Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely. I remind the Committee that unless they are leading a group, remote speakers speak after the mover of the lead amendment in a group and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of Members who tabled them.

Clause 1: Introduction

Amendment 1

Moved by

Scotland: Meeting with New First Minister

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

First, I offer my congratulations to Humza Yousaf on his appointment as First Minister of Scotland, having won the SNP leadership contest on a very close 52%-48% result with Kate Forbes.

On the Question, I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland and Prime Minister will be pleased to meet the First Minister in due course. Indeed, the UK Government remain committed to working constructively with the Scottish Government to handle the challenges that we both face. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been on record as saying that this is an excellent opportunity to press the reset button and make devolution work in Scotland, by the Scottish Government focusing on devolved matters and allowing the UK Government to focus on reserved matters. Perhaps I may make so bold as to ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, what his first agenda item would be in that first meeting with the new First Minister.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

Tell him!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I will. I also send my congratulations to Humza Yousaf on taking over what I am afraid he is going to find is a poisoned chalice. When the Secretary of State meets the First Minister, will he say quite clearly to him that, if he is genuine and sincere in wanting to co-operate constructively with the UK Government, they should get round the table and find an agreed way forward on gender reform and container recycling that is applicable for the whole United Kingdom? Those are my first two priorities—instead of expensive legal action paid for by the UK taxpayer, which will benefit only the lawyers and extreme separatists.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dunlop (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as independent reviewer of the UK Government’s union capability.

There is no doubt that the Scottish election results have once again put the union at the heart of our deliberations. Strengthening the union requires urgent attention. However, in searching for solutions, care should be taken not to overreact or adopt drastic changes which could inadvertently destabilise the relationships between the nations and regions of our country.

For all the excitable commentary, the reality is as it was five years ago. Basic questions about the implications of independence remain unanswered. In 2016, Nicola Sturgeon launched a national conversation to build a consensus for independence, yet it can be said with certainty that no such Scottish consensus exists today. The make-up of the Scottish Parliament is much the same as before, as are the broader political calculations. There will not be another independence referendum unless and until those wishing one think that it can be won. For those of us who care about the union, the task is to ensure that that day never comes.

In recent months, remedies offered have ranged from bringing power back to the centre, to offering Scotland so-called devo-max, to proposing federalism, involving the creation of an English Government and parliament. Each brings significant problems. While some may regret it, devolution is popular in Scotland. It is hard to believe that more “Whitehall knows best” will appeal to moderate, middle-of-the road Scots. Nor is the issue that the devolved institutions need more powers. The Scottish Parliament is already one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. Scotland already has devo-max. Indeed, many of the Scottish Parliament’s powers remain unused. To go further is not necessary and would risk fatally hollowing out the union.

A new tier of English Government, that most people in England do not want, crystallises why federalism will not work here. There is no example anywhere in the world of a successful federation where one part represents over 80% of the whole. It is also hard to see how this idea changes for the better the political weather in Scotland.

A better approach is to concentrate on making devolution work more effectively for all the UK. Devolution is not a failed project, but it is certainly an unfinished project. Over 20 years ago, devolution represented a substantial change to the way in which our country is governed, yet all the attention since has been on the powers of the devolved institutions. The implications of devolution for the centre of UK Government have been neglected. Devolve and forget is, as we have heard, a phenomenon we all recognise. Devolution has been a centrifugal force. The need now is for equivalent reform at the centre to provide better means for bringing the country together.

Covid has demonstrated beyond doubt that, while different tiers of government have distinct responsibilities, each depends on the other to be successful. What is true of a health pandemic is also true when it comes to tackling climate change, economic challenges and many other issues.

What is needed? First, a culture change is needed at the centre of Government, creating a Whitehall more responsive to the distinct needs of different parts of the country. There is no single silver bullet. My report for the Government identified a package of interlocking reforms. Secondly, a transformation is needed in the way the UK Government works with the devolved institutions. The creaking machinery for managing intergovernmental relations needs overhauling, to be less of a fractious talking shop and more a forum for joint decision-making in areas of common interest. I was encouraged by proposals that the Government published alongside my report. It should now be a priority to get this package agreed with the devolved Administrations. It seems to me that all the outstanding areas of disagreement are eminently resolvable.

In conclusion, the UK is the most successful multinational state in the world. It has for centuries been a beacon for people across the globe who have come here to make this beautiful, quirky and argumentative island their home. The UK has succeeded because it has felt for most of its existence like a shared endeavour of four nations. Our mission now is to build once again a co-operative union—a modern, inclusive United Kingdom fit for the 21st century. I am confident that we can.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Singh, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. When this whole matter originally came before the House, we had the firm assurance from the Front Bench opposite and the strong assurance from the Prime Minister that this was to be a top-priority issue in their considerations of our future. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said so powerfully, here we are, way down the road, and we have made no progress whatever.

The reason why I feel so strongly and passionately about this issue is that I fear that we are demeaning and undermining the whole concept of citizenship. Citizenship is something that people have fought for and struggled for centuries to establish. There are thousands and thousands of people from Britain in Europe. I declare an interest: in my extended family I have family members living in Europe and family members living in this country who are married to Poles, Czechs and so on, and it is a very rich experience. Such people have gone to Europe in the confidence of citizenship and all it has meant historically—to make new lives and build their future in the knowledge that they have citizenship of Europe.

Do we or do we not stand by the concept of citizenship? If we do, how can we contemplate any future in which we have not absolutely guaranteed that people have their rights of citizenship? My noble friend referred to anxiety being out there, and it certainly is. We are talking about men, women and children; about the futures of people who are working; about vulnerable people who have reached old age in the context of what they believed was European security—about real human situations. We need firm, unequivocal assurances from the Government that we believe not just in the right of citizenship, but in the whole concept of citizenship that has been established across Europe in our history. We want cast-iron guarantees that, in one way or another, that is going to be fulfilled.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 211, which is in my name and deals with our rights but in a slightly different way. It would ensure that after withdrawal, our rights and protections remain intact by maintaining the standards at home and at work that we have come to expect in our daily life as part of our normal existence, and that those standards would not be sacrificed or lowered in any future negotiations.

I tabled this amendment some weeks ago and was pleased to see it reflected in the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday and in her Statement on Monday, when she spoke of maintaining current standards in some sectors. My amendment calls for them to be maintained in all sectors, because we cannot pick and choose where our quality of life is concerned. Even Monsieur Barnier seems to agree, and in his recent draft document he speaks of equivalent standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I understand the point he is making about international standards and international bodies. However, the effect of his amendment is, surely, that the British Parliament would be tied, in future, to decisions made by the European Union and the European court. Why does he not trust this Parliament to set regulations that are appropriate for the standards for our own people?

[Lord Haskel]

I do trust Britain to set its own standards, I just do not want to see them lowered. I am concerned that they will be lowered because of trade negotiations and the give and take that will go on in negotiating withdrawal.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On that point, why does the noble Lord not think it possible that we might set higher standards, as for example we have done in respect of paternity rights and other matters?

[Lord Haskel]

I would very much welcome setting higher standards and am sure that all noble Lords would do so. My concern is that we should not lower them, because that is one of the rights we should not be giving away.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in her speech last week, the Prime Minister said that she wished us to retain an association with the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency, specifically to mirror 100% every standard that they set? The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says that we still have a choice. No—if we are associate members of those bodies, not only do we not have a choice but we agree that we are bound by the decisions of the European Court. The Prime Minister set out very clearly how damaging it would be were we not to be members of those bodies, and therefore why we should retain membership of them.

[Lord Haskel]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and in a later amendment, I will call on the Government to set up institutions which would not accept the European standard but enforce our standards—institutions that are independent of the Government. The importance of independence is illustrated by the fact that the main reason why Ministers are doing something about poor air quality in some of our cities is the risk of fines or legal action from the EU, possibly through the European Court of Justice.

As other noble Lords have observed, we are now being less doctrinaire about the European Court of Justice. Being doctrinaire is the reason why we do not want EU standards because of the possibilities of disputes being settled by the European Court of Justice. But many institutions which enforce these standards have their own systems of settling disputes, and these systems have stood the test of time. So whatever the outcome of our withdrawal negotiations, a major concern for Ministers must be the disruption to our way of life and to trade. This amendment would go some way towards helping Ministers to deal with this concern and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Scotland Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have briefly to interrupt to give the following correction. The result of Division No. 1 on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was announced incorrectly as Contents 289, Not Contents 219. The correct figures were Contents 286, Not Contents 219.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Stephen and myself. I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this important debate on the fiscal framework. It is long awaited. Although we had a very good debate in Committee, it was a bit like “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark; it was about the fiscal framework without the actual fiscal framework agreement. At least we can now have a debate on this important part of the architecture of Scottish governance following the Smith commission’s proposals in the light of the agreement which was published at the end of last week.

The amendment which my noble friend and I have tabled is to address the mechanism for the review of the fiscal framework. The Smith commission said that it was important that there was a review, and in Committee we moved an amendment to establish a review. We have tried to revise that amendment in the light of the agreement as we now see it.

When the Minister replies, it would be helpful if he could give us some indication of how the Government understand the review and the mechanisms. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Greg Hands, was right to point out that there is a distinction between the review and dispute resolution. I am rather intrigued by the fact that in the agreement the review is referred to in paragraphs 20 to 23 and again in paragraphs 111 to 113, some of which appears repetitious and almost as if there is something uncertain about it. It is as if the more often you say it, it might just happen. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if there is anything we should read into the fact that it was felt necessary to repeat some of the proposals with regard to the review at a later stage.

The First Minister of Scotland in her Statement to the Scottish Parliament last week seemed to indicate—I sat and listened to it—that there could be a veto over the Scottish Government accepting anything which was not to their advantage following the review. Indeed, paragraph 112 states:

“It will be open to either government to propose changes to the fiscal framework from”,

the point of the review or the end of 2021, and:

“The fiscal framework does not include or assume the method for adjusting the block grant beyond the transitional period”.

The Chief Secretary seemed to say today that it was “our model”, which I assume to mean Her Majesty’s Treasury’s model, whereas the transition period was the Scottish Government’s transition period. So—this is a question which the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, asked last week when the noble Lord repeated the Statement—what is the default position? Is the default position the Treasury model, or is there in fact a veto? What happens if there is not agreement following a review? One was left with the impression that it is a bit, “it’ll be all right on the night”. Those of us who have seen the negotiations with the Scottish Government know that it will not necessarily be all right on the night. They may well take things up to the brink.

Under Section 64 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Consolidated Fund is established, and subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State shall pay sums into the Consolidated Fund, but the sums are not predicated by any agreement or formula, and certainly are not predicated by the statute. I imagine that if all else failed, the ball would be at the feet of the Secretary of State, who has to pay money into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how, in the event of impasse and of no agreement being reached, the UK Government, particularly Her Majesty’s Treasury, see that sum to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund being arrived at, given that it is actually the Secretary of State’s decision and, according to statute, is not in any way fettered. It is important that we get some clarity about what should happen.