European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If noble Lords will hear me through—when he says that it excludes children. I suggest that if that were challenged in court, the court might come to a different view.

Furthermore, the UK will continue to be bound by the Dublin regulation during the implementation period, which means that unaccompanied children in the EU and the UK will continue to be able to reunite with family members during 2020. We will continue to process family reunion cases referred before the end of the implementation period.

Our record reflects the unique importance of protecting unaccompanied children and preserving the principle of family reunion, and that policy has not changed. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay provided some clarity on the effect of both Clause 37 and Section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 17 does not grant family reunion rights to unaccompanied children but concerns only negotiations on this matter, although I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, expressed disgust at the notion of negotiating. As per the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which became Section 17, the Government remain committed to seeking a reciprocal agreement for the family reunion of unaccompanied children seeking international protection in either the EU or the UK—that is, to ensure that these vulnerable children can reunite with family members in the UK or the EU.

Clause 37 concerns only the removal of the statutory duty to negotiate an agreement on family reunion for unaccompanied children who have applied for international protection in an EU member state and who have family in the UK, and vice versa. This debate is not on wider issues relating to refugees, asylum or family unity. Indeed, the Home Secretary wrote to the European Commission on 22 October, as I outlined in Committee, to commence negotiations on this issue, seeking to negotiate, as Section 17 set out. I assure noble Lords that the Government are intent on pursuing an agreement no less than that which we would have pursued under the original Section 17, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, posited earlier, although I confirm that I am unable to share the letter.

However, a statutory negotiating objective in primary legislation is not necessary nor the constitutional norm. We are restoring the traditional division of competences between Parliament and Government when it comes to negotiations, and similar changes have been made to negotiating obligations across the Bill. Furthermore, rather than removing Section 17, we have gone beyond the original amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and provided a statutory guarantee that the Government will provide a statement of policy within two months of the withdrawal agreement Bill’s passage into law. This demonstrates our commitment to report in a timely manner and guarantees Parliament the opportunity to provide scrutiny. As I have said, we have already commenced negotiations. We will continue to deliver this negotiating commitment while removing an unnecessary statutory negotiating obligation, restoring those traditional divisions of competencies and going above and beyond to provide Parliament with an additional opportunity for scrutiny with Clause 37.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the point about best interests. There is no intended or actual legal difference between the phrasing about how and when the best interests of the child should be considered for child family reunion transfers from the UK to the EU and vice versa. Both in the original Section 17 and in Section 17 as amended by Clause 37, there will be a consideration of whether it is in the best interests of the child to transfer from the EU to the UK in order to reunite with a family member, and vice versa. Neither Section 17 nor Clause 37 ever intended to consider whether it was in the child’s best interests to transfer to or from the UK separately from the consideration of whether it was in their best interests to join a family member. In addition to that, our existing statutory obligation in Section 55—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble Baroness makes a characteristically careful and conscientious speech—I learned a lot and for that I am very grateful. Could she just tell us why Clause 37 is in this Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I explained in Committee, Clause 37 is in this Bill because the Government wished to reiterate their commitment. It is similar in almost every way to Section 17, except that it does not instruct the Government to do something—it merely states the Government’s intention to do something.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

With respect, it waters down that commitment by making a completely different commitment to make a Statement to the House rather than seek to negotiate a deal in Brussels.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is correct. If the noble Lord has finished his intervention, I ask noble Lords to reconsider their intention to divide the House because I hope that I have provided the clarity necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I am not sure I want to get into an arcane legal debate with the noble Lord, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen and others. I do not accept what the noble Lord says; I do not think this undermines the settlement.

We will of course continue to seek legislative consent. We will continue to take on board views and will work with the devolved Administrations on future legislation, whether related to EU exit or otherwise, just as we always have.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

There was much wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. It would help the atmospherics a great deal if the Minister could reassure the Scots and the Welsh—I think the Northern Irish are reassured already—that they will be included in the United Kingdom team negotiating in the joint committee. I say that because I think it is right to try to improve the atmosphere and because, after all these years, the Lady Griffiths is entitled to a dinner out.

[Lord Callanan]

She is indeed. I hope that at some stage in the future the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, will repeat the endeavour which failed last night. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made a good point. We have already started discussions with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, and I hope that those with Northern Ireland Ministers are to come. I was present at some of the discussions in London a couple of weeks ago. A frame- work was put in place for joint ministerial committees; one on EU negotiations and one on ongoing EU business, which I chair. We will develop those consultations as we go into the next phase, and we are working on proposals to involve them in future negotiations. We will, of course, take that point on board.

We understand the importance of preserving both the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements and the principles of the Sewel convention as the UK exits the EU. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, I say that international relations are indeed a reserved matter. However, the devolved Administrations do have an important role in implementing these agreements. Any devolved provisions made under the Act will normally be made only with the agreement of the devolved Administrations and we will engage with them on this, as we have always done in the past. The Government are committed to upholding these principles, but this is not changed by restating them in the Bill. Given what I have said, and the reassurances that I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that I have nothing but good will towards him despite our profound disagreements on Brexit.

It has been a pleasure for me in our Committee proceedings up until now to be able to support my noble friend Lady Hayter but, sadly, at this point I have to part company with her. I cannot agree with her or my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that their new clauses are appropriate. They are in effect seeking to substitute the House of Commons for the Government. Under their proposals, the House of Commons would give the Government their marching orders as they move into these negotiations and the Government would be expected to act as an agent of the House of Commons. That is constitutionally inappropriate and will not work well in practice. We saw in the last Parliament the damage done to our national endeavour by the insistence of the House of Commons that it must take charge of the process of negotiation. It was a disaster for us.

When it comes to setting objectives, there is no alternative but to trust the Government. The Government will have to make judgments as they negotiate and the objectives they set for themselves at the beginning may well have to be modified in the light of their assessment of what may be achievable.

I do not think that the analogy the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested between the procedures and powers of the European Parliament and the way for us to proceed in our system of parliamentary government is appropriate either.

Openness—the transparency that my noble friend Lord Liddle was calling for—may be difficult, if not inappropriate, in the circumstances of a complex, lengthy and difficult negotiation in which it may not be prudent for the Government to make public what they are thinking of doing and the ways in which they intend to set about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, reminded us, the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House will have ample opportunities to express their views and to hold the Government to account, not least through the work of the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House.

I support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the Government should be expected to maintain a full and constructive dialogue and full consultation with the devolved Administrations. We debated that principle yesterday and again in our first debate this morning.

It is very important not only for the benefit of our union—fragile as it is at the moment—but for reasons of practicality and of ensuring that outcome of negotiations makes realistic sense in terms of the situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, or be as prescriptive as him, although I note there is a certain vagueness in the way he has formulated his paragraphs on the requirement for consultation. I think he takes it a bit too far, for the reasons I have given.

There may well be moments in the process of negotiation when the Government consider that it would be helpful and in our interests that they should lay out their position very fully to the House of Commons and seek its endorsement, but that needs to be a tactical judgment in the light of the way events develop. I do not think it is wise for us to seek to tie the Government’s hand and inhibit their freedom in conducting these negotiations as best they can in the interests of our country.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, finds the amendment positively undesirable. I think it is quite difficult for the Government to argue their case, since the amendment merely reinstates what was in their October version of the Bill, so in October the Government must have thought this perfectly workable and not subject to the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who obviously thinks that the Government were a bit soft then.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

It was desperate expedient. The Government had no option, given the parliamentary arithmetic.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

That is the point I wanted to touch on. I thank the noble Lord. I have gone through the Conservative manifesto very carefully and I cannot find any commitment not to keep Parliament fully consulted on the process of the negotiation. It seems to me that we are not in serious Salisbury convention territory here.

The substantive arguments against this amendment, rather than the politically cynical argument against it advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is that it weakens the Government’s hand in negotiation. I know from my past career that that is completely untrue. It is the reverse of the truth. I spent quite a long time unsuccessfully trying to negotiate air services liberalisation with the United States. The arguments for it were easy. Even I could win the argument, but I could get nowhere because of the power of parliament used as a negotiating weapon by American negotiators: the power of the Senate to refuse. When you win the argument with the American, he says, “You make a very good point, but we’d never get it through on the Hill.” I do not believe that Parliament as the Wizard of Oz would be a terrible threat to the Government, provided they had explained what they were trying to do. I know that being obliged to keep Parliament informed is an extremely good weapon in the negotiator’s hand.

I come back to a more general point, which has been made many times in these debates by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Barwell, in his remarkable maiden speech which we all greatly admired. Honesty—not pretending that you can have it all and admitting that there are trade-offs to be had—goes with transparency, and it seems to me that this perfectly reasonable means of ensuring a degree of transparency to Parliament, which was perfectly reasonable and acceptable to the Government in October, would be consistent with trying to bring public opinion to understand some of the difficulties and trade-offs that lie ahead in the negotiation.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Can I put it to the noble Lord that he was not actually arguing to what this amendment provides? He was arguing for transparency and for negotiators to be able to use in their negotiation the tactic of saying, “We’ll never get it through Parliament”, or, “We’ll never get it through Congress”, but that is different from what this amendment prescribes, which is that the objectives which the Government would have in their negotiation must have been approved by the House of Commons at the outset. That is a different proposition.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Given the majority in the House of Commons, it is not a terribly high hurdle. In a way, this is an obscure debate as we know what the answer is going to be—the Government can get their way in the House of Commons. It is odd for the Government not to want to strengthen their negotiating hand by having a procedure of this kind—or a simplified version, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, hinted at. To have something like that would strengthen their hand and provide them the means of ensuring that the country is brought along to understand the trade-offs that will have to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I believe that the British public are essentially humanitarian in their instincts. I believe that, when the argument is put, they support the idea that we should be generous as regards child refugees—as I say, not taking them all, but taking our share of responsibility, particularly where family reunion is concerned. I believe that a measure such as the one I am putting forward will have the widespread support of the British people, which is why I am happy that the amendment is here. I hope that the Government will find the ability to support it, even at this late hour.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment because I regard it as the most important matter of honour that we must deal with in the Bill. The whole House admires the stamina with which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pursued this issue. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council, which was run by the noble Lord for many years and still runs on Dubs energy and still gets his constant support.

On this issue, the House was persuaded by the noble Lord’s arguments in 2016, and again in 2018. We are now in a curious position where the Government say that the 2018 provision is undesirable and needs to be replaced with this new one. The most important thing about the Government’s proposed new Clause 37 is that it kills Section 17 of the 2018 Act. What is the difference between the two? The 2017 Act laid on the Government the obligation to “seek to negotiate”—not to negotiate, because we cannot do that because a negotiation has two sides—a deal for these children. Everything else in the proposed new clause is the same as in Section 17, except that we now find that the Government must make a statement to us on what their policy is.

I am not terribly worried about the Government’s policy here. I believe the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, at Second Reading, that the Government’s policy has not changed. I believe that the Government want this to happen. However, I am not clear about what priority the Government attach to it and I am very suspicious that they wish to use it as a negotiating card. That is what is most alarming to me and, to be honest, most disgusting. The fate of these children should not be seen as a matter for negotiation.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on Monday night made one substantive argument against this amendment, apart from saying that government policy has not changed—on which, as I say, I believe him. He said:

“It is vital that the Government are not legally constrained in those discussions.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 554.]


Implicitly, that means that the Government might not wish to pursue this and might wish to try to trade willingness to do this for some concession by the other side. That seems particularly offensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The reason we have not had a reply is probably, as the noble Lord pointed out, to do with the fact that we have a new Commissioner. I do not agree with the noble Lord’s point—this amendment ties the Government’s hands in negotiation, and we do not wish to see that. We want to articulate our commitment through the manifesto and in Clause 37.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am not quite clear on how it ties the Government’s hands. If we leave what is now on the statute book in place, there is an obligation on the Government to seek to negotiate. The Government say that they have already started seeking to negotiate, so I am not sure how it ties their hands.

I am left suspicious. I am with the noble Baroness and am prepared to agree that policy has not changed. I reject dog whistles and dead cats, and I believe the Government’s policy has not changed. What bothers me is that I do not know what priority they attach to it in the coming negotiations, and I fear that we are into bargaining chip country, which is really offensive.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The fact that the Home Secretary wrote to the Commission underlines our commitment, as does the fact that we put it in the manifesto and in Clause 37. The amendment to Section 17, to which the noble Lord referred, was an instruction to the Government, and I do not think that the Government should be bound by that.

I want to pick up on the noble Lord’s point about bargaining chips. Section 17 of the 2018 Act talks about seeking to negotiate. In one context—the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, puts it—that is noble, and I have absolutely no criticism of his intentions. On the other hand, when the Government say that they will write to the Commission and seek to engage with the EU in the coming year, that is seen as using children as a bargaining chip. I am not entirely sure how the Section 17 amendment, which talked about seeking to negotiate, and what the Government are proposing, which the noble Lord feels very sceptical about, are in any way different when it comes to bargaining chips.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

If the Government say, as they did on Monday night, in terms, that that amendment will not do because it is vital that the Government are not legally constrained in these discussions, that seems to imply that the Government might not pursue this point if the EU 27 decide to strike some sort of bargain with us which entails our not pursuing this point. If the statute book remained unamended—if the 2018 Act, which binds the Government only to seek to negotiate, remained in force—in what way would the Government be legally constrained unless they intended to negotiate in bad faith, which I do not think is the case, or to regard this as a lower priority, as a card that could be played? I find that very offensive.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

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

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, on the morning after the 1996 presidential election, which he had lost, Senator Bob Dole was asked how he had slept. He replied, “Like a baby. I woke up every two hours crying my eyes out.” I know how he felt. I believe that our country has made a historic mistake, but it has made it. The people have spoken, and we leave the EU at the end of the month. This means that we should not consider any amendment which could conflict with that deadline.

However, within that constraint, I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—for the first time, I think—and, with great humility, with the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Taylor. I think the House of Lords should do its job. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, a revising Chamber. We need to look particularly closely at what this Bill says and its implications for relationships between the Executive and Parliament, between the Executive and the judiciary, and between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. We shall spend much more time on this than the Commons did. Some of the issues that we shall discuss were not discussed in the Commons at all. Where we are not satisfied with the Government’s explanations, I believe we should give the Commons the chance to think again.

First, on Parliament, as others have pointed out, there is no provision in this Bill for parliamentary oversight of the Joint Committee. It will carry out the crucial task of developing the detail of how we withdraw. There is no provision for oversight of the negotiations on the future arrangements. The earlier, October version of the Bill, gave Parliament powers on mandate, monitoring and outcome, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out. All that is gone. The European Parliament has such powers; this Parliament, apparently, is not to have them. The House may wish to reflect on that contrast.

Secondly, I do hope that we shall hear in Committee from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the greatest living expert on Henry VIII powers, because Henry VIII is endemic throughout this Bill, particularly, of course, in Clause 21. As others have mentioned, in relation to Northern Ireland, Clause 21 gives the Government the right, for a year, to pass by regulation any change which would otherwise require primary legislation, including changes to the Act itself. That is quite striking; we should reflect on the precedent.

Thirdly, we need to consider what the Bill does not say. Here, for me, the paramount issue is how the devolved Administrations are to be involved in the Joint Committee and in the future negotiations. In the Queen’s Speech debate, we heard from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Wallace of Tankerness, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, about what is now a clear and present danger to the 1707 union. Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff resented being kept at arm’s length by Mrs May’s Government and being blindsided by Mr Johnson’s Irish surrender. With Stormont back up and running, it should be possible to find a way of lancing this boil. The House may wish to consider asking the Commons to write the requirement into the Bill.

Finally, declaring my interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council, I believe that we must not forget the Dubs amendment. The Government want us to do so, although the Minister assured us that government policy has not changed. If the policy has not changed, why are the Government taking away the provision in the 2018 Act? It was a pretty modest provision. I believe we need to seek its retention. The argument is very simple: what kind of country do we think we are? Are we really meaner and less humane than our predecessors were in 1938, 1956 or 1968?

I have not addressed the substantive Brexit question; the Bill is about how, not whether, we leave. I myself fear that the process will be protracted and painful and will end badly for our country and for all of us, particularly those most left behind. However, there is not an end of history; the story will go on:

“that which we are, we are;

… Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

I believe my children will see us back where we belong: in the comity of European nations that share common values, work together for the common good and are determined not to yield in its defence.

Brexit

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I thought that Mrs May’s deal was a bad deal for the economy and I am sure that this is a worse deal for the economy. That comes as no surprise, because the Prime Minister’s letter of 2 October to President Juncker made it clear that we wanted a more distant relationship, which is why Carolyn Fairbairn of the CBI pleads:

“Decades of free and frictionless trade … forged by thousands of firms big and small, must not be abandoned”.


I of course accept that intellectually honest right-wing libertarians have always agreed that there is a trade-off. It is a question of autarkic sovereignty versus economic well-being, and they prefer autarkic sovereignty. I strongly disagree with the way they put the issues, because it is not their jobs at stake, but I can respect their argument. What really shocks me is how narrowly English is their little-Englander concern for sovereignty, and how far Mr Johnson has moved on this—or been moved on this—in the past fortnight. It is fascinating to compare the proposals that he sent to Brussels with those he came back with. One recalls the lady who went for a ride on a tiger. Or perhaps the lesson is that it is dangerous to have an unchaperoned walk in a Wirral garden.

Mr Johnson told the DUP conference that he would never agree to a customs frontier in the Irish Sea. Mrs May said that no Prime Minister ever could or would. Mr Johnson just has. He wants us to sign up today to an internationally run frontier between two constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Internationally run? Yes, because the Commission will never leave it to us to decide which goods might be at risk of moving across the inner Irish border.

Caught by his own “do or die” deadline, the Prime Minister has been forced to drop all talk of alternative arrangements. Instead, Northern Ireland will stay in the EU single market for goods, stay in the EU customs union, apply EU laws, regulations and VAT rules and respect ECJ jurisdiction—all with no semblance of democratic control. Northern Ireland will not be asked to consent to any of that for at least five years. The whole concept of cross-community consent, central to the Good Friday agreement, has gone. For Northern Ireland, the trade-off is the other way round: prosperity, which comes from the all-Ireland economy, accounts for more than sovereignty.

I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who served with great distinction in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, whether he honestly thinks that the Iron Lady would have put up with that impairment of UK sovereignty, because I do not. Why does an intellectually honest Spartan—if there is one—swallow it? Presumably because his concept of sovereignty is English-specific. Mr Johnson should beware: the Scots are watching. A little-Englander approach breeds comparable chauvinism elsewhere. Scotland, like Northern Ireland, voted to remain, but Scotland, unlike Northern Ireland, will bear the full economic costs of Mr Johnson’s deal—costs that he and his Cotswold friends will hardly feel. These imbalances breed justifiable resentments. In the Scottish referendum in 2004, I campaigned for the union. Next time, the decision for me will be more difficult and the outcome will definitely be more uncertain. The best way to maintain the union of the United Kingdom is to stay in the European Union.

Given its costs, economic and political, it is no wonder that Mr Johnson is scared to put his deal to the people, but I honestly believe that we should. In 2016, no one voted to be poorer, and no one told us then about a frontier in the Irish Sea. Indeed, I recall Mrs Villiers, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, assuring the people of Northern Ireland that there was no question of any change in frontier and border arrangements.

Now that people can see the price of Brexit, is it not reasonable to ask them: do you want to go ahead and pay it? For my part, I am with the crowds outside in the square. I hope that Parliament will today reject a deal worse than any previously mooted, reject a suicidal no-deal and use the Benn Act’s extension period to ask for the people’s choice—this time determinant, not advisory. I see no other route to closure.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley]

Theoretically it can, but de facto it cannot. The European Parliament did once sack the whole of the European Commission because of corruption when Madame Cresson appointed her dentist, but then the Commissioners were virtually all reappointed. If that is the noble Baroness’s idea of democratic accountability, I have to tell her that it is one of the reasons I am in favour of getting out.

It is indeed that lack of accountability which makes me—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

As regards the time the noble Lord is referring to, the European Parliament did sack the Commission.

[Lord Lilley]

I just mentioned that, so I wonder if the noble Lord was listening to me. The European Parliament did sack the Commissioners, but they were all reappointed—virtually all of them except for Madame Cresson.

I shall give way again so that the noble Lord can tell me what really happened.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The Commission exercised its power, just as it is exercising its power now, in the case of some nominees for the next Commission, not to appoint them. When there is a complete slate, it will vote on that slate collectively. The European Parliament has a good deal more say over the appointment of the Executive than we in this House have over the appointment of, say, the Civil Service. While it is a good thing that we do not have a say over appointments to the Civil Service, the structure in Strasbourg and Brussels is more democratic than what we have here.

[Lord Lilley]

I believe that what the noble Lord has just told me is that it reappointed the slate, and that is broadly my recollection. But in practice it does not. However, what I said about the experience of southern Europe not leading to anyone being removed is a simple fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be closing this debate following Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, which set out the programme of legislation put forward by this Government. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who is restored to full health and with a new beard. He is back enjoying his place on the Front Bench again and we are pleased to see him. He has lost none of his customary wit and influence on the legislation.

The Speech sets out a legislative agenda that seeks to protect our people, promote our prosperity and project our influence on the world stage. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords for their considered and thoughtful contributions made over the course of two days of debate. I will do my utmost to respond to as many points as possible, but I apologise in advance if I do not have time to get through everybody’s contributions.

I will commence, as so many others did, with Brexit and my own department—as expected, it was covered by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord Wrigglesworth and Lord Wigley, my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Flight, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. The Government’s priority has always been, and remains, to secure the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union on 31 October, with or without a deal, and without any further pointless delay. Brexit provides us with a range of new opportunities, including the ability to take back control of our money, borders and laws, including on agriculture and fishing, as well as to set out our own independent trade policy for the first time in nearly half a century. I will say more on that later. To seize those opportunities—and here I agree, as I so often do, with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and his excellent speech—we must get Brexit done. My noble friend Lord Jopling did not sound so convinced, but it remains the Government’s focus to get a deal this week at the European Council and to leave on 31 October in an orderly and friendly way.

The Government have had fruitful and constructive discussions with the European Commission over the last few days. I have been here in the House but I am told that, as I speak, the technical talks are continuing with the Prime Minister’s Brexit Sherpa, David Frost, and the UK negotiating team. Their talks last night were constructive and the teams worked late into the night. They met again this morning and are continuing discussions today. I agree that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry reminded us, it is important that throughout this process we must work constructively together and seek to nurture our relationships, both in Europe and further afield.

I will address the points made on EU meetings by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Sandwich. As I informed the House last week, it is now the policy of the Government that UK officials and Ministers will attend EU meetings only where the UK has a significant national interest in the outcome of discussions. This will enable officials to better focus their talents on our immediate national priorities—our top priority being work on preparations for Brexit. This decision is not intended in any way to frustrate the functioning of the EU. The UK’s vote is delegated in a way that does not obstruct the ongoing business of the remaining 27 EU members. I look forward to meeting the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—I think we have a date in the diary for next week—and no doubt he will want to discuss the matter further.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked about the implementation period. We are still awaiting the final agreement but I remind her that the existing withdrawal agreement sets December 2020 as the end of the implementation period, and for good reason: it is the end of the EU’s existing multiannual financial framework. There is an option in there to extend. I am not aware that that will change, but let us wait and see what the final agreement says.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Putting together the last two points that the noble Lord has made, if we do leave and there is an implementation period that lasts until the end of next year, does it really make sense that we will be applying in this country laws which are written in rooms in Brussels in which there is no Briton present? How do these two points fit together? If there was nothing happening in that room that could be relevant to us, I can see an argument for us not being there. But if until the end of next year we will be applying rules and regulations written in the European Union, surely we ought to go on having a say in how they are written.

[Lord Callanan]

My response to the noble Lord is that we are. He will know of the slow decision-making process of the European Union. Most of the new directives and regulations that would be implemented during the implementation period are already being discussed, or indeed have been decided, so we are taking part in discussions on those matters.

Brexit: Preparations

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I do not have the figures for the number of organisations in front of me, but I will gladly write to the right reverend Prelate with them. But we have given guarantees to organisations receiving EU funding that they will continue to receive that funding after a no-deal exit.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, with regard to security, page 154 shows that we are taking powers to ensure that,

“Border Force Officers will have greater scope to refuse entry on the basis of criminal behaviour”.

How will they access real-time information about criminal behaviour in future?

Brexit Readiness and Operation Yellowhammer

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I do not know what the noble Lord’s definition of ambiguity is, but in response to the question “Do you wish to remain in the European Union or leave the European Union”, the country replied, “leave the European Union”. The noble Lord might think that is ambiguous, but I do not.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Just before we were so rudely interrupted on 9 September, the Secretary of State, Mr Gove, gave evidence to your Lordship’s EU Committee, and undertook that an up-to-date version of the Yellowhammer paper would be published shortly. When I saw there was to be a Statement on Yellowhammer today, I assumed that it was good news and we were about to see the up-to-date version, because the Government had been at pains to say—although the Sunday Times did not agree—that the version we had seen was out of date. When will we, when will business and the people who really need to see it going to see the Yellowhammer paper?

The Minister was delightfully optimistic about the progress of our negotiations, as he was earlier in the afternoon—Pangloss rules in Newcastle—but I ask him to take note of two things. First, in Brussels the most striking development of the last two years, has been British negotiators revealing that the text in the political declaration indicating that we wished to preserve a level playing field on social, environmental and labour law, state aid and business taxes, was going to have to go and we no longer believed in it. That has fed the impression in Brussels that we are planning for a wave of deregulation and on becoming a low tax, low welfare society, that would be highly competitive with the European Union. That may be what we are planning for—it is not what we have told the country—but that is the implication and it has had a considerable effect in Brussel. That is why in Brussels they are saying that progress in the last two weeks has gone backwards. Secondly, could the Minister also say, whether in his view, creating that impression assists or does not assist the search for ways of maintaining an open border on the island of Ireland?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asks a number of questions. In response to his first question, yes, we are intending to update the Yellowhammer documentation and it will be published shortly. I cannot give him a precise date yet; it is a fairly weighty document. With regard to the level playing field, as the noble Lord knows very well, we already exceed EU minimum standards in most areas of social and environmental legislation. There is an ongoing question about whether we should continue to have identical legislation aligned to the European Union, or whether we might choose to do things differently. In my view, one of the huge advantages of Brexit is that we no longer have these things dictated to us—we can argue for them in this Parliament, and we can decide what standards we wish to have. I am in favour of higher environmental standards, and we already have higher environmental and social standards than many countries in the EU. Those decisions would be for this Parliament to take in future and I do not know why noble Lords are so keen to contract out those decisions to a foreign body.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 5th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. There are moments when one is reminded of what a privilege it is to be in this place. This debate is one of them. I think, in particular, of what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, just said; how the noble Lord, Lord Patten, ended with his warning on Northern Ireland; what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said; and what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said. I do not intend to address any of the great themes that they touched on today, but it is a privilege to take part in a debate of such calibre. I did not feel that about yesterday’s debate for some reason.

I want to address two themes: a constitutional theme and a negotiating theme. One concerns our domestic affairs and the other our relationship with the EU 27. Both arise directly from the terms of the Bill we are debating. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, quoted my hero, Kenneth Clarke, who yesterday, in the House of Commons, referred to an element of disingenuousness in the prime ministerial position. I found it shocking that the documents revealed in the court case in Edinburgh show that the Prorogation plan and timing was decided in the middle of August and, for another two weeks, the No. 10 spokesman denied that there was or could be any such plan. I found it very shocking that the Prime Minister, when the plan became clear and the proclamation was issued, maintained that his motives had nothing to do with Brexit. Nobody in the country believed that, but it was still shocking to me to see in these documents from Edinburgh that it was precisely about Brexit. It was knowingly and deliberately about Brexit. Ken Clarke said that it was “disingenuous”. We have an issue of trust here.

The No. 10 spokesman said this morning that, if the Bill we are debating now becomes an Act, the Government and Prime Minister will not abide by it. I assume he misspoke, but we recall Mr Gove discussing this with Andrew Marr last Sunday and refusing to say whether the Government would implement the law of the land. They will wait and see what it says. On the same day, we saw that, among the clever plans that Mr Cummings is cooking up is simply not sending the Bill for Royal Assent. This is not exactly the “good chaps” theory of government. I find it difficult to deal with this issue of trust. I spent a long time in public service, and one did not see one’s political masters being disingenuous or telling lies. One saw them avoiding answering difficult questions. One found ways to help them avoid answering difficult questions. One gave them answers to other questions, which might be suitable, but one never drafted a lie. In 36 years of public service, I do not think I ever told a lie. Telling a lie is a stupid thing to do, because it creates a subsequent problem of trust. So we are legislating against a peculiar background.

I was interested in the discussion of legitimacy by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and this being an opposition Bill. I found that discussion more interesting than the historical disquisition, where I do not entirely share his views. I do not share his views on the discussion of legitimacy at all. A Bill is a Bill. A Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and comes to us here. It is legitimate and the voice of the House of Commons. If we approve the Bill, it is then the voice of two Houses of Parliament. It does not matter who drafted the original; it is legitimate. It would be wholly illegitimate for the Government to decide to do what Mr Cummings hinted, which was to sit on it and not send it to the Palace, or what the spokesman this morning said they would do, which was to ignore it. That is a major constitutional issue.

When the Government reply to this debate, I hope they confirm that, if the Bill is passed by this House tomorrow, it will be sent for Royal Assent; and that, once it has received Royal Assent, it will be acted on. These are ridiculous questions to ask in our parliamentary democracy, but such is the issue of trust that one has to ask them.

My second theme is our relationship with the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

It may help the noble Lord if I inform him that, as part of the agreement last night, we said that, if the Bill is passed and becomes an Act, it would be available to the House of Commons on Monday and sent for Royal Assent.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

It will be sent for Royal Assent, but would it then be acted on? No one asked that question yesterday because it is an absurd question. I only ask it because a No. 10 spokesman said today that it would not be acted on and that the Prime Minister would not abide by it.

[Lord Callanan]

The reason I used that form of wording is that one of the original proposals was that we would guarantee that it would receive Royal Assent. Obviously, we cannot speak on behalf of the Palace so we merely said that we would enable it to be sent for Royal Assent. I think the original guarantee that we were asked for was that it would receive Royal Assent by Monday evening. We could not give a guarantee because obviously that depends on the ability of Her Majesty, so we will send it for Royal Assent if it becomes an Act.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

But of course it would be open to Her Majesty’s Ministers to advise her to give Royal Assent, and I assume that is what would happen. Can that be confirmed?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

May I repeat to the Minister the question that Mr Marr put to Mr Gove? Will the Government act on the law of the land if this Bill becomes an Act and receives Royal Assent?

[Lord Callanan]

The Government will abide by the law.

[Lord Cormack]

I remind the noble Lord that the last monarch to refuse Royal Assent was Queen Anne, over 300 years ago. Subsequently, every Act passed by Parliament has been submitted for, and received, Royal Assent.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I want to move on to the European theme and the question of negotiation. The scripts spoken to yesterday by a number of noble Lords contained the familiar argument, which the Prime Minister has been using extensively, that the legs would be knocked out from under his negotiating strategy if no deal was taken off the table. I have spoken on this before and I do not want to bore the House, but I believe that is completely untrue. Saying, “If you don’t give me what I’m asking for in this negotiation, I will shoot myself”, is not a credible threat.

We know that the pain is asymmetric; although everyone is damaged by a no-deal crash-out Brexit, it is the UK that will be damaged hugely more than anyone else. We know that and they know that. We know that there is a problem of asymmetric preparation. They are better prepared than we are, even though they have proportionally less of a problem than we have.

Everything that I have said up to now I have bored the House with before, but here comes a new point. It is now not possible, or it will very shortly not be possible, to get a new deal agreed at the European Council on 17 October. I think the Prime Minister may listen too much to Mr Cummings, who is an expert on game theory and has studied it very closely; I do not think he has done much international negotiation, but he knows a lot about game theory. I believe that he is playing the game of chicken, which we know from American movies in the 1950s and 1960s, where you put your foot down hard on the accelerator, ideally throw away the steering wheel and drive straight at each other, each believing that the other guy will swerve. There are two problems in applying that theory to negotiation with the EU. One is that it is a union, consisting of 27 member states. It takes them a long time to make a decision to swerve. They need to get instructions in Brussels on whatever you put forward; they need to debate that, send the reactions back and then hear what the Government think.

Today’s papers say that Mr David Frost was saying yesterday in Brussels that the British could not put forward any proposals now because they would be attacked by the ERG, published by the EU and criticised in the Article 50 working group. Each element of that is probably true, but it should not mean that we do not put forward any proposals. When Barnier says “paralysis” and our Prime Minister says “remarkable progress, wonderful progress”, the question of disingenuousness creeps in again. I tend to believe Mr Barnier; I find it harder to believe our Prime Minister, which is a very worrying thing to say. It will take them a lot of time. Any proposals to be discussed on 17 October ought certainly to be in negotiation now with the Article 50 working group.

It is my belief that Mr Cummings, in addition to believing in the game of chicken, does not mind if we have a no-deal crash-out. Given what Mr Farage has been saying, he may actually see benefit in a no-deal crash-out. Mr Farage has said that if the Prime Minister negotiates some new variant of Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement, his party will run against the Conservative Party in every Conservative-held seat, whereas if Mr Johnson sticks to his promise to go, do or die, on 31 October with no deal, various forms of pact, informal or formal, are possible. That is what Mr Farage is saying. I have a theory that Mr Cummings may be listening.

In addition to the problem of trust in respect of the text of the Bill before us, we seem to have a problem of whether it will be interpreted not just in the letter but in the spirit. The Prime Minister, obliged to write the letter that the Act would require him to write if the circumstances set out in Clause 1 arose—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, confirms that the Prime Minister would feel so obliged—could send it and make sure that the European Union did not agree. The European Union needs unanimity. He could talk to a friend in, let us say, Budapest; as a classicist, he could also put his oral presentations in a “num” rather than a “nonne” way; by adding threats and undertakings of what we intend to do, he could make sure that we do not get from the European Union the extension that we have required him to seek if the circumstances arose.

The problem of trust is quite a big one. It would be good if the Government in responding to this debate said that they will not only act on the law but do so in the spirit in which the House of Commons passed it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggested that we would be going cap in hand to the European Council and who knows what terms we could obtain. That is a bugbear. Honestly, either you are in the European Union or you are out of it; there is no middle position that we could be put into. The noble and learned Lord implied—perhaps I got him wrong—that for the period of any extension the terms of our membership would be for the 27 to decide. No, sir, we are either a member with the full rights of a member or we are not in. I am very sad that we are not exercising the full rights of a member any more; I am very sad that, from 1 September, there are important working groups, important meetings of COREPER and important councils in which the British are following the policy of the empty seat. It did the French no good when General de Gaulle tried it; it will do us no good. Wherever we are going to be—in or out, close or far from the European Union—it must be in our interest, until the last possible moment, to exert as much influence as we can on the direction and legislation of the European Union.

That is my answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. We can put ourselves in a half-in, half-out position, but the European Union cannot. However, I am nervous that we have not necessarily solved the problem with this Bill—for which I shall vote—because it seems to me that, in addition to the risk that the Government will not act on the Bill, there may be a bigger risk that they will act on it in a disingenuous way and that the purposes set out in it may therefore not be achieved.

Brexit: Appointment of Joint Committee

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree that Mr Johnson’s Charge of the Light Brigade, do or die bravado risks disguising quite how momentous is the decision that he seems to contemplate with such insouciance. It is momentous for how the world sees us, for the prosperity of our people and for the security and unity of the kingdom. I leave these great themes to the two previous speakers. They have been well addressed. I will make four simple, factual and afraid rather familiar points and add two footnotes. My intention is simply to draw attention to the gravity of the step being considered with such surprising insouciance.

On fact one, the cliff edge, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has already said that without a withdrawal agreement there is no transition period. She is right, and even Mr Johnson has now spotted that. I am less sure that everyone understands that, if the Article 50 process ends on 31 October—and both contenders for No. 10 are against extending it—there is no way in which a transition period can be revived. The concept is dead because the concept is only in Article 50. Once Article 50 is discharged, there is no relevant legal base in the treaty, no specific article about ex-partnership relationships, and no relevant provision in the articles dealing with relations with third countries.

Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement is now denounced by both contenders—both the one who voted for it and the one who voted for it and against it. But if it is dead and if it is replaced by no deal, so is gradual transition. The cliff edge is a real crash out—it means crash out, straight down, on 31 October.

The second fact is that everyone I think now accepts that the decision to start the Article 50 process was a revocable decision, but I am not sure that everyone yet understands that the decision to end the process is an irrevocable decision. Article 50 spells out that, once the process ends, a member state cannot revive its membership, either wholly or in part; it can only apply de novo under Article 49 for accession. So there is no ladder back up the cliff after 31 October.

For the third fact, I am sorry that I will have to mention that GATT Article 24 Clause 5(b), even though the Government—and I pay tribute to the Minister—the Bank of England, the WTO and the EU Commission have all rightly pointed to its irrelevance on 31 October. We and the EU could not maintain the mutual tariff-free trade that Mr Johnson says he wants without having to eliminate all tariffs on all our trade with all WTO members. Clause 5(b) provides a glide path towards a customs union or a free trade agreement, provided that the destination is agreed and the schedule of reductions is approved, but it has never been used for a move in the opposite direction. The application would have to be made jointly by us and the EU, and the EU would not join us because it thinks that the application would fail and because there is no legal basis in the treaty that it could use to do so.

It follows that on 31 October we would either have to build a tariff wall against imports from our largest supplier, or remove all our tariff walls against all suppliers, or be in breach of WTO rules—from the start, on 31 October. The EU has long since said what it would do in that situation. If we go with no deal, the EU’s common external tariff will apply to us from day 1. There is no parachute for our importers or our exporters—for any of our traders there is no parachute. It will be our biggest ever step away from free trade on 31 October.

My last fact is that the legal base on which the EU could then negotiate a new relationship us would be Article 218, perhaps combined with Article 207 and maybe also Article 217. We would then find ourselves mourning the lost protection of Article 50. Under Article 50, the position of the 27 is decided by qualified majority, meaning that we cannot be held to ransom by any single member state. After 31 October, we could be. Since an Article 217 and 218 agreement would be a mixed agreement, including matters not of EU member-state competence, EU positions would require unanimity. Of the first three files that the EU has said that we would have to look at in negotiations—citizens’ rights, the money and the backstop—at least two raise issues well outside exclusive EU competence. So the whole negotiation could stall immediately. If a single member state were unhappy about how we proposed to treat its nationals or had some unrelated point, perhaps about fisheries, that it wanted to press upon us, once outside the EU, unprotected by Article 50 rules, we would find that no member of the 27 would have to persuade the others to seek a concession from us: it could insist. EU positions, up until now a majority-determined highest common factor of member-state positions, will become a unanimity-determined lowest common multiple of member-state demands. Life will be a little harder for our negotiators when the rules of the game change on 31 October.

My first footnote is this: if, acting on Mr Johnson’s proposal, we decide to withhold some or all of the money, the negotiations will not start. The EU runs on law. We made legally binding commitments, and the total has been jointly computed and agreed by our Prime Minister. Were we to resile, it would be self-defeating. It would not assist the negotiations to do so: it would prevent them. Equally, the 27 will not, in my view, agree to drop or time-limit the backstop. They take seriously their commitment to the Good Friday agreement—and outside Article 50, it takes only one of them to take a stand.

My final footnote is this: an Article 50 agreement does not require 27 national ratifications. A mixed agreement, such as any future agreement that we night have, will do. The Canadian agreement got stuck in the Wallonian Parliament; the Ukrainian agreement required a referendum in the Netherlands. The referendum requirement has two effects. First, it makes the negotiators look over their shoulders. They feel domestic pressure to use the veto given to them by the unanimity rule. Secondly, it adds a couple of years—perhaps more—after the deal is struck, for national ratification procedures, referendums or whatever. A no-deal Brexit is not just an event: it is a process. Leaving on 31 October would condemn us to a protracted period—five, seven, I do not know how many years—of continuing no deal.

I cannot see how Mr Johnson and Mr Hunt can tell us that that is what people voted for in 2016. In yesterday’s Times, Rachel Sylvester recalled the official Vote Leave campaign leaflet, ruling out no deal. The leaflet said:

“Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop—we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any … process to leave”.


Now we have Mr Johnson saying that we should end it with no negotiated deal. I think we know what electorate he is appealing to, but I cannot accept that it would be undemocratic to put his proposal to a wider electorate. It is so different from what he was saying three years ago that it must be right that Parliament, when it is required to take the no-deal decision, is made fully aware of the costs and implications before irrevocable decisions are taken that would have infinite effect and run for many years. So I strongly support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

I am well aware, and I thank the noble Lord for his advice.

However, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the report from his committee and on the fact that he so quickly responded.

The amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is much needed. In her speech at Second Reading and again today, she has made the very good point that the Bill has profound financial implications. My noble friend Lord Cathcart also made this point most clearly in his powerful speech. It is reasonable to say that the terms of withdrawal should require the UK to honour its commitments during the current EU spending round, provided of course that the UK is not disadvantaged by its decision to leave the EU in terms of the amounts that UK projects and companies would otherwise have received from EU programmes.

Besides that, any extension beyond 22 May would require us to participate in the European Parliament elections, and that requirement would of course have financial implications. It is therefore strange that the Speaker has ruled that this is not a money Bill, but it is not surprising given his increasing willingness to allow his own political views and prejudices—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Viscount, I was not able to be here for the debate on Second Reading. I am therefore sure that he will agree with me that neither of us should intervene.

[Viscount Trenchard]

I hear that the noble Lord thinks that, but I regret that I take a different opinion. I have apologised for not having been present at the debate on Second Reading for the reason I have given, but this morning I took the trouble to read virtually the whole of the debate.