Republic of Cameroon: Economic Partnership Agreement

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling his Motion on Ghana, and I welcome the debate taking place on both of these today. I will necessarily be focusing my remarks on Cameroon, leaving him to focus on the partnership agreement with Ghana, given the importance of tonight.

We have had a very busy couple of weeks of trade developments: CPTPP negotiations launching, an Australian deal being partially announced and the TRA’s recommendations on steel imports coming out. I want to make clear that we on this side want good trade deals that grow the economy, stimulate sectors and protect livelihoods and standards, reflecting the modern approach to trade that goes wider than mere economic exchange. As we ask questions and debate agreements, I want the Government always to remember that.

The Government do not seem to appreciate not only how scrutiny of trade deals should change to reflect the new status of the United Kingdom having left the EU, with all the constitutional arrangements that need to reflect that, but that trade deals need to reflect the new trading realities in the world today, which is undergoing a climate crisis against the backcloth of the pandemic, and where respect for rights, minorities and sustainability needs to become ingrained. These points were repeatedly made during the passage of the Trade Bill through your Lordships’ House last year, when many questions were asked about the future trading policy of this Government. It was repeatedly stated that the Trade Act referred only to rollover deals, with the Government refusing to answer how they would address and adapt the CRaG process to account for these sentiments. I remind the Minister that the CRaG process was set as appropriate for the UK being a member state of the EU.

In the rush forward with these new developments, a theme can be seen and identified where Ministers appear to be prioritising trade at any cost without any clear policies or moral compass, whether that means abandoning the fishing industry, selling out British farmers, failing British steel or abandoning British families. I believe that Cameroon fits into that pattern. Although accounting for only 0.1% of total UK trade, this deal means much more for human rights, scrutiny and future trade agreements.

The first part of my Motion necessarily focuses on human rights violations. Government forces have committed widespread abuse across Cameroon’s anglophone region since 2017. The UN estimates that 3,500 people have died and 700,000 have been displaced. Suspected violations include extrajudicial killings, torture, the destruction of property, fair trial violations and inhumane and degrading conditions of detention. Events in Cameroon have been painstakingly logged by the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford, with one media report from 20 May 2019 stating that

“the military came in as the mother was struggling to prepare food for the family … The soldiers came in … and shot the child in the back of the head.”

The report goes on to call on the international community to “help us”.

This incident is heartbreaking but not isolated. Human Rights Watch has said that government forces committed widespread human rights abuses throughout 2020, and yet, at the end of that year, our Government agreed to roll over trade arrangements with the regime responsible. Can the Minister simply tell the House why? This was in spite of the Foreign Secretary saying in January that we should not be engaged in free trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights, and in spite of the Minister saying in this House in December 2020, again in February this year, and yet again in March, that trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.

Clearly, the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and actions is vast, and that is also becoming a clear hallmark of this Government. By signing this agreement, the UK is actually moving in the opposite direction to the US and more enlightened trading relationships. In January 2020, the US terminated Cameroon’s eligibility for trade preference benefits due to the Biya regime’s persistent violations of internationally recognised human rights. Let us not be confused: this was under the previous US Administration. If President Trump can act, why cannot Secretary of State Truss?

On 1 January this year, the same day that the trading arrangement was rolled over by our Government, a unanimous United States Senate resolution was passed criticising the Biya regime for abuses. Just as a media report called on the international community to act, the Senate resolution urged other countries to join a collective effort to put pressure on Cameroon through the use of available diplomatic and punitive tools. The Government will recognise that this includes trade. Your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee has called on the Government to set out the process they plan to monitor human rights compliance that could put Cameroon in material breach of the essential elements in this agreement. Can the Minister explain this process today?

Can the Minister confirm that all future explanatory memorandums to trade deals will include information about significant issues of concern raised by devolved Administrations and how they have been addressed? Looking to future arrangements, can the Minister also explain the UK’s policy on the inclusion of human rights clauses and how they will be reflected in every deal? The recent Norway and Iceland treaty contained no such clauses. While I am not worried specifically about those countries, I am worried about what precedent this sets for agreements with the Gulf states and Brazil.

This returns us to the focus on parliamentary scrutiny. On 27 December, the UK and Cameroon agreed through a memorandum of understanding to bridge the gap between the end of the post-Brexit transition period and a provisional application to maintain the effects of the EU-Central Africa EPA and apply the tariff preferences of the UK-Cameroon EPA, but the MoU was not published until four months later. The Government announced a new deal signed on 9 March but, once again, Parliament did not get to see the text until 20 April, with your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee being able to consider it only on 26 May.

Under challenge from the shadow Secretary of State Emily Thornberry, the Secretary of State replied in a letter dated 7 June that “on this occasion, I do not believe a debate is appropriate”. She referred to a debate having taken place on the continuity agreement in Parliament back when the existing EU agreement was negotiated with Cameroon, but that was only a 14-minute debate back in 2010, with open conflict against the English-speaking population in Cameroon beginning in 2017.

I pay tribute to the Minister for the many times that he has committed the Government to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I know that he will remember doing so during the Trade Bill and in answering many Questions and making Written Ministerial Statements. Indeed, his pronouncements have been codified into the “Grimstone rule”. I know that he is committed to good governance, even under the outdated CRaG process.

It is disheartening to witness the actual interpretation of scrutiny arrangements by this Government—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am really sorry, but we have a time-limited debate; you will have to finish.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Very good, my Lords. I beg to move.

Carbon Budget Order 2021

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I remind the noble Lord of the seven-minute speaking limit?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I can see that it is 24 seconds past the minute. I have another 15 to 20 seconds to speak, and then I will finish. I thank the noble Baroness, though, for reminding me that the clock is ticking.

Will the Government come forward with a new skills plan? With so many issues to cover and so much urgency needed for ambitious plans, I am pleased to approve the order before the Committee.

National Security and Investment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as ever, some very wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, with his vast experience. Of course—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am afraid we cannot hear the noble Lord. Can he get closer to his microphone? We may have to come back to him.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

Is that close enough? Can you hear me now?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes that is much better. Can the noble Lord start again, as we could not hear?

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

Yes, so long as I get the time. My Lords—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord needs to point his head upwards. As soon as he speaks we cannot hear him again.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

I will try again. Any Bill with the phrase “national security”—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am really sorry but we cannot hear the noble Lord. We will ask the broadcasters to check the connection and we will come back to him.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.

Trade Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to be able to support this amendment. We do not yet know whether we will get a deal with the EU or what exactly the deal will look like if we do. What we can say is that a no-deal on services will be a no-deal for the country, irrespective of whether we get a deal. The Government and the media have consistently underestimated the importance of service industries, both to this country and as part of our trade with Europe. Service industries are 80% of our GDP, a statistic we have repeated many times in this House. Our services trade with Europe makes up 51% of our services exports. As it stands, Europe is a hugely important market for services—the most important. Due to the significance of geography to service industries, it is one that is frankly irreplaceable.

Services have not been ignored in all quarters. In an interview with the Observer on 1 November before stepping down as director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn said that her “really big disappointment”—her exact words—was the lack of help for services in the potential deal. The recent report by the EU Services Sub-Committee, The Future UK-EU Relationship on Professional and Business Services, raises similar concerns —not least those shown by the creative industries. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, does not specify what the precise nature of the mobility framework should look like. The so-called mobility arrangement that Liz Truss has just signed with Switzerland agrees 90 days’ visa-free work a year. If this a sign of what is to come for EU countries, it will still not be enough on its own for much of the sector—which demands longer stays and ease of movement between European countries. This will be—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am very sorry, but we have a technical problem and nobody else can hear at all. I suggest we adjourn for 15 minutes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

22:41

Division 2

Ayes: 165

---

Conservative: 147
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 5
Crossbench: 4
Labour: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 433

---

Labour: 156
Crossbench: 116
Liberal Democrat: 80
Conservative: 44
Independent: 22
Bishops: 9
Green Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the result is clear and we have already agreed in the usual channels that Clause 43 is consequential on Clause 42.

Clause 43: Unfettered access to UK internal market for Northern Ireland goods

Amendments 158 to 160 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the result is clear, and we have already agreed in the usual channels that Clauses 45, 46 and 47 are consequential on Clause 44.

Amendments 162 and 163 not moved.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes clear, there is really no reason why the teaching profession should not be treated the same as legal services. If there is an answer, I look forward to the Minister supplying it. However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord German, said, it also raises the question of what else is covered, be it medical research, university teaching, religious teaching or driving instruction. It is the same question that I posed before: are these areas of education and the passing on of wisdom to be covered, or are they excluded? We might not have those answers now but we need to be very clear on what is covered in this part of the Bill.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to exclude teaching services and the teaching profession from the scope of the mutual recognition principle in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. Starting with Amendment 79, the current list of entries in Schedule 2 is largely drawn from the exclusions under the existing framework in the retained EU law. Schedule 2 aims to list those services for which it would be inappropriate to apply either or both of the provisions in Part 2. For example, legal services are excluded in recognition of the long-standing differences between the legal systems in each part of the UK.

I should allay the noble Baroness’s concerns if I explain that public services, including the public education services, are already excluded from the scope of Part 2 of the Bill under Schedule 2. That exclusion will ensure that public education services are not subject to the principles of mutual recognition or non-discrimination in Part 2. For this reason, it is my view that Amendment 79 is unnecessary.

Clause 17 requires the Secretary of State to keep Schedule 2 under review and contains the power to amend it by regulation to add services or requirements to those matters excluded from the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to keep the list of exclusions under review to ensure that it includes the appropriate services and requirements, to which either or both market access principles should not apply.

I turn to Amendment 106, which deals with recognition of professional qualifications. I assure noble Lords that teaching standards across the UK are very important to this Government. The provisions in Clause 24 allow relevant authorities to replace the automatic recognition principle with an alternative recognition process if they think that automatic recognition of different UK teaching qualifications would not be appropriate.

We are therefore answering the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the issues brought up about Wales and Northern Ireland; they will still be able to set standards in those devolved authorities, as now, and control who can teach in them. If the General Teaching Council for Scotland or a council in any other devolved authority decides that recognising teaching qualifications from other parts of the UK automatically is not appropriate, it can put in place an alternative recognition process to check qualifications and experience, as set out in the Bill. That should allay a number of the fears brought up in this short debate.

The system will enable relevant authorities to assess an individual’s qualifications before allowing professionals to practise. Relevant authorities will continue to have the ability to refuse access to those who are unable to demonstrate that they meet the standard requirements, such as the Welsh language. This makes an exception for the teaching profession unnecessary. On those grounds, I cannot accept the amendment and hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to obtain absolute clarity from the Minister on the exemption in Schedule 2 with regard to:

“Services provided by a person exercising functions of a public nature”—


that is, a public body. That may apply to Wales but the General Teaching Council for Scotland is a charity as well as a regulatory body. The Minister outlined what it would be able to do to change, if challenged, those seeking to be registered in Scotland under the English criteria but who do not meet the Scottish criteria. The fear is that because the council is a charity—it is the oldest regulatory body for teachers in the world—it would be forced to accept teachers of a different standard than the English standard, which I automatically assumed would be a lesser standard. Will the Minister clarify that charities, such as regulatory bodies like the GTCS, are included in Schedule 2? She said it applied just to public bodies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not going to give the noble Lord a definitive answer now but I will write to him to make sure that we are clear about that issue.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and the Minister for her response. The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Purvis of Tweed, usefully added some pieces of history, particularly on Scotland and helped to identify that we are talking about long-separate and different systems. The noble Lord, Lord German, identified the way in which Wales has been heading in different directions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, stressed my point that there is no reason why teaching services should not be treated in the Bill in the same way as legal services and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made an important point.

The Minister acknowledged the long-standing differences. I understood her to say that teaching would be automatically excluded without needing to be included in the Bill—at least in her initial remarks, but perhaps not so clearly in answer to the question she was asked. I know that that is not what was conveyed to the GTCS in previous discussions and that there is considerable public concern, particularly in Scotland, about these issues. I note the word that the Minister used in her comment that the nations “can” put in place alternative systems. The systems are already in place.

I will go away and look at Hansard, but I reserve the right to come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as we grope our way through the Bill and get to what seem even more complex and difficult to understand parts of it, we seem to reach a point where the Bill either does not add anything or is currently so badly drafted that it might destroy what we currently have. I may be being harsh, and I realise that I am asking quite a lot of the Minister, who has probably not been directly involved in any of these parts of the Bill, or concerned with some of the issues we had to deal with earlier this evening, but it seems to me that with every group, and every minute we spend on the Bill, there is a growing understanding that, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, the Government are trying to push ahead with something that does not take the trick, as far as we are concerned, in relation to the issues before us.

The Government need to step back, take their time, concentrate on the things that they and only they can do, and encourage those who have other responsibilities that bear on what we are talking about to develop them, and out of the gloom will emerge—because they are the answer—the common frameworks. Why do the Government not realise that that is where we are heading? Why do they not get it into their heads that we need to stop being so concerned about the possibilities—the far ranges and the sunny uplands—that may be available in some nirvana they have yet to describe accurately, and work from where we are to try to get somewhere sensible in the time we have?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I do not intend to have a debate on the union tonight, but I am sure it will come up later in the Bill. However, I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, what I said on, I think, the group before last: the General Teaching Council for Scotland will still be able to set the standards in Scotland, as it does now, and will control who can teach in Scotland. That goes back to Scotland having control over its own education system. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord German, brought up the Welsh language. If Welsh language requirements were introduced in respect of a profession in any other way—for example, by bringing in requirements for ongoing training—it could come under the equal treatment provisions of the Bill. As such, it would be possible for the regulator to impose Welsh language requirements on professionals qualified outside Wales if equally required of professionals qualifying in Wales. So there is an equality here.

I turn to the amendments in the group, which test and attempt to change the way in which professions would be in scope of Part 3. The purpose of the professional qualification provisions in the internal market Bill is to ensure that professionals can, in most cases, access their profession in all parts of the UK, by ensuring that there is an overarching system for recognition. It is important to ensure that, regardless of future policy changes, UK-qualified professionals will be able to practise across the whole of the UK. Divergence in professional regulation between the four nations of the UK should not increase barriers for professionals living and working in different parts of the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has sought, with his Amendment 102A, to understand whether these provisions are covered in existing UK law. Currently, while recognition of professional qualifications between the four nations can and does occur, there is no overarching framework that ensures that it happens consistently. The Bill will create this overarching framework to guarantee that recognition of qualifications between the four nations of the UK will be possible, and that barriers to access will be minimised, so that professionals are not unduly limited in where they may work.

To that end, I must oppose the process that Amendments 104 and 105 seek to establish for bringing professions within scope of the internal market provisions. The Government’s approach ensures that nearly all professions are in scope and that barriers do not emerge. In contrast with the Government’s proposals, Amendment 104 lays out a bureaucratic process for adding professions. Amendment 105 builds on Amendment 104 and seeks to ensure that only professions that are specified in regulations are caught by automatic recognition. Ultimately, these amendments would result in delays and uncertainty, preventing barriers in the internal market being addressed. This would be to the detriment of all UK professionals.

I assure noble Lords that the Government acknowledge the importance of working with each devolved authority on the implementation of this Bill and will continue to do so, as they have done throughout this process. Clause 25 already ensures that existing divergence in professional qualification requirements across the UK is outside the scope of automatic recognition, until further changes are made. This means that there are no immediate changes for relevant authorities to make in respect of access to professions.

We must ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market for professionals. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. I heard the answer she gave two groups ago, which is why I did not repeat the question; I actually asked a different question, about the status of the Act of Union. It was not I who brought it up, but the Government in their Command Paper. It having been brought up, it would be quite helpful to understand how the Government see it fitting into all this. It is a perfectly reasonable question and I hope that, perhaps in writing, I could have a perfectly reasonable answer.

The market the noble Baroness described in the Government’s eyes appears to need fixing. What is broken in professional services that this Bill is seeking to mend? If this Government had a reputation for overwhelming competence, and an ability to really get hold of things and make them better, perhaps I might understand what it is about. There are many things that this Government could focus their laser attention on; mending something that is not broken is not one of them. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I find it difficult to express how strongly I am amazed and deeply dismayed that any British Government of any complexion should produce before Parliament a Bill which contains the provisions of Part 5 of this Bill. I never expected in my parliamentary career, which has not been a short one, to find myself reading a Bill of this kind presented for parliamentary approval. It has already been said, and will be said many times in this debate, that it appears to give the Government unfettered power to break, in any way they find necessary, particular provisions of a treaty upon which the ink is barely dry. I will not attempt—I do not have the time—to compete with the undoubted eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Howard, who have expressed the shock which everybody who has any regard for the rule of law in this country undoubtedly feels.

I move on to my more familiar field, though I am a long practiced and experienced lawyer, and shall talk about the politics which underlines this, which I also find quite bizarre and completely inept. The origins of the need for this Bill are quite extraordinary. It all arises from the decision taken shortly after the referendum that Brexit would involve leaving the single market and the customs union. I strongly disagreed with that, and think that we could have left the European Union and remained. I actually moved a Motion in the House of Commons and got within six votes of a majority for staying in the customs union, which, unfortunately, is nearer than the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, got to achieving anything. But that is not the issue today. I accept that we are committed to leaving the single market and the customs union, and I accept the judgment of Parliament and the population, but it does give rise to all the problems that the Government do not know how to solve.

Once you leave the customs union and the single market, you need a customs frontier between your own internal market and the rest. That is wholly in accordance with all the ordinary practices of international trade in modern times, WTO rules and all. Everybody knows that at Dover this could create a very considerable problem, and we are preparing to recruit the people, get the lorry parks, handle the traffic, and get people to prepare for the paperwork that is involved. The problem of course arose in Ireland, which no one seemed to have thought about very clearly, until they realised that to do the same in Ireland would totally undermine that extremely important agreement for the security of the United Kingdom and the Republic, the Anglo-Irish agreement. The solution was determined that Ulster should stay in the customs union and single market, and Great Britain should leave, which means that we have a customs frontier down the Irish Sea.



This was not a sudden or ill-considered thought; it was argued about vigorously. The Democratic Unionist Party, otherwise firm Brexiteers, opposed the whole agreement on that basis but the fact remains that we have committed ourselves to having a frontier. The proper thing to do now is not to go back on our word with no solution—it is quite unclear what the Government really propose by way of essential customs controls that are still compatible with the agreement—but to minimise the necessary delays, as I hope we are doing in the negotiations with the EU. If we insist on changing standards, we should have equivalence of standards and arbitration procedures to settle disputes, and we should make sure that there are as few disruptions to trade, delays to the border and costs as possible. As I said, it is not quite clear what would happen if you just left a hole in the controls between Ireland and GB.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend has reached his time limit.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I realise that I have only four minutes to talk on this matter. That is one of the bizarre arrangements in this Chamber that I am getting used to. No other parliament in the world would think that people could do justice to the contents of this Bill with people having four minutes to speak in the way that we are doing. However, I have added my voice and will oppose Part 5, in particular, in every way in which my membership of this House permits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]]

Let me join with others in welcoming new Members to this House. I hope that they will have as happy and fulfilling a time as I have had.

I wanted to express my respect and admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and other noble Lords who have spoken up for the rule of law and our obligations under international law.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We cannot hear you. Can somebody please try to change the sound for you, and we will come back to you?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, welcome our maiden speakers.

Like many noble Lords, I find that the conclusions of the Constitution Committee, the European Union Committee and the DPRRC chime with my own concerns about the Bill. I concur with the many magnificent speeches today, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about the rule of law. My humble offering is that the Government have made their bed, must lie in it and must use internationally respected ways to work with it to best advantage.

Regrettably, the theme throughout the Bill seems not to be about working with things but a rush to legislate around primitive principles, lacking the refinements of consultation, consent or even continuity concerning devolution. Really, the question is why. The Bill seems designed to upset. Is it part of the “revolution by disruption” plan, or was it thought that boxes needed ticking right now?

The UK internal market must be taken seriously, but why is there not time to stand still and work intergovernmentally and then legislate where needed, without recourse to Henry VIII clauses to make up for not yet really knowing what to do? The powers in the Bill are a land grab, taking the soul, if not the territory, of the devolved nations as well as sidelining Parliament, allowing anything to be changed by regulation.

I want to make points about the CMA and whether it is the right body and construction to be the embryonic unelected guardian of the single market. Paragraph 35 of the Constitution Committee’s report says it all. Why choose the CMA? Why not establish a properly independent body representing all four nations? Further, the input tenets in the EU lookalike texts of mutual recognition and non-discrimination have neither been agreed by all nations, via the frameworks or otherwise, nor maintain the degree of flexibility and subsidiarity that already exists in the UK.

The CMA itself is sponsored by a Government ministry and all the appointments are still governed by the Secretary of State—despite, for the OIM side, after consulting the devolved authorities. But this is a serious question: why the hermetically sealed and secretive CMA inquiry panel process? I understand it for matters of competition where commercially confidential information is considered and policy is well developed, but for the internal market it will be a matter of public interest and constitutional development. That surely should not be secretive. It will not be simply technical analysis. That leads to overbearing harmonisation; how often have we fought the EU over that?

Analysing the UK internal market must encompass subsidiarity and degree, at least once that has been properly agreed. Does the CMA have that expertise? Surely the evidence, procedures and reasoning need to be seen and, if I may say so, be robust enough to withstand public scrutiny. The Minister has already twice referenced the support of what are, in the end, relatively few of the total of UK businesses. Even within the unsuitable structure, unsuitably appointed, a minimum task group of three is too small and exclusive. Why should it be potentially smaller than the minimum number of judges sitting in the Supreme Court? Are panellists so superior? For such a constitutionally important matter, this all needs a rework.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind everybody that there is a four-minute advisory time. We are getting quite late and there are still rather a lot of speakers to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Desai (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will not speak to the legal aspects of the Bill, as I am not a lawyer, and that topic has been well covered. I will simply share with your Lordships my curiosity as to what made the Government try to enact this piece of legislation, which, as many have said, is totally outside the normal character of the constitutional behaviour of the United Kingdom. Some noble Lords have referred to this, but this arises out of historical and contemporary amnesia, which have struck the party in power.

First, let me say that I was a remainer, but I have always respected the decision of the people. However, we should notice one thing, which not many people have realised: that the decision in the referendum was more or less a decision by England, not by the United Kingdom. Of the 34 million votes cast, 18 million were for exit, and 16 million against, and 32 million were cast were cast by the English electorate. The difference in the English electorate, 17 million to 15 million, was exactly the final result margin of 2 million. So Brexit has always been an English decision, not that of the UK. Because the party in power has always been predominately an English party, it has begun to renege on devolution, in which it had no part. It was my party which initiated devolution, during the great Blair Government, and that is now being undermined.

The present party in power, 100 years ago, partitioned Ireland, creating Northern Ireland. At that time, as people may remember, the behaviour of the Conservatives when in opposition against the Liberals, and later when in coalition, almost amounted to subversion of the law, encouraging people in Northern Ireland to defy all manner of laws. Now we have come to a stage when the party in power has almost forgotten Northern Ireland. Boris Johnson inherited this proposition of Brexit, although of course he supported it. But I do not remember anybody at the time of the referendum discussion realising that the geography of the United Kingdom is not just England, Scotland and Wales. There is a region out there, Northern Ireland, which everybody forgot—that because Northern Ireland shares a border with the Republic and because we have signed an international treaty to keep that border open all the time, it was logically and legislatively impossible for Northern Ireland to leave the European Union and also have a free border. The logical and legal impossibility of the separation of Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, while the Republic stayed within the European Union, was not, to my memory, ever discussed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lord, I remind you of the time, please.

[Lord Desai (Lab) [V]]

I will stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, the justification for this Bill is to support and advance trade, and, as pointed out, to provide insurance against present negotiations breaking down. The existing internal market is supported by EU law until the end of the year, where this Bill provides for UK law to take over. This is a detailed Bill, which provides for what I call single market membership in respect of our trade with the rest of the EU, if we reach agreement with the EU to this end.

The question is raised; what happens if trade negotiations break down and the UK opts for the WTO? This looks unfortunately likely, from the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, to be the case. It is clear, I am afraid, that the EU has been acting in bad faith in the trade negotiations, which the PM has pointed out involved a requirement to lead, and not a requirement to lead to a breakdown.

Presumably we could amend and use the Bill as we saw fit. We would, however, have a self-interest to make the Bill as helpful as possible to European importers and exporters to help optimise our trade. As we are leading historic free trade supporters, I am sure we will be happy to be driven by the free trade principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The Bill will become an Act as of 31 December, assuming it passes both Chambers. Whether or not we do a trade formula deal with the EU, this trade legislation will be on the statute book and operative to ensure the smooth functioning of trade.

I turn now to the controversy. It was the UK Government who found out that the EU was seeking to misuse aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that was not intended and in order to gain advantage in future relationship negotiations. I am somewhat disappointed that no one seems to have made this point, and the whole problem with Clause 5 arises from that. It was for this reason that the UK Government created the safety net of Clauses 44 and 45, to give British Ministers the power to unilaterally interpret, modify or disapply parts of the Northern Ireland protocol.

The UK has agreed to require parliamentary approval of any government initiatives involved here—I think that this is Clause 56. I was always told as a student that there was really no such thing as international law, as there was no agreed single court of law to monitor it. But, in this situation, I am inclined to the view that it may be better to get rid of Clauses 5 and 6 and to address the issues raised in another way.

I remain a staunch supporter of free trade and appreciate the major contribution to upholding free trade afforded by the Internal Market Bill, but it has the weakness of underpinning oligopoly. Most of the trading requirements as witnessed by this legislation are too detailed, too difficult, too expensive and too demanding of businesses—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the noble Lord wind up, please?

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has withdrawn from the debate, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

Green Economy

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry, but the Minister cannot finish his speech in time if he keeps getting interrupted.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

He is being very provoking, you must admit.