Rule of Law

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, like other speakers, begin by welcoming this important debate and the remarkable speeches we have heard. In addition, I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness the Advocate-General on both her appointment to her role and the splendid maiden speech she gave us.

We are talking about something that really matters in today’s turbulent and uncertain political world, both here at home and abroad. From my perspective, freedom, democracy and the rule of law are the main building blocks of our own country’s political being. None of them by themselves can ensure its continuance, but each is a necessary, if not a totally sufficient, component. I do not think that it is alarmist to point out, as others have in this afternoon’s debate, that it was not all that long ago that we spent quite a lot of time in this Chamber discussing the then Government’s wish to disapply the courts’ oversight of their own activities. It concerned me then, and it concerns me now, and I do not think it is an esoteric or theoretical topic: it is a contemporary and a relevant one. These things are now in the political air, and when they are there, it is time for us all to be vigilant.

In the run-up to the general election, some of the incoming Government’s advocates were calling for reform of the House of Lords to remove some of their political opponents from Parliament. I should explain that I am a hereditary Peer and, unlike the noble Baroness the Advocate-General, I am heading for the knacker’s yard—although I can say that I became a Member of two Parliaments in one week and, since the other one was the European Parliament, neither is now possible. I think there are plenty of good reasons to reform your Lordships’ Chamber, but that particular one is the worst, not least because of the Parliament Acts.

I have said it before and, no doubt, may well say it again: there is a real case for at least thinking about and looking at the Parliament Act 1911, as amended, in the context of the abolition of the hereditary Peers Bill, to see whether it is necessary and appropriate for some special additional exclusion to be included, lest, at some time in the future, some Government wish to completely reform the second Chamber or abolish it—or even, I suppose, possibly, in theory, abolish Parliament. We are not now in 1911 or 1949, and the world is a different place: the “good chaps” theory of government is less widely endorsed.

When we were thinking about this debate, something struck me—and I am clearly not the only member of your Lordships’ House who thought it. While enormous areas of current activity in the world are regulated in some form or other by soft law, which is hardly touched on in Lord Bingham’s seminal book, the cocktail of policy, hard law and soft law is various and wide ranging, and the rule of law—which, as we have heard, apart from anything else, has to provide redress—is in a bit of an uncertain place in some respects. This got me thinking about the recent budgetary announcement in respect of BPR and APR.

First, I apologise for bringing it up in this context. Secondly, I have to declare a personal interest, which will affect my family more than me, I think. I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will tell me that this is completely irrelevant, so I raise the point now to save him the trouble—but actually I am not quite so sure. We know from what the Secretary of State for Defra has publicly stated that he and his department were blindsided by this move. We also know that the Government have laws and policies in respect of food, land use, the wider environment, climate change and so on, and these clearly were not taken into account when formulating that policy.

We also know from the recent cases of Finch and West Cumbria Mining that the Government, in exercising their discretion, must take all their policies into account. The purpose of raising the tax is to get your hands on the money—the money that the farmers and the businessmen own. That is what taxation is all about. It would be perfectly possible to do this without damaging the other policies and destroying working capital in an important sector that is currently under the cosh because of the policies of this Government and the last and which, in a period of change, faces particular expense.

While many in this debate are lawyers of much greater distinction than I could ever be, I am possibly the only one of us who has a City and Guilds qualification from an agricultural college in dairy enterprise management and farm business management. Agricultural economics is different and distinct from conventional mainstream economics and does not necessarily accord with the more generally understood rules of City banking and academic and commercial analysis.

Empirical analysis suggests that the way in which farming and land use happens is a bit different. In approaching this, the Government have not only ignored their own policies but applied an inapplicable methodology: conventional business economics. This is not the right way to do it. The proper way of approaching this matter would be a bit different. What they have done does not accord with the principles of the rule of law; the process is flawed and will not command public confidence.

I conclude my remarks by saying that the rule of law should and must be at the centre of our political processes and culture because, if it is not, we shall be replacing it with the law of the jungle, where life is nasty, brutish and short—and I do not think that any of us wants that.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps within two minutes I will complete my observations to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. To anticipate what my noble friend the Minister is going to say, I acknowledge that there is force in his prospective argument, which I suspect will be that if we allow these amendments we facilitate a number of unmeritorious applications to the courts, and that will stand in the way of the Bill being effective. There is force in that argument, but I put before your Lordships three considerations that point the other way.

First, the judiciary can be more robust in the way it deals with unmeritorious applications. Furthermore, although I am not an expert in this field at all—I have not practised in immigration law for a long time—a more effective filter could be put in place to weed out the unmeritorious. That is the first point. The second is really the point of principle: I regard it as very dangerous indeed to exclude individuals who happen to be within the jurisdiction from having recourse to the courts for protection. I regard that as a very dangerous proposition, and we should accede to it with the greatest caution. That takes me to my last point, which is essentially a pragmatic one. Those of your Lordships who share my doubts, especially on the matter of principle, should ask themselves whether the Bill is likely to achieve its policy objective. If it is not, we will be doing things that are very bad in principle in support of a policy that will achieve nothing.

My own judgment—I concede that it is a matter of judgment—is that individuals will not be deterred from crossing the channel in small boats by the slight prospect of being relocated to Rwanda. If that is right, we will be doing something that is in principle profoundly wrong in support of a policy that is going nowhere. It is for that combination of reasons that I shall support the noble Baroness. I have spoken for three minutes.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister one question in the context of the provisions in Clause 4. Is it or is it not the Government’s policy that they will look at each individual case, regardless of any other evidence, even if it is only to decide that there are no merits in that particular person’s case?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak only once today, as I did on Monday. The Greens will vote for all the amendments that are called. Some Members of your Lordships’ House quoted the book Nineteen Eighty-Four on Monday, and I have a favourite quote as well:

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”.


It is the freedom to speak truth, even when the ruling party is declaring otherwise.

That is what we are debating today. We are debating whether this authoritarian Government can declare that the objective truth of facts decided by the courts can be overruled. If we allow it, it is another big step towards a dictatorship—intentional or not. I know that the majority of people in your Lordships’ House know that the Government are wrong. I also know that many still cling to the belief that the House of Lords should not vote to stop the Government passing the most draconian of laws.

What are we going to do once we have voted on our amendments, and tried to do our job of improving the Bill, when the Government then ignore us? Will we do nothing again? We did nothing last year when a Minister overruled a vote in this House and gave the police draconian powers via a ministerial decree. It was the first time a Minister had ever used a statutory instrument to overturn a vote in this House, but the Labour Party failed to back my fatal amendment. I look forward to being told that that piece of legislation is going to be repealed as well.

We are paid more than £300 per day to come here and talk and vote, but what is the point of all our hard work if the Government ignore us? Either your Lordships’ House starts to act in defence of our liberal democracy and against the extremists at the heart of government, or we abolish this place and create an elected second Chamber with some backbone. I look forward to more defeats for the Government in these votes.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as someone who was called to the Bar many years ago and has not subsequently done a great deal of law directly, I have been interested, amused and dazzled by the breadth of learning that we have heard.

I would like to make a couple of remarks. I start with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. We live in a world where we have domestic jurisdiction, but also where everyday life is very significantly affected by all kinds of international agreements and arrangements, and we all benefit from that. Against that background, it is important that that system remains stable and respected; if it does not, we will all suffer.

We have heard this evening the arguments as to whether there is jurisdiction in respect of interim injunctions from the ECHR. I personally do not feel qualified one way or another to make a value judgment about that. What I do think is important is that, once you have got the interim injunction—and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—that is a piece of evidence that is relevant to the issues that we are discussing.

On balance, the interim injunctions—there are not many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said —are evidence that something is not quite right. I am therefore concerned about the provisions in Clause 5 that we have been talking about: there will be a power with the Minister to set aside a piece of evidence, which I believe has come from a respectable source, that something is not right.

I think the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, were very important. Regardless of international law, this is important in the context of domestic law, where there is real evidence—and I think it is real evidence—that something is awry. If you are to have some provision of the kind that we are considering this evening, there has to be a presumption that it will be adhered to but also that, if you are concerned, there is some kind of mechanism to set it aside, rather than the other way around.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as a signatory to the stand-part proposition in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I will confine my remarks to the question of whether it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus to international law, for a contracting state to disregard interim measures issued by the European court under Rule 39. Spoiler alert: it is, and the question is not so difficult as some noble Lords have suggested.

I declare an interest as a member of the Bar who has appeared for 30 years or so in that Strasbourg court, both for applicants and for states, and who has therefore been on the wrong end of some Rule 39 measures, including at least one which the court had to be persuaded to reverse. So I welcome the steps that the European Court of Human Rights is taking, partly at the instigation of this country’s Government, to improve its procedures and make them more transparent, including, as the court itself announced on 23 November last year, the attribution of interim measures to the judges who made them.

We have heard a lot about the Policy Exchange paper of last May. The arguments have been very well summarised in other speeches, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who has spoken to them a couple of times. Happily, I do not need to take your Lordships through those arguments or, indeed, the detailed rebuttals of them, which will be found in the Bingham Centre report of July of last year. Both reports are footnoted in the Constitution Committee report, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has referred. The reason that I do not need to do that is that the position was made completely clear in law by the European court, in a judgment that has been referred to: the 2005 judgment of the Grand Chamber in Mamatkulov v Turkey.

It has been mentioned, but I will say a little more about it. Of the 17 judges who ruled on this issue in the Grand Chamber, a clear majority of 14 held that Article 34 of the convention, which guarantees the effective exercise of the right of application to the Strasbourg court, is violated when a state fails to comply with interim measures. For 13 of those 14, violation follows automatically from a failure to comply. The 14th thought that there was a violation if, as in Mamatkulov itself, applicants are as a matter of fact prevented from effectively exercising their right of application,

Three judges dissented: those appointed by Turkey, Russia and Liechtenstein. Their dissent is long and tightly argued. Policy Exchange would have been proud to publish it. Its authors looked at the text, the preparatory materials, state practice, the analogy with the International Court of Justice and the relevant rules of international law—all ground covered subsequently by Professor Ekins and tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. They accused the court, just as Professor Ekins did, of exercising a legislative rather than an interpretative function.

Court cases, unlike academic debates, produce clear winners and losers. The result of Mamatkulov, since followed in other judgments, is quite simply conclusive of the matter. The arguments advanced by the dissenting judges, and later by Professor Ekins, were decisively rejected. Why does this matter? Again, noble Lords have had reference to it: the reason it matters is Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides two things of importance. First,

“the jurisdiction of the court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation of the convention”.

Secondly, as my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton said:

“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.


That is really it. The European Court interpreted Article 34 in Mamatkulov as requiring compliance with interim measures issued by the court because, as the court put it in its judgement at paragraph 135, interim measures

“play a vital role in avoiding irreversible situations that would prevent the Court from properly examining the application and when appropriate securing to the applicant the practical and effective benefit of the Convention rights asserted”.

That ruling is binding, as the United Kingdom agreed it would be when we signed and ratified the convention, including Article 32. Perhaps we should not be very surprised that a treaty means what the court constituted to interpret it says that it means. Even the dissenting judges did not suggest otherwise. They did not like the majority judgment, but neither did they describe it, in a word recently used by Professor Ekins, as “lawless”. They accepted it.

State practice since the Mamatkulov decision is supportive of it. The Committee of Ministers, of all the Council of Europe states, resolved in 2010 that

“the Court’s case law has clearly established that Article 34 of the Convention entails an obligation for States Parties to comply with an indication of interim measures made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court”.

The requirement on states parties to comply with interim measures was reiterated in the Izmir Declaration of 2011 on the Brussels Declaration of 2015, to which of course the United Kingdom was a party. It was endorsed in very clear terms by the French Conseil d’Etat as recently as 7 December last year, when that senior court required a person deported to Uzbekistan in breach of interim measures to be repatriated at the state’s expense.

In a recent email to noble Lords, Policy Exchange described its own 2023 paper as “authoritative”. I am afraid that whoever wrote that was high on their own supply. It is supported neither by the court whose job it is to provide authoritative interpretations of the convention nor by state practice, nor even, subject to anything the Minister may say, and I will be listening carefully, by our own Government. That at any rate is what I take from the last paragraph of the ECHR memorandum on the Bill.

To throw this established position into doubt might once have been merely eccentric; in current conditions, it is positively dangerous. As recently as 2005 there was a culture of compliance. The Strasbourg court could say, in Mamatkulov, paragraph 105:

“Cases of States failing to comply with indicated measures remain very rare”.


However, the “good chaps” theory no longer prevails in the Council of Europe. Russia challenged the jurisdiction of the court in 2021 when it required Alexei Navalny to be immediately released from prison due to the risk to his life and health—interim measures strongly supported by our Government—while Poland challenged it last year when its previous Government refused to comply with interim measures relating to the politicisation of its judiciary.

Supranational courts do not have bailiffs to enforce their decisions. The fabric of international law—that “gentle civiliser of nations”, as it was once described—is easily torn but not so easily repaired. It can be torn by acts such as that which is proposed to us—acts that enable or facilitate actions in breach of international law.

Clause 5 is peculiar, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, have both said. If Rwanda is as safe, as the Government invite us to declare, Clause 5 is unnecessary. If it is not safe, Clause 5 will compound the injustice of Clause 4. Either way, Clause 5 extends the damage already done by Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act because it severs the link, praised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, between non-compliance and procedural reform. If we accept this clause, we will not only be authorising Ministers to contravene this country’s obligations; we will be handing an excuse to illiberal Governments across the continent to do the same, and worse. We should be ashamed to do so.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I am loath to say “yes” to a leading question from a leading lawyer, but he is absolutely right, of course. For those words added to what I said earlier and paragraph 104, which we have already had referred to, the

“necessary changes may not be straightforward, as they require an appreciation that the current approach is inadequate, a change of attitudes, and effective training and monitoring”.

If you read the Supreme Court judgment, you will know what we have to test in order to prove Rwanda’s safety. That is what the committees of this House have been trying to do.

This suite of amendments turns it all around. It says that it is the judgment of the Government, which they would have to bring forward in an order for the House to accept, but before that they would have to address all the issues in Amendment 84 which are proposed for new Clause 84(1)(c). They would also have to consult and be certain that they had made the case. If, at the end, Parliament approved the order that the Government had put before it, the courts could intervene and test it on the basis of fact. That is our current procedure for dealing with issues of this sort. I am loath to say that this is back to the future, but it is keeping in track where we stand as a Parliament—how we make decisions, where they are tested and whether they can be tested in the courts.

We cannot allow a dangerous precedent to be set with this overreach of Parliament’s role. The courts need to remain as the check and balance on the exercising of the Secretary of State’s power. Parliament cannot be allowed to overturn the evidence-based findings of fact made by the highest court in the UK, given that this Bill is there for ever and does not look at what happens in the future. We need to stand firm against the Government’s attempt to subvert the separation of powers in this country. Today, this is about asylum seekers; tomorrow, this precedent will be applied to the next group who find themselves as the latest scapegoats of the Government.

I end with the words of the late Lord Judge in this Chamber. I sat here listening to him and I hear those words echoing in my head now. He said:

“the rule of law is a bulwark against authoritarian incursion, and even the smallest incursion threatens it”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1286.].

Those are wise words. This suite of amendments seeks to uphold the principle that he espoused so powerfully. I beg to move.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to take part in discussion on the previous group because I was on the train as it began.

The point that has been made here is an important one, which I did not hear elaborated on during the debate on the first group. Without wishing to disparage Rwanda in any way, countries in that part of the world do have a habit from time to time of changing their regimes, and those regimes often have very different characteristics. If you are approaching this problem, which seems to me entirely reasonable in normal circumstances, that the country where the asylum seekers end up should be safe, it does not follow that once it has been ruled to be safe it then continues to be safe. The problem with Clause 1(2)(b) is that, if the wording remains as it is now, even if you go through the procedures that the noble Lord, Lord German, is discussing, once there has been a ruling that the country is safe then there is no means to return to the question if circumstances fundamentally and damagingly change.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I commend to my noble friend the concept of the rolling sunset, which he will find in Amendments 81 and 82.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I have adverted at some length already to the Monitoring Committee that is in place and to the work currently under way by judicial and bureaucratic civil servant staff assisting the Rwandans in working through these matters.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am feeling slightly confused at this point. Am I correct in saying that the Government accept that, at present, Rwanda has not fully adhered to the commitments that it has given and that it follows that, by reference to those tests, it would be unsafe? As I understand it, even if the Government did nothing, if this Bill goes on the statute book as currently drafted, no changes will take place in the wider world and, suddenly, Rwanda becomes a safe country. Is that the reality of what we are looking at?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the intention of the Bill is to provide that Rwanda is a safe country. As I have explained to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in discussing Article 22 of the treaty, in the event of some disturbance to that situation the matter will be approached on a Government-to-Government basis by the convening of the relevant committee within 14 days.

Returning to a text which was prepared earlier for me, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that Article 10 of the treaty sets out particular assurances for the treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda, including abiding by the refugee convention in relation to those seeking asylum. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the treaty, the parties agree that the obligations therein shall be met in respect of all relocated individuals, regardless of their nationality and without discrimination. Under this commitment, Rwanda will treat all groups of people fairly. Furthermore, Article 10(3) in the treaty sets out clearly that the only place to which Rwanda can remove individuals—we have covered this ad longam—is the United Kingdom, which ensures that there is no risk of refoulement.

For noble Lords who remain concerned as to whether the Rwandan Government will abide by the treaty, the independent monitoring committee will be in place to ensure that obligations in the treaty are adhered to. For an initial period of at least three months, there will be enhanced monitoring; that shall take place daily to ensure rapid identification of, and response to, any shortcomings. I refer the Committee in that regard to Article 15(7) of the treaty. This enhanced phase will ensure that monitoring and reporting take place in real time. Individuals who are relocated to Rwanda will be able to raise any issues of concern, should they arise, with the committee. It should also be remembered, as I have said on a number of occasions, that this is a legally binding treaty that will become part of Rwandan domestic law.

Taking all of this into consideration, I submit that these amendments are unnecessary. Further, they undermine the objective of the Bill, unnecessarily delaying, potentially, the relocation of individuals to Rwanda. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, each and every amendment proposed to this Bill shows the sheer nonsense of it. We are being forced by this Government to deny reality. We are being forced to create an enduring piece of legislation that states the proposition that Rwanda is “conclusively” safe, which cannot be rebutted even by conclusive proof to the contrary. This is Alice in Wonderland; it is complete and utter nonsense.

I have signed Amendments 6, 20 and 26 in the name of the learned Lord—I am sorry, it is very late—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I have tucked myself under his coat-tails because they are incredibly sensible amendments. They at least require the Rwanda treaty to be given effect and to remain fully implemented for the Act to have effect.

However, even with that, I am not sure that we can legislate that Rwanda is conclusively safe, so my Amendment 93 would go further. It would require the whole Act to be scrapped on the day that the Secretary of State is presented with evidence that Rwanda is not conclusively a safe country. Noble Lords might call this a wrecking amendment; I would call it a huge dollop of sanity in the mad world of this Bill. Surely the Minister and all other noble Lords should support this. Why would anyone want a piece of legislation to exist on the statute book with a key provision that

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”,


if Rwanda is not conclusively safe? Rwanda is either conclusively safe or it is not. If it is conclusively safe, why do we need legislation to force decision-makers to treat it as such? If it is not conclusively safe, why would we force decision-makers to treat it as though it is? This clause is either pointless or plainly false. I struggle to see how this Bill was ever written. Did lawyers really write this Bill? I cannot believe that anyone is going to defend it when it is so patently stupid.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise just to say that I entirely agree with those who have said that we should look carefully at the direction of travel suggested by the amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and encourage the Government to do the same.

It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a pretty strange position. In proceeding with what they want to do, they have given themselves a binary choice: either legislate a fundamental untruth or find a way of establishing a system that will bring about and give confidence on the safety of Rwanda. If they do not want to do the former—and they should not—they must investigate ways of doing the latter.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall first address the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. Speaking entirely for myself, nothing I say is intended to cast any aspersions on the state of Rwanda, the suffering that it has gone through or the plight in which it currently finds itself. I found his remarks incredibly moving. The Supreme Court made clear that it was not a lack of good faith that had led Rwanda to be in the position that it is in; it was just that Rwanda did not have a system that could properly deal with the analysis of asylum claims in a way that would be acceptable to the commitments that we as a country have made to asylum seekers.

I agree very strongly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said: that Clause 1, in so far as it says that

“Rwanda is a safe country”


is not right, and it would be wrong for us as a Parliament, or as the House of Lords, to agree to that which we know is wrong.

May I address the four alternatives that are now before the House as a means of trying to deal with that? First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has proposed that one can give effect to the provisions of the legislation only if the joint committee, set up under Article 16 of the recent Rwanda-UK treaty, says that the agreement is being complied with, and that committee would have to act on the advice of the monitoring committee. In principle, that sounds quite a good idea. As the noble and learned Lord acknowledged, one should recognise—I do not say this in a disparaging way—that the joint committee is just the two Governments.

If it is the joint committee alone, that gives no additional assurance. Because the UK Government want to do this come what may, it is hard to imagine that the Rwandan Government are going to say that they are not complying with a treaty which they say they are complying with and have committed themselves to complying with. If it was only the joint committee under Article 16, that would not provide much protection, I say with some respect.

The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, says that the joint committee has got to act on the advice of the monitoring committee. Only if the monitoring committee positively advises that the agreement is not being complied with will the joint committee of the two Governments be prevented from giving the advice that it wants to give. I have no idea how this monitoring committee will work. It will presumably be 50:50 on each side. If it is paralysed, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord’s proposed requirements would then be satisfied. If the joint committee was not getting positive advice one way or the other, it would still be able to give the assurance that one gives. Could that be dealt with by a number of tweaks? It might well be possible.

Subject to those points, I can see attraction in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is saying. The only other point I have on his proposal is that the Minister appears to escape any duty at all. Should we not have it so that the Minister is subject to judicial review on the decision he takes about whether to implement the treaty?

Further Developments in Discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and I shall begin as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, did, with the proposition with which we can all concur: we are in a mess.

I had planned to make a longer speech but everything has been said. It is just important to underscore the fact that Brexit is both a cause and a symptom of our domestic political problems. We need to bear that in mind in the context of this debate. What has slightly surprised me is the number of speakers who have said that there has been no change. There has been one very important change, and that is that time has moved on. As Dr Johnson put it, the prospect of being hanged on the morrow concentrates the mind.

I think we can all agree that, basically, there are three possible choices before the country. We accept the Prime Minister’s deal, there is no deal, or we seek an extension. For my part, I dislike the Prime Minister’s deal for the reasons spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. In particular, we in this country have not fully appreciated that there is a great difference between negotiating in a group of 28 where you are all part of the same side as opposed to being one against the other 27. I dislike no deal more than that, which leaves the third option.

As a general political principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, Parliament is sovereign and cannot bind its successors. It therefore seems entirely legitimate that if Parliament does not like either of the two other possibilities, it should see whether it can seek an extension and we shall see what happens. What happens will be revealed to us in general terms by the end of the month. If we cannot get an extension that we wish to proceed with, we do not have to do it.

And then there were two. We are in world unfamiliar to our great country. We are in one of, in Harold Macmillan’s words, “Events, dear boy”. It is a strange irony that a campaign launched under the banner of taking back control should be delivering a political crisis where it is “Events, dear boy” that will determine the outcome.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as ever, it is a pleasure to follow my Cumbrian neighbour and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, even though I do not imagine he would necessarily describe me as progressive.

The first time I heard the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, I thought it was a snappy, purposive soundbite, but I have now come to the conclusion that it is probably at the heart of our nation’s present discontent. As others have said, the politics of the referendum nearly three years ago was about the kind of United Kingdom we wanted for the next generation, or possibly even longer. Those who wanted change went through the portal called Brexit, and beyond was the brave new world. Not merely were there two main campaigning organisations, with rather different emphases, there were in fact at least two somewhat hallucinogenic visions of Shangri-La on offer, and they are mutually incompatible. As we can see now, the real question facing this country is: do we want to remain in the European solar system, if I can put it that way, or do we wish to board starship “Enterprise” for a different galaxy? These are mutually incompatible destinations and they cannot be triangulated, because the best way to bring about one interferes with effectively delivering the other.

As long as Brexit was not precisely and properly defined, the Government and supporters of leave could more or less coalesce. However, it is now clear that different members of the Government, like voters in general, have fundamentally different views of what they were voting for. Because of this internal contradiction, there can be no agreement on which of the outcomes the referendum delivered. That is the crisis of now. The reality is that the Brexit of the referendum is an impossibility, in exactly the same way as William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham, explained to your Lordships about 250 years ago, telling us, rightly, that it was impossible to conquer America. Since it is an impossibility, it cannot be mandated or brought into being, and so the Government cannot deliver it. Let us be clear: that is not the Government’s fault. The Prime Minister has clearly striven mightily, albeit changing her own personal picture of Brexit as she goes, but what is on offer in her negotiated deal is not the Brexit of the referendum; it is a changeling.

Based on my own experience and expertise—I draw attention to my entry in the register—I am sure she is right that her deal is better than no deal. However, I do not think either deal is good enough, or delivers the referendum; as I said, this is an impossibility. Each will be a precursor to years and years of acrimonious wrangling. I do not think anybody wants that, but we need to be clear that that is the likely eventuality. Furthermore, I cannot see either of these two options delivering an especially deep or special relationship.

The problem is that those who voted remain feel cheated by the shenanigans and cheating that surrounded the referendum, and those who voted leave are worried they will be cheated out of the outcome, either by remainers or by advocates of a version of Brexit incompatible with their own. It is a terrible mess. Just as politics is the art of the possible, so Brexit has become the crisis of the impossible. It is not a question of taking back control; it is a matter of getting it under control. If nobody else can do it, Parliament— that is to say, the other place and your Lordships’ House together—must do it, because we cannot go on like this.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, almost 30 years ago, in 1989, I was first elected as a Conservative Member of the European Parliament and was a spear-carrier in putting together the single market. The problem at that time was that the European economies, including our own, were being held back by what was known as “Eurosclerosis”. This is because free trade does not actually mean that you can trade freely, which seems to be a bit of a paradox. Non-tariff barriers ensure this; they are ingeniously constructed and expensive to get through or around.

Free trade is a necessary but insufficient aspect of a frictionless international trading system, which is what our Government are looking for. Free trade is, after all, a late 18th-century and 19th-century phenomenon. Now, in the 21st century, we live in a world of regulated markets because of social attitudes, the size of populations, the nature of business and technologies and probably, to some extent, to avert revolutions.

It was 30 years ago that the Conservatives under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, helped by Leon Brittan and Arthur Cockfield, drove forward the single market. They recognised that sovereignty can be exercised in differing and more or less sophisticated ways. Being clever about this led to the creation of transnational rules and enforcement procedures, which involved our participation. This has enriched our country, generating revenues for private and public sectors and paying, I suspect, for our net contributions to the European Union budget.

The road to Brexit is through a gate called the withdrawal agreement, and Brexit entails our leaving the single market. We have been told that trade with other countries will make up the difference. All I can say is that it did not do so in the 1980s. Other EU countries trade very successfully from the EU into the wider world. For example, I understand that both France and Germany are more effective at doing business with China than we are. I suspect that third countries are keen to flood this country with cheap goods but will be much less inclined or able to buy things from us.

It is therefore my view that we should pause and take stock. I do not see how a non-binding, somewhat tarnished referendum more than two years ago can mandate a sovereign Parliament to run pell-mell into something that its advocates sold on a flawed prospectus. It seems far from clear what the people of this country want now. Where do they want this country to go? The case for Brexit is invariably that it is what the people want, not that it is in the nation’s best interests.

As currently presented, it seems to me that Brexit looks like a curious cross between the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and a political form of the South Sea bubble. As such, it is something that we as parliamentarians, who must act in our fiduciary capacity for the country—past, present and future—should do our utmost to avert.

Media: Press Sustainability

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We recognise that Impress is now recognised by the PRP and that some but not many newspapers at a national level have engaged with it. We also recognise the importance of IPSO and, indeed, of those newspapers, such as the Guardian and the Financial Times, which have instigated their own independent review positions.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who was a director of a local media company until a month ago, when it sold up. Could my noble and learned friend please explain to the House what in fact the Government mean by sustainability in this context?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We have to identify a model by which the local and national press can continue to deliver what is required of an independent and informed news source. That has been the subject of change, clearly; we have passed from the days when a piece of journalism could be accompanied by an advertisement and, therefore, self-sustaining. We have to look at how we can sustain our media in future.

Leveson Part 2: Sunday Times

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the conduct of John Ford is indicative of criminal conduct. That will be a matter for investigation by the police and, in due course, upon their report, in appropriate terms, consideration of prosecution, with the law in place being sufficient to address it in that way. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that in cases where we see reports of such conduct, it is not for us to prejudge them but to approach them in a calm, considered and coherent way. As regards the proposal to repeal Section 40, as indicated before, it is the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation on that point at an appropriate time.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend may be able to clarify something which has slightly puzzled me about the Statement. The second paragraph states:

“this sort of behaviour was covered by the terms of reference of that inquiry”—

that is the Leveson inquiry—

“and Mr Ford’s activities were raised as part of the inquiry”.

Then the penultimate paragraph states:

“This view is in fact strengthened by today’s example because the behaviour we have discovered today took place before the Leveson inquiry, and existing law is in place to deal with it”.


It seems to me that if the behaviour has been discovered today, it cannot have been in front of the Leveson inquiry. I would like clarification of exactly what is meant here.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, my understanding is that some of the allegations attributed to Mr John Ford were known of at the time of the Leveson inquiry and it is in that context that the Statement was made. As to the scope of the inquiry at the time, there are aspects of part 1 that touched upon this, but the terms of reference of the inquiry have also been partly met through the police investigations which took place.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

Would my noble friend give way? I want to be helpful to his argument. He refers to Professor Minford and the cost of EU regulation. It is only by making the extreme assumption that all these regulations will be abolished that the tiny number of economic studies that demonstrate some growth benefit from Brexit are able to get to that number. Those studies are quoted very frequently from the Front Bench opposite as examples of the fact that some economists differ from the consensus, but in fact that difference depends on the assumption that we would scrap every single piece of EU social protection.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that was an intervention. I gave way believing that it was.