European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Report: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodlad (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. In my view, it strikes the right balance between the role of the Government and that of this House and its committees in the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Amendment 71, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, follows the recommendations made by the royal commission that was chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, those of the Leaders’ Group on working practices, which I chaired in 2011, and those of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which we debated in January 2016. That amendment hits the nail pretty well on the head and, if it is reached, should be supported.

I find myself in agreement with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in its 23rd report of this Session, published in April, on the defects of the Government’s amendments as then tabled. In my view, the responsibilities must rest with this House and its committees and the discretion thereto, not with the Government. So I support this group of amendments.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have an interest in Amendments 70 and 71. I am interested because they address the issue that I believe is central to the Bill: the process by which the two Houses of Parliament scrutinise legislation returning from Brussels to this country as part of the Brexit process; and simultaneously to ensure that that scrutiny is effective and that opportunities for a power grab by the Executive are prevented. In my remarks, I am informed by my past membership of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I want to follow up on what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope said. He referred to proposed new subsections (4), (5) and (6), which deal with the devolved Administrations, but of course Clause 3 deals with our central Parliament and thus the English position, and exactly the same point arises.

My further concern is that, assuming that we did not have that apparent bar on any question of judicially reviewing Ministers of the Crown, it would be very difficult to see by what sort of touchstones any legal challenge would work. Proposed new subsection (1) says:

“Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations must pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.


Heaven knows, I hope that I am as anxious as the rest of the House about the welfare of animals—certainly, my cat would never forgive me if I were not—but, as I understand it, the only substantive provision in this proposed new clause is subsection (7), which requires an annual report, although that is obviously a separate and discrete obligation. However, I am not quite sure how judicial review in this context would work or, without it, what is envisaged in the way of Parliament exclusively holding Ministers of the Crown to account. It is all rather abstract and I am a little unsure of how it is intended to work.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has introduced the amendment in his characteristically persuasive manner. He has an exemplary record in the area of animal welfare. As a senior veterinary surgeon, he has enormous professional knowledge and, above all, personal courage in being prepared to speak up about what are often controversial matters. I have had the privilege of working with him on a number of areas of welfare: the welfare of animals at the time of killing, or WATOK, regulations; meat labelling; the export of live animals and so forth. Therefore, I like to think that my commitment to an appropriate standard of animal welfare is not in question, and I believe that a reading of Hansard would show that.

However, as I have told the noble Lord, I am afraid that I cannot support him this evening. We are discussing the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is focused on the process of disentangling this country from the European Union, not on the shape of policy post Brexit. Special issues such as animal sentience, important and vital though they are, are not really part of that withdrawal process. However, I can promise the noble Lord that when we come to discuss animal sentience and welfare in legislation focused on the policies of the new world, I shall be right there with him to ensure that there is no diminution, weakening of or sliding away from proper standards of animal welfare. On that, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, can count on my full support. But not, I am afraid, on this amendment this evening.

UK Withdrawal from the EU and Potential Withdrawal from the Single Market

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for giving us a chance to debate this matter today, but she will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to follow the line she pursued, nor indeed the line of the noble Baroness who has just spoken. I take this opportunity to urge my noble friend on the Front Bench, who will play an influential part in the negotiations that are about to begin, to take a really tough line on the issue of the free movement of labour because it is critical.

Before going into that in detail, let me make two points. This is not a rant about immigrants or immigration. I recognise that skilled immigration at a high level has been an important part of our country’s dynamism and that it is should continue at a limited level in the future. Secondly, this is not about EU citizens who are resident in this country. I recognise that they have come here on one basis and we should honour it. Like my noble friend Lord Hamilton, I fear that it can only be part of a negotiation and that reciprocity is an essential part of that. The Prime Minister has made our position clear and I am sure that, with good will on both sides, we can achieve the outcome we all desire.

My argument today is that for too long for British industry, British commerce and British public services, immigration has been the default option. It has been, as the Migration Advisory Committee, the government body which speaks on these matters has said, the “Get out of jail free” card. That has had and is having a deleterious effect on members of our settled population. When I talk about our settled population, I mean irrespective of race, colour, creed, religion and ethnic background. Of course, the default makes perfect economic sense for employers. Why take the trouble to train up a member of the settled population when for the same money they can get a skilled or perhaps overskilled individual from, say, eastern Europe? It also makes perfect economic sense for the person to accept the post because it may well pay three or four times as much as is available in their home country.

Governments of all persuasions—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, referred to this—say that immigration increases GDP. If you increase your population, you would expect GDP to rise and it is counterintuitive for it to be otherwise. What no one focuses on, or focuses on insufficiently, is GDP per head of population, and here the figures are much more nuanced. The cross-party Select Committee of your Lordships’ House looking into the economic impacts of immigration concluded:

“Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to the increased supply of labour”.


As a result of the widespread use of the default option, there is a real danger that our settled population is being, as commentators now say, “crowded out”. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talked about the moral option—this is a moral option which has to be faced as well.

I simply cannot give the House examples of how this crowding out is taking place and look at its impacts in a speech of only three or four minutes, but I would like to quote briefly from Dame Louise Casey’s report published last month, The Casey Review: A Review into Opportunity and Integration. It is a hard-hitting report in which she said:

“At the start of this review, I had thought that I knew what some of the problems might be and what I might report on. Discrimination and disadvantage feeding a sense of grievance and unfairness, isolating communities from modern British society and all it has to offer.


I did find this. Black boys still not getting jobs, white working class kids on free school meals still doing badly in our education system, Muslim girls getting good grades at school but no decent employment opportunities; these remain absolutely vital problems to tackle and get right to improve our society”.


This is stirring up trouble for our society in the future. One important, critical way to improve economic opportunities for these people must be to resist and stop the default option, the “Get out of jail free” card, of recruitment from overseas.

That is why I urge my noble friend, as these negotiations get under way, despite the pressures that will undoubtedly be applied to him and the Government to relax the line, to pursue a really firm line on this issue. It is difficult, sensitive, emotive and frequently misinterpreted, but it is essential that we get it right.