European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith and Lord Cormack

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I thought the Minister was a little harsh on the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and on the amendment which the House passed by a very large majority last week, but let that pass for the moment. I am grateful to my noble friend for making a genuine attempt to understand some of the concerns which can be summarised very briefly. This House is very concerned that taking back control means Parliament taking back control, not the Executive amassing more power to themselves, so he must understand that we will all want to read what he said. Some of it seemed very helpful but we will want to look very carefully at what the Government are actually proposing. It seems a gentle move in the right direction but, just as we have to consider carefully what the Minister has said, I say to him with great respect that he has to reconsider what the House decided last week, because it decided by a very large majority.

A final word of thanks to my noble friend: he has been dismissive of a number of pleas that some matters should be returned to on Third Reading. One understands why, but at least he has been emphatic tonight in realising that we will have to come back to some matters on Third Reading, and for that I thank him.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, I think three things emerge from that. First, there is a recognition, with thanks, that the Minister and the department have accepted that their previous approach to how you identify the status of retained EU law is not acceptable. That was the primary point made in the reports that we discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, and that is the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. I entirely agree that that is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.

The second point that emerges is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that this touches on the amendment passed by the House and moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter, and the Government therefore have to take account of what this House has said. That leads to the third point, which is that this is very complicated, which was apparent from what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and it is perhaps difficult for us all to completely grasp the implications. Under normal circumstances it would have been enormously helpful if the Government had tabled something like this at an earlier stage so that it could have been considered by our very expert committees, the Constitution Committee and perhaps the Delegated Powers Committee. It makes it more difficult for us. However, the Minister has recognised that more needs to be said about this and more needs to be discussed, which is why he proposes that—as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says, perhaps alone of the matters that we have discussed—this issue can come back at Third Reading.

I am not quite sure at the moment exactly what the Minister has in mind. Does he want to press these amendments today and then discuss them—or just leave them until Third Reading, which would be very welcome? I am glad that he is giving a nod that that is what he has in mind, which is what I would hope. In those circumstances, meetings with noble Lords, and indeed noble and learned Lords, can be organised to consider the matter further. Obviously we will read what he said very carefully in Hansard, and if there is any further information that the Minister can give before the meetings then that would be helpful as well. On that basis, we express qualified support for the principle of the movement that the Minister has indicated.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith and Lord Cormack

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment but I am slightly provoked by my noble friend Lord Spicer. There is a fundamental point here which was touched on both by the mover of the amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. In fact, they have unwittingly or otherwise echoed what the Government have been saying from the word go—that they want us to remain a European power. There is no question of our not remaining in Europe; we are just detaching ourselves from the European Union. That does not bear too close an examination, because of course we are a European power and a European country.

If we are to remain an essential part of Europe—a nation that truly pulls its weight within Europe—we have to have standards that are similar to those accepted throughout Europe. Whether in the area of environmental control or the quality of sea water, which we touched on a couple of weeks ago, or other things, such as the medical issues that we have debated, we have to have rigorously upheld standards that are similar to and commensurate with those of our great neighbours, France, Germany and the rest of the European Union. Therefore, when my noble friend responds to this brief debate, it is important that he underlines the Government’s commitment to standards that are comparable with those enforced by our European neighbours. Although they will have to be enforced in a different and more domestic way, enforced they must be.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haskel has raised some important issues, which we should carefully consider—I hope that the Government will do so. He is plainly right that one of the consequences of our departure from the European Union will be the loss of the benefit of EU governance institutions and the standards that they set and enforce. It is worth underlining the word “enforce”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, did. This is not just about having the standards; it is also about having institutions that are capable of enforcing them.

Of course, the Government will say that we can and we should take over ourselves the setting and enforcement of appropriate standards. But there are challenges in doing that, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has referred. If we are going to have standards in which people have confidence, they need to be delivered by institutions in which there is demonstrable independence. That then gives rise to credibility: the standards and the institutions that set them must be seen to have a distance from Ministers and not be subject to expedient ministerial policy-making. We have so far become used to—indeed, perhaps taken for granted—the fact that there are standards that are set by the current EU institutions which have rigorously debated and taken into account national standards. However, as my noble friend said, we need to be assured that standards—he mentioned in particular general data protection rules, but other standards as well—are not lowered.

That raises an important point. In this Bill, the Government have taken the view, in my view quite rightly, that the fundamental rights that are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, now by our own Human Rights Act, cannot be changed without parliamentary scrutiny—indeed, only by primary legislation. That is not the position that is proposed in relation to other rights or standards that are, in many people’s eyes, as important. We need clarity on these issues. It is not enough for the Government to say that they recognise the need to maintain high standards of protection; they need to explain how those high standards of protection are in fact to be achieved, and to do that in a way that gives rise to confidence.

My noble friend Lord Liddle raised a further important point—and, if I may say so, he played an important part in this himself in previous years—about the conversations and co-ordinations that have taken place between European countries in setting policy and the standards that go with policy. It would be good to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Minister whether those will be continued and in what way.

There is much to support in this amendment and in the principle that my noble friend has put forward. It is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I do not think for one moment that the fact that she has added her name to it means that the amendment will be looked at less—quite the opposite, I suggest. We look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say in response to this amendment.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith and Lord Cormack

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My memory does not go back throughout the whole of that century, as the noble Lord knows. In a sense, I have already answered that question because I do not think that we should be wasting our time with this Bill at all. I consider it to be unnecessary but, as the Government have determined that we should have fixed-term Parliaments, it is right that we should address the term. It is perfectly reasonable to say, “All right, you’ve made your statement that you wish to have five years. Please have them, but we believe, having weighed the evidence placed before committees of both Houses, that for the future it should be four years”. However, I know as well as the noble Lord and every noble Lord present today that no Parliament can bind its successor, and the first Act of a new Parliament could be to repeal the whole shooting match—it might be the best thing that it could do, but that is another matter entirely.

The point that I was about to make when the noble Lord intervened was that I believe there is a lot to be said in almost every constitutional measure for a sunset clause. It would provide the opportunity to take stock, to reflect and to say, “Is this really what we want to do? Is this really the way forward?” Therefore, unless my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who is a very fair-minded man, is able to meet us on that point, I would find myself in the illustrious company of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and her friends at the appropriate time, but not before.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, but for one point, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. On the principal question of the term, he and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton are right: all the evidence points one way—the evidence of international experience and of the experts who were before the Select Committee on the Constitution, on which I also had the privilege to serve—and all the history points in favour of four years.

The principle points are in favour of it as well. As has already been pointed out, the constitutional programme put forward by the coalition is supposed to be a programme of empowering the people, not disempowering them. It is worth reminding ourselves of what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister in his evidence to the Select Committee that,

“it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people … collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians”.

Increasing the term of a Parliament so that it necessarily lasts for five years cannot conceivably meet those objectives, and I have never heard any explanation given by the coalition as to how it does. Nor, indeed, have we heard any explanation from the coalition as to why five years was chosen. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, pointed to the evidence that was given to the committee which illustrates that the figure was chosen before the evidence was there.

It is worth also spending a moment more on the purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not an answer, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said, to say, “We are scrutinising it”.