Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, makes the point for himself, and I absolutely support what he has just said.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The noble Lord is of course quite right that if there is a conflict between the two Houses of Parliament, the elected House must prevail. But there is a power, rarely invoked, for the Lords to block a Bill in a single Parliament and a process under the Parliament Act whereby the elected Government can repeat their legislation, whereupon, quite rightly, we have to concede. I share the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the Labour Party—like every other party contemplating power, and no doubt my own in the past—is hesitant to see the influence of the House of Lords grow at this stage, in case it starts exercising its influence on the successor Government.

If it is announced that we are not going to use our full powers, and if the Government know that they are not remotely going to be expected to rely on the Parliament Act, they are going to listen less to amendments to a Bill of this kind that is regarded as being of electoral importance for some sections of the population by both political parties. Given that we have just been discussing the rules-based international order, our obligations under international law and parliamentary sovereignty being used to sweep away what used to be regarded as our approach to international law, do the Opposition rule out altogether the idea of using the full powers of this House if the Government simply fail to listen at all, and actually blocking the Bill?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have said quite clearly all along that we will not block the Bill. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that there have been occasions in the past—he probably remembers better than I do—when the Parliament Act has been used. But with respect to this piece of legislation, we have said we will not block the Bill. I say to the Government that the constitutional quid pro quo for that is that they do not turn around, carte blanche, and say they will simply ignore what the House of Lords says.

I challenge the Government. They have challenged me and my party, our Leader in the Lords and our Chief Whip, constantly in the papers. We have been told that the Labour Lords, even though we do not have a majority, are going to block the Bill—that is the accusation—even though we have been clear time after time. Even on Monday, when we debated the Rwanda Bill in this Chamber, we had an article from the Home Secretary saying that those who sought to block the Bill were encouraging right-wing extremists. How is that the action of a responsible Government? How is that the action of a Government respecting the constitutional conventions of our country?

This is not just challenging His Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Lords; it is challenging His Majesty’s Government to respect the conventions and constitution of this country. That is what I object to. Why are we arguing about what His Majesty’s Opposition are doing all the time? Why are we not demanding that the Government, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary respect and obey the constitutional proprieties and conventions of the country? It is they who are driving a coach and horses through it. It is they who are challenging us all the time—the unelected Lords, the people who have no right to say to the elected Parliament, “You’ve got this wrong; you need to think again”—and just dismissing us as a set of trendy, left-wing, out-of-touch lawyers defying the will of the people, when I think every noble Lord in this House is trying to stand up for this House of Lords and say that even though there are differences in this House, there is a majority who think this is wrong.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to this amendment, and I declare an interest as a patron of Redress, the anti-torture organisation. A recent Westminster Foundation for Democracy report pointed out the common pitfalls that democratic Governments fall into when dealing with authoritarian regimes, one of which is to promote their economic and other development at the expense of acknowledging less desirable characteristics. Rwanda would seem to be a classic case of this pitfall.

As we have heard at length and in detail from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the human rights record of Rwanda is not good, to say the least. Torture, among other crimes against humanity, continues to be carried out. This amendment is therefore essential. I remind your Lordships of the case of Victoire Ingabire, who is the only opposition parliamentarian in Rwanda and has spent eight years in jail, some of them in solitary confinement. It would be useful to ask her what her views are on torture and other crimes against humanity in Rwanda at the moment, in both formal and informal sectors.

We have enough evidence to suggest that this amendment must be included in the Bill if we are to ensure freedom from torture for those whom we send to Rwanda.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, which seem to me to go to the heart of the most extraordinary feature of this Bill. It is essentially intended to reverse a legal defeat the Government suffered in the British Supreme Court on a matter of law. Five Supreme Court judges listened to the evidence and decided as a matter of fact that Rwanda is not, at the moment, a safe country for the purposes we are discussing.

The Government have reacted to that judgment in a way no other disappointed litigant could possibly have contemplated. They have decided to invoke the sovereignty of Parliament and to ask both Houses to pass legislation that declares that the facts are indeed contrary to those which the Supreme Court declared to be the factual situation. The facts are to be regarded as the facts the Government state for the indefinite future, whatever happens from now on, unless or until this legislation is amended or repealed—if it ever is. I spoke at Second Reading, so I will not repeat all the arguments I made then, but I continue to be completely flabbergasted by the constitutional implications of the Government acting in this way.

Has the Minister been able to find any precedent for this occurring? Have any Government in a similar situation ever decided to reverse any legal defeat by just passing legislation saying, “The facts are what we say they are, not the facts the Supreme Court has found on the evidence”? I think it unlikely. For that reason, it is an extremely dangerous precedent. For that reason, I very much hope that there will be a legal challenge that will enable the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional in due course. But the better step would be for Parliament not to pass the legislation in the first place.

Finally, the most striking feature is that the legislation declares the facts to be the facts from now on, so long as it remains on the statute book, regardless of future events. Let us say that a situation arises which I very much hope does not, given that the Rwandan Government are one of the more attractive, by comparison, of African Governments. But say a coup were to occur in Rwanda and the present, fairly benign dictator were to be replaced by a much more malign dictator. What the Government are asking us to declare is that the courts can be told that Rwanda remains a safe country and they are not to entertain credible evidence that events in Rwanda have occurred which change that situation. It is being laid down as a matter of law for the indefinite future, regardless of whatever startling further facts might emerge which someone might put before a court. I find that completely preposterous. I very much hope that we would never elect a British Government who would be so outrageous as to proceed in those circumstances, but that is the legal position this House is being asked to endorse.

I find it incredible that anyone can really expect a British Parliament, in 2024, to pass legislation of this kind. I ask the Minister to reconsider and to let us know whether the rule of law, the admission of evidence and the consideration of that evidence by British judges might be allowed to function in its normal way, and whether the Government are prepared to reconsider at least the wording and the detail, particularly of Clause 2 of the Bill they have put before us.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here today to speak to Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which he has added his name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for setting out the case clearly, and I am particularly grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as he has made the case so powerfully.

My right reverend friend and I are concerned, not as lawyers but as citizens, about the constitutional precedent the Bill sets. The role of the judiciary as distinct from the Government and Parliament must not be infringed. Parliament creates laws but judges and juries are responsible for the finding of facts. Where the Supreme Court has ruled that Rwanda is not safe, it is an abuse of Parliament’s powers, as we have just heard, for it to attempt to declare otherwise. We are concerned that the Bill represents a dangerous step. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, therefore attempt to preserve the important principle that facts should be considered by the courts. We must surely be able to take into account credible evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country.

It is not unreasonable to consider, as we have just heard, that the situation on the ground in Rwanda might suddenly change, even if the treaty is properly put into effect to take into account the Supreme Court’s concerns. It is surely right that such a change could be considered in law. Not only is this a vital safeguard for potentially vulnerable people at risk of being sent to Rwanda; it is a vital safeguard for our democracy itself. We must be able to take credible evidence into account when managing any policy, be it on Rwanda or anything else, and we must not be in the habit of setting aside court verdicts we do not like by bringing forward legislation.

My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester has also added his name to the proposition put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. Removing this clause would remove the requirement that all decision-makers must treat Rwanda as a safe country. The amendments to which I have already spoken try to mitigate the implications of legislating that a country is safe ad infinitum, but in truth the courts, immigration officers and tribunals need the capacity to consider the facts about whether Rwanda is a safe country in general. Removing the clause altogether is the best way to do this and to maintain independent judicial oversight. My right reverend friend and I agree that this principle is fundamental to the rule of law and access to justice.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I have found my notes—they were at my feet—and so will intervene now, if I may.

I support Amendments 6 and 10, and I hope all other noble Lords will similarly support them. I am responsible for Amendment 8. It has been suggested that this is a busting amendment. I do not intend to put it to a vote but I intend to tell your Lordships the importance of my amendment.

It is a little difficult for me to make this intervention because I greatly respect my Front Bench and do not like being in fundamental disagreement with them. However, I am making this intervention because I believe we should all be aware of the gross injustice that this Bill will impose, when enacted, on thousands of refugees arriving in this country. Noble Lords should also be aware that we have the power, under the Parliament Acts, to delay this process as far as to May or June of next year, thereby allowing the Government to have a big rethink.

I wish to be cognisant of the wishes of your Lordships’ House and not to speak at length, and I certainly do not want to upset my Front Bench and Chief Whip by going on too long, but this will affect thousands and thousands of refugees, and we should be aware of what we are doing. That is why I have tabled an amendment to remove Clause 2. In Committee, this amendment was supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Coaker. I am now being left to table it on my own.

What is the injustice? Let me trace it through one set of refugees: the Afghan refugees. The information relating to them is contained in the official government statistics for 2022. I do not have the figures for 2023 to bring it up to date—I do not think they have even been issued. In 2022, 8,633 Afghan refugees sought asylum in this country. Most significantly, 97% of them were granted asylum or other status so that they could remain in the United Kingdom. Compare that with the Albanian refugees—there are rather more of them, at around 12,000—76% of whom were refused entry.

It can be assumed that, in 2023, the same number of Afghans, or possibly more, will arrive in this country. We can also assume that there will be the same proportion of genuine refugees, and that all of them will have come to this land in the genuine belief that there is the availability of asylum for them—the people smugglers are hardly going to tell them otherwise. This point was supported by paragraph 33 on page 13 of the impact assessment.

The further point I ask your Lordships to note is that, under the Taliban, there is a lot of evidence of mistreatment of Afghans, particularly women, and particularly relating to education. I also ask noble Lords to take note that, in Afghanistan, there is terrorism, persecution, false imprisonment and torture, hence the very large number of Afghans who got asylum. I remind noble Lords that that figure is 97%.

We should also look at their long journey to this country. The measured distance between Kabul and Calais is 4,168 miles—nearly twice the journey of crossing the United States of America. We do not know precisely how they carried out that journey but, inevitably, it must have been through Iran and Iraq—two countries which are not friendly to passengers—and possibly on through war-torn Syria. Somehow or other, they managed to reach the Mediterranean and Europe, via Greece or Italy. Their mode of transport must have been fairly limited. If they had the money, they might have been able to take a bus, but, in the main, they must have had to get the indulgence of lorry drivers and accept lifts from them. In my view, one has to be left with an admiration of the Afghans who made it to Calais. The Government make much of the illegal entry of the boat people, but how else could they have got here? Should they have obtained UK visa forms in the depths of the mountainous country of Afghanistan? How on earth could they have made the journey here, except in the circumstances they have?

The consequences of the provisions of the Bill will simply be dire for all refugees. Let us briefly look at them. First, without any investigation about their asylum or other status, they are to be shipped immediately, under Clause 2, to Rwanda—it could hardly be back to their home state, which is the other alternative. Rwanda carries a capacity of about 30,000 refugees. Secondly, once they get to Rwanda, for example, they will be barred from UK asylum status and left with Rwanda asylum status, if that does them any good. Thirdly, they will be branded as illegal immigrants and barred for ever from entering the UK. Their only sin has been that they travelled here from Afghanistan without the necessary paperwork and crossed the channel in a rubber dinghy, yet on arriving here they were seeking to escape the terrors—this is the important point—of the Taliban Government, probably in large numbers.

I will not detain your Lordships further, except to make it plain that, if we allow the Bill through in its present form, it will impose terrible consequences on a lot of refugees who have no opportunity to establish their asylum status. I could go through the mechanism of the Parliament Acts—I have my notes for it—but it suffices to say that, under them, we have the power to stop this, and we should at least consider it.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief because my timetable has not allowed me to take a significant part in the Bill hitherto. However, I have attended quite a lot of the debate, which I started attending in a very troubled state of mind, completely uncertain about what I would do about this startling proposal. I sat through quite a bit of the Committee debate, and have listened today to the debate on the two amendments we have had, and I think that the underlying problem is being missed. We all agree that there is a huge problem with illegal migration and that, if we cannot find a solution, people will die in the channel in considerable numbers—they go up each year—by taking risks as they come here. We all admit that it is a global problem, so, if we suddenly become an easier country than others, we are likely to find significant pressures.

We all want to retain our excellent reputation—it is not unblemished, but better than those of most other European countries—for good race relations and an integrated community. During my lifetime, Britain has become a multicultural, multiracial society, and I am glad to say that I think the majority of my fellow citizens feel that the contribution that has been made, and the improvements to our society, are quite substantial as a result. As my noble friend said a moment ago, concern about the dinghies and old fishing boats bobbing on the ocean will, if we are not careful, rearouse all the bad feelings that we used to know, which we remember only too well from 20 or 30 years ago. That is why more than 60% of our population wish to stop illegal immigration.

I have tried to listen for a solution during the debates on the two groups of amendments but, sadly, the only solution being put forward is the rather extraordinary one by the Government that we simply cease to entertain illegal immigration and deport to safe places. I have not heard a single alternative policy put forward. I am not sure that it will work—I think I said that at an earlier stage—but I am still to hear anybody else offer anything but the possibility of litigation or huge numbers of people coming here as the practice of trying to get over the channel grows. We have to face up to our responsibilities. I am a lawyer and have a huge respect for law—abiding by the rule of law is one of the most important underlying principles of our constitution—but we cannot simply produce a lot of legalisms to shoot down the proposal without making any suggestion whatever of a practical kind that is likely to impact a great national problem, which we share as part of a global problem.

Finally—I am sorry that I have spoken for longer than I intended—I give this Government credit, not for coming up with the extraordinary idea of Rwanda but for making our contribution. We have done well with Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees and admitted a lot of people from Afghanistan, although we could have made a better job of that. We are making our contribution to the global problem and taking a huge net increase to our population each year; we are getting some benefit, as it is helping our workforce. We are not becoming a walled-in, closed country. That is a good British contribution to a tremendous problem for the whole of the western world.

With no alternative policy in sight at all, this latest legal argument, which lies behind the key amendments here, is simply not a good enough reason for rejecting this policy. I do not know whether the policy will work, but we can no longer simply do nothing. To retreat into hours and hours of legalistic debate—which is very interesting, if you are interested in that kind of thing—is not rising to the occasion. Therefore, with a certain reluctance, I will yet again support the Government, which is not always my habit in this House.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I cannot let this opportunity to refute what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, go unanswered. There are alternatives. One of the real alternatives is that you have a proper process, and I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord—someone I admire and have great affection for—speak about the rule of law while forgetting what it means. It means that people must have a process to decide on whether their rights will be recognised. On asylum seekers, we have written our names at the bottom of—

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

I support both amendments because they encapsulate the current issues for those of us who live in Northern Ireland, who want a successful implementation of the protocol with mitigations.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and made clear my opposition to Bill. I will not repeat any of that. I will try to avoid repeating the many views that have already been given, all of which I agree with. They have been put very eloquently and clearly. This is a quite despicable piece of legislation that shows total contempt for the rule of law. It is plainly in breach of our international obligations. It shows total contempt for parliamentary democracy by giving powers to the Government to legislate without having to bother with parliamentary scrutiny in the correct way in future. To say that I am opposed to the Bill is an understatement. I still sit here utterly astonished that, after all my decades in politics, a British Government —worst of all, a Conservative Government—could dare to bring forward a piece of legislation of this kind, in a country that is supposed to be the mother of Parliaments and has always, in the past, been respected for our form of parliamentary democracy and what we contribute to the rule of law, democracy, liberty and liberal values in the world. I am already beginning to warm to my views on the whole thing.

I want to comment on the value of delaying proceeding with all this. We are proposing to move to negotiations with the European Union. It is our closest friend and ally in the world. Certainly, since the Americans have a certain propensity to elect a President such as President Trump in the not-too-distant future, we are particularly dependent on the closest possible relationships with our neighbours and friends, whose international interests almost entirely coincide with ours. What is the Government’s answer, not on the merits of the Bill—no doubt the Minister will do his best to make an argument and keep a straight face, which I think he managed in our last debate—but about the delay? If they are genuinely opening negotiations with the European Union in good faith, and if the policy of the new Government is a genuine desire to reach a settlement of the practical problems—the stated policy of the old Government—it could, if addressed properly, improve the practical application of the Bill.

What they are doing is poisoning the whole relationship behind the negotiations before they have even started. To a lay audience, one would only have to ask: what would our reaction be if the Europeans came to the table and put a similar blunderbuss in front of us, saying, “We are already preparing, unless you agree to any terms we put forward, to now impose tariffs on all the products that you export to your most important markets in our territory—and we are going to do so, tearing up the agreements to the contrary and normal practice, in front of your eyes”?

You cannot negotiate on that basis. It is not just illegal; it is just bad negotiating tactics. We are positively inviting them to plunge us into a trade war, which is about the worst possible disaster I can imagine this country being plunged in given its economic circumstances at the moment, as we are already in a recession. We are going to have a severe recession and combine it with very high levels of inflation, unless the new Government produce some spectacular remedies for where we have already got to.

I have no doubt that something ingenious will have been prepared for the arguments on the merits, the law and parliamentary process and that undertakings will be given. What is the argument that makes it so absolutely urgent for the Government to insist that they must be seen to be proceeding to legislate in this way, before they have even sat down to start talks with our European neighbours? If anybody can think of an argument against that, I shall be absolutely astonished.

Finally, I have enjoyed this debate. I enjoy coming to the House of Lords and wish I was able to come more frequently. It is a splendid institution and I enjoy the debates. I always have a little difficulty as I still have not managed, after two years here, to take it terribly seriously and my friends criticise me for that. If I have a decent dinner in the evening, I am afraid it sometimes takes me away from debates which I am otherwise engaged in. The reason is because increasingly, over the years, the House has been totally disregarded by Governments of all kinds. It is rarely heeded by the public because it has such limitations on its powers. I entirely understand the overriding principle that the elected House must, in the end, prevail when it has a conflict with an appointed House. We do not have the legitimacy that we would need to block the express views of a majority of the House of Commons, but we concede to that convention in an extremely cautious way.

I came here convinced that, at the very least, I would go away feeling a little more satisfied because I had been able to cast a vote to give the chance of improving the climate of the negotiations by delaying progress on the Bill for a time, to see whether the negotiations could make some progress. Like my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Hailsham, I would have supported any vote put forward to that effect. So here we are; we are retreating. I must learn to understand and acquire more experience, realising that a Labour Government want to reserve the right to do similar things if they see the precedent being set for future and successive Governments. But I regret it, because the principles behind this debate are of huge and profound importance.

The quality of our democracy is deteriorating. The power of our Parliament is being eroded and we do not know where this process is going to be stopped. I still hope that we might find some pause in that development if the new Prime Minister thinks again and agrees to at least hold up any further parliamentary progress until he sees whether sensible negotiations with the Europeans are worth while. It is as much in the interests of the Europeans as ours to have successful negotiations and we might be able to return to a civilised way forward.

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

I will not begin by following my noble friend with an autobiographical diversion, but I want to start with what he said at the beginning of his remarks. It is not outwith our experience in this Chamber or elsewhere to begin a speech by saying that everything one wanted to say has already been said, then to say it all over again rather less well than some others said it.

I wish to be very brief. I will not follow the arguments about the lack of wisdom of turning Henry VIII into our legislative guru in this House. I will not follow what has been said about the way in which the doctrine of necessity was tortured in a way the American constitution would surely regard as “cruel and unusual” treatment into providing whatever Ministers wanted it to say.

I want to borrow from a corruption of what Lord Alfred Douglas said and raise another issue which has not for some time dared to speak its name, and that is Brexit. We sometimes get the legislation and arguments about it the wrong way round. It was Brexit which was a threat to the Good Friday agreement and the relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Northern Ireland protocol was meant to deal with that in an acceptable way.

The last Prime Minister—let me get this right—but two had her own proposals for dealing with the problem, which was to have the whole of the United Kingdom more or less inside the customs union and single market. That was opposed by the last Prime Minister but one and the European Research Group. They saw off Theresa May and produced the Northern Ireland protocol as their own answer to the problem. At the time, the then Prime Minister gave lots of assurances to the DUP and others that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have any effect on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I assume it was his usual habit of saying things he hoped would be true but turned out not to be, or maybe he just had not read what he had signed up to.

We are left with this debate about the Northern Ireland protocol. I think we are debating it with a Prime Minister who wants to unite the Conservative Party and the country, rescue the economy from Singapore-on-Thames-ism and do what he can to bring us all together in that very difficult fight. In doing so, I am sure he will be aware of the impact on the economy of having another row with the European Union, which remains—even though we are outside it—our largest trade market. It cannot make sense, as my noble friend said earlier, to do that. I very much agree with what both my noble friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Howard said on this. It makes sense to give Mr Sunak and the new Government a chance of looking at these issues again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate because I had not realised that it would range so far and wide and across so many general issues. We had a lengthy debate at Second Reading in which a number of these topics were discussed; nevertheless, I think it is worth addressing some of the points that have been made and putting some of the issues on record as far as we are concerned.

I begin by joining noble Lords and noble Baronesses in their tributes to the late Baroness May Blood, who passed away recently. She lived and was brought up in the same part of Northern Ireland that I had the honour of representing in another place for almost 20 years, so I knew her very well indeed. I pay tribute to her great resilience, hard work, dedication and tenacity in her pursuit of the issues in which she believed strongly, as well as her dedication to young people in the Shankill and integrated education, as has been mentioned.

It is not incompatible to support this Bill and seek a negotiated outcome. On the negotiated outcome, although there is not a great history of flourishing talks with the EU and the United Kingdom on the protocol issues thus far, we hope that any negotiations lead to an outcome that is compatible with the aims and objectives contained in this Bill. This is not a matter of just tinkering around the edges and finding practical solutions, as has been said; some of the issues are fundamentally contained in the protocol. You cannot address the democratic deficit issue satisfactorily unless you address some of the content of the protocol.

No matter how much consultation, prior notice, discussion or involvement you agree to give Northern Ireland politicians in relation to EU laws covering 300 areas such as the economy—as well as further issues such as state aid, VAT and so on—the fundamental fact is that no elected representative of Northern Ireland either here at Westminster or in the Northern Ireland Assembly has any vote or decision-making capacity on vast swathes of laws that apply in Northern Ireland. How will that be addressed? This Bill goes some way to addressing that, but nothing I have heard being suggested by the proponents of delay, who are against the Bill, has offered any solution to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, acknowledged the problem.

Our Sub-Committee on the Protocol, of which I have the honour of being a member, has looked at this issue in considerable detail; I recommend that noble Lords and noble Baronesses read the report that we commissioned on the scrutiny of legislation now applicable to Northern Ireland. They will see the extent to which Northern Ireland has been removed from the normal processes of democratic lawmaking, which people in this House have spoken about with great eloquence but which does not apply anymore to United Kingdom citizens in the 21st century. That is entirely unacceptable and is contrary to all the traditions of democracy that this mother of Parliaments has sought to uphold both here and abroad.

It has been asked what the problem is with delay. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, has dealt with one issue—

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has already spoken. I want to get on and not delay the House any longer, but I will give way once.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I have every respect for him; we have been together in Parliament for years. I want to understand clearly what he is saying. Is he saying that the Democratic Unionists will not withdraw their objections to the whole protocol unless Northern Ireland is allowed to leave the single market with the rest of the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom is otherwise developing? That would mean us telling the European Union that the single market has got to have a great hole in it, with no border controls at all so far as the Republic of Ireland and Ulster are concerned—because that is the Anglo-Irish agreement—no customs barriers in the Irish Sea and no application of single market law in Northern Ireland. Is that the proposition on which the DUP is saying that it is going to stop returning to a power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, by far the most important reason for opposing this Bill is the fact that it is a clear breach of international law and gives Ministers powers to free themselves from parliamentary supervision in future, on an unprecedented scale. This has already been eloquently and authoritatively set out by many speakers, so I do not propose to dwell on it. I agree entirely with everything that everybody from my noble friend Lord Cormack onwards has said on that subject, and I think it would be a great blow if we were to pass legislation of this kind.

I thought in the 1990s and the 2000s—that more optimistic time—that one of the greatest things happening across the globe was the development of a rules-based international order, which gave us all great hope that we should have a more peaceful future. I never imagined that the United Kingdom would contemplate defying the rule of law—moving away from the basis of international order in a treaty with its closest allies and friends—in the way now being contemplated, but there we are. As I said, many Members of this House have eloquently set out that case, and I am sure many Members of the Government are secretly, privately, very worried about their being party to this.

Moving on to the actual politics of it, remember how we got here. The policy now being put forward is not that of a Conservative Government, unless the new Government are a total reversal of their predecessor. Boris Johnson was very proud of the agreement he reached after it was negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. There were long negotiations and no doubt about what had been negotiated. They had found a solution to the Irish problem caused by the Good Friday agreement and the fact that you cannot safely have controls on the border—something rightly sacrosanct to both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom Government. They came up with this marvellous remedy that Northern Ireland would remain in the single market and the customs barriers that would inevitably follow from our withdrawal would be, first, along the English Channel between Dover and the continent, and then down the Irish Sea, with the Northern Irish having the advantage to many parts of its economy of being able to remain in the single market.

That was the policy; it should be the policy still. The part that changed was changed by the policy of the Democratic Unionists. They are the authors of this Bill, as already very eloquently expressed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his colleagues. They demanded the pistol. Theirs is the finger on the trigger because they used it as the basis for not joining a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, causing the crisis. Boris Johnson immediately started changing his position once this happened. Within a week or two, he was making statements about what he had just signed—which were plainly incompatible with the policy contained in what he had just signed. From then on, so long as the Democratic Unionists would not join the power-sharing Executive, we have gone on and on until the stage we have reached now.

I do not doubt the Democratic Unionists’ sincerity on the symbolism of a customs border down the Irish Sea; they have always been consistent. But I think there is another reason behind the DUP’s position: the party has just done badly in Ulster elections and is using the Northern Ireland protocol as its explanation, as it would say—excuse, I would say—for not joining a Northern Irish Executive under Sinn Féin leadership. Sinn Féin should be entitled to the First Minister’s position. They are all nodding away at me. They still hold that pistol and the Government—

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way since he has made a direct accusation. I reassure him and the House that the Democratic Unionist Party would have no difficulty in re-entering the Executive with a Sinn Féin First Minister. We do not like that outcome but we will do that if the protocol is sorted out, so let us not go down a blind alley or a false argument as far as that is concerned.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I am extremely reassured to hear that but it is still “if the protocol is sorted out”. Who will decide whether the protocol is going to be sorted out? Who will determine the negotiating position of British Ministers in their discussions with the European Union? It will be the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his Democratic Unionist colleagues. The British Government will not—and, given the policy now, cannot—sign up to anything unless the Democratic Unionists agree because they will not achieve their aim of getting back to power-sharing. This is an impossible position.

We should have had a softer Brexit, but the hard Brexiteers took over. We should have stayed at least in the customs union, but that is now water under the bridge. The fact that we have come out is causing difficulties at Dover as much as it is in Belfast; it is causing damage to the United Kingdom economy just as it is to sections of the Northern Ireland economy—although some are lucky enough still to be in the single market and benefit from that. The only way out, as everybody has said, is sensible negotiations, but negotiations on the British Government’s own terms. They should get the DUP onside if they can, but we cannot allow the whole thing to be dictated by the sincere opinions of the Democratic Unionist Party, as it has been so far to get us to this position.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman said about the opportunity this presents to change Scottish politics. I think the people of Scotland want us to move on from discussing process to discussing policies and the difference that we can make for them with these extensive new powers. It is my full expectation that the agreement and associated details should be available tomorrow, and I very much hope that that will afford the maximum amount of scrutiny. It will of course be open to Committees of this House to scrutinise the arrangements as they see fit.

For understandable reasons, the hon. Gentleman makes reference to intergovernmental relations, but it is important to look at what Lord Smith said about how this agreement was arrived at. He said:

“It is difficult to imagine a bigger test of inter-governmental relationships and while it was obviously a very tough negotiation, what matters is that an agreement was reached.

He continued:

“This provides an excellent basis for constructive engagement between the governments long into the future.”

I accept that fully. I believe that when the transition period is over and the independent reports have been published, it will be possible for the Governments to reach agreement.

The hon. Gentleman has asked many times why it has taken so long, but many important agreements are reached at the eleventh hour, just by the very nature of doing a deal. I am sure that we will be able, on the basis we have set out, to ensure that that is the case at the end of the transitional period. The independent review, to which he referred, will indeed be a matter for agreement between the two Governments, but as he is well aware, many people in Scotland hold themselves out as being independent but are perhaps not as independent as they superficially seem. It is therefore important that there is agreement between the two Governments as to how that independent review should go forward.

On the Fiscal Commission, the agreement with the Scottish Government is that its forecasts will be fully independent. Finally, this Government will place no impediment on the transfer of powers. Obviously we cannot impose the income tax powers on the Scottish Government, and we would not seek to do so, but I would have thought and hoped that they would want to take them on as soon as possible, and that is the end to which we will be working.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his apparent success in achieving a settlement of this difficult issue—we look forward to the details tomorrow. Can he assure the House that when the settlement is implemented, it will not only give a strong Scottish Government the powers they need to conduct their devolved affairs properly, but do nothing whatever to impair the ability of United Kingdom Governments to maintain financial discipline and healthy public finances for the British economy? That, surely, is an essential condition for the future growth and prosperity of the English, British, Welsh, Irish—United Kingdom—economy.

Scotland Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

The chief of the snapshot analyses I have just described is the one from the IFS that our opponents pray in aid. They claimed in April that Scotland would face a relative deficit of £7.6 billion, which may rise to £10 billion by 2019-20, and that in itself is enough for them to say no. I also like and respect the hon. Gentleman—I will not finish the rest of that sentence. I would tell him that his argument is fundamentally flawed. In essence, our opponents’ argument is that even if the IFS figures were true, UK Government economic policy has failed Scotland and we should therefore keep economic policy in the hands of a UK Government who have failed. That simply is not credible.

It is of course true that Scotland has a deficit, and so does the UK—borrowing £75 billion this year, almost four times what the Chancellor promised borrowing would be. The majority of advanced economies run deficits, particularly in difficult times. The UK deficit in 2013-14 was £98 billion. Over the five years to 2013-14, the cumulative deficit was £600 billion. The UK was in deficit for 43 of the past 50 years, and 28 of the 34 members of the OECD were in deficit in 2013. If the deficit alone was a reason for a country to surrender its financial independence, the UK economy would be run from Berlin.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s desire for independence of taxation seems to be to lower taxation, while he contemplates raising expenditure and he is fairly indifferent to deficits. Does he contemplate any kind of fiscal discipline? Our neighbours across the channel started a single currency, and they—as we would—have a single currency and a single central bank. Had they stuck to their rules on fiscal discipline, the Maastricht criteria, and to their no bail-out clause, they might have done rather better. What fiscal discipline does he propose, or does he think the English will pick up the bill whatever decisions the Scottish Government make?

[Stewart Hosie]

We were very clear in our manifesto that there would be increased tax yield, perhaps from a 50p rate of tax at a UK level, from a bank bonus tax, from the bankers’ levy and from a mansion tax. We supported a number of policies in our manifesto that clearly would have increased yield. We were also very clear on what we wanted to do about borrowing. We laid out explicitly that borrowing would rise, but that it would fund £140 billion of extra investment across the UK throughout this Parliament, as opposed to the cuts in the order of £146 billion that have been proposed by the Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman must apologise for misquoting me. I said—[Interruption.] Yes, I have the transcript as well as the hon. Gentleman. I said in the context of a debate that if this was done wrongly it would be possible to get it wrong. To my mind, that is a tautology: if we do not do something right, we get it wrong. The hon. Gentleman then decided that that somehow meant that I was against the whole principle of full financial autonomy and took to the Twittersphere to promote that. It does not, I am not and the fact that he had to do that shows the paucity of the arguments against our proposals.

We have yet to hear the argument against full financial autonomy for the Scottish Government, and I hope that we shall before the debate concludes. We have heard talk of a black hole, which other people will regard as a deficit when in fact it pertains to all economies at this point in time. We have heard that a policy of principle should be based on a snapshot from one point of time in an academic survey of what might happen in a year that will not even be covered by the process. That has somehow been extrapolated into an argument of principle against the proposal. It is not. If it was, would that mean that if there was not a deficit but a surplus in the Scottish budget, as there has been on many occasions, the policy would be flipped again and autonomy would suddenly become okay? We need to hear the arguments of principle against the proposal.

The difference between us is that, although there is a deficit in the Scottish budget, the SNP believes that it is possible for Scotland to prosper if it has control of its own resources, if it can manage its own economy, if it can grow its own revenue base and if it can steward its own budgets properly. Full financial autonomy would mean that the people of Scotland could get the benefits of that economic growth. That seems a laudable objective.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry, but I am just coming to the end of my speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has given some clear examples of how economic powers could be deployed. If Members, many of whom are on the Labour Benches although some might be on the Government Benches, are against that in principle, they need to tell us. If they are against it just because of the economics that might pertain to it, it is entirely possible to make an argument about equalisation measures and other mechanisms that could be introduced if we wanted it to happen. They need to tell us why on principle they do not want it to happen. I hope that we will hear that before the night is out, but in the meantime I commend the amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

A good example of such work last week was the very constructive meeting between the Deputy First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at which they discussed the roll-out of the fiscal framework that will support the Bill. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that details of that full fiscal arrangement will be brought to the House, as that agreement must proceed in parallel with the Bill. We are keen to put that fiscal framework into place.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

When pressed on the possible difficulties of fiscal autonomy, the reaction of Scottish National party Members is to point to the tremendous new levels of growth that will be achieved by the Scottish economy, and the added GDP that will flow from their enlightened measures. They are not the first politicians I have heard attribute those kinds of consequences to their economic policy. If their policy fails, they imply that any deficit would be the liability of the UK Government and the British taxpayer. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that a fiscal framework, which is still to be achieved, will include some real fiscal discipline? We cannot have an unsuccessful devolved Government running up enormous additions to the United Kingdom’s debt and deficit.

[David Mundell]

I can give that assurance. If it is to meet the various spending commitments that we hear sprayed around not only in the Chamber, but across Scotland, the Scottish National party will eventually have to tell the people of Scotland how much tax will rise to pay for all its proposed measures. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) carefully avoided any detail about tax when he set out the case for full fiscal autonomy. He criticised the proposals in the Bill for the devolution of income tax bands and rates, and he criticised the provision for a 0% rate. In fact, all he argued for was to enable the Scottish Government to reduce the personal allowance. I do not quite understand how that would benefit the less well-off in Scotland or the Scottish economy. The full range of other income tax powers worth £11 billion are coming to Scotland as part of the Bill.