Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor Framework (1st Report, HL Paper 182).

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has pulled out of the debate because she has a Motion in the Chamber.

It is a great privilege to chair the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which was appointed in January 2025. In October 2025 we produced our first report—the one we are dealing with today—examining the Windsor Framework. If those two words, “Windsor” and “framework”, conjure in the minds of noble Lords castle-like, symmetrical architecture, a secure moat and fine gardens, think again. We are here under a remarkable Victorian painting of Moses bringing down the tables from the mountain. It is a piece of strong evidence that, if you produce a document that is short, it lasts rather longer than one that is much more complicated—but I do not think that was part of the thinking when the Windsor Framework was created.

In reality, the Windsor Framework is a complex amalgam of diplomacy, politics and sheer necessity, conjured from shakily designed foundations. To me, it bears all the characteristics of having occurred, rather than having been designed. However, it is what Northern Ireland has to live with; it affects everyday life at every level, from the esoterics of company and competition law to the humble task of everyday shopping for it affects consumers above all others, probably. I shall give a small example. Somebody who wishes to buy new socks or a mixing machine from a GB supplier may not be able to do so, because of the duties on the packaging in which their purchase would be brought and because of the bureaucratic complexities that make it all too much trouble for some suppliers in Great Britain to supply to Northern Ireland.

As the committee, we devoted ourselves from the very beginning to the interests of consumers, producers and everything in between, but above all to the public in Northern Ireland. We relied for our report on a large body of evidence and spent time in Northern Ireland talking to stakeholders, including businesses large and small, and, importantly, social enterprises, which are also affected.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues on the committee for their assiduous attention to the evidence, and their constructive and purposeful contribution to the discussion. I know that members of the committee will share this: I particularly thank the clerk of the committee, Liam McNulty, our expert advising counsel, Tim Mitchell, our organising genius, Breda Twomey, and all the secretariat, for their extraordinary contributions. The newly established committee functioned efficiently, was properly briefed on all relevant subjects and was able to produce a full and reasoned report. We are very fortunate in your Lordships’ House to be blessed with staff of such quality to help us in what we do.

The committee’s membership includes a wide range of views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and on the protocol and Windsor Framework. Despite colleagues’ divergent views and strong opinions on some issues of principle, I emphasise that it is notable that the report was agreed unanimously. This imbues added force in the conclusions reached by the committee.

We are grateful too for His Majesty’s Government’s positive response to the report—mostly, at least. We recognise the care and attention that Ministers and officials have given to our deliberations in expressing some continuing concerns. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution later in the debate. As noble Lords know, the noble Baroness has a large fan club in your Lordships’ House, and I am one of its members. I ask her not to disappoint me.

We look forward to the EU-UK reset agreement. In that context, I point out a serious matter: the relevance of our report for the formation of some important reset subjects, such as the arrangements for energy supply in Northern Ireland, and the shape and detail of the proposed sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, agreement—a phrase I have become used to since I began to chair the committee—which I hope will simplify border and related arrangements for agri-food products between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The issues we have covered and reported on concern Northern Ireland’s voice and stakeholder engagement. I hope that the report will provide important lessons for the prospective dynamic alignment between Great Britain and the EU, which the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House is examining as part of a current inquiry. Our report endorsed proposals to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is enhanced at an early stage of every relevant part of the EU’s complex legislative process. This can be done, in particular, through greater resourcing and capability in the United Kingdom mission in Brussels, working closely with the Northern Ireland Civil Service to shape relevant European Commission proposals.

The importance of these points is that, despite the restoration of Northern Ireland’s power-sharing institutions in February 2024, witnesses to our inquiry told us that issues relating to the Windsor Framework, as currently administered, have the capacity to create instability if not handled carefully by the Government and politicians. Thus, our report seeks to improve on the current situation for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. The emphasis of our approach is on the experiences of real people, notwithstanding the vagaries of political life and institutions.

I am delighted by the presence in this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. He is an admired former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—even better, we were Welsh MPs together—whose statutory Independent Review of the Windsor Framework was presented to Parliament last September. Unsurprisingly —I know that the noble Lord was not at all surprised—our report and his very good report, which has been accepted fully by the Government, have a great deal in common.

The noble Lord focused, as did we, on the increasingly complex governance structure of the framework. A snapshot of the effect of that structure is to be found on the organogram on pages 24 and 25 of our report—I know we are not supposed to hold up illustrations in Grand Committee, but I will—which sets out in magnificent graphic confusion the numerous locations across the EU, the UK Government, the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly and elsewhere where the mechanisms of the Windsor Framework can be found. It illustrates the confusion, rather than accessible solutions, and we have clearly identified the need to solve the problem of accessibility.

We followed and amplified several of the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, particularly in relation to the timing and resourcing constraints under which the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the DSC, has to work. We are delighted that in one of its many positive responses to both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and ourselves, the Government have undertaken to re-examine the timescales and required information under which the DSC has to work. It is difficult being a member of the DSC under current arrangements.

We are grateful to the Government for their full response, dated 6 February 2026. Many of our recommendations found favour with the Government, but not all. On the negative side, the Government told us that for stakeholders who have difficulties with European legal provisions and issues, the EUR-Lex website provides an accessible and acceptable digest of information on EU law. Those legal provisions are important, because they may affect everyday trade, particularly for SMEs trying to make their way in business. However, in taking evidence recently, since our report was published, it has become very clear that in reality it is accessible for exploration only by highly paid, black-letter lawyers and provides little assistance to businesses and social enterprises who do not wish to line the entreating pockets of my learned friends.

One very positive development is the Government’s acceptance of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, of a one-stop shop for Windsor Framework-connected inquiries. This was a leading recommendation of his report. The one-stop shop, especially its triage system, uses the best available practices, including the services of artificial intelligence, and should enable businesses quickly to find the answers to real, everyday questions that are asked, but we need to know more about it. Who will run it, the Government or private enterprise? When will it start? It has been suggested that it will be created during the 2026-27 tax year, so will Northern Ireland traders have to wait another 18 months or two years before it exists in any meaningful form? Is it going to be trialled and tested by real people in real industries, so that they can show whether it works?

Whether the business concerned is selling organic eggs to Great Britain or wishes to purchase raw materials in the EU for product manufacture in a bigger supply chain, the one-stop shop and increased legal clarity will, we hope, be a beneficial outcome of the reports from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and ourselves. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is a valuable member of our committee, is unable to be with us today. He has made two valuable points, which I have told him I will pass on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I was just dealing with some points about the one-stop shop that our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, had raised. First, the one-stop shop really must emphasise its services to traders in Great Britain who wish to trade with Northern Ireland. It is important that they should know what is available to them. Secondly, if the one-stop shop happens to give a trader advice that is wrong, as long as that trader is acting in good faith on that advice, there should be a waiver of any consequent penalties—for example, tax penalties that arise from the actions of the trader in question.

I turn next to the issue widely described as the democratic deficit arising from the 2019 protocol. The history, political institutions and social and community context of Northern Ireland make the democratic deficit an extremely important issue. In our report, we make it clear that, in our view, not enough has been done to mitigate, let alone resolve, this fundamental issue, which causes profound political division in Northern Ireland. With this in mind, our report focuses positively on the ways in which Northern Ireland stakeholders can more effectively participate in the Windsor Framework structures. We believe that our proposals, if followed, will enhance Northern Ireland’s voice in the operation of the framework and promote greater transparency, and not just greater public understanding but some public understanding of the framework.

On behalf of our committee, I express the hope that there will be an easing of complexity as a result of the contributions that we and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, have made and that real-world business on the ground will find it easier to work with partners in the European Union and Great Britain. The future of the Windsor Framework’s functionality requires a new impetus, with a fresh sense of purpose wisely advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our report. I commend the report to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord, who has been a Member of the other place and only recently of your Lordships’ House, will be aware better than me that I am not in a position to give any detail of ongoing negotiations while they are currently ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that the impact on Northern Ireland is key to some of the negotiations, which is why we are focusing so much effort on the SPS deal.

We will continue to welcome contributions from the Executive, including at the Joint Committee—the governing body for the Windsor Framework and the withdrawal agreement as a whole. More broadly, looking at the committee’s report, we are taking forward a new phase of the Trader Support Service, which provides vital support to businesses with goods movements. Those issues were covered in the committee’s report and, in December 2025, we set out more information on the consortium to deliver it. We are working to give greater discretion to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee; it will be allowed greater discretion over how it conducts its scrutiny and the timelines for it. We are backing this up in Brussels, increasing resourcing, as requested by the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, so that it can provide vital perspective to the institutions there as proposals are developed and considered.

I move on to transparency and awareness. Our approach seeks to ensure that the broadest range of voices from across Northern Ireland is heard, including from business and civic society. It also ensures that there is the right space for technical engagement between government departments and their counterparts in Northern Ireland and the EU institutions. It seeks to ensure that devolved departments are equipped with the right information about regulatory proposals to consider their impacts and advise the Assembly further on Northern Ireland’s interests.

Where issues are identified, we have already shown our capacity to take action, whether domestically, where we have announced consultation activity on toy safety and chemicals labelling and ensured that the UK internal market is protected in response to concerns from industry; or bilaterally, such as on dental amalgam or the arrangements to protect the supply of pharmaceuticals. On all these issues, we have listened to stakeholders, whether they are business organisations, civic organisations or the vital work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Just as we will continue to support the scrutiny of the Windsor Framework arrangements and the rules that apply in the Assembly, and by the Independent Monitoring Panel, so too will we support the work of InterTrade UK on promoting the economic bonds and strengths of all parts of the UK, and the east-west council in developing the ties across it.

I move on to some of the specific questions in the order that they were asked and not necessarily grouped by issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, touched on EUR-Lex. Although the EU’s EUR-Lex tool can be used to read and consider detailed legal terms, we recognise the need for businesses to have clear and accessible guidance. The enhanced one-stop shop we are delivering will do that, providing businesses with tailored advice to navigate those issues. We believe that this is the best way that we can support businesses with explaining the rules that apply.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Is she saying that something better than EUR-Lex will be part of the one-stop shop, and that legal problems will therefore be solvable through that structure?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I am. Noble Lords heard it here first. Perhaps I do have a little power, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said—or rather, the people behind me do.

My noble friend Lord Murphy touched on the SPS agreement and how important it is. We are currently negotiating with the EU on an SPS agreement to make agri-food trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and removing barriers to trade for producers and retailers across the whole of the UK. The agreement will benefit Northern Ireland through the interplay with the Windsor Framework, by making a more consistent approach to agri-food and plants. We will smooth the flows of trade still further. On 9 March, the Government provided an update on the changes this would entail for businesses. This includes a call for information from businesses so that the Government can understand exactly what they need.

My noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Hain asked about the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the investment provided. The Government have agreed to provide funding to this office to cover up to three additional posts to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are accounted for in Brussels and that EU policy-making is accounted for in Belfast.

Parity of esteem was raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy. This seems particularly apt given how close we are to the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are committed to the agreement in all respects, which of course includes parity of esteem for the identities and aspirations of both communities. The application of the Windsor Framework does not shake that commitment.

Gently, I want to touch on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. He raised many issues related to how we got to this point and the question of what is temporary. I was given a slight history lesson earlier today about how many pieces of legislation have the word “temporary” in them, and that has not exactly been an unusual part of our legislative framework historically. I gently suggest that the agreements we have been discussing today were signed by his party when in government, and my party is trying to make the Windsor Framework work for the people of Northern Ireland, which is why we are also currently in the process of resetting the relationship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The Government have made a decision that we will focus on helping people work with it, rather than keeping a list, so that we can make sure that people have the support they need as they try to navigate the impact on their businesses and on their trade.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for intervening again, but will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a way in which EUR-Lex change can be incorporated in the one-stop shop, possibly including some very simple ways of using existing techniques to simplify complex legal issues?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

How could I ever turn down an invitation from the noble Lord? Of course, I am more than happy to meet him to go over the debate. More importantly, officials can be there to make sure that what he wants is reflected so that we can actually make this work. We are taking a pragmatic approach to try to make this work and make it as easy as possible, while at the same time hoping to negotiate an SPS deal that takes away a great many of the issues we are talking about.

No one could doubt for a second the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to the people of Northern Ireland and to trying to make these issues work. He touched on the issues of Safeguarding the Union and his PQs—obviously, I sign off every one. I realise that I am now over time, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss Safeguarding the Union, if that is acceptable to him.

I want to reassure noble Lords on some points, starting with noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, whom I assure that the interface will be user-friendly—or else—and will be focused UK-wide. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about hauliers, and I hope I have responded to her in full. If I have not, I will look at what she said and come back to her.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about parliamentary committees in the other place. She will be aware that how it chooses to engage is a matter for the other place, and for Parliament as a whole, but I am delighted that noble Lords had the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee doing this very important work. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness that we have accepted all the noble Lord’s recommendations and are seeking to implement them—one of the questions touched on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked me about future legislation. I reassure him that we will talk about this—I would suggest in this Room, but possibly on the Floor of the House—in the next Session, subject to me now getting told off by the Chief Whip.

In conclusion, the message from this debate is clear: we must continue to listen to and act on the voices of businesses and civic society in delivering Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements. I give the Committee the continued commitment of the Government today that we will always take practical actions on concerns to protect the UK internal market and flow of goods, be that east-west or north-south. As we do so, our focus will remain on the prize of delivering real prosperity, where Northern Ireland remains one of the fastest-growing economies of the UK, in part thanks to its unique trading position and businesses having certainty about the facilitations available to move their goods under the Windsor Framework.

However, I am aware of the ongoing complexities of how this is operating on the ground and, on that basis, I will visit Northern Ireland very soon. Noble Lords, especially those in Northern Ireland, will be aware that I am not allowed to say exactly when, but I will be in Northern Ireland imminently to see how the Windsor Framework is operating on the ground. I will meet key stakeholders who are delivering this, as well as businesses, to see what next steps the Government should consider.

The Government will support only those trading arrangements for Northern Ireland that protect its place in the UK and its internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and can be agreed. While there is more to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard in London, Belfast and Brussels, the Windsor Framework really does provide the best basis for that, and we are committed to working alongside our partners in the Northern Ireland Executive and the EU institutions as we take it forward, alongside new agreements with the EU, so that we may build an even brighter and more prosperous future for people in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom.

I again thank the committee for its report and I look forward to continuing to work with it in the coming months—I really hope that I did not disappoint my noble friend Lord Carlile. On that final note, I wish all members of the committee a happy Easter and chag Pesach sameach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will give a short wind up, because we have had a very full debate and I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I start, however, by correcting an earlier omission. I failed to thank my noble friend Lord Jay for the work that the previous sub-committee did, which helped to set us up, and indeed for what members do not know, which was his kindness to me when I was appointed chair of this committee. He gave me what was a very well-concealed short tutorial, which was of enormous value to me, so I thank him very much. I am very grateful particularly to the Minister, of course, who has not disappointed me at all, and to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who showed his objective commitment to these issues.

The Division Bell is ringing, so I shall curtail my wind up into a couple of sentences and then we can go and vote. I thank everyone for the part they played in this debate, and in all the issues we have considered. I do not believe that we are looking at pandemonium, a word coined by Milton to describe living hell. I think Northern Ireland is a very good place these days. I have known Northern Ireland through the time I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; it was not always the great place it is now, and we are simply trying to make things better by asking the Government to take the steps that are necessary, and which they appear to accept, to make Northern Ireland that much better a place.

Motion agreed.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Gohir on her excellent maiden speech and the noble Baroness the Minister on her new appointment, and wishing the right reverend Prelate well on his retirement from this House in what can only be described by our standards as early middle age.

I wish to pick up two points in this debate: one about poverty and the other about mortgages. In relation to poverty, as the distinguished and respected Conservative the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning, one of the consequences of the Chancellor’s Statement will be to send 450,000 people into poverty, including many children. Apparently, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor call that levelling up. Really? Of course, they may well abandon that policy, but it will demonstrate the muddle-headedness of their thinking.

I turn to mortgages and echo something that was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. To quote last week’s Financial Times Lex column:

“Homeowners are watching UK mortgage rates head skywards, as their hearts descend to their boots. Some fixed-rate mortgagees will lose their homes when refinancings land them with month-to-month payments they can’t afford.”


Most of the 9.5 million households in this country with mortgages have fixed-rate loans. They face average increases of £500 per month. That seems to me to be no prescription for levelling up either. Indeed, I would suggest that it is dangerous and foolish to undermine the morale and ethics of those employed in national and local government, public health, education and the arts—all parts of our society that we commend.

If your Lordships feel tired after the long debate today, I recommend that when going to bed they read a few pages of the gardening writer Mirabel Osler’s excellent book, A Gentle Plea for Chaos. Mirabel Osler believed that strong growth depends on not destroying the best plants on the plot but adding flowers and seeds around them. What we are seeing here is a not so gentle, accidental plea for chaos, which will undermine many of the assumptions that our fellow citizens are entitled to make.

We in this House do not have constituents but we do have children and grandchildren—many of us have family members of the sort of age most hard hit by the policies announced by this Government. I do not think that we should tolerate that without fighting, still for growth of course, but growth that supports all our citizens.

Restoration and Renewal: Location of House of Lords Chamber

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am very fond of Norwich personally, but I would not encourage further speculation in this area. I will only say from my personal experience that I was in York last week on a ministerial visit and I did not look at any alternative site for your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I declare the interest of having been brought up in Burnley. Would the noble Lord care to remind Mr Gove that we are one Parliament and not two, and therefore dividing the two Houses would be a very adverse and unconstitutional act? Therefore, if he wants Parliament to be in Burnley, it should be both Houses and not one.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again, I am not going to speak for my right honourable friend, but the noble Lord makes a cogent point which would need to be considered by all of us within Parliament in respect of its future operation. Those of us who have had experience of a Parliament by Zoom know the importance of personal contact within and across the Houses to the good operation of government and Parliament.

Elections Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

So that is all I am asking—those two assurances on the record.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to my noble and learned friend’s amendment, I have a short but I believe very important question to ask of your Lordships. What is your Lordships’ House here for if it is not this? My noble and learned friend has demonstrated beyond doubt that there is a risk—a measurable risk, not a fanciful risk—that the Electoral Commission might have its independence damaged and impugned if these amendments are not introduced into the Bill. What would the Government lose by accepting these amendments?

I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we have not yet heard any good reason why these amendments should not be sent back. I am unpersuaded by the argument that because some robes are hanging on hangers somewhere in the building, no doubt losing their creases—which is as good an argument as anything I have heard against my noble and learned friend’s amendments—we should not delay matters for another day, which is available. There is an option: the Minister can go and consult his ministerial colleagues and come back to the House in a matter of minutes and say, “I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; he has argued a brilliant case and it may well be that he is right”. And if there is a risk that he is right—which is what I believe—we should not let this pass just because it is inconvenient to delay the end of the parliamentary Session.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the fact is that, following what we have just heard, the Order Paper for Tuesday and Wednesday next week has Questions down from noble Lords. It is not as though we are slicing off tomorrow: the Order Paper is there, and it is there for a reason. Somebody worked out, in terms of the management of this place, that the House would sit. People put bids in for Questions, and they are sitting there on the Order Paper. The Minister —to whom I pay tribute for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill—did leave a gap open, which is not completely closed.

On what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we are certainly going to find out what the mettle of the electoral commissioners is made of, as a result of this kind of legislation. This is going to test those individuals—both the officers and the commissioners—in a way that they never contemplated when they applied for or were appointed to their posts.

I do not want to delay the House, but the other day I was reading—and I have not finished it—David Runciman’s How Democracy Ends. I came across this page where he quoted an American political scientist Nancy Bermeo, who had identified six different varieties—David Runciman called them “coups”—of ways in which things get manipulated. These are two of them. I would just like the Minister to explain how this Bill differs from these two examples:

“‘Executive aggrandisement’, when those already in power chip away at democratic institutions without ever overturning them. ‘Strategic election manipulation’, when elections fall short of being free and fair but also fall short of being stolen outright.”


Now where does this Bill differ from those two definitions?

Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

Aside from the question of whether it be under the ambit of a commission, I believe that my noble friend puts his finger on something that is profoundly important about the way in which the context of politics and government is changing. Without treading on anyone’s feet, I would certainly be interested to hear your Lordships’ opinion on that in a future debate.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

Please could the noble Lord explain simply to a perplexed audience the relationship between Sir Peter Gross’s review of the Human Rights Act, the review by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, of administrative law and the constitution, democracy and human rights commission being discussed today?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, those are two separate workstreams as part of the constitutional reform consideration that we are undertaking. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, we are eating the elephant in chunks. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act review is another part, so there are already three strands and they each deserve careful and individual attention.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, until 31 December last year the United Kingdom was a fully active member of the Schengen Information System. This gave the UK authorities immediate alerts and information about suspected persons, objects and dangers. We are now out of the Schengen Information System. Please will the Minister in his reply give us chapter and verse on how such important information will now be obtained as quickly and effectively as before? What is the “comprehensive package” for security referred to in paragraph 134 of Her Majesty’s Government’s summary of the agreement? Will the Government come clean today and tell us the other adverse changes affecting national security and the pursuit of crime?

How much slower will the process of disclosure of criminal records be? This is often vital in determining whether a suspect is truly a genuine suspect. How have these and many other matters of real security concern been left unresolved in the very general statements in part 3 of the Government’s summary of the agreement? If the UK and the European Union are to remain as safe as possible, how is this going to be achieved? Please can we have answers, if not in the debate then in a letter afterwards?

Finally, I just wanted to make a protest about how short this debate has been and how little time has been allowed. It gives the impression of a deliberate attempt to stifle informed debate on matters on which there is considerable expertise in your Lordships’ House.

Church of England: Disestablishment

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord. Who we are as a country is defined by our Church and our state and the relationship that has been developing over 400 years between them. The Government value that relationship; we think it adds value to both sides and is welcomed by the country. We have no plans to destabilise that relationship.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Would the Minister like to reflect on the undoubted fact that the moral authority in the clergy in Wales is no less than that of the clergy in England, albeit that there has been no established Church in Wales for approximately a century?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is right: the Church in Wales was disestablished in, I think, the 1920s. The four bishops that Wales sent to your Lordships’ House were then assumed by England, and I am sure no one would object to that. He is of course right about the validity of the authority and morality of the Church in Wales.

Capita

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There is nothing ideological about this. Governments of all persuasions have found that outsourcing certain activities enables them to focus on the key functions of government. A recent survey by the CBI showed that overall there was a saving of roughly 11% by going through the process of outsourcing activities, engaging competitive markets and awarding the contract to the contractor best able to meet the objectives.

I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about SMEs. I think there is a contract with HMRC which, when it came to an end, we broke down into component parts. As I said in response to the noble Lord, an additional measure that we have taken is that, when a main contractor is slow in paying the subcontractors, that main contractor will be deleted from the opportunity to bid for future contracts. That is a good example of the steps that we are taking.

Subcontractors will have greater access to buying authorities to report payment performances, and suppliers will have to advertise subcontracting opportunities on the Contracts Finder website. Without repeating what I said a moment ago, we have a target of driving up from 25% to 33% the percentage of government spend with SMEs on these major contracts.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, as Capita refreshes itself and restructures, the Government will be totally intolerant of any attempt to reduce the standard of services for which Capita has contracted? If Capita attempts so to do, will the Government prioritise finding new contractors to undertake those services, including SMEs?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government will hold Capita, and indeed other suppliers, to the terms of their contract and take appropriate steps if those terms are ever broken.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I have an irresistible yen to return to the subject of the gracious Speech.

Very early last Wednesday morning, I was awoken by my annual fantasy in which the gracious Speech consists of the declaration that Her Majesty’s Government will introduce absolutely no legislation whatever in the new Session. It is, I am sure many would agree, an open question whether we would lose anything by a legislative sabbatical. However, here we are, again prospecting in a rich if opaque vein of home affairs and legal reform legislation—if you cannot think of anything else, saddle Parliament with seven or eight law reform Bills.

My first subject is the Bill of Rights, which of course is not going to be legislated in this Session but nevertheless will be discussed. I urge your Lordships to consider that what really is of importance in relation to the Bill of Rights is the quality and enforceability of rights, not their source, and that it would be wrong for us to be too hung up on whether the rights come from Westminster or Strasbourg. I agree almost entirely with the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this subject. I add that if a British Bill of Rights gives not less than the European Convention on Human Rights, and especially if it adds some rights that were not even thought of in 1950—for example, consumer rights, environmental rights and privacy rights—I for one will keep an open mind as to whatever is meant by the concept of repatriation of rights.

Turning to the proposed extremism Bill, here I strike a strong note of caution. I am sure that your Lordships will all wish to give anxious scrutiny to every detail of this Bill. As one academic analyst has suggested to me, there is a danger that we may make it an offence for a person to encourage another person to encourage another person to publish a statement that indirectly encourages another person to instigate someone else to commit an act of terrorism. That is the sort of flavour that has been suggested so far when there has been discussion about an extremism Bill.

My note of caution is founded on what I hope is an ethical principle. As the distinguished Professor Stuart Macdonald has said, there is a real danger that,

“it is contradictory—and, ultimately, self-defeating—to insist on a criminal justice-based framework without adhering to the features which give the criminal law its moral authority in the first place”.

Therefore, while I am open-minded about an extremism Bill, at least until I see what it says, I am concerned that the Government should ensure that it is examined for its compliance not only with the convention but with the assurance to your Lordships that it is proposed on ethical and realistic grounds. As a long-time jury advocate, I can put it another way: if the Bill is not going to result in convictions before juries—if juries are going to rebel against it because it is not the sort of thing they think people would be convicted of—it should not be brought before Parliament. I urge the Government to carry out appropriate analysis of whether the Bill will work in practice before deciding what its detail should be.

My final comment is about the Investigatory Powers Bill. I would have spoken about prison reform, but I entirely echo what was said by my noble friend Lord McNally. I absolutely deprecate what Mr Gove has been saying about the European referendum, but I am glad he is good at something. He has actually been rather good; he is the first Lord Chancellor or Home Secretary in a generation who has given us the opportunity to reform the penal system.

Coming back to the Investigatory Powers Bill, as a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, I have had the advantage of seeing a lot of intelligence and a great deal about the threat and risk that we face. I would say to your Lordships, perhaps particularly to my noble friends on this side of the House, that puristic libertarianism does not always provide a holistic sense of civil liberties. We must look at what is really required by the security services. That must be scrutinised, of course, but no Bill has ever been scrutinised more before legislation than this Bill. I recommend to your Lordships that we pay the closest attention to what was said by David Anderson, my brilliant successor as independent reviewer, and by the RUSI committee, and that we do not degrade the capacity of the authorities to catch the most dangerous people in our society.

Iran: Ghoncheh Ghavami

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all know that Iran is second only to China in the number of people executed per year. That is an issue that we and others have raised during the UN human rights review.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, given that Iran has apparently been involved in bombing IS in Iraq, will the Government take great care to ensure that human rights are not decoupled from other activities in relation to Iraq, as well as Iran? Will my noble friend assure the House that representations will be made to ensure that the Iranian Government do not begin to hold sway over human rights issues arising in Iraq, where they are looking extremely influential at the moment?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Iran is not the only state in the Middle East with which we have issues about human rights. We certainly do not intend to uncouple human rights from other issues, but we are also in the middle of some immensely complex nuclear negotiations with Iran, and then there are the many complications of the anti-ISIL campaigns.