EU: Trade and Security Partnership
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True [V]
My Lords, I will not criticise the negotiators on either side; they have their mandates and both have said that they find the discussions professional and appropriate. However, my noble friend is quite right to say that on certain matters, as I think Mr Frost said, the EU must evolve an understanding that the United Kingdom is not prepared to accept the so-called level playing field or, indeed, to accept that we cannot be an independent coastal state regarding fisheries.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Conservative Party has long regarded itself, justifiably or not, as the party that looks after business, so can the Minister tell us why this Conservative Government are so apparently casual about the prospect of a no-deal crash-out on 31 December, despite alarmed warnings from business representatives such as the CBI, from hauliers about the lack of customs preparation at Dover, from the pharmaceutical industry about dangerously low stocks of drugs, from the business community in Northern Ireland about lack of detailed preparation for implementation of the Irish protocol, and from many others? Why is ideology trumping pragmatism?
Lord True [V]
There is no ideology. This is a pragmatic Government. We have close contact with business, which will intensify and continue. There is no crash-out no deal. We will leave the EU at the end of the year with either a Canada-style or an Australia- style arrangement.
EU: Plans for No Deal
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, the Government seek to extend the opportunities of our being outside the European Union and to enable businesses and citizens to prepare for the change for which the people of this country voted and for which Parliament legislated. Of course, in our strategy of levelling up, we will have particular regard to any parts of the country that are affected in particular ways.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in his evidence to your Lordships’ House’s EU Committee last week, the UK’s Brexit negotiator, Mr David Frost, said that
“the Canada and Australia outcomes are similar”
if not identical. These are of course shorthand for a free trade agreement and no deal. Why are the Government so minimalist in their aims compared to the goal of
“an ambitious, broad, deep … partnership … with a comprehensive … Free Trade Agreement at its core”
that they signed up for in the political declaration last October?
Lord True
My Lords, I watched the evidence given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and by Mr David Frost. I thought that they came over—I hope your Lordships will agree —as people who were seeking a responsible and reasonable agreement with the European Union. I am confident that those negotiations will succeed.
EU: Future Relationship
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is always critical of the role of Mr David Frost, the Prime Minister’s Sherpa. Mr Frost acts on behalf of the UK Government and, in my view, is doing an outstanding job. I think many noble Lords would agree that his letter was not unreasonable, but reasonable in setting out some of the areas of difference which we hope can be clarified. I believe that it is still very possible, as Mr Frost said, to agree a “modern and high-quality” free trade agreement and other agreements. He has suggested ways to find a rapid and constructive way forward.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
How can the Government reproach the EU for being inflexible and ideological when they are insisting on many club membership benefits that they know are incompatible with the rather thin, minimalist relationship in which they reject the EU’s rules? Why, on the other hand, are they being so unambitious in areas such as foreign and defence policy, given that the UK surely has a great deal to contribute to a common European effort in an era of such uncertainty about the US and China? Why is there no proposed treaty on these matters, and why are the Government cavalier about a no-deal outcome at the end of the year? Are they refusing to contemplate an extension to the transition period because they think that the dire economic effect of no deal would be hidden by the effects of the corona- virus?
Beyond Brexit (European Union Committee Report)
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the long and distinguished leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. His committee made a very useful report a year ago, but the regrettable delay in us being able to debate its sensible proposals for governance, transparency, influence and scrutiny has meant that in the meantime the situation has been transformed—for the worse; it has become more complex, unpredictable and dangerous.
Just over 18 months ago, the then Prime Minister Theresa May agreed with the EU a political declaration on the future relationship that envisaged
“an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation … law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation.”
The October 2019 version agreed by Prime Minister Johnson stated the same aim, in fact, apart from adding
“with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core”.
However, the broad objective was in fact still there, including the explicit reference to it being a possible association agreement. Yet somehow, in the last seven months, the objective of the Johnson Government has shrunk to no more than a Canada-type free-trade agreement, apparently shorn even of that breadth of economic co-operation and with a series of individual agreements, as tweeted by Mr David Frost, instead of the umbrella of a broad and flexible partnership and its accompanying governance arrangements.
We look forward to these drafts being published, in the same way in which the EU published its 440-page draft text two months ago. However, whereas the EU referred in its draft to a new economic partnership, that very notion appears to have been eradicated from the thinking of the present Government. They have resiled from what they sensibly signed up to just last October, preferring a messy set of 10 or maybe more separate agreements. This is at a huge cost. A month ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that a typical FTA would cost a potential 5.2% of GDP over 15 years through trade friction, restrictions on migration and red tape. Higher trade barriers would cause imports and exports to be 15% lower after 10 years, and UK productivity, already not exactly stellar, would also be lower. As my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pointed out, the Government refuse to publish their own economic assessment of the Canada-style deal that they want with the EU, but they have done one on the claimed advantages of the US trade deal that they want—a measly maximum 0.16% of GDP.
Mr Gove told the Commons Brexit committee that he saw economic opportunities for people wishing to work as customs agents by filling in forms to allow trade with the EU. The private sector estimates a need for 50,000 of them; that is one example of the Government’s idea of a silver lining, I suppose. What an extraordinary ambition it is for a Government to embrace—to have less than before, to erect trade barriers where none had existed and to create jobs only in the red-tape industry, all in the name of sovereignty.
Noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have spoken in this debate about level playing-field issues in the economic sphere, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I want to dwell on those concerning justice and security. In last October’s political declaration, it was agreed that
“the scale and scope of future security arrangements should achieve an appropriate balance between rights and obligations—the closer and deeper the partnership the stronger the accompanying obligations. It should reflect the commitments the United Kingdom is willing to make that respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order, such as with regard to alignment of rules and the mechanisms for disputes and enforcement … It should also be underpinned by long-standing commitments to the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR, and adequate protection of personal data”.
Elsewhere in the political declaration, it was said that:
“In view of the importance of data flows and exchanges across the future relationship, the Parties are committed to ensuring a high level of personal data protection to facilitate such flows between them.”
However, the Government now seem to want the flows and exchanges without the commitments. It has been reported that they are seeking full access to the Europol database and the Schengen Information System, but in his evidence last week to the European Union Committee, Mr Gove gave as one reason for resisting EU regulatory standards that the UK could lose “freedom of manoeuvre” for data sharing across government departments to deal with Covid. That does not sound very promising in respect of securing an EU data adequacy decision.
In the same session, Mr Gove said, rather peevishly perhaps:
“I think that everything could be agreed—it all depends on the EU. For example, it would be within the EU’s gift to give us access to the Schengen Information System, but it insists that we submit to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.”
Mr Gove absolutely knows that the EU is an organisation based on comprehensive arrangements of law, rules and enforcement. Indeed, elsewhere in his evidence he expressed satisfaction that equivalence in financial regulation
“is a rules-based rather than a discretion-based process”,
which means that
“the EU would not promiscuously and whimsically withdraw equivalence”.
Yet he expects the EU to abandon its legal and data rules and promiscuously use discretion to gift us access to SIS. This is not serious; it seems to be preparation for a later complaint that the EU is being beastly to us in denying us the opportunity to have our cake and eat it—all this while the present Government and their supporters play fast and loose over whether the Human Rights Act, or even our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights, is safe in their hands. This is not the basis for a security and justice partnership.
On citizens’ rights, I was pleased to hear Mr Gove say that the Government would want to “show flexibility and humanity” to EU citizens who miss the June 2021 deadline for applying for settled status, whereas, if memory serves, the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said recently that they would be illegal residents after that date and thus subject to the hostile environment. Can the Minister confirm that there will be flexibility and humanity, not least for the looked-after EU children to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred? It was also notable that Mr Gove told the EU Committee last week that the “moral and social case” was “strong” for accepting the plea, most recently from Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, for physical documentary proof of status. This is a plea our committee has repeatedly made. Will the Government accept it?
In this debate, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Oates, have expressed great disquiet at the Government’s lack of action to implement the Irish protocol. I can only second that. Last week, Mr Gove said that opposing an extension to transition was not a matter of ideology but because it could mean that UK could be subject to EU laws and rules in a way that would not be in our interest in a range of areas. I have already referred to my fear that the Government want to diverge from EU privacy law. Can the Minister give any other examples of desired flexibility?
Surely, in any case, the pragmatic, non-ideological thing to do is to recognise that capacity and bandwidth for Brexit have been so diminished by Covid that an extension is just a no-brainer. We certainly need to try and keep a national Parliament office in Brussels on the premises of the European Parliament and to seek a joint parliamentary committee with the latter. However, I fear that our goals will fall foul of this Johnson Government’s lack of ambition for a real partnership with the EU. This Government need to show that winning friends and influencing people is indeed what they have in mind.
European Union: Future Relationship
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Lord Hope of Craighead. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, then.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
On what basis do the Government believe that they will have full access to EU security operations and databases such as Europol and the Schengen Information System, an ambition that has been labelled as “cherry picking on speed” by a spokesman for one of the parties in the coalition Government of Germany, which will have the EU presidency from July? Are the Government relying on a belief that the EU will compromise on its legal rules on data protection, human rights and the European Court of Human Rights or, in the words of Mr Gove yesterday, that they will set aside their principles?
Lord True
No, my Lords, the Government are negotiating in good faith. We are in the first stages of this negotiation and that is the course we will continue to pursue. I have rather more confidence in the good faith of both sides than is implied in the question put by the noble Baroness.
EU: Negotiations
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in his reply to the debate on the EU Committee’s report yesterday, the Minister made an absolutist statement that “under no circumstances” would the Government “accept an extension”. This contrasted interestingly with an earlier response to my noble friend Lord Oates by the Minister’s colleague the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, at Question Time, who said:
“Were it the case that the … Government felt the need to do such a thing”—
amending the EU withdrawal Act—
“they would take the step that the noble Lord has outlined”,—[Official Report, 16/3/20; col. 1274.]
so that they have the power to extend. However, that is not the Government’s view today. The answer from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was much more flexible. Does the noble Lord, Lord True, accept that a flexible rather than absolutist, rejectionist policy towards extension would be regarded by the House and by the country as statesmanlike, rather than as some kind of cave-in?
European Union: Negotiations (European Union Committee Report)
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as a preliminary, I just want to send best wishes to colleagues from any Benches who are ill or staying at home because of coronavirus. Just before I left home, I was pleased that Radio 4 on “The World at One” responded to the plea from Esther Rantzen for some amusing material to keep up morale and played a clip of Martin Jarvis as Bertie Wooster. More from where that came from, please.
Yet again, we on these Benches are very grateful to our EU Committee for a timely and high-quality report of the standard we have come to expect from it. I can say that now without any vestige of self-congratulation as I have, alas, been rotated off even a sub-committee. The report’s finding that there is a wide gap between what the Government committed to in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration and the policies now espoused in the Written Ministerial Statement in last month’s Command Paper is deeply concerning. I shall focus on the question of trust, as exemplified by the Government’s behaviour over the Ireland protocol; on the triumph of absurd hard-line ideology over pragmatism, as illustrated by the rejection of heath co-operation; and on the damage that the Government’s limited ambition for the future relationship will cause.
In the current coronavirus crisis, trust is an essential component of the Government’s credibility; people will not follow advice they feel does not have a grounding in facts and competence, as opposed to political posturing. A Government who acquire a reputation for playing games or crying wolf will not be trusted in a crisis. This is one reason it is so essential that the Government can be trusted in their conduct of the Brexit negotiations —both to comply with their legal obligations and to deliver a Brexit that meets, as far as possible, the pledges made by the leaders of the leave campaign in 2016.
Under those legal obligations, respect for the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, which came at the request of the May and then Johnson Governments and which became, at their request, a front-stop instead of a backstop, is at the core of this. A few weeks ago, Tony Connelly of RTÉ wrote a commentary in which he noted that, in one breath, Michael Gove had told the House of Commons that
“this government are wholly committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement, to respecting and enacting the Northern Ireland protocol,’ yet minutes later told the DUP’s Jim Shannon that ‘there will be no border down the Irish Sea’.”
Mr Connelly reminded us that public messaging from Boris Johnson and Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis has added to the confusion, such that Michel Barnier could barely conceal his irritation at the UK’s apparent doublespeak on the protocol after the EU adopted its negotiating mandate.
After suggestions that Suella Braverman, former chair of the hard-line European Research Group, had been appointed Attorney-General to help Downing Street extricate itself from some of the obligations of the protocol, one EU diplomat reportedly said, “The UK can’t mess around with peremptory norms of international law, as that goes to the heart of the UK’s reputation as a reliable international partner.”
Paragraph 42 of the EU Committee’s report says that the Government have explicitly distanced themselves from the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Ireland, with a consequence that some of the language in the Command Paper is misleading. We are entitled to be shocked and dismayed. In particular, the Command Paper rejects any obligation to align with EU laws, or to allow the CJEU any jurisdiction in the UK. Yet, as the committee points out, such jurisdiction is conferred in respect of Northern Ireland by the protocol. Can the Minister make it very clear in his reply today how the Government intend to comply with the Ireland protocol? Can he give an assurance that they are not trying to wriggle out of that protocol, which would be totally corrosive of trust?
Turning to what sort of Brexit the Government are now pursuing, let us recall that, after many twists and turns, Prime Minister May finally settled on the goal of a “high alignment” future relationship. Perhaps nothing demonstrates how far we have come from Mrs May’s intentions than the question of co-operation on health matters.
The Written Ministerial Statement said rather pompously:
“The UK is ready to consider participation in certain EU programmes”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/2020; col. 4WS.]
oddly, making it sound as though we would be doing everyone else a favour by such participation. In fact, this Government have not only pulled out of the European Medicines Agency, booting it out of London and therefore booting the UK out of its fast-track drug and vaccine approval system and the joint procurement system, they have also declined to take part in meetings of EU Health Ministers, which Switzerland asked to be part of and was allowed to be. The Government have also declined to participate in the EU systems of public health co-ordination in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and its early warning and response system. The ECDC was set up in 2004, just after the SARS epidemic, and has been active in advising and co-ordinating in respect of bird flu. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are associates, and Switzerland has been granted temporary access to cope with coronavirus.
What possible justification can there be for the Government’s refusal to participate in these mechanisms? It goes against the pleas of, we understand, the Department of Health and Social Care and sectoral bodies such as the Brexit Health Alliance, whose co-chair is Niall Dickson, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which, as its website says,
“speaks on behalf of the whole NHS.”
This Government’s failure to seek association with these EU bodies and networks, as well as their failure to prioritise staying plugged into research programmes, is nothing less than a dereliction of their duty to do all in their power to keep the people of this country safe. Do they seriously think that sovereignty trumps safety? Have they discovered a way to instruct a virus to respect national borders? Of what value is autonomy in these dangerous times? It is all very well seeking, in the words of the Written Ministerial Statement, for the UK to
“have recovered in full its economic and political independence”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/20; col. 86WS.]
but at what price in terms of the social and economic welfare of the people of this country? Why should they be put at risk because of some idiotic ideological bee in the bonnet of hard Brexiters such as Dominic Cummings? Can the Minister give any other explanation?
Another example of the triumph of hard-line ideology over pragmatism is the Government’s rejection, as a matter of policy, of the notion of an extension to the negotiations, which has to be requested by 1 July. This was untenable before coronavirus hit; it is even more so now. Will the Minister assure us that the question of an extension will be guided by the needs of this country, not the prejudices of the ERG?
It is increasingly suspected that this Government have reverted not only to a preparedness for no deal but to an ambition to that end. They have certainly set the bar of ambition very low—for a minimalist free trade agreement of zero tariffs and zero quotas, rejecting any level playing field, regulatory alignment obligations or shared governance akin to an association agreement. This Government also reject the mutual respect for core values and principles, including explicitly staying in the European Convention on Human Rights and keeping the Human Rights Act, which the Council decision calls for. This will also hit the prospect of co-operation on internal security, which is supposed to be a high priority for the Government.
Outside the single market and customs union, the costs for business, including mountains more red tape, and the risk to jobs will be very high. Of course, we know what the Prime Minister’s attitude to business, including manufacturing in aerospace and cars, is—he expressed it very pithily—but that is a bit tricky when you are appealing to manufacturers to turn their hand to the production of ventilators. New border frictions and delays due to checks and formalities instead of just-in-time deliveries are very bad for filling supermarket shelves. This is a long way from what was promised in 2016, when a “deep and special partnership” was said to be the goal. Hostility and resentment have characterised the approach of those who won the referendum. The aim now, apparently, is the dogmatic rejection of anything and everything remotely connected to the EU, whether that is in health, Galileo, Erasmus, Euratom, EASA, REACH, the Unified Patent Court, the European arrest warrant and many more.
The Government intend to replicate the functions of these agencies at huge cost, but money is one thing that will be in short supply. Not only is there absolutely no Brexit dividend, but the OBR says that we have already lost 2% of GDP since the leave vote; it also warned that leaving the EU will hit growth, exports and the public finances at a time of rising uncertainty, predicting a 5.2% loss of potential GDP over 15 years if a “typical” FTA is struck. It blames trade friction, restrictions on migration and red tape. Even before coronavirus struck, economic growth had sunk to zero. Why are the Government refusing to publish their own economic impact assessment of the limited Canada-style trade deal that they are aiming for, when they published one on the not very beneficial US deal that they want? Are the Government afraid that the citizens of this country will wake up to the price they are paying for the ideological dogmatism of the hard Brexiters, who are now in charge of this country’s fortunes—or, rather, misfortunes?
Our EU Committee has done us a huge service with its forensic report, but it sets off many alarm bells. The country cannot afford the hard-line, doctrinaire Brexit policy of this Government, especially when our health is so much under threat. As one commentator, Professor Chris Gray, observed, their policy is indeed demented.
Lord True
All right—I shall accept the timetable. However, I maintain the point. In the middle of the Second World War, when Winston Churchill sent for Rab Butler—who my noble friend will remember very well—to look into the future of education in this country, he did not suddenly, when some news came in, say, “Rab, you must drop this.” The Government went on and, in the 1944 Education Act, laid the foundations to the education system in this country despite the enormous crisis of the Second World War. Everything is possible and nothing is impossible in life, but I do not think—
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, the Minister has just been advised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—and I support what he said—that nobody has suggested that the negotiations be abandoned. People have talked about the Government not being ideological about requesting an extension, so that we possibly go beyond December. There were murmurs of support for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The Minister should surely have got the message: this House does not accept his interpretation of what he is claiming was said, but he is going on with the same theme.
Lord True
My Lords, it is an unfortunate condition of democratic life that not everybody accepts the contention that is put forward by somebody on the other side. When I hear a plea being made for indefinite open-ended deferment—if I may go that far—that might or might not be a move towards abandonment. Let us not argue about that. My contention is that, in so far as possible, the business of this Government should go on. Until instructed otherwise, my view is that the central promise made by this Government to the electorate at the recent general election was that they would accomplish the completion of this process—and by the date agreed by both the European Union and the British Government: 31 December 2020. As I stand here, the position of the Government is that we should seek to conclude the arrangements on the timetable set out.
Having been diverted by those last few speeches, I should perhaps get back to the central response to the outstanding report put forward by your Lordships’ Select Committee and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I do not agree with all the strictures or necessarily all the rapture that attaches to that report, but I do think that it was outstanding and timely. That he, his committee and their clerks have achieved this report so swiftly and ably is a tribute, as many have said, to the work of your Lordships’ House. To the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I say that I would certainly be interested to see the report of her sub-committee when it comes out; I am sure that that would be widely shared.
In a tight timeframe, the committee has produced a detailed and informative report. I believe that everyone who has spoken would agree, at least on this: that it has facilitated the debate that we have had today on negotiations. I salute the continued dedication of your Lordships’ committee and I say clearly to the noble Earl that, certainly while I stand at this Dispatch Box, I will wish to have the closest co-operation with him and the committee and that is the position, I think, of all my colleagues on the Front Bench. He asked me some specific questions about engagement and methodologies—these were also put forward in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will come to those, but in general terms, without setting out a specific structure for engagement, of course the Government wish to engage with and hear the opinions of your Lordships’ committee.
I was struck by the tone at the start of the debate, when, with the greatest respect to her, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke of a mean-spirited tone and of extremism—it is a fact; Hansard will record it—and went on to talk about our hard line. She actually ended her speech saying that the Government’s policy was “demented” in trying to put into effect the central proposal of our manifesto and the central request twice made by the British people. I reject that. I do not accept it and I think it was a tone that luckily we moved away from after the first few speeches, when we moved to the normal tone of your Lordships’ House.
I was asked about the current negotiations—not just about the timeframe, but whether negotiations would actually continue this week. As noble Lords will know, the EU and UK negotiators have today jointly decided not to hold this week’s round of negotiations in London in the form originally decided, but both sides remain fully committed to continuing negotiations and are currently exploring alternative ways to continue discussions. That must be right, and it must and does include the possibility of video conferencing or conference calls and exploring flexibility in the structure over the coming weeks. If we are asking the people of this country to do ever more indirectly —by video, remotely—then surely the Government of this country and the negotiators for the European Union can seek to advance policy in the same way.
Today’s debate also covered the UK’s approach to negotiations with the European Union as set out in our Command Paper. That remains, although I know it does not please everybody, that by the end of this year —I have to repeat it again—we will be fully independent and a sovereign country. The Command Paper is also clear that we are not asking for a special or bespoke relationship with the European Union: in our proposals, which are based on the political declaration, we are looking for a relationship grounded in precedent. Even the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, acknowledged in his speech that the UK proposals were grounded in precedent. The relationship that we are suggesting is aligned with the parameters for our relationship as agreed in the political declaration.
Points have been made, including by your Lordships’ Select Committee, about the political declaration—who has moved away from it, who has not moved away from it and so on. I thought that, in an outstanding speech, my noble friend Lord Barwell set out a point also made in the Select Committee report: that the wording is not aligned in every respect with the wording of the political declaration. Both sides are making new asks—no, that is not the right phrase: both sides have set out their objectives. As was explained in another outstanding speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, there are differences in the positions, and the British position is as has been set out before your Lordships.
Our view, that our future relationship must be based on sovereignty, and that autonomy of decision-making must be respected as a principle on both sides, is not incompatible with having a close relationship with the EU. Our outline for negotiations, which noble Lords have heard before, builds on precedent and the EU’s offer of a Canada-style agreement. It reflects the type of free trade agreement that should be entirely achievable between sovereign states, as the EU has done previously. We continue to see the EU as our neighbour and friend and want our future relationship to be as wide-ranging as precedent allows. I do not accept that this is a doctrinaire Government who do not want good relations with the European Union; the opposite is true. However, it is a Government who believe that the relationship must be one of sovereign equals. That is what the British people have required and requested of us. We believe that our economic and political independence is a matter of vital national interest.
I will now address the specific points raised by the report. From my reading, there were three specific areas that the noble Earl asked the Government to address. The first was on an association agreement. It invited the Government to comment on the structure of the relationship and whether it would take the form of an association agreement. It is not fruitful to parse the political declaration, but my noble friend Lord Barwell quoted from the relevant part of it, which said that it could take the form of an association agreement, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, the parties may also decide that an agreement should sit outside an overarching framework and in a series of linked agreements. We strongly believe that the content of discussions should drive the structure of the agreement, not the other way around. As my Prime Minister set out, we will seek to negotiate a free trade agreement as well as a separate fisheries agreement, an internal security agreement and other more technical agreements, which I hope will include one on aviation, where points have been made about the move in the European Union’s position.
The report also invited the Government to explain the extent to which the general principles and core values in the political declaration should form part of our future relationship with the EU. This has been the theme of a number of opening speeches on the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that there was “blithe disregard” for the political declaration. I certainly do not agree with that. The UK and the European Union signed up to the political declaration. All the areas of policy set out in the political declaration will be relevant to the UK’s future co-operation with the European Union. However, not all need form part of a negotiated treaty. Many can be developed in a spirit of friendly dialogue between the UK and the EU, which is what we seek. This vision is fully compatible with the political declaration and based on the principles of precedent and reciprocity.
The noble Earl also asked whether the Government would publish a comparative analysis of the political declaration and the Government’s Command Paper. There has been a great deal of debate on the political declaration. The document has been on public record since last October. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I think, said, the Select Committee’s own document provides what the Select Committee asked for.
The report notes Parliament’s role. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has tabled an amendment on this topic, and a number of noble Lords have touched on this point. This House and Parliament as a whole was given a chance to vote on a potential statutory role for the House when they approved the Government’s approach to negotiations and the agreements during the passage of the withdrawal agreement Bill. As noble Lord will recall, and as my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us, the other place voted decisively against giving a statutory role to Parliament in these matters. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, withdrew her amendments on this matter during the passage of the Bill. Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister said at the Second Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill:
“Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of these negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/19; col. 150.]
In meeting that commitment, I ask noble Lords to note that the publication of the Government’s approach was supported by Oral Statements in both Houses and it is being debated today. A Written Ministerial Statement was also made on 9 March, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has appeared before a Select Committee in the other place.
I was asked about the role of the devolved Administrations by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. Throughout the negotiations, the United Kingdom has acted on behalf of the whole of the union. That is the constitutional position and it is consonant with the UK’s constitutional responsibilities—in particular, for the international conduct of the UK’s interests. However, on 28 January in Cardiff there was a ministerial conference on future relationship negotiations, and we stand ready to hold more such meetings. We shared a draft of our approach to the negotiations with the devolved Administrations in advance of publication, and UK government officials and Ministers have been in regular contact with their counterparts throughout this process. That must be the correct position.
I was asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government will hear what has been said in many of the distinguished speeches made today but, as noble Lords will know, a discussion is to take place on this issue at the first meeting of the Joint Committee, and I would not wish to anticipate that.
In conclusion, of course there are areas of divergence between the UK and the EU, and those have been highlighted by many in this debate. However, I like to travel in hope and we must not forget that the Government’s intention is to get a good deal with the European Union. There are many areas where there is convergence. The very act of highlighting the areas where there is divergence draws attention to the silence on the areas where there is not divergence, and that illustrates the fact that both sides want a comprehensive, friendly relationship based on free trade. We will continue to approach these conversations in that way.
We are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that both sides see reasonable progress by June, so there is a clear point in keeping the negotiations going with a view to completing ratification this year. However, under no circumstances will the Government accept an extension. We firmly believe that there is ample time to strike an agreement based on free trade and friendly co-operation.
Again, I thank the committee of your Lordships’ House for its important and insightful work. I look forward to engaging with it in the future and indeed with other Select Committees of this House throughout our negotiations with the EU.
Detainee Issues
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is extremely disappointing that the Government failed to implement the Intelligence and Security Committee’s recommendations to commission an independent and judge-led inquiry, especially in the light of the comments by the UN Committee Against Torture, which has called on the UK to,
“establish without further delay an inquiry on alleged acts of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees held overseas … by, at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of British officials”.
We must remember that at the heart of the historical allegations of torture and rendition lie the stories of dozens of victims of this abuse, many of them innocent of any crime.
In the other place, David Lidington said that the Government did listen to the ISC and that the new principles reflected in many detailed aspects the precise recommendations of the committee in its two reports of 2018. So, if the Government are so confident that all the lessons of the past have been learned and that the abuses of the past cannot be repeated, what exactly do they have to fear by allowing a judge to look into this issue to examine all the evidence, interview all the witnesses and look at the new procedures and rules so that he or she can tell the Government whether they are right?
I turn to the new guidelines published today. I welcome the fact that they have been published, but I am concerned that the input of civil society might not have been fully considered. On this point, David Lidington said that Sir Adrian, in the course of his review, took great care to consult civil society. He convened meetings where representatives of civil society could make their representations to him and put forward their ideas. Is the Minister willing to say this afternoon exactly what Sir Adrian chose not to reflect from particular civil society organisations in his final report and recommendations? This process needs full transparency and open examination of all the issues, and that is why it is so important to have a full inquiry.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However welcome it is that the Government have accepted the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s recommendations to replace the current consolidated guidance with new principles, the refusal to re-establish a judge-led inquiry, which was promised nearly a decade ago, is deplorable. The Intelligence and Security Committee, under the chairmanship of Dominic Grieve, did its best in the reports it produced a year ago, but the Prime Minister denied it access to relevant witnesses such that it was unable to conduct an authoritative inquiry and produce a report, so it had to stop.
However, the ISC estimated, on the basis of the research it was able to do, that UK personnel had been involved in 2,000 to 3,000 detainee interviews in the period 2002 to 2004. It found 166 incidents recorded, and there were huge gaps in the records, where UK personnel either witnessed detainee mistreatment, were told of it by the detainees themselves or were told of it by foreign agencies. In addition, the ISC found 198 recorded cases where UK personnel received intelligence that they knew or should have suspected was tainted as it resulted from detainee mistreatment. That makes getting on for 400 cases, some of which would surely have involved torture or illegal behaviour by British officials. Since the ISC found a lot of gaps in those records, it could be many more. Then there is complicity in illegal rendition, secret imprisonment and disappearance. It is not acceptable to try to bury this sorry, disgraceful history. There needs to be transparency and accountability in establishing the truth, not a continued cover-up. Anything less may well breach the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Like this Statement, today’s Written Statement from the Prime Minister on the new principles asserts that the Government’s policy is not to,
“participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.
It would be extraordinary if it were otherwise. However, there still seems to be wriggle room for Ministers to authorise co-operation with torture and inhuman treatment, in breach of international law. Can the Minister assure us that the Ministry of Defence document revealed in May—it made clear that Ministers permitted themselves to share intelligence with allies even if there was a serious risk of torture—is now redundant and has been withdrawn, and that the principles would ban both Ministers and personnel from taking such a real risk?
On that note, can the Minister assure us that the extradited Hashem Abedi, the brother of the perpetrator of the appalling Manchester Arena bombing, was not mistreated or tortured in Libya?
The suspicion must exist that this brushing under the carpet is to please President Trump at a time when the likely next Prime Minister is keen to be chummy with him. That would be morally shameful. The ISC reported MI6 as saying that, post 9/11, there was,
“an unconditional reflex to support the United States, which … came from the political centre”—
namely, No. 10. The ISC concluded that,
“the UK saw itself as the poor relation to the US, and was distinctly uncomfortable at the prospect of complaining to its host”.
I am afraid that, once again, this sounds all too familiar.
In 2010, the coalition Government resolved to establish the truth through the powers of a judge. It is shocking that this Conservative-only Government have abandoned that attempt.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I begin by saying that I understand the disappointment of both Front Bench spokespeople at the decision not to hold a further judge-led inquiry. Perhaps I can amplify the reasons that I gave in the Statement.
Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to my right honourable friend Ken Clarke, who has pursued this issue with commitment for many years, not least because of undertakings he gave when he was Lord Chancellor in the coalition Government. I note her very strong wish that his campaign should be rewarded with the announcement of a judge-led inquiry later this week. The noble Baroness will understand that I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend’s Statement, but I know she will take into account the views that noble Lords express in this exchange.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Statement on a judge-led inquiry and the updating of the consolidated guidance promised yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister will be an Oral Statement, as requested by the Speaker? Can he confirm on which day it will take place?
The sudden spurt of speed is welcome, but very belated. It is 17 years since the US rendition and torture in which the UK colluded began, and nine years since the Gibson inquiry was first set up. Is this because Prime Minister May fears that a Prime Minister Johnson would succumb to pressure from President Trump not to revive the inquiry? We have already heard only this afternoon that the Government have made no representations to the Trump Administration about that Administration’s child migrant detention.
Last year, the ISC was concerned to note that HMG,
“has failed to introduce any policy or process that will ensure that allies will not use UK territory for rendition purposes without prior permission”.
It appeared to be quite concerned that the,
“shift in focus signalled by the … US administration”,
meant that,
“reliance on retrospective assurances and the voluntary provision of passenger information”,
was not “satisfactory”. Are these kinds of concerns now driving this welcome but slightly mystifying sudden promise of a Statement?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness can complain about a sudden Statement when at the beginning of her question she complained about the length of time it has taken to reach a decision. In answer to her first question about whether the Statement will be oral or written, I cannot add to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said yesterday in response to a request from the Speaker that it would be an Oral Statement:
“I will make sure that your comment to that effect is faithfully reported to my colleagues in Cabinet, Mr Speaker”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/19; col. 589.]
I am afraid I cannot add to that.
I understand what the noble Baroness said about the length of time. This is an important and sensitive decision, as are any decisions involving intelligence and security, and requires careful analysis. In the exchange yesterday, my right honourable friend made it clear that,
“the Prime Minister has been very clear that she regards it as her responsibility to ensure that the decision is taken and announced to Parliament before she leaves office”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/19; cols. 590-91.]
I might need to write to the noble Baroness on the other issues she raised, but Ministers must be involved in any case where an intelligence officer believes a detainee is at risk of mistreatment by a foreign state. The Ministerial Code obliges us to abide by international obligations such as the UN convention on torture and the ECHR.
Banks: Fraud Prevention
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they propose to take, and for banks to take, to prevent fraud perpetrated on bank customers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in 2016, we set up the Joint Fraud Taskforce, including law enforcement, banks and government, to tackle fraud. It has already delivered on initiatives such as the banking protocol, which prevented £38 million falling into fraudsters’ hands and led to 231 arrests in 2018. The Joint Fraud Taskforce must build on its successes and not just make it more difficult for fraudsters to operate but bring them to justice.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am thinking more of action that banks could take. Let us hope that the, frankly, poor, often dismissive and hit-and-miss response by banks to defrauded customers truly is on the brink of change—and not before time. Since I tabled my Question, my bank, TSB, has issued its fraud refund guarantee, promising not to claim that customers authorised a payment when they fell for a scam. Will the regulator oblige all banks to follow suit?
A new voluntary code comes into force next week, offering the so-called confirmation of payee next year. Will legislation be brought forward if the voluntary code proves ineffective?
Lord Young of Cookham
The voluntary code that comes into effect next week will in fact extend to all banks the facility to which the noble Baroness just referred, which has been undertaken by the TSB. As from next week, as long as you have done everything that you should and it was not your fault, you will get your money back. Vulnerable victims will get their money back even if they have not exercised due care. I welcome this not just because it gives added protection to customers, but because it means that the banks will have to pick up the bill, which will add to their incentive to reduce, so far as possible, incidents of fraud.
The noble Baroness then referred to confirmation of payee. She is quite right: at the moment, an electronic payment is processed on the basis of the sort code and the account number. As from later this year, banks will have confirmation of payee—in other words, they will check the name. That means that it will be difficult for fraudsters to intercept funds designed, for example, for solicitors on conveyancing, and misdirect them.