having had regard to whether relevant case law exists, but it will be up to our courts to decide whether to do so. Let me reassure the noble Lord that it will be for our courts to make final judgments, not the CJEU. Any continuing CJEU role in our legal system will be temporary and narrowly defined. The ability of UK courts to make voluntary references to the CJEU will, as the noble Lord is aware, be time-limited to eight years. These short-term, limited arrangements have been agreed to help ensure consistency and certainty for citizens over these new rights as they are implemented.

For the implementation period to operate effectively, the UK will need to remain in step with the EU. The withdrawal agreement will be underpinned by a duty of good faith, with a joint committee in place enabling either side to raise issues or concerns. These arrangements will help ensure the implementation period works properly for both sides. We have agreed that, for the implementation period, the existing EU mechanisms for supervision and enforcement will apply, including continued CJEU jurisdiction. This is necessary so that there will be one set of changes for businesses and people. I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who raised their concerns about the need for certainty during the transition period. This does not change the fact that in the long term, after the end of the implementation period, the UK will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the CJEU.

Let me answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, by making it clear that the implementation period will not be extended. I thank him for the offer of co-operation from the Bar Council; we continue to have regular consultations with lawyers in practice, as well as the judiciary, on all aspects of the complicated legal mechanisms in both the withdrawal Act and the future partnership.

Brexit: No Deal

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

The proposed backstop on Northern Ireland is the subject of intense negotiations at the moment. We remain committed to there being no hard border in Northern Ireland and we remain committed to the Belfast agreement, and we are negotiating with those two matters in mind.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the leaked no-deal alternative to Chequers from the ERG amounts, in the words of the esteemed former Chancellor, George Osborne, to,

“a whole load of other batty ideas from the nether reaches of the Tory Right”,

coming out of the woodwork. He says that they include a “star wars” system and an,

“expeditionary force to retake the Falklands”—

although Argentina is supposedly one of our new trade friends. Can the Government still, with a straight face, give any credence to no deal?

[Lord Callanan]

I cannot comment on the document referred to by the noble Baroness because I have not read it. However, as I have said repeatedly in this House, we do not want no deal. We are negotiating to get a good deal, but a responsible Government will prepare for every eventuality, and we are preparing for no deal through the issuing of technical notices.

Brexit: Negotiations

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, only to the extent that Chequers is dead. As reported by George Osborne’s Evening Standard, the French Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau,

“scoffed at British media reports that her boss President Emmanuel Macron was softening to the Prime Minister’s proposals”.

Instead of trying to dodge, weave and divide and rule, could the Government not just concentrate on honest and competent negotiating?

[Lord Callanan]

We are concentrating on honest and competent negotiating. In fact my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DExEU is actually in Brussels today meeting with Michel Barnier. I have met the French Foreign Minister and she certainly did not say that to me. The Latvian Foreign Minister said that Chequers constitutes a good ground for trying hard to reach a deal, the Danish Finance Minister said it was a realistic proposal for good negotiations and Michel Barnier said he was also confident that we would reach a deal.