European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Monday 13th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Brexit is the end of an epoch. I sense a certain sense of solemnity hanging over the House this evening which I do not find here all that often. Tonight is of course a crucial part of the process of our going, and this debate sees the nation splashing across the Rubicon as we go. Once the Bill that we are discussing becomes law, there is no turning back.

It seems to me that you cannot possibly see Brexit as an end in itself; it is merely a staging point on the journey to somewhere. We are now at the point where the options in front of us begin to open up, and the negotiations are going to become much more complicated. The one thing that we can be sure of is that things will never be the same again, and we will not unilaterally be able to cherry-pick what we want.

Politics is the art of the possible. We all have to be clear about that in looking at this subject, and I include the Government in that. I was slightly surprised that in the revised version of this Bill after the election there were some rather macho inclusions about the manner in which the negotiations are going to be carried out. They know that they can amend the Bill, and amend the legislation with another Bill if they want to. I am still not clear whether what they did was a sign of strength or of weakness.

I have to confess that I have a sense of foreboding. I myself believe in the validity of the fundamentals that led this country to join the EEC and then to play such an important part in establishing the single market. Free trade does not entail frictionless trade and commerce. To support that, you need to have cheap, sensible, easy, user-friendly systems to stop cheating, and we all know that one of the mantras of the British is, “All foreigners cheat.” Secondly, the manner in which the negotiation is being conducted from this end—a point that a number of noble Lords have made—makes me fear for the future of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain. Particularly the Scots but also the Northern Irish feel that their interests have been sidelined and that they have been cold-shouldered. I also think we ought to pay serious heed to what I might in shorthand call “the Lord Pannick point”. Legal certainty does matter in the real world to the people who are doing commerce and business.

Lastly, we have seen in the revised Bill that the role of Parliament has been substantially reduced. I believe it is a completely false antithesis to set up Parliament against the people. I fear that the Government are falling into the trap of behaving in exactly the way that they criticised Brussels for in running things through a bureaucracy, because bureaucrats are servants of Ministers and they are all part of the Administration. A Government who are confident of their way forward—and this Government are confident, with their big majority—should look positively at criticisms that may be levelled against them, and, if the criticisms turn out to be justified, it is a sign of strength to amend your position to accommodate them.

I never wanted to leave the European Union and I still do not, but in life sometimes you just have to accept second best. We are now and will continue to be, because we cannot avoid it, Europeans. We should remember the words of the poet Robert Frost:

“Good fences make good neighbors.”


I shall conclude in a way that I do not suppose I shall ever conclude a speech again: I hope I have been wrong in an awful lot of what I have said.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

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

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Inglewood, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and myself. The protection and improvement of our environment is critical to our health and well-being, to our economic growth and for future generations. The Government recognise the importance of this, as we have been reminded on several occasions during the Bill. The Prime Minister has stated that this will be the first Government to leave the environment in a better state. The Environment Secretary, the right honourable Michael Gove MP, has announced a consultation, first some months ago and repeated subsequently, on the establishment of a world-leading environmental watchdog to replace and indeed improve on the current EU role in compliance. The intent is clear, and very welcome.

However, nothing has happened, so the risk is growing that on exit day there will be a serious environmental governance gap. There are two major elements of this gap. The first is that the Bill does not adequately retain the key roles of EU environmental principles—that is, interpreting the law, guiding decision-making and as a basis for legal challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, highlighted on Amendment 12 last Wednesday. The second is that the Bill does not provide a replacement for the role of the EU in holding the Government to account on environmental issues—for example, when key air or water quality targets are missed.

Action to address the governance gap is needed urgently, because exit day is less than a year away; because the implementation period is not yet a certainty; because consultation can be delayed, especially when, as it appears, some departments, including the Department for Transport and the Treasury, would not welcome an independent environmental watchdog to hold the Government to account; and because establishing a new watchdog in law and appointing its members will not be quick.

The amendment aims to reduce the risk for the Government that leaving the EU will lead to failure to achieve their stated goal—that of maintaining and improving the environment. To this end, it requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals to establish before exit day an independent environmental watchdog; proposals for primary legislation establishing a duty on public authorities to apply EU environmental principles in the exercise of relevant functions after exit day; and a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that must be retained or replicated in UK law. This is urgent, so it requires the Secretary of State to publish this within three months of the date of this Act being passed.

The amendment reduces the risk to our environment of EU exit and helps the Government to deliver on their strong and welcome environmental commitments. I beg to move.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, as much as by anything else, I was prompted to sign the amendment because I was unclear as to precisely what the Government’s plans might be in this area. As we all know, one of the basic principles of the Bill is to parachute existing EU law into domestic legislation so that on Brexit day minus one and Brexit day plus one, the rules to be adhered to will be the same—albeit that the constitutional framework and administrative structures around them may be quite different—so that, in the real world, it is a seamless transition.

Failure to bring that about will not only breach the principles behind the Bill but, probably at least as important, it is likely to bring chaos. One attribute of environmental law—I generalise—is that it is principles-based in its operation, involves a whole range of bodies and is in turn integrated with a whole lot of laws of different kinds around the world. I am concerned that the way that this sector works could mean that the seamless transition that we are looking for and discussing will not work in this context in accordance with the principles behind the Bill, because of recent political discontent echoed about some aspects of it. I am looking for reassurance.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have been very clear in their promises, and this has helped many in their consideration of the Bill. I know that the Minister and I do not always agree, but I must say that I have been very impressed by the way the Secretary of State for Defra, with whom I also do not agree on the subject of the European Union, has been determined to ensure that our exit from the European Union will not mean that the protections we now have for the environment would be lessened. He has made that clear again and again.

I am indebted to a noble friend who pointed out that the Secretary of State nodded vigorously when the right honourable Sir Oliver Letwin said in the House of Commons:

“I am now confident that the Government will bring forward proper new primary legislation to create an independent body outside the House with prosecutorial powers that will replace the Commission as the independent arbiter to enforce environmental rules and to ensure that the Government are taken to task in court without the need for the expense of class action lawsuits”.


I think the whole House can accept that, wherever else we may disagree, we have come to the conclusion that the Government are serious in their intention in this area.

As chairman of the climate change committee, I have been very happy to celebrate recent decisions by the Government about the environment. The request for us to advise on how we might implement the decisions of the Paris agreement to move towards the goal of 1.5 degrees is welcome to all of us. I therefore want to see the promises made by the Secretary of State for Defra and the Government as a whole carried through. I am sure my noble friend understands why we have tabled the amendment: because of the urgency and uncertainty to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, referred.

Sir Oliver Letwin was very clear about this. He said:

“I am delighted to say that we have talked sufficiently to Ministers to be confident that they will be bringing forward both the consultation and the legislation in time to ensure that it is in place before we exit the EU. Of course, I would also want to wait until January to see the consultation to ensure that that engagement is fulfilled, and I am sure that the other place will want to look at what is said in the consultation and to assure itself that the new statute is coming forward before it consented to allow this Bill to proceed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/17; col. 227.]


That is why we have tabled the amendment. I know that my noble friend will accept that it contains only what the Government have said they wanted to do. It has done so in a way that, as nearly as possible, reflects the Climate Change Act, which has been so successful, and which the Government have been foremost in celebrating in this, the 10th year of it having been passed. What we want is to engage the Government in their own assertion. In this, I have to say that we have been supported right across the House. The Liberal Democrats, for example, have done a great deal to press this. The Cross-Benchers, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have united in seeing this, as have Brexiteers and non-Brexiteers. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Spicer is not in his place, but this is no plot of remainers; it is only a reflection of what the Government have promised to do.

I finish by saying to my noble friend that the reason we want this in the Bill is that it is crucial for people concerned about the environment to know in detail that this is protected. The problem with the environment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, is that its protection is often not in individual laws but in the acceptance of the precautionary principle that we should not do anything that damages the environment. It is those things that make the difference.

I was converted to all this as a very young man when I first read Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. It reminds us that there was a time when people ignored all this. They did not think about it or believe that it mattered. We have moved from that to a point at which these principles are accepted. If we leave the European Union, there will be no way in which that is included within our legislation because the protocols, preambles and indeed, the generalised acceptances, are removed from this Bill.

This therefore is a reflection of what the Government say they want and adds nothing to it. I very much hope that they will feel that this is a moment when, however different we may be—I have sometimes been rather tough on the Government’s views—this at least is something that can be wholly accepted because it will carry through what the Government themselves said they would do.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I take what the noble Lord is saying, but such a report would not be dealing with subsection (1). That is my point. Subsection (1) is the operative subsection and it deals with domestic law, and reciprocity is not a matter that can be dealt with by domestic law. The only thing we can do, as I said on the last occasion on which we discussed this, is make sure that our arrangements are suitable for reciprocity and, if the reciprocity comes, that we have the right arrangements to deal with it. That is our domestic side of reciprocity. The rest of the reciprocity belongs to the rest of Europe, and I hope it will see the benefit of this as much as us. However, as far as we are concerned, we are bringing the whole of EU law that refers to family matters into our law by virtue of this Bill, and a report about that would be otiose.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I want to make a brief comment that I should like to have made in Committee but the time was not appropriate. Like a number of your Lordships in the Chamber, I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. Looking back on my experience, the most distressing aspect of the job was dealing with problems relating to family law. I make a plea to everybody concerned with this: the personal unhappiness and anguish that surrounds these circumstances is severe, and when dealing with this the Government should please remember that we are talking not about money but about people. They must find a way—I am sure they can—to resolve these horrible circumstances in the most humane way possible.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy is simply asking that the Minister publish within six months of Royal Assent a report outlining how the rights currently enshrined in EU family law will continue to exist after exit day. That is a very modest ask.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to add my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and wish him a speedy recovery. I also speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. May I add my thanks for the way in which recent Governments of all hues have got the point of the creative industries and their importance? In my case, it was the late Matthew Evans, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who was a Labour Government Minister when I first entered this House. He encouraged me to support and put down debates and Questions on the creative industries—something that I duly did and continue to do. I also add my appreciation for everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, and the right honourable Ed Vaizey have done to support the sector.

However, their good work and prescient strategy now risk unravelling. To get to the substantive point of Amendment 146, without some form of reciprocal agreement with the remaining EU member states, our creative and cultural sectors will, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, suffer terrible economic and cultural damage. It is absolutely essential that, as well as being at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy—which they are—the creative industries are at the top table of Brexit negotiations.

As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, have said, many things are crucial to the continuing success of the creative industries—country of origin, IP legislation and collaboration, portability and funding. For example, the British Film Institute distributes around £50 million per annum in lottery funds, but Creative Europe contributes a further £13 million, which would potentially go. Another crucial issue is freedom of movement, which is access not just to international talent, as others have said, but to much-needed skills. Also crucial are the ability for touring performers to cross borders with minimum red tape; design law; and protection from the EU’s cultural exception rules.

Supporting this vital, vibrant sector is of paramount importance to our economy, to our country’s sense of itself and to our place in the world. Our rich history of cultural exchange must be maintained within Europe. Unless the interests of the creative industries are protected, leaving Europe will be a disaster for a jewel in the crown of our nation. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to add a few words to what has been said already. In particular, I will focus my remarks on the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Wigley. I should add that I and members of my family have been involved in the creative industries.

I want essentially to talk about broadcasting and its allied sectors, for which it has been said that the UK is the principal centre in the European Union and, as a result, has become one of the pre-eminent broadcasting hubs in the world.

The industry as it is now is essentially a child of the 1990s—a child of a union between digital technology and the European Union single market. In this country, noble Lords will remember, digital television was launched by the Broadcasting Act 1996, and the European single market officially came into being in 1993. Perhaps I ought to explain that I was the Minister for Broadcasting responsible for that legislation. For much of the 1990s, I was working in the European Parliament on the single market. I have always been a strong supporter of this Conservative initiative, but I am aware that that is perhaps a rather unfashionable stance at present.

We do not live in a laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost market. We live in a regulated market like all the countries with which we usually compare ourselves. One of the characteristics of that is that legal access to a market does not of and by itself confer a right to trade in it. It is through the instrument of the single market that this sector has beneficially enlarged UK sovereignty in an interdependent world so that across the entire EU it has done things to its own and our nation’s advantage.

We have had a number of figures quoted already about the value of this sector to the country, so there is absolutely no need for me to repeat them. It is interesting that the two sets of confidential documents I have seen in 100 Parliament Street confirm the damaging impact of leaving that marketplace.

If we do not attain equivalent arrangements in any post-Brexit world, the capabilities of this sector will be much diminished, as has been said. As we speak, the sector is rearranging its modus operandi and exporting not only its products but its infrastructure elsewhere in the EU. Furthermore, as has also been said, its capabilities are becoming much reduced, as London is a magnet and a melting pot for many of the most talented across Europe.

Only a couple of weekends ago, I was talking to a friend who is a very senior director of one of the UK’s most well-known, globally esteemed firms of architects, a name that I suspect that every noble Lord would recognise without problem. He told me that the greatest damage Brexit was going to do to his business was to dry up the stream of highly talented people who wanted to work with them and contribute to this country in that way. It is happening now.

We sometimes forget that one of the United States’s greatest instruments of soft power is Hollywood, and this sector does something equivalent for this country. If we cannot reverse the inevitable consequences of serving Article 50 in this respect, real damage will be done to this country. The Prime Minister, to her great credit, recognised that and has assured us that she is striving to do whatever she can to mitigate that consequence. Parliament should support her in doing that.

The implications of all this should be spelled out to everybody in this country, not just the privileged few who are given access to 100 Parliament Street. That should strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand, not least here at home, as the reality of what is at stake—both the prize to be won and what could be lost—should be available to everybody.

[Lord Adonis]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him the same question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: can he see any benefit at all from leaving the European Union in respect of the broadcasting and cultural sectors with which he is so familiar?

[Lord Inglewood]

Not immediately.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, we in Parliament appear at the moment to be mere spectators, highly dependent on the Government to negotiate on our behalf—indeed, on behalf of future generations—an agreement with the EU as to how we withdraw from nearly half a century of membership and, more seriously, how we work with and alongside the EU in the decades to come: the canvas, or the mandate, in the words of my noble friend Lord Lea.

It is to this latter task that Amendment 144 and its amendments draw our attention. At the moment, the Government are telling us nothing as to the shape of the agreement they wish to reach. “Deep”? “Bespoke”? Those words tell us nothing. What does it mean in regard to family law; our highly profitable creative industries; the protection of consumers, especially in food safety or transport—those trains, planes and ships that carry people and goods from here to there every hour of the day? How does it affect our artistic, sporting and other professionals, who are currently able to work across the EU, representing British companies or citizens, competing, performing or conducting architectural, veterinary or scientific work across that enormous market, or undertaking accounting or auditing work for multinationals? Indeed, a whole range of jobs are currently undertaken day by day by virtue of the IP agreements, broadcasting licensing or the mutual recognition of qualifications, which my noble friend Lord Brooke set out so clearly. Negotiations are needed on those areas.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who I am delighted to follow, I will be general with my comments, although I hope that my arguments will be focused.

Now that Article 50 has been served in response to the outcome of the referendum, we are thereby tearing up our agreement with the other EU member states. As a result, both sides are looking beyond Brexit—through exit, to the world beyond. Naturally, everyone is trying to secure advantage for themselves. No matter what we do next, be it wise or foolish, it is always better to try to do things sensibly. I entirely agree with those who argue that the right starting point is to aim to parachute the acquis into the post-Brexit UK legal system—into which it will morph—and that that has to be done seamlessly but at the same time entirely in line with our constitutional settlement and traditions. It sounds easy, but it is not, as the Select Committee on the Constitution so helpfully pointed out in its serious strictures about the Bill. Parliament must handle these matters in accordance with the customary democratic practices of this country. There is simply no scope for exceptions. I do not want to comment further in any detail at this stage; much has already been said, and a great deal more will be, in Committee and on Report and I will be inclined to support a number of amendments.

We all know this is happening in the midst of political turmoil. In a more aggressive age or country, I dare say there might be civil war or violence on the streets. Society is split down the middle. When all this is over, the nation will need to coalesce again. In the meantime, there are real worries among all categories of opinion. It seems to me that the manner of the future of the conduct of public business may be of equal importance as its substance, because the eventual outcome must be seen as legitimate, not least by those who disagree with its merits. Rules of procedure, which sometimes seem—and in reality often are—pedantic and dull, are put in place not least to protect the weak and minorities. If they are ignored or rolled over roughshod, longer term discontent is embedded, to the disadvantage of these groups.

Ironically, it only occurred to me during this debate, because it was a point made by others, that if the European Communities Act is a kind of Henry VIII clause writ large, then so, perhaps, is the referendum Act. In both cases, Parliament remains the guardian of the constitution, the process and its outcomes.

One of the characteristics of the referendum on whether we should leave the European Union was that it was a binary choice. Leaving the EU may be a binary choice, but the consequential negotiation of a deep and special relationship is not. The two are intimately and irrevocably connected despite being clearly distinct. At the time of the referendum, advocates of leaving were—and still are—irreconcilably divided about what comes next. It seems to me that what happens next is, by any constitutional analysis, a matter for a sovereign Parliament, which must not loosen its control over how things may develop. I have no idea at all what will happen, but I suspect that anybody who says they do is deluding themselves or trying to delude others.

As I said, Parliament is sovereign in this country. It must impose its control over the politics of what happens next; it must be unshackled in doing so and be allowed and enabled to decide how matters move forward in whatever way it deems best at the time those decisions must be taken. That seems to be the only acceptable and meaningful effect of the words “meaningful vote”. That, however you look at it, is called taking back control.

Brexit: Trade in Non-financial Services (EUC Report)

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, these days it seems almost unbelievable that until a couple of years or so ago, driving forward the European Union’s single market was perhaps the Conservative Party’s flagship European policy, and had been so for a quarter of a century. This important report by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, shows why and how it generated wealth and prosperity for this country, which has helped to pay its bills. For 10 years of that time I served on the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, as my noble friend the Minister knows, where I played a small role in building that market. It was pernickety, painstaking and often frustrating work. The single market in goods was the most obvious, the single market in financial services perhaps the most high profile, and the single market in services may be the most elusive and the one with most potential. Our country benefits from each of them, and because the single market in services has been scandalously long in gestation, as has been pointed out, if we were to leave the single market now without re-engaging on continuing equivalent terms, we shall be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

One of the lessons I learned from that time is the realisation that to have frictionless trade, it is essential to eliminate non-tariff barriers which ingenious protectionist Administrations will be looking to impose while paying lip service to free and fair trade. In this regard lies the importance of the role of the European Commission and competition law, and of the European Court of Justice in policing that market in the interests of fair play. In this context I emphasise the importance of the principle of direct applicability of law, which gives the small man as much as the rich corporation the benefits of the market. Enforcement of rights is as important as the existence of the right itself, since justice delayed is justice denied, and there is no real right if it is too costly or difficult to enforce.

To establish a working single market you need agreement on, participation in and confidence in a structure that it seems to me has to have three essential components: an arrangement for making rules; the rules and a way that they can evolve; and enforcement. If you move away from this tripartite structure, you go on a journey which inevitably goes from rule maker to rule taker. The more exceptionalism we demand and seek, the less in control we shall be and the less benefit will result for us.

As has been mentioned, it is sometimes said that we can pick up what we may lose from leaving the single market by trading elsewhere in the world. However, I have never found any hard evidence to support that; rather, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, who knows much more about these things than I do, who, in a recent article in the New Statesman, points out that trade with the European Union and trade outside the European Union are complementary and not alternatives. I think that that was the point that my noble friend Lady Noakes was making. In this area certainly, we can clearly do better. As the Government themselves have pointed out, both Germany and France are currently more successful in trading with China than we are.

As politicians, we have to be especially alert to the siren song that businessmen will conduct business at the behest of ministerial utterance. For a number of years I chaired a north of England manufacturing company, and the board took its decisions on the basis of what it considered commercial merit—and if there was some government support or, better still, money, that was a bonus.

In the contemporary world of networks we see how the hub structure works across national boundaries, and in the “not impact statements” made available to parliamentarians, we read that five of the top 15 global legal firms are based in London. Spokes radiate from the hub and subsidiary nodes develop, while if power deserts the hub, they may and do turn into the network’s focus. Similarly, in another area with which I have some familiarity and which has been touched on already, the United Kingdom, and in particular London, is the main European centre for broadcasters, be they English-speaking or not. Already, now that they are looking at uncertainty, some are leaving, principally for Amsterdam, and many others are making plans.

We need to be clear about the oft-quoted proposition that leaving the single market will bring a bonfire of regulations which will turn the United Kingdom into an occidental version of an Asian tiger. Every new Government I can ever remember have promised to slash red tape, but I have never seen it happen. We must remember, first, that a significant number of rules owe their origin to non-EU international agreements. Moreover, the UK Government themselves have often over the years used European Union decision-making to introduce regulation they want to see, as that is a way that is more convenient and discreet. The Prime Minister has ruled out getting rid of a lot of European legislation, so if the present Prime Minister will not do that, I can hardly see the leader of the Opposition taking a radical view and going further. Finally, as has been mentioned, this country seems to like regulation. You only have to look at the gold-plating that has gone on—and let us not forget that Jobsworth is an Englishman.

The more we want to diverge from the single market, the less access we shall be accorded as our counterparties in the negotiations will consider that we will be trying to dump, either socially or economically, our products and services on them. We can speculate as much as we like over what the real options are, but of course it is not simply a matter of what we would like; at least as important is what the other member states would want for themselves. One thing, though, is certain: the more we “take back control” over trade with the European Union, the more we give it away. They are two sides of the same coin.

UK and EU Relations

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, during much of the summer and the Recess, for reasons which I need not go into, I became very much preoccupied with non-political things. At the beginning of the autumn I awoke rather like a slightly insomniac Rip Van Winkle and took stock of Brexit. We are now on the road which, unless something intervenes, inexorably means we head off over the cliff edge of a hard Brexit. I was struck by the irony of how voting to take back control had conferred on the EU a veto over all our subsequent relations with it concerning everything in the treaties. If there is a possibility we go over the cliff edge, we have to plan for that because if it happens and we do not, complete chaos will ensue. All our relationships therefore via the treaties have to be rearranged under public and private international law when the EU law falls away. These new arrangements have to be comprehensive and will almost certainly involve choice and value judgments. At the same time that this is happening, there appears to be a widespread, although not universal, doubt about the wisdom of going off the cliff edge; and the Government appear to be looking, in their own words, for a new “deep and special relationship”, which I consider sensible, since we cannot unilaterally decouple from an interdependent world.

Both these strands are found woven together in the position papers. The inherent problem that we end up with is that we are going to be simultaneously arguing for two separate and sometimes incompatible things, unless and until we know what the final position is going to be. I would hazard a guess that, if the EU were asked what was the best possible deep and special partnership we might have with it, it would say the EU membership that we have now. However, we have rejected that and we are entitled to do so, and we want this new relationship. That being the case, it seems entirely reasonable to me for it then to come back to us and say, “Tell us what you want and we will consider it”. It is entirely up to it how it responds and how it might or might not negotiate thereafter.

At the heart of the position papers, and where we are politically in these negotiations, are these two strands. I would like to briefly touch on two of them. First, I turn back to last week’s debate on the EU Committee’s report on Brexit and Ireland, which seemed very illustrative of the problems that we are facing. I have never spoken in the British Parliament on Ireland although I have a significant Ascendancy component in my background, even though—rather surprisingly—the only members of my kith and kin who anyone may have heard of were really quite prominent nationalists. Nevertheless I follow, and always have followed, what is going on there. Two things emerge very clearly. First, it is fiendishly complicated. Secondly, honourable and intelligent people have very differing, honestly held views. This is symptomatic of the wider background to the quest for our new deep and special partnership. It is not going to be easy.

Secondly, and it has just been referred to by my noble friend Lord Ridley, is the position paper on Euratom. As a Cumbrian, much of whose political and business life has been associated with and touched one way or another by both Europe and the nuclear industry, I suspect I am as familiar with the criticisms of both—my goodness, there are a lot from time to time—as anybody. Never can I recall, though, any criticisms made of Euratom membership. Listening to my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it struck me that if ever there was a case that Paris was worth a mass, this must be it. After all, as Alexander Pope put it:

“For forms of government let fools contest;


Whate’er is best administered is best”.

We are arguing simultaneously in two slightly different directions in respect of two possibly separate outcomes to Brexit. This is both difficult and hazardous. It is always said of politics, and it was said by Jimmy Maxton, that if you cannot ride two horses at once you have no business to be in the circus. Of course that is true but the problem and the risk is that, if you are trying to ride two and you slip off one, you are likely to end up having fallen off the other as well and find yourself lying on the ground with your face in the mud.

Brexit: Trade in Goods (EUC Report)

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, the speeches that we have already heard today point to the timeliness and excellence of the committee’s report. Before going further into my comments, I should declare an interest as president of the British Art Market Federation, which, because London is one of three global hubs in the art market, is involved in moving goods around Europe.

In the referendum, I was one of those who voted remain. One of my principal reasons for doing so was the fact that I wanted us to stay in the single market. It seems strange to me that, until about a year ago, the establishment of the single market was generally accepted as perhaps the UK’s and the Conservative Party’s greatest contribution to the EU. It was the crown jewel of our European policy, as I argued on the hustings. I believed that then, and I believe it now. It is an extraordinary achievement. While it was Jacques Delors who was leading the European Commission at the time, we should not forget that it was two British Conservative Commissioners, also Members of your Lordships’ House, who brought it into being: Lord Cockfield and Lord Brittan.

By any measure, it was a most extraordinary and complicated legal, political, economic and administrative construct and achievement, tying together separate marketplaces under a shared rule-making and rule enforcement procedure in which everyone participated. Furthermore, those marketplaces were set in the framework of very different legal procedures and administrative systems and traditions. And it worked—albeit with a little difficulty sometimes, it worked. When I see what is happening now, all I can do is echo Kipling and sigh,

“all our pomp of yesterday

Is one with Nineveh and Tyre”.

One characteristic of the report that has already been mentioned is that it focuses on the largest sectors of the economy, but it is important that we do not forget SMEs, which equally benefit from the single market. I recall a constituency case which involved a very small business exporting penknives to the continent and found that it was being thwarted. The effect of the creation of the single market was to transfer part of what I might describe as our abroad market into what I might describe as our home market. That has been of great benefit to our country’s economy, because economies of scale have generated wealth, jobs and taxes and, of course, commerce is not a zero-sum game.

In my relatively limited business experience, one thing that has been emphasised to me most frequently is the importance of looking after one’s home market. Leaving the single market throws much of our national home market away and goes directly against that proposition. The implications of that have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. It is argued that we shall be free to make our own rules and strike our own deals—as will the other member states, as they will according to their internal and external policies. Of course, that is true. The question that matters to me is whether they will be better deals. No one knows, but we must be hard-headed in thinking about it.

I have a number of concerns. First, I am very anxious about the impact of non-tariff barriers. I know from the work that I did 20 years ago—I spent 10 years on the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament working on the detail of the single market—how such things can be and are used to frustrate trade. Then we must think about the time and money spent on customs formalities. Equally, are we certain that our businesses will be engaged in fair trade and fair competition? We all know myriad ways that help can be given to our businesses’ competitors. In practice, if we are outside the single market rules, it will be a great deal harder to do much about it.

The Government tell me that there are plenty of opportunities to do business around the world. We know that: there are now. No country that we would like to negotiate with is likely to say no at this stage—it would be crazy. Secondly, are the countries which are to be our benefactors in this way likely, in our circumstances, to give us a big advantage over the rest of the European Union—which is, after all, a much bigger market? Thirdly, can and will they deliver? If the President of the United States promises some wonderful trade deal, he has the small hurdle of getting it through Congress. Fourthly, is what actually emerges going to help us? I recall a neighbour of mine who voted Brexit in order to make money by selling his beef cattle to Australia. I suspect that he is likely to be disappointed.

Businessmen conduct business because they see a deal with a turn for them at the end of it. Generally, by the time a politician points something out, it is too late. Business is in front, and we in politics are normally behind. Of course, in this country we are good entrepreneurs and enterprising—but so, of course, are businessmen from other countries. It is worth noting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said, and as I say without any satisfaction, that both France and Germany seem to be trading rather more successfully with China than we are.

Then of course we are told that we should be able to adopt more flexible business practices than our European competitors, and it is probably true that we could in this country adopt Hong Kong-style ways of doing business—but I do not want us to do that and, far more importantly, nor do the Government. Much of what critics of our employment and labour relations laws have decried has in fact been introduced by the UK Government behind a smoke-screen of Brussels to hide what they were up to.

Then we are told that, in a world of networks, “Belt and Road” proximity does not matter. In some cases that may be right, for low-value and low-quantity goods, but in other cases it certainly does, and having confidence in things such as dispute resolution procedures, the integrity of business partners and appropriate systems of dealing with issues when after-sales problems arise, certainly all matter.

Then we are told that we will be able to support our businesses with money not being paid into the EU budget. Speaking for myself, I do not think that the principle of contributing to the EU budget as we have been doing is inherently objectionable, since the structure of our manufacturing economy is especially suited to gaining advantage from other countries by virtue of single market membership. Furthermore, if we find that our national turnover reduces by leaving, VAT take will reduce, since it is a turnover tax. It would not surprise me at all if the tax gain from being in the single market equated to most, if not all, of the contributions that we have been making.

As we move towards the promised land post Brexit, I can see no reason in theory why membership of the single market should not be part of any final settlement that emerges. After all, Brexit means Brexit—neither more nor less; the eurozone is the eurozone and the single market the single market. My fear is that, if we leave the single market and reach the promised land, we will find that there is not a great deal of milk and honey when we get there.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

I do not believe that the Government are doing this because they want to leave the Euratom treaty. I believe that they are doing it because they believe that they have no other choice. I think they have a choice, which is to take their time on this and make sure that there is no cliff edge when we leave, because the consequences of leaving without these alternative arrangements in place would really be so serious for the nuclear industry as to raise a genuine question mark about its future in this country.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to add a few words to what has already been said about the Euratom treaty and its relationship to the UK nuclear industry. I declare an interest as a Cumbrian and as chairman of Gen2, which is one of the main suppliers of apprentices for Sellafield and some of the other west Cumbrian nuclear businesses. There is considerable concern because people just do not really know what the Government have in mind. As my noble friend the Minister knows, I have been interested in this topic over the past few months, and when I read the Lancaster House speech, I did not see any reference worthy of the name to the nuclear industry and the Euratom aspects, which have been vividly described by a number of speakers. What do the Government have in mind and how do they think they are actually going to bring about the changes they appear to want, in a manner which will enable the nuclear industry to continue in a way which contributes to the well-being of the country as a whole?

Article 50 (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, at the outset, I join those who have commended the work of the two committees and their chairmen, and say that I share the general thrust of what has been said hitherto in the debate. Secondly, as someone who until just the other day was the chairman of a newspaper company—albeit a local newspaper company—I join in the comments about the treatment by certain newspapers of the High Court judges. It seems to me that they completely failed the test of fairness in that there was no evidence to justify what was said.

Our joining of the EU in the 1970s and, now, our withdrawal are events that amount to a constitutional revolution and are sui generis. We need to recognise that quite separately from the political issues and other merits involved, and I do not intend to discuss them this afternoon.

The referendum vote in June was, on the surface, a binary choice—but, of course, it was not really that, as a number of us pointed out before the referendum. The decision to leave opens up numerous possibilities and poses many more questions than it answers. The Prime Minister has told us that Brexit means Brexit. On one level that is absolutely correct and on another it is completely meaningless, but perhaps most usefully it simply describes the consequences of a majority of voters voting to leave the European Union. That means that we now have to take decisions about a series of options, which range from so-called soft Brexit to so-called hard Brexit—and there seems to be absolutely no consensus about that. To put it another way, our relationship with the European Union might range anywhere from that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland to that of North Korea. All are within the compass and definition of Brexit.

Against this background, what should the Government do and what should Parliament do? It seems to me that the Government’s response is essentially their own affair within the constraints of the law and of politics. However, the position of Parliament is perhaps less clear, as nothing quite like this has ever been done before. On top of that, we no longer live in a world where there is a complete demarcation between home and abroad—as was the case, for example, 100 years ago, when ambassadors were plenipotentiaries, whereas now they appear to be salesmen.

The reality is that in a politically and economically interdependent world it is not possible to decouple from abroad unilaterally. The process through which this country is now going will have huge repercussions domestically—politically and economically—and diplomatically, and Parliament has to engage directly with these matters. We are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said in his evidence to the Constitution Committee, withdrawing from some relatively small international treaty. It is generally accepted that this is a once-in-a-generation, or even a once-in-a-century, change which is likely to have a far greater and more long-lasting impact than, for example, the result of any general election.

As has already been said, in the recent Brexit/Miller case in the High Court, it was ruled that Article 50 cannot be triggered without parliamentary approval. I believe that a process of proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability should be attached to any grant of approval that might be given. On the other hand, were the Supreme Court on appeal to set that aside, I still think that Parliament should insist on political involvement, not least because leaving the EU and the terms of so doing will, as my noble friend Lord Gardiner said in his remarks just before this debate began, set the framework for the great repeal Bill. The only realistic way for Parliament to play a full role in scrutinising and dealing with any possible great repeal Bill is to get involved in the process of withdrawal. The Government have offered consultation, and of course that is welcome—but it is insufficient in the way it has been put forward.

From my perspective, it seems that there are three parts to this. The first is that before Article 50 is served, Parliament should be given a clear indication of the journey of travel posed and the generality of the type of Brexit sought. It does not seem to me to matter what colour paper that may be, but we need to get the evidence. Apart from anything else, I am sure it is inconceivable that the Government would go into these negotiations aiming to fly blind. This might, by analogy—although the comparison should not be stretched too far—be a bit like the Long Title of a Bill.

Secondly, it is agreed that, once discussions are under way, there should be scrutiny by committees. That of course seems sensible. In addition, I believe that there should be, from time to time, regular but not too frequent full debates on the Floor of the House. I say that because a number of Members of your Lordships’ House are not members of the relevant committees or any committees; some issues—for example, those arising out of the possible future of the European arrest warrant—are not merely technical but have much wider significance in the context of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement; some things that are being debated may have very considerable ramifications for the state of the union between England and Scotland; and there may be events in the outside world that have a profound impact on the wider politics of all this, and they should not be ignored.

Thirdly, the draft final agreement should be approved by both Houses before it is signed, just as Bills are signed off by both Houses before they go for Royal Assent. If Parliament does not like what the Government bring forward for Brexit, it must know that the Government have to go back and ask for something different. Otherwise, you run the risk of complete legal anarchy and muddle.

There is also the possible matter of compromising our negotiators. However, for many years, business has been conducted in the Council of Ministers, much of it in private, where the generality of the UK’s position is known but the detail is confidential. This seems to have worked administratively entirely satisfactorily, so I do not think that it is a real-world problem, if carried out properly.

Finally, on the matter of certainty, Brexit will inevitably be a drawn-out—possibly a very drawn-out—process. Clearly business wants and likes certainty; as someone involved in business, I know that only too well. But it is more important to get it right in the long run. Compared to that, short-term certainty is a second-order issue.