EU Exit: Future Relationship White Paper

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I totally agree with my noble friend, who speaks great sense as always on these matters. Of course, free trade is in the mutual best interest of both parties; we cannot say that too often.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making sure that we, unlike our friends in another place, were able to read the White Paper. I have got as far as page 16 and it is there that I would like to ask for some elucidation. It is very good that we have at last put some cards on the table. That is a couple of years too late but better late than never. The White Paper is clearly a very substantial body of work, which will take a lot of reading by us and, I would have thought, a great deal of negotiating in Brussels.

I want to start on an element which the Minister highlighted. The FCA or facilitated customs arrangement, referred to on page 12 of the Statement and pages 16 to 18 of the White Paper, says:

“As if in a combined … territory with the EU, the UK would apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU. The UK would also apply its own tariffs and trade policy … However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK”.


I have two questions. First, what happens at Dover to goods from, say, Asia which entered the EU via, say, Rotterdam? Where do the customs dues, tariffs and quota checks take place?

Secondly, as the Minister will be well aware from his long experience in the European Parliament, customs dues are an own resource which go straight into the common EU budget and it is 11 years since OLAF, the antifraud agency, started warning us that our border controls on Chinese textiles and footwear were inadequate. We are now in court for unpaid duty, calculated at more than €3 billion over a 10-year period. As he will be well aware, too, we are also in court over VAT fraud at Felixstowe, where the charge against us is $3.2 billion. Does he really think that once we have shaken off the ECJ, the Commission and OLAF, we will be accepted as trustworthy collectors of the EU’s external tariffs and customs duties at our ports, against the background that it believes that we have consistently under-counted for the last decade, having admitted false invoices and incorrect value declarations? How are we going to persuade the European Union that, as non-members of a customs union, we should collect the duties which go straight into its common budget? Would it not be simpler simply to have a customs union, as this House voted for by a majority of 123?

[Lord Callanan]

To answer the noble Lord’s last point first, for the sake of repetition, we have been clear that we are leaving the customs union. The reason why we are leaving is that we do not want to contract out our trade policy to the European Commission. He might think that is a good thing but I do not and I disagree with him. We want to come to an independent trade policy and this model would allow us to do that. I accept that there will be some challenges in negotiating this matter. However, we have put forward a proposal in good faith and intend to persuade the EU of its virtues and benefits.

On the noble Lord’s question about collecting duties, we intend to agree with the EU a mechanism for the remittance of relative tariff revenue. The UK is proposing a tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK. I am afraid I cannot comment on the court proceedings that are taking place but I understand that we are vigorously resisting the sums that have been claimed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, both of which I support. I do so having listened to every moment of the debate in the National Assembly yesterday and to large parts of the debate in the Scottish Parliament yesterday evening. What came through loud and clear was the incredulity—across party lines, even though the National Assembly for Wales accepted the agreement reached by the Minister, Mark Drakeford—on the very point touched on in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, namely that consent can mean consent or that consent is refused or consent has not been approved. For consent to be interpreted in that way was just unbelievable to Members there, and there was some doubt as to whether the Minister was carrying his troops with him. Indeed, Mark Drakeford himself was clearly not at ease in defending the agreement that he and the Welsh Government had approved. In his closing speech he said:

“Of course we should be ambitious for even more ground to be gained, and we are too. And I said in my opening remarks: there is more that we want to achieve. We have ambitions beyond the agreement”.


The fact is that a form of words has been reached, which are in the Bill, but they do not succeed in getting hearts and minds behind them. When one is going to something as fundamental as this agreement, which will need to be tested when real issues arise, there needs to be buy-in from all parties. Will the Minister therefore confirm that further discussions may take place with Mike Russell and his Scottish ministerial colleagues? If progress is made there to move the settlement to a form of words that is more acceptable, will the Minister confirm that that form of words would be equally available for Wales and Northern Ireland and not just be a reward for Scotland for standing out against the decisions that have been taken?

What hit Members in both the Scottish Parliament and in the National Assembly was the implication of these agreements when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. The element that stood out most clearly, in both debates interestingly enough, was public procurement. As Dr Dai Lloyd, an Assembly Member in Cardiff, spelled out, it could mean privatisation by the back door for the National Health Service. That came as quite a shock to many Labour Members, and that very point was made in the Scottish Parliament. In his closing remarks, the Minister, Mike Russell, mentioned that public procurement that leads to probably hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland would be affected. As the reality of the settlement hits home, there is a growing unease. We should be heading that off, and if we cannot do so tonight, the opportunity should be taken by the Government in another place, where the new clause can be amended by Members of Parliament. I believe that such amendments are needed.

One consideration that they could perhaps apply themselves to is one not covered by this amendment but which could be covered by further amendments in another place. In bringing regulations that will potentially overrule what the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales would decide, or the attitude they might take towards certain proposals, if it is done by instrument through both Houses of Parliament, that lays the whole process open to the fact that the solution is being imposed. Perhaps the Minister and the Government could consider the possibility of dealing with those instruments in the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee by Members of Parliament from the two countries, so that at least there would be a feeling that people from Wales and from Scotland are dealing with solutions that are so important.

I personally believe that there need to be changes in the Bill along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. I look forward to the Government’s response.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of these amendments. I do so with great trepidation as a non-lawyer, knowing that the noble and learned Lord will be marking my homework—and doing so in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is completely correct to draw our attention to the fact that a constitutionally significant moment has arrived. He is quite right to repeat the questions that he asked before. Whether one considers it a good thing or a bad thing, what happened in Edinburgh yesterday was certainly a big thing—and it could have very serious repercussions.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, in wanting to bring out the principles agreed in October, and I am grateful to him for reading them out. But it seems to me that much is going to depend over time on how they are interpreted. Will they be interpreted narrowly or widely? The two key common frameworks are to enable the function of the UK internal market and to ensure that the UK can negotiate and implement international trade agreements. How are these principles going to operate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is very well-meaning in what he suggests. However, is he aware that Mike Russell actually agreed to the same proposal from the United Kingdom Government that the Welsh Government agreed to? He went along with that and then went back up to Scotland and was told by Nicola Sturgeon that it would not be approved because she did not like it. She runs it: not Mike Russell. How on earth can the United Kingdom Government—as noble Lords know, I am no fan of the United Kingdom Government on most things—legitimately deal with someone who says he goes along with it and then goes back up to Edinburgh and gets overruled by his First Minister?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord probably knows more about it than me. I only know what I read in the UK press, which is almost nothing, and in the Scottish press. But my point is a slightly different one. I thought I would be attacked by the noble Lord on slightly different grounds. I want SNP representation in this Chamber. On previous occasions the noble Lord has reminded me that it is entirely the theology of the SNP that prevents it being represented in this Chamber—and he is completely correct about that. I do not understand why the SNP, represented in the other place, adopts towards this House the policy that Sinn Féin adopts towards the other House. I do not understand it at all. The onus is of course on members of the SNP to change their minds if they wish to take part in our debates, but I would ask the Minister to say what some of his colleagues in the past have said: if SNP MPs were to change their minds, the Government would be delighted to see them represented in this place.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, it is certainly not my purpose to say or do anything that makes it more difficult to reach an agreement with the Scottish Government—that is the last thing I want to do. But I want to say, in answer to one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made, that the provisions that we are talking about in relation to the frameworks are provisions in which the Scottish Parliament does not have jurisdiction because the framework is for the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. That is why I have said so far that the consent of the Scottish Government is not necessary at that stage. But I would like to see a consent to the arrangements: then they can go through pretty well formally in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

I had understood from Mr Russell from the early days—I will say a little more about this when we come to considering the Bill passing, which I hope we will do in due course—that the Scottish Government have said that they require to consent to the Parliament of the United Kingdom passing these. But, so long as their views are fully heard by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that is the correct way to approach this. The legal competence in this matter lies with the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore, technically, consent is not necessary from any of the devolved legislatures: otherwise, one of them could make these regulations impossible for the others. So consent at that stage is not necessary. It is highly desirable, which is why I was trying to concentrate on an arrangement under which it should happen.

I think that I am right in saying that the memorandum provides that, in effect, the Sewel convention will apply before these things are put to the United Kingdom Parliament. As I said before, the amendment and memorandum that the Government proposed went slightly further than I had suggested, by giving the opportunity for the dissenter, whichever Government it was, to put their point of view in their terms before the Parliament of the United Kingdom before it was considered.

So far as the question of consent is concerned, the technical question is: what is required? The intention of the legislation so far is that a decision has to be taken by each of the devolved Governments before anything is put in this connection before the UK Parliament. In other words, every opportunity is given for them to reach consent in their committees. I would like to see this settled, but the decision as to what is required is a legal decision, which, so far as I am concerned, does not require as a matter of law the consent of the Scottish Government—although that is very desirable. I am entirely in favour of doing everything that we can to deal with these matters.

Talking of papers going out and so forth, I saw an article about papers dealing with fisheries. It said that the document contained the idea that the UK Parliament can deal with fisheries in the world. Of course, we do not need to have discovered that in this paper, because it is in the reserved matters in the original constitution of 1998. The fact that the UK Government and the UK Parliament are responsible for international relations is well known; it is not a discovery one makes from a recently leaked document. That sort of thing does not help the atmosphere.

I certainly support strongly all that has been said about doing our level best to get the best atmosphere with the Government of Scotland as well as with the Government of Wales—and I would love to see a Government in Northern Ireland as well.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

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

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, as I think it is extremely sad. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, speaks for a huge proportion of the younger people of our country who resent seeing their rights as EU citizens, particularly the right of movement, being taken away from them.

My objection to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is even more objective than the objection of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We are asking the Government to do something impossible. It is not possible to be a citizen of the European Union if you are not a citizen of a member state of the European Union. That is how citizenship is defined in the treaty. It is left entirely to member states to decide who their citizens are, but if you are a citizen of a member state, you are a citizen of the European Union. When—I hope if—the UK leaves the European Union, every British citizen ceases to be a citizen of the European Union, and there is nothing that we can do about it. Although my heart is with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my head says that this amendment does not make sense. The only way that the young people of this country can retain the rights they now enjoy as EU citizens is for us to decide not to leave the European Union.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, this is being tested in the courts in Europe, so not everyone is of the opinion that you cannot have European citizenship. I believe that in June we will hear the result of the appeal by the Netherlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alli addressed the House on the basis of principle and with passion—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I greatly respect the commitment to the national interest of all who have spoken, including of course those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I suggest that it would be good for our proceedings if, whatever side we are on in these passionate debates, we could all work on the assumption that each other’s motives are to be respected.

Of course the future of UK services industries is of immense importance—that is not in doubt at all, and it has to be a major concern of the Government as they develop their negotiations with the European Union on the terms of Brexit. My noble friend Lord Mandelson is pessimistic about their prospects, but it seems to me that it must be in the interests of the European Union as well as of the United Kingdom that the EU does not put impossible barriers in the way of our services exports.

I feel bound to point out that membership of the European Economic Area does entail certain conditions. Non-EU members of the EEA have agreed to enact a large volume of legislation similar to that of the European Union. Non-EU members are consulted on prospective legislation, but they are not represented in the governing institutions of the European Union. The Norwegians refer to the legislation that is presented to them as “fax democracy”: they wait by their fax machines in Oslo to find out what the legislation is that it has been determined in Brussels should govern them.

It is also worth noting, as my noble friend Lord Alli did, that agriculture and fisheries are not part of the terms of reference of the European Economic Area and, therefore, that membership of the EEA would do nothing to assist us in resolving the problems of the Irish border.

A second condition of membership of the EEA is to accept the principle of the free movement of people. My noble friend Lord Alli suggested that somehow this could be got around. My noble friend Lord Mandelson and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, drew attention to the possibility that, under existing EU provisions, it would have been possible for us to have operated a tighter regime on immigration. Those things may be so, but the fact remains that, if you are a member of the European Economic Area, you accept the principle of free movement of people. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, explained calmly and clearly what the possibilities and the difficulties are.

A third condition of membership of the European Economic Area is that those who are in membership have agreed that they will pay in considerable sums of money to finance grant schemes intended to reduce the economic and social disparities within the EEA. We should note that the size of those payments greatly increased following enlargement in 2004.

As we all know very well, those who voted leave in the referendum—a majority of our people in, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly reminded us, the biggest exercise in democratic participation that we have ever seen in this country—voted advisedly to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. In respect of the three principles of membership of the European Economic Area that I have just mentioned, it is clear that, if we remained in the EEA or applied to join it—whatever the precise status would be—we would not have taken back control of our laws, our borders and our money.

We were told again this evening that it will be a cataclysm for the economy if we do not find ourselves members of the EEA. I am afraid that the citizens of this country, who were unimpressed by the forecasts of doom that were presented to them when they were so strenuously advised that it would be a terrible mistake to vote leave, will not be impressed by renewed forecasts of doom. They expect the wish that they so clearly expressed in the referendum—a referendum which they were told by the Government would be determinative and not advisory—to be met. If they perceive, as I think they would if this amendment were passed, that your Lordships’ House is seeking after all to keep them effectively in the EU by another name and to thwart the very clear decision that they expressed at the referendum, they will, to use the term of my noble friend Lord Mandelson, feel that a fraud has been perpetrated on them.

We of course have the right in this House to send our advice to the other place by way of amendments. The question that we have to judge is not whether we have that right but whether it is wise in these circumstances to exercise it. It seems to me that now is a time for a politics not of confrontation but of healing.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I am sceptical about the EEA option. I am not sure that the EFTA EEA partners particularly want us—some of them tend to say that they do not—and I am not sure that the consultative arrangements that they find sufficient, or reasonably satisfactory, would be found satisfactory by this country.

I have always thought that the sort of consultative arrangements that we could secure would be best devised here and put forward in the proposal for the framework of the future relationship. I have always thought it very strange that the Government always insist on playing away—that it is for the other side to put forward the drafts. I do not know why we have not put forward our own prescription. I think we still should—but I begin to despair that we ever will.

I am very impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. We have not yet done anything on services, and we really must do something. I am not sure that the EEA is right—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, if we applied to join the EEA, it would be a different EEA that would emerge. It is not, therefore, a knock-down argument that the template that suits Liechtenstein would be imposed on the United Kingdom. I think we could do better. So, although it is not for me the ideal way to go, I would much rather that Britain put forward a British proposal optimised for the British relationship with the European Union that we will have left. If we are not going to do that, this is the next best thing. So, despite my doubts about the EEA option, I will vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House—and I hope that others will, too.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, who supported my amendment both in Committee and on Report. I am very taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said. This is not just a Labour tactic. I believe that there has been genuine cross-party consensus on choosing a few very precise issues. I will not rehearse the arguments again—they are there for your Lordships to see—but the noble Lord, Lord Alli, paid me the compliment of saying that he has used those arguments in crafting the amendment before us this evening.

We have had this discussion at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I believe that the time to bring this back is during the scrutiny of the trade Bill. The reason I say this is not that my arguments in favour of remaining within the EEA are any weaker, but if we send too many amendments back to the other place, where I served for 18 years, we will dilute its focus. I am putting all my confidence in the fact that there will be a majority in the elected House for our remaining in a customs arrangement or a customs union.

As I have argued previously—I have not had a definitive answer—lawyers are split on whether or not we need to formally leave the EEA and trigger an application to leave. I argue that without such a formal application to leave, the UK will remain a member of the EEA. I have worked closely over years with the food manufacturing industry and I continue to work closely with the farmers in North Yorkshire. I accept that the point on services has to be addressed. I understand that negotiations are going on to which we are not privy, and that is the difficulty in all the discussions on this amendment.

On the basis that I believe there will be a further opportunity to discuss this, and because I gave a commitment that I would wait until that time to discuss the EEA in a different context, and on my genuine understanding that we will remain members of the EEA, I urge the noble Lord not to put this amendment to the vote this evening but to keep it up our sleeve for a different occasion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I will not go into the virtues of remaining in the European Union or leaving it, but simply concentrate on the amendment. I was one of the Minsters who had the privilege of taking the referendum Bill through your Lordships’ House. As many noble Lords will recall, there were debates about the extent of the franchise, among other matters, but there was no suggestion by any of the major parties of a threshold, let alone a second referendum. One can only imagine the response there would have been following the results if it had been the other way around and there was an attempt then to have a further referendum—surely what is sauce for the goose.

It must be remembered that the Bill went through Parliament when a general election was looming. Any party, or combination of parties, could have formed the next Government. Surely it was incumbent on each party to make clear that it would not honour the result of the referendum without a further vote or the option of one.

There are a number of uncertainties about the amendment. Can we revoke the notification of withdrawal under Article 50? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that we can, but, with the greatest respect to him—I really mean that—that is ultimately a matter that could be determined only by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We cannot predict with any certainty what the outcome might be. Similarly, we do not know whether we would be able to seek an extension of the Article 50 period, which is also a necessary part of the amendment as provided by proposed new subsection (3), although I know the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has had some secret soundings. But the whole premise of the amendment is legal uncertainty—precisely the opposite of what the Bill is intended to achieve.

There is yet another unsatisfactory aspect to the amendment. If a further referendum were held, it would give two options: acceptance or revocation of the notification of withdrawal, which would lead to our remaining in the EU should there be agreement by all parties or—this is uncertain—the ECJ rules that we are entitled to revoke unilaterally, notwithstanding the objection of any or all of the other 27. But what about the option in the event of a referendum that we should leave the EU without a concluded agreement? This is the no deal scenario. I—and, I suspect, most of your Lordships’ House—would much prefer that we did not leave without a concluded agreement, but there must surely be an opportunity for those voting in this referendum, having been informed by the lengthy and highly publicised process of negotiations between the Government and the EU, to conclude that they do not wish to remain in the EU and nor do they want to accept the deal that has been concluded. The proposed referendum in the amendment precludes that option.

If Parliament now denies voters a chance to leave the EU, except on onerous terms imposed by a combination of parliamentary fetters and/or unreasonable conduct from the EU, surely we should not deny the people the chance to leave without a deal. That would be treating people with contempt, and would be inconsistent with the EU referendum Act passed by both Houses of Parliament and what was or was not said by all the parties when the Bill went through Parliament. I do not need to elaborate on how divisive a further referendum would be—the first one was quite divisive enough.

Finally, is it not time that the Labour Party made clear what its approach to a second referendum is? If it thinks that voters should have an opportunity to think again, should it not say so rather than hover waiting for some political advantage?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I shall speak briefly on two technical points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Green, asked whether we would have to pay a price if we chose to withdraw the Article 50 letter. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked whether we are confident that we could withdraw the Article 50 letter unilaterally. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Green, is that given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Of course we could not be charged a political price if we withdrew the Article 50 letter during the period of the two years’ negotiation because we would never have left. We would have exactly the rights of a member because we would never have given them up. There would be no question of opt-outs or rebates being taken from us. Of course, the converse would apply if, having left the European Union, we decided that we wanted to come back. There would then be no chance of securing opt-outs or rebates. But, as a member in good standing, operating under the normal voting rules—the rebate is removable only by unanimity and I rather suspect we would not vote for its removal—there is no question that we would be paying a political price.

On the question of whether we would legally be able to withdraw the letter unilaterally, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is a much better lawyer than I am—I am not a lawyer at all—said that that would be a matter for the ECJ. With respect, I do not think so. If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appeared in the European Council and said that, as a result of an election or a referendum, there had been a change of view in the United Kingdom and that we would like to stay in the European Union, there is absolutely no doubt what the European Council’s answer would be. It is on the record. The President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the Parliament, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany are all on record as saying that, although they respect our plan to leave, they would rather we changed our mind and stayed. There is absolutely no doubt that the European Council would say yes. It is conceivable that, three years later, a case might go to the European Court of Justice. Were the European Council correct and intra vires when it agreed that the British might take back their Article 50 letter, I have absolutely no doubt how the ECJ would rule in that case when it came up.

The second point I want to touch on is whether an extension of the two-year negotiating period would, if we sought it, be obtainable. This seems very relevant to the amendment we are considering. If the House of Commons were to choose to adopt the option—it is only an option in the amendment—of putting the deal to the people, it would require an extension. It would be impossible to do that before 29 March. We do not have a referendum law in our statute book; we would have to pass one. There would then have to be a campaign. Realistically, we would be looking at June or perhaps September. We would be looking for, say, a six-month extension.

Would we secure the necessary unanimity in the European Council for that extension? It is a matter of judgment. In my view, it would depend entirely on the reason we gave. If, for example, we said, “We’d like an extension to carry on negotiating. We’d like to send David Davis across for a few more months”, it is conceivable that we might not get the necessary unanimity. If, on the other hand, we were to tell 27 democracies that we needed an extension because the House of Commons had voted in a way that meant there had to be a referendum, or an election, there is no question but that we would get the necessary unanimity—in my view; that is only a judgment. The option in the amendment, and it is only an option, therefore seems reasonable, foreseeable and possible, and I shall vote for it.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, would we still be members of the European Union for the period of the extension and therefore have all the rights of a member?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Of course.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I shall be brief, but I do not expect it to make me many friends. I cannot believe how many noble Lords have said, “I hate referendums, but I want another one”. It is like falling down the rabbit hole and landing on our heads. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said that a second referendum would be decisive. I suggest that it would not be. If there is a second referendum, why not a third referendum or a fourth? A second referendum would not settle the issue; it would only prolong the agony. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just explained clearly how extended that uncertainty and agony might prove. Which of those referendums—the second, the third or the fourth—would be, in today’s parlance, the “meaningful” vote?

I have to take the noble Lord, Lord Newby, slightly to task when he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the words of Mr Clegg that he waved in front of him. They had nothing do with the Lisbon treaty. I will quote Mr Clegg. He said:

“It’s time for a real referendum on Europe … Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide”.


He also asked voters to sign a petition, to give the people “a real choice”. There was not a squeak, not a little chirrup, about a second referendum—no ifs, ands or buts, and no suggestion that people might change their mind.

While we are talking about Lib Dem policy, it is interesting that, in 2011, they forced through the AV referendum Bill. It was their Bill, their policy. I voted against it—I got myself into terrible trouble with my Whips, but I think the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench has forgiven me. It was a binding vote; it was obligatory. There was no suggestion that we could change our mind. It was, I believe, the only binding referendum in our legislative history. There was no chance of Parliament, let alone the people, changing their mind. That until now has been Lib Dem policy, and I do not believe they can have it both ways.

I talked earlier about Mr Clegg’s position on the instructions of the electorate, so perhaps I may briefly wrap up—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, let me start on a positive note. My noble friend Lord Callanan was indeed pleased to add his signature to Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, which will remove the ability under Clause 9 to amend the Act itself. I note that this amendment is supported not just by the noble Lords in whose names it lies but by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House. It was one of that committee’s recommendations for the Bill and, given that the Government are happy to support this amendment, we are pleased to be in such illustrious and learned company. It is a heady experience, I have to say.

I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this amendment to a part of the Bill that has continued to cause concern to many throughout its passage. It is important to explain why the Government included such a measure at the time of introduction—this may partly address the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. When the Bill was first drafted, this provision was not an attempt to hold open a back door to circumventing or undoing any of the protections or constraints in the Bill. Rather, it was seen as a necessary step to provide the flexibility to respond to developments in negotiations. Indeed, the fact that aspects of the Bill may need to be amended, depending on the outcome of these negotiations, still remains. Our acceptance of this amendment does not reflect a change in that regard. Rather, the decision to introduce in due course a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will give effect to the implementation period, the citizens’ rights agreement and the financial settlement, among other provisions of the withdrawal agreement, provides another door through which the Government may make all the changes required.

Without a strong justification for retaining Clause 9’s ability to amend the EU withdrawal Bill once it becomes an Act, the Government are indeed content to remove that ability. As with our amendment to remove Clause 8, I hope this shows the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament and I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Before the Minister moves on, can she clarify what the answer is to the question asked from the Opposition Front Bench? On the face of it, if the words “including modifying this Act” are removed, it leaves simply this sentence:

“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”.


Do you make a substantive change by withdrawing those words? It is not clear to me that you do.

[Baroness Goldie]

I listened with interest to that point, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with that construction of the change to Clause 9(2). Amendment 53 means that we will not be able to amend the Bill when it is an Act. It therefore restricts the scope of the power, which seems to have met with the satisfaction of those who have put their names to it. As I have said, that is a positive and, I hope, a helpful reassurance from the Government.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

43: Clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) impose or increase taxation,”

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Amendment 43 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It would add to the prohibitions in Clause 8(3) a prohibition on increasing or imposing taxation by regulation. There are already similar prohibitions in Clauses 7 and 9 that you cannot impose or increase taxation by regulation made under these clauses.

Noble Lords might have noticed that my fox is ever so slightly shot by the admirable Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which proposes the dropping of Clause 8. I welcome it and many of the government amendments in the group. It is clear that the noble Lord has been listening hard and I am very grateful for the changes he proposes. However, I want to say a word about Amendment 104, which is lurking in this thicket of government amendments and is also in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It would insert the same prohibition against making new taxes or increasing taxes by regulation in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4. Schedule 4 is about fees and charges, not taxation. The idea of the amendment is to add a prohibition on eliding from fees and charges into taxes.

When I was young, irresponsible and committing multiple misdemeanours I was sentenced to five years in Her Majesty’s Treasury—a sort of borstal or juvenile detention centre. Now that I am old, irresponsible and committing multiple misdemeanours I have very few memories of the Treasury, but one that stands out clearly is of being in the Box behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was a private secretary—at the time of the Budget speech. At the end of the Budget speech there is an interesting ritual that takes place in silence in the House of Commons, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leader of the Opposition stand up and sit down three times. They are passing the Motions that permit the instant changes of taxes that might be pre-empted. The Chancellor can say something like, “So the price of petrol at the pumps will go up by 5p at 5 pm”. When you go home and look, by God, they did go up. It is an astonishing thing. That is because since 1913, I think, it has been clear that it is not possible to increase taxes or to create a new tax other than by legislation in the House of Commons. That is what happens in that ritual immediately after the Budget: they are passing new taxes for a limited period of three to five months maximum while the Finance Bill goes through the House. The Finance Bill contains these changes and in due course becomes law.

I worry about Schedule 4, which creates the power for Ministers to create public authorities and confer on them the power to impose or create taxes. It seems a fairly fundamental breach of the principle that only Parliament may create or change tax. I am reinforced in this view by the excellent reports from our Delegated Powers Committee, which takes serious exception to the powers in Schedule 4. It points out in its 12th report of this Session, published on 31 January, that the powers are “very wide” and notes that the delegated powers memorandum submitted by the Government spells out that they would enable,

“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service … including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body”.

The committee comments:

“A ‘tax-like charge’ means a tax. Although regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation, regulations under Schedule 4 may do so. Not only can Ministers tax, Ministers can confer powers on public authorities to tax. Indeed, they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever”.


The committee concludes:

“Taxation, including ‘tax-like charges’, should not be possible in fees and charges regulations made under Schedule 4. Fees and charges for services or functions should operate on no more than a full cost-recovery basis. Taxation should be a matter for Parliament, a principle enshrined in Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688”—


a powerful case, which persuades me.

The Delegated Powers Committee has reported again this week, in its 23rd report, having looked at the government amendments, which I have just welcomed. It remains of the view that,

“taxation, including ‘tax-like’ charges, should not be possible in regulations made under Schedule 4”,

and spells out three or four reasons for that, including the fact that it would offer,

“little consolation to be told that one is being taxed under Schedule 4 rather than under clause 7 or clause 9”.

The prohibitions are clear in the Bill in Clauses 7 and 9, although there was a prohibition that we would have added in Clause 8, had Clause 8 been there, by way of Amendment 43.

However, Amendment 104 seems to make a very valid point which I think the House should hear more about, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on it. Why do the Government feel it is right to confer on themselves and whatever public authority they wish the power to levy taxes or increase taxes, against what is usually thought to be a fairly fundamental principle of parliamentary control? I beg to move Amendment 43.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is arguing for consistency throughout the Bill that taxation or “tax-like charges” should be imposed only by primary legislation. That is all I need to say at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate as well as those who have worked very constructively with the Government behind the scenes to reach the position we are in today. This is an important group of amendments and, if noble Lords will excuse the football metaphor, I can say that this is an amendment grouping of two halves. In the first half we have Clause 8, where I believe the Government and the opposition’s thinking are aligned, and in the second half we have Schedule 4, where there remains some disagreement.

I will begin with Clause 8, perhaps specifically in response to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Beith. The Clause 8 power was originally included in the Bill to ensure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU did not affect its reputation as a nation which honours its promises and respects its international obligations. The power also includes the ability to prevent breaches of international obligations outside retained EU law and to meet any existing obligations requiring an imposition or increase of taxation. This element of the power, in particular, has been the subject of much debate in both Houses, as Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, demonstrates.

We were concerned that this power might be necessary to ensure that the UK could continue to comply with all its existing international obligations. As the Bill has progressed through Parliament, the Government have continued to plan for multiple scenarios and it has become clear that there are better and more effective ways to ensure that the Government’s international obligations continue to be met than through the use of Clause 8. Therefore, in line with our policy to take delegated powers only where there is a clear and present need for them, the Government have tabled amendments to remove Clause 8 and the corresponding power for devolved authorities in Schedule 2, Part 2. I am grateful to noble Lords who have indicated that the Government’s proposition has found favour.

Any measures still required to remedy or prevent breaches of our international obligations will be made in other primary legislation—perhaps that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Beith—or under other delegated powers where that is permissible. I think we have now managed to reassure noble Lords that the Government are very sensitive to the points which have been raised in debate in Committee and on Report. As a consequence, the Government do not now think that there is a need for an entirely separate clause in this Bill, hence our amendment to remove Clause 8. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will be happy to withdraw his amendments in light of the Government’s proposed offer. I hope that this offer demonstrates that the Government are willing to act on the constructive discussions that take place in this House. We try to consider all amendments carefully as long as they do not undermine the primary purpose of the Bill and, where we can, we act upon them where appropriate.

I turn briefly to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 47. It has rather interposed itself into this group so I am doing a bit of shuffling of notes here. I might begin with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith: my understanding is that once the implementation period ends, the EEA agreement will no longer apply to the UK. I also understand that in triggering Article 127 our legal position remains unchanged. Article 127 does not need to be triggered for the agreement to cease to have effect. I hope that clarifies the points that my noble friend sought clarification on.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I agree with the reading by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of whether one has continuing membership of the EEA after one has left the EU: one does not. However, I am struck by what the Minister has just said about the moment when one leaves. I am not sure that it is at the end of the transition period. I think it may be at the moment when we leave the EU—in other words, in March next year, not 21 months later. I am not quite sure why the lawyers in the EEA, EFTA and the EU should accept that once we have left the EU we still remain in the EEA.

[Lord Cormack]

Write a letter.

--- Later in debate ---

Without an element of taxation in some of the charging regimes planned under this Bill the charging regime could not be established, and the costs of specialist services described previously would fall on the public purse. Nor could we continue to adjust under the Bill the charging regimes created under Section 56 of the Finance Act 1973 after exit. However, it is important to say that any new fees or charges established under the Bill cannot extend beyond charging or raising fees in relation to a function that a public authority has been granted under the Bill. They therefore cannot be general taxes on the public, or even on a subset of the public. In the light of these observations, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments, and that my noble friend Lady McIntosh will feel able not to press her Amendment 47.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response and I look forward to a letter on the EEA/EFTA membership point.

I am left a bit concerned about Amendment 104. There is clearly major disagreement between the Minister and the Delegated Powers Committee on the issue. For me, there is a bigger issue than that here. The European Communities Act 1972 is absolutely explicit that it cannot be used as a basis for taxing. When we take back the powers conferred in the 1972 Act, if we are allowing Ministers under Schedule 4 to set up public authorities that may tax and Ministers themselves to tax, we are doing something new. It is different. I am puzzled about that. I am sad that this amendment, which seems to me to raise a rather important issue, has been placed in a wider group with many other amendments. I wonder whether the Government would like to think a bit further about this before we come to Third Reading.

If the Government are happy with the prohibition in Clauses 7 and 9, why can it not also, for consistency, be in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4? It is a very long time since I was in the Treasury—I served quite a short sentence and got let out for bad behaviour—but I still feel that there is an unsatisfactory feature here which we have not quite got to the bottom of. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

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

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I thank our noble friends on the Liberal Benches for having put this amendment forward. It seems self-evident in its logic. Indeed, not to respond to what it calls for would be to forgo the responsibility of government to put the defence and well-being of our people in Britain first and foremost. I have had posts in defence and in the Foreign Office and it seems inconceivable that in any significant conflict in which we would be involved we would not want to work with our allies and friends. It is much better to prepare for that and to have the arrangements in place to make sure that we make the best of it. This is not just a matter of fixing something when a crisis arises; it is a matter of having a culture of co-operation in which people feel they have a shared responsibility, that they want to develop that responsibility together, they understand each other and their training and organisation are geared to co-operation with others. From that standpoint, this is a wise amendment and I hope the Minister will respond positively.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, in 1982 the amazing unanimity of the Security Council in favour of the British position when the Falkland Islands were invaded was the result of discussion led by President Mitterrand in Europe. Mitterrand was the first to ring Thatcher to assure her of his support. The remarkable performance of our Prime Minister at the last European Council on the Skripals, Salisbury and sanctions against Russia deserves high praise. As has just been said, it will be very difficult to replicate the kind of contacts, co-ordination and pressure that can be brought about when you are a member of the club. When you are outside the club, that is going to be more difficult.

The Prime Minister has made two very good speeches this year on this theme. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, tellingly quoted from the Mansion House speech. I was in Munich and heard the February speech in which the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that our commitment to the security of our allies and friends, partners and ex-partners-to-be, was absolute and was in no way conditional on any kind of outcome of the current negotiations. That was a very important statement. Some thought that the Lancaster House speech had created doubt on that score. I thought that was unfair, but certainly it was settled in Munich.

I do not think we need any more speeches. I do not think we need great papers and plans. I think we need wiring diagrams. I think it is in everybody’s interest that we should stay plugged in. It is in the European Union’s interest as much as it is in our interest. This is not a zero-sum negotiation. It has been a mistake that throughout the withdrawal negotiations we have tended to negotiate on their papers. We have not put forward our own papers. This is a locus classicus for a UK proposal, and I do not think it should be a grandiose proposal—they have been made in speeches. It should be an architectural blueprint. We should be proposing joint assessment staff and co-ordination cells. These things are not glamorous. We should be proposing a calendar of meetings and a joint crisis management procedure. That is the kind of wiring diagram that is needed now.

This is an important amendment because it asks for arrangements to be set in hand. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is quite correct that are we are now talking not about the end of the transition period but about the end of our membership, and if that comes in March next year, something has to be ready. I do not think it is terribly difficult to do, and I do not think the Government need fear, as I think they have done regarding a number of files in this negotiation, that if they put forward a proposal but did not get all that they had proposed then the Daily Mail would attack them. This dossier is a bit different because it is not zero-sum; it is possible that the kind of architecture that would come out at the end of the day might be slightly different but no one is going to kill anyone for that. The case for putting forward a down-to-earth, practical series of proposals quickly is very strong because the 27 will need to take a view, as will the Council Secretary. This is primarily not Commission business but the Commission will take a view, and the European Parliament will take a view. If we do not start soon then it will not happen by March, so I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, at end insert—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if, and only if, the condition in subsection (3) is met.”

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, the Eugene O’Neill play “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” is very good, but it does go on a bit. We have already had 13 long days and 372 amendments, which at least enables us to be quite brisk and brusque at this stage. The arguments have all been advanced already, and it falls to me to speak to Amendment 1, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford. The amendment is a call to the Government to explore a customs union.

I intend to distil simply five points out of our previous debate—five arguments for a customs union. The first argument is that made by manufacturing industry, and it does not need repeating: it has been made very clearly in our debates and in public debate, and has been supported strongly by the CBI and the TUC. We know what Airbus Industrie thinks and we know of its worries. We know about the motor industry’s worries. We know that 60% of a UK-built motor car consists of components that come into our country. The motor industry believes that, if those components came across a customs frontier, its costs would rise by between 5% and 10%, which is serious. We know from the Government’s economic analysis that the hit on manufacturing would represent, over time, 1% of GDP. That case does not need to be explained any more.

Secondly, the case for export to the European Union explains itself too. Fifty per cent of our exports go to the European Union—indeed, 70% of our agricultural exports. The Government are rightly concerned not to introduce new frictions in this trade, but a customs frontier is an inevitable friction; the delay, not just at the Irish frontier but at Dover and elsewhere, would be considerable and would have considerable costs. The Government are right to minimise frictions, not just for that reason but because to replace trade with the European Union with trade further afield will not be an easy task. A further 20% of our exports go to countries which have preferential arrangements with the EU or are negotiating them, including 60 free trade agreements, 32 of which are with Commonwealth countries. To simply replicate such preferential arrangements when we are out on our own, representing a smaller market—offering the concession of access to a smaller market—will not be child’s play, as the Australians and New Zealanders have already demonstrated to us through their demands on agricultural quotas. If we look at America—which accounts for 15% of our exports today—and the TPP, TTIP and NAFTA sagas, or listen to the inaugural speech with its paean for protectionism, we can see that that will not be easy.

The further afield you go, the more difficult it gets. The population of Canada is three times the population of Switzerland but we sell twice as much to the Swiss because they are closer. The ineluctable rule is that as distance doubles, trade halves. I am talking about trade in goods, but it is a fairly standard rule. So it is well worth looking further afield, but it will be hard not to see a fall in overall exports if our trade with the European Union is made more complicated, and it will be much more complicated if we do not have a customs union. We must try to limit the damage of leaving our largest, because closest, market.

My third point is about the nature of customs union, and here I will admit the downside of customs union. It is about goods, not services, and it would prevent us abolishing our tariffs on imports into this country. It would prevent us doing what Professor Minford wants to do, and that is, for some, a serious downside. I do not believe that the Government intend to follow Professor Minford’s prescription. I do not think the Government intend to take us to a tariff-free, low-welfare, low-tax, low-regulation, low-standard sweatshop economy. The Prime Minister has been pretty clear that she is not planning to do that.

More importantly, as I said, the customs union is only about goods—it is not about services. It would leave us entirely free to go on doing our trade promotion, as we do now, but also to negotiate new arrangements for trade in services, investment protection, remittance of profits, intellectual property, data protection, access to government procurement—all the new ideas and new issues which are now much more important in trade negotiation than tariffs. Therefore, there is very little economic downside to customs union. It would stop us doing what no sane Government would want to do and would in no way inhibit us from doing what every Government would want to do.

The fourth issue is the Irish border. Even if cross-border trade is tariff free, as I hope and believe it will be, rules of origin, phytosanitary and other checks will require a hard border. They will make that inevitable unless we have a customs union. A customs union is not in itself a sufficient condition for an open or soft border—there will still have to be a degree of regulatory alignment, particularly in the agricultural sector—but it is a necessary condition for an open border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

No! Keep going.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

At paragraph 4 of their guidelines, they say that it is the UK’s positions,

“which limit the depth of such a future partnership”,

and that:

“Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions”.


But they also say at paragraph 6 of their guidelines that if the UK’s positions on the customs union and the single market,

“were to evolve, the Union will be prepared to reconsider its offer”:

in other words, to improve its offer. We do not know how far-reaching such improvements would be but, if we go on refusing to allow our negotiators to explore the idea of a customs union, we will never find out, and that in my view will be irresponsible—hence the wording of the amendment. I do not recall at the time of the referendum any debate about a customs union.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord should be allowed to develop his arguments. The amendment is not on the table yet—it has not been put by the Speaker. So I ask the noble Lord, out of courtesy, to let the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, finish speaking.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Perhaps I may continue. I recall no debate at all at the time of the referendum on a customs union. The country voted narrowly to leave the European Union, but no one can argue that it voted knowingly to leave the customs union with the European Union.

The red line was laid down in October 2016 in the “citizens of nowhere” speech. One hears that there had not been much discussion in the Government; there certainly had been no discussion with Parliament. One wonders to what extent the economic consequences of the decision on customs union had been fully assessed and analysed within the Government; I have no idea. Other red lines have since been sensibly blurred; in my view, it is time to blur this one.

The House knows that I was and remain a keen remainer. I believe that, when a deal is struck, the country should be given a chance to say whether it is what it wants. That would be fair, but it is nevertheless our duty to help improve the deal and see how it could be made better. If in the end we do leave, it should be in a way that limits the damage to the country’s well-being and to the future of our children. That is why I believe that it makes sense for the Government to be asked to explore customs union. I beg to move.

[Lord Grocott]

I simply wanted to ask for information on the wording of the amendment, which requires the Government to put a statement to both Houses about the contents of an agreement on a customs union. I simply want to ask this: if such a statement is presented to both Houses, as his amendment requires, and if the House of Commons says yes and the House of Lords says no, what happens next?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Am I allowed to respond? I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government would be required to negotiate for a customs union and make a statement about the outcome of the negotiations, which would be before the withdrawal implementation Bill came to the House. It seems to me that the requirement on the Government is simply to negotiate. I may be wrong about the willingness of the other side to envision a customs union—we cannot require the Government to come back with a customs union—but we can require the Government to explain how hard they have tried and what kind of customs union they think might be available.

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

I am delighted to second the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I will seek to do so as briefly as he did, partly because he was so comprehensive in the arguments for a customs union and partly because we chewed over many of these issues in Committee and we plainly should not deal with them again. So I will not go into the issue of Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland, because I spoke twice on that in Committee.

I assume straightaway, because I have a regard for his intelligence, that the Minister responding to this debate is not going to suggest that the referendum result or the Conservative manifesto disqualifies us from proceeding in the direction suggested by the noble Lord. If I am wrong about that, I would be delighted to come back to it later. But there is one point made in the manifesto that I will dwell on for a moment—and, as clergymen occasionally say at the end of sermons, share with you all—because it allows me to bridge to the main argument we have today, which is about trade and trade opportunities for this country.

I confess to the House straightaway that I used to make my living helping to write manifestos, and so I have a certain regard for these things. The manifesto said at the beginning:

“People are rightly sceptical of politicians who claim to have easy answers to deeply complex problems”.


So I ask the House to turn its attention to what we have been promised on trade.

We are told by the Secretary of State for International Trade that a free trade agreement with the EU will be one of the “easiest in human history”. He also told us that, by the end of March 2019, the Government will have put in place or drafted or agreed up to 40 trade agreements with other countries. That is the backdrop. It seems to me that those propositions invite a little scepticism, and in a moment or two I will suggest to the House why that is the case.

I have a degree of expertise in this area for which I do not seek to make extravagant claims—I do not know as much about trade as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, does, and I know that expertise is a dangerous thing in the present climate. But I did, either on my own or with others, negotiate free trade agreements between the European Union and Mexico, Chile and most of the countries of the Mashreq and Maghreb region. We were part of the negotiation team for China’s accession to the WTO. We failed with Russia—for all sorts of reasons which the House will not be surprised about—and we made only limited progress with Mercosur, the San José dialogue and the Andean pact countries. So I know how difficult these things are, and some of the problems that will be faced in addressing the agenda mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

The first thing we have to do is secure our market in the European Union—50% of our trade. We then have to think about the 12% of trade with countries with which the European Union has concluded agreements already and the 8% with which it is negotiating trade agreements already. That adds up to about 70%. Of the remaining 30%, about half is with the United States, a quarter with China and Hong Kong, and the rest with everyone else.

How are we going to manage with the countries with which the European Union has negotiated deals already? I spent a particularly dreary afternoon on Maundy Thursday looking through the European Union-South Korea trade deal. It was dreary not because it is not a good deal—indeed, it is such a good deal that the Foreign Secretary not long ago boasted about the great increase in British trade with South Korea—but because it is even longer than a long day’s journey into night. It runs to 1,400 pages, 900 of which just list tariffs. The idea that you can simply Snopake the words “European Union” and insert “United Kingdom” and grandfather that trade agreement in nanoseconds—even nanoyears—is absurd.

First of all, the South Koreans know that we are the demandeur. They will know that we have a trade surplus with South Korea at the moment, which might make them a little resistant to being as helpful as they were with the European Union, which is, anyway, a much bigger market than the United Kingdom—500 million to about 65 million. There are technical issues as well that will be particularly demanding. I will not try to explain to the House—because I have only a vague notion of what it means—the problem with trigger volumes preventing surges of agricultural imports to a country. But that issue is one that will involve not just negotiations with South Korea but tripartite negotiations between us and the European Union as well as the South Koreans.

Even more important are rules of origin—something that used to be well understood by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Not long before the Foreign Secretary made a speech saying that there was no reason why we should not, after leaving the European Union, stay in the single market, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union pointed out that, on balance, he was in favour of staying in the customs union because, even though you would not then be able to do independent trade deals on your own, the issue of rules of origin was so important that we had to stay within the union so that that did not present problems for us.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to resume our debate after the Easter Recess. I hope that all noble Lords enjoyed a good break. I spent most of it studying amendments to this Bill. I hope that some doubts about how seriously the Government take these debates have now been dispelled, as noble Lords will have seen that the Government have already tabled many amendments on key aspects of the Bill. Further amendments will follow, relating to the provisions on delegated powers and on devolution. It is our firm and consistent desire to find consensus in this House on the contents of the Bill wherever possible, and I hope that our debates can proceed on a reasonably collaborative basis.

Unfortunately, as in Committee, we start our proceedings with some amendments to the Bill that the Government cannot envisage accepting—or indeed any variant on them. That is not, of course, to impugn the motivation of those supporting the amendments or to deny the importance of the subject matter. Put simply—this will probably surprise nobody in the House—the Government simply do not agree with the proposed approach.

I am, of course, grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate on the vital issue of our future economic relationship with the EU. As the Prime Minister stated in her Mansion House speech, we are seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than under any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. The Government have been clear that the UK, in its entirety, is leaving the customs union. For the sake of clarity, a customs union—as has been pointed out by many noble Lords—has a single external border and sets identical tariffs for trade with the rest of the world. International trade policy is consequently an exclusive competence of the EU, to avoid the creation of different customs rates in different parts of the EU customs union.

The nub of the issue is this. If the UK were to remain in the customs union and be bound by the EU's common external tariff, it would mean providing preferential access to the UK market for countries that the EU agrees trade deals with, without necessarily gaining preferential access for UK exports to such countries. Alternatively, we would need the EU to negotiate with third countries on the UK’s behalf. This would leave us with less influence over our international trade policy than we have now, and would not, in our humble assertion, be in the best interests of UK businesses.

By leaving the customs union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world and maintain as frictionless trade as possible in goods between the UK and EU, providing a powerful and positive voice for free trade across the globe. There are real opportunities for the UK from increasing our trade with fast-growing economies around the world. The EU itself predicts that 90% of future world GDP growth is expected to be generated outside Europe—a trend expected to continue over the next five to 10 years.

In assessing the options for the UK’s future customs relationship with the EU, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK, and by three key strategic objectives. First, we want to ensure that UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible. Secondly, we want to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland—a commitment that was solidified by December’s joint report. Thirdly, we want to establish an independent international trade policy.

Last year, in its future partnership paper, the Government set out two potential options for our customs arrangements with the EU. These were reiterated by the Prime Minister in her speech at the Mansion House earlier this year. I will give a few more details of those options.

Option 1 is a new customs partnership between the UK and the EU. At the border, the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world whose final destination is the EU—including by applying the same tariffs and the same rules of origin as the EU for those goods. By following this approach, we would know that all goods entering the EU via the UK would pay the correct EU duties, removing the need for customs processes at the UK-EU border. But, importantly, we would also put in place a mechanism so that the UK would be able to apply its own tariff and trade policy for goods intended only for the UK market.

The second option would be a highly streamlined customs arrangement under which, while introducing customs processes between the UK and the EU, we would jointly agree to implement a range of measures to minimise frictions to trade, together of course with specific provisions for Northern Ireland. This option would include measures to simplify the requirements for moving goods across borders; it would reduce the risk of delays at ports and airports; and it would see the continuation of existing levels of UK-EU customs co-operation, with mutual assistance and data sharing.

Of course, the precise form of any new customs arrangements will be the subject of negotiation, and this will form a key part of our future economic partnership with the European Union. The Government have formed this policy not arbitrarily but because we do not believe that a customs union is in the best interests of the UK and of UK businesses.

I understand that many noble Lords disagree with our analysis, or believe that our goals are unreachable. However, we cannot support Amendments 1 and 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and Amendments 2 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would have the effect of requiring the Government to make a Statement to Parliament on the steps taken towards the delivery of an objective the Government have clearly ruled out.

We in the Government are trying to seek the best possible future arrangements for the UK. I am confident we will succeed, and the progress we have made already in areas that many thought impossible demonstrates how all sides have been willing to break new ground in order to move forwards. We have set out our two potential options for a future customs relationship with the EU, but these amendments would send a signal that the Government will not seek to negotiate them, and instead pursue an outcome that the Government have ruled out.

I hope that noble Lords will accept our sincerity in our negotiating goals. I will also add, before noble Lords make a final decision, that I do not seek to give false hope that the Government will reflect further between now and Third Reading. I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Wigley, will not press their amendments.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate. Some made speeches that were more predictable than others, and the Minister’s was a classic restatement of the position that the Government have explained all along; I am grateful to him for repeating so clearly what he has said so many times before.

I ought to pay tribute to my past—my various masters from the past—who are marking my homework so harshly. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, an apology. I am sure that he explained to the country at large the truth about the customs union and that he did it every day, morning, noon and night, but I am not sure that the country was listening. What I remember is the man who is now the Foreign Secretary telling the country, “Nobody is even talking about leaving the single market”. He published that the day after the referendum, having said it throughout the referendum campaign. So I exonerate the noble Lord—I have to; he was my boss.

As for the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and a number of others, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I ask them to please read what the amendment says. We are not asking for Britain to stay in the EU customs union—we cannot. As a non-member of the EU, we cannot be a member of the customs union. We are asking for an arrangement that enables us to participate in “a” customs union, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that it does not follow that we can only get the deal that the Turks got. At the time, Turkey’s main concern was the export to the EU of its walnuts. I do not believe that that would be the principal concern if the Government were to act on this and start negotiating for a customs union. I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but he is much better informed about Labour Party policy than I am.

In the course of my speech I was very worried to see the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, nod enthusiastically. I hesitated, but I realised that it was only because I had cited Professor Patrick Minford. I will know not to do it again.

Although the Minister’s response was a beautiful restatement of government policy, it did not deal with any of the arguments advanced by those of us who tabled the amendment. The best argument made in the debate was that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The customs union was not fully debated in the House of Commons as it dealt with this Bill. It is the job of the House of Lords to give the House of Commons the opportunity to debate whether we should seek a customs union. There are plenty of customs unions of various kinds between various countries around the world, and they are all sui generis. I do not know what terms we could get but we will never know unless we find out. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

To follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, I am tempted by the reverse approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the mechanism that he has described. I have just one point to add to the debate: I am worried about the emphasis on the single market—the internal UK market. There was a debate in Europe, following the Cockfield White Paper 30 years ago, about how much uniformity was needed in a single market; how much you could rely on mutual recognition; how much you did not need to standardise at all and how much you could harmonise. Noble Lords will remember that that debate became quite controversial at times. Some of us argued that the Commission took a more expansive view of the need to harmonise and standardise, rather than to recognise diversity. In my view, devolution inherently means a recognition of diversity. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, that the Government have an evil, malign intent here. However, the way that this dossier has been handled has created suspicions in Scotland and Wales of such an intent.

Looking at the criteria set out in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, there is no difficulty with a common framework in areas necessary to,

“safeguard the security of the UK”,

or,

“provide access to justice”,

or,

“enable the management of common resources”,

or,

“ensure compliance with international obligations”,

obviously. I pause on,

“new trade agreements and international treaties”,

because there are suspicions that the fox might get into the hen house. The real suspicion arises over the first item:

“enable the functioning of the UK internal market”.

I do not think “enable” is a transitive verb. As all noble Lords recognise, “ennoble” is, but “enable” is intransitive. However, that is not the main reason that I object to this section of the amendment. The phrase,

“the functioning of the UK internal market”,

could be interpreted very widely, and there are those in Scotland and, presumably, in Wales who assume that the Government might want to interpret it widely.

We do not have a single market in the UK now; it is variegated, as are the views on the extent to which it needs to be further harmonised or advanced. I wonder whether it would not be better if the Government could drop from their presentation on this dossier, on Brexit and devolution, the references to the UK internal market. There would be very few areas where it needed to be used and they would all be covered by one of the other criteria in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. The criteria set out in this amendment—and in one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, to which the noble Lord and I both put our names but which was not moved—reflect a set of principles for common UK frameworks agreed at a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations last October. They are certainly a basis for moving forward and already have a buy-in from the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.

When creating United Kingdom frameworks, we do not want to find a situation where, when we come out of the European Union, there is something which impedes a Scottish beef producer freely selling their beef in Wales or a Welsh sheep producer selling lamb in Belfast. These benefits predate our entry into the European Common Market. It is also important to remind ourselves that the restrictions on the Scottish Parliament relate not only to reserved matters or EU law, but to what is in Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act. That specifically constrains the Scottish Parliament from doing anything which modifies Articles IV and VI of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707. If one reads these two articles of the Acts of Union, drafted 280 years before the Cockfield report, one finds not a bad model, in the language of its time, for a customs union and a single market which have served us well over three centuries.

I also note that as well as the criteria that have been agreed, the Scottish Government themselves, in their legislative consent memorandum to the Scottish Parliament in September last year, said at paragraph 19:

“The Scottish Government has made clear, repeatedly, its willingness to negotiate UK frameworks in certain areas previously covered by EU law. This could be, for example, to support the functioning of UK markets, or to facilitate the management of common environmental resources”.


Therefore, I believe there is a basis for reaching agreements here, but it is important that these are not imposed.

In giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the other place last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Mundell, stated at paragraph 21 of that committee’s first report of Session 2017-19:

“The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed that any common frameworks should be agreed with the devolved administrations, stating:


A UK framework is not a framework that the UK Government imposes; it is a framework that is agreed across the United Kingdom”.


It is important that we approach this issue with that in mind. That is why I think the amendment suggested and spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is helpful. Indeed, that Select Committee went on to recommend that:

“Any common framework must require the consent of the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where relevant”.


It is important to have a dispute resolution mechanism, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, because there is potential for some disagreement in setting up these frameworks—I hope not as much as is sometimes thought—for which a dispute resolution mechanism is required. One assumes that once these frameworks are established—that goes beyond the ambit of this Bill—they will not be static but will develop. It might be useful at some stage—not in this debate or in this Bill—to get an indication from the United Kingdom Government as to how they see these frameworks working after they have been established. Do they want to see common standards apply across the United Kingdom, but have diversity within that as to how they are implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in England through the United Kingdom Parliament? That too will require some form of dispute resolution mechanism. The Select Committee, to which I have referred, recommends that,

“the UK Government and the devolved administrations agree a mechanism by which disputes can be resolved in the event that common frameworks cannot be agreed”.

I think that that is a two-stage process. First, there is the establishment of the common frameworks, where the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is very pertinent, and, as we move forward, there is the issue of how we look at the operation of the common frameworks, which I believe will also need some form of dispute resolution mechanism. However, it is important that we move forward with the common frameworks. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, certainly reflects agreements that have already been reached between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

When we have negotiated the deal it will be an extremely significant moment. We will put that deal to both Houses in a Motion to approve or not, as the case may be. This House has already considered the issue of a second referendum and rejected it. The public rejected it in the last general election.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Is the Minister seriously saying that it would be out of the question for the House of Commons to consider, in addition to whether the deal should be accepted or rejected, whether there should be an attempt to improve the deal or whether it should be put to the people? Are these options to be ruled out altogether? Is it Hobson’s choice? Is it this deal—good, indifferent or bad—or no deal and no question of an extension or trying to improve it, or putting it to the people? If that is the Minister’s position, it is almost as astonishing as the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his seventh intervention, some time ago, that the people would be outraged if they were given the final decision. I do not know if the Minister thinks that, but what he is saying about the meaningful vote is rather outrageous.

[Lord Callanan]

I am sorry that the noble Lord is outraged, but I am not going to stand here and try to instruct the House of Commons on what to do. It is quite capable of taking its own decisions. Many Members of this House have been Members of the House of Commons. I have not, but I am sure that if they want a vote on any subject they like they are quite capable of deciding the matter themselves.

Our focus now should be on making a success of Brexit, working to get the best deal possible, providing certainty and taking decisions on what kind of country the UK will be in the future. That is the clear instruction given to this Government in both the referendum and the general election. We believe that it is our duty to deliver upon it. A second referendum would pose a—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot claim the knowledge of Northern Ireland of many other noble Lords who have spoken. However, I wanted to contribute to this debate and have added my name to Amendment 218 because 25 years ago I was privileged to be a member of the Opsahl commission, an independent commission or citizens’ inquiry into the future of Northern Ireland. I have also been very much influenced by the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition; it practises what I called in my academic work the politics of solidarity in difference, and had an influence on the wording of the Good Friday agreement which I do not think is always sufficiently recognised.

Earlier in Committee, I repeated a question that I asked at Second Reading: how is the requirement in the Good Friday agreement for an equivalent level of human rights protection in Northern Ireland and the Republic to be maintained if the citizens of the former could no longer look to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights? I noted that in his helpful letter to Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed out that the agreement preceded the charter and, as the charter is not referenced in the agreement, the Bill should not affect our obligations to it. However, the point is about equivalence. If the charter now applies in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, with the loss of various rights in the latter, how, I asked again, will that equivalence be maintained? But answer came there none, so I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could give an answer to that today, especially as, since then, I have read of the concerns of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on this score, and that of a number of human rights organisations and academics in a recent letter to the Irish Times. That letter argued that we need greater clarity on how the restated commitment in the European Commission’s draft protocol to no diminution of rights in Northern Ireland will be achieved in the absence of the charter. Can the Minister explain that?

By the same token, while the,

“total, steadfast commitment to the Belfast agreement”—[Official Report, 12/3/18; col. 1414.]

given by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on Monday, was very welcome, it is difficult to see how that agreement will not be undermined if the charter is removed and nothing is put in its place. As a briefing by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission underlines, equality and rights provisions are central to the agreement. It is no wonder that people in Northern Ireland are not worried about its future. A number of organisations, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, are now arguing, in the light of these risks to the human rights framework, that this is a key moment to renew discussions on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Will the Minister undertake to consider that?

Like my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, I am particularly concerned about the implications of withdrawal for children and young people in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned briefly when we debated the protection of children and their rights at an earlier stage in Committee. The Children’s Law Centre in Belfast—this links in with what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said—consulted children and young people and found that they were angry and frustrated that they had no influence on a decision which has particular implications for them in terms of their childhood and their future. The report of the conference to which my noble friend referred, which was organised by children and young people themselves, details their concerns. Has the Minister read that report? If not, will he undertake to do so?

Some of us attended a recent meeting with some of the children and young people held in your Lordships’ House. Talking to them really brought home to me what a hard border means in terms of everyday life. It is about not just goods and lorries but about how everyday lives are lived across the border. For example, what happens when separated parents live either side of the border? What happens when your school is the other side of the border? When this question was put at the conference to the Secretary-General of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, he responded, “I can confidently say I don’t know, one of many areas that we don’t know yet and have to work out”. That was not very reassuring. What happens if you need specialist health treatment on the other side of the border, or if the nearest emergency health treatment is the other side? These are the kinds of concerns the young people raised with us and they point to a real threat to their social right of access to services and to their right to family life.

The Government have not yet managed to convince anyone that they have a realistic answer to the problem of the border between Northern Ireland outside the EU and the Republic inside it. Talking to these children brought home to me the damage this could inflict on their rights and well-being. This amendment would address some of those concerns. What reassurances can the Minister give to these children, because they are listening?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to which I have added my name. I do not need to say very much in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, because he introduced it so clearly and fully, except to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey: I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, tonight. It seems to me that it sets out very clearly the commitments made by the UK Government, which we all agree are very important. In its second paragraph, it provides for the possibility that there might be something in the magic solutions to the border. If there were, that would be taken into account in the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I therefore hope that the Government will accept it.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, my only point is that the extraordinary linguistic fudge in December is very hard for the lawyers to construe. It has been construed by the Commission lawyers in the 118-page draft withdrawal treaty, which was published on 28 February. It has been construed as requiring “a common regulatory area” in Northern Ireland and including Northern Ireland in the EU’s customs territory. Many in London have denounced these solutions; many in London and some in Northern Ireland find them unacceptable. However, they have at least tried; they have produced a draft treaty with draft clauses explaining how they think that fudge could be construed and turned into treaty language. We have not done so: all we have done is make another speech, including the same two suggestions that were made last summer, one of which the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU immediately dismissed the day after as blue-skies thinking. We still seem to be at the stage of blue-skies thinking, but next week in the European Council, we will be confronted by a draft treaty that provides a solution acceptable to some in this country but not acceptable, perhaps, to all in this country. It is half way there. I really worry that if we stick to speeches and do not produce drafts, it is very hard to see how this negotiation will reach a conclusion.

I very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and it is in the spirit of that amendment that the Government should be thinking very hard of producing the legal language that they want, and then a real negotiation could start in Brussels. Personally, I do not think that it is possible to find the legal language that matches the Mansion House speech. I believe that the only solution that is likely to be acceptable to all parties in Ireland and in this country is continuing membership of a customs union for the United Kingdom as a whole, which is, of course, what the CBI, the TUC and manufacturing industry want, and we all want for other reasons as well. We do not all want it, but on my side, we do all want it. I think that that is where it will end up. But if the Government think there is another way to go, they really need to produce the language and put it on the table in Brussels quickly.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Is there not a more sinister potential interpretation of the Government’s behaviour—that they have looked into the customs partnership paper that they published in August and decided that nothing can really be made to work out of it? Therefore, their hope at the moment is that the EU 26 will force Ireland to accept some form of hard border because it is in the trade interests of the EU 26 to make sure that there is a smooth exit for Britain. Is this not an extremely dangerous situation for us in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, in which we might end up in a situation where the EU 26 agrees to some form of hard border that then leads ultimately to a further outbreak of the Troubles?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I would not want to attribute sinister motives to the Government—I think that somebody managed to get the word “cock-up” into Hansard the other night. Conspiracies are very rare. It is possible—and there are some who believe—that the 26 will lean on Dublin; that is perfectly possible. It is unlikely, and it is of course the case that the European Council decides by unanimity, so if one were looking for a settlement in the European Council which meant that the 26 leaned on Mr Varadkar, Mr Varadkar would have his vote and could say that he did not agree. However, I have seen no signs of the 26 leaning on the Irish. It looks to me from what Mr Tusk said when he went to Dublin the other day that we are heading for another European Council where the Irish position on the hard border and our position on the hard border are recognised by everybody. Nobody wants a hard border.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, surely when he speculates on these matters, the Foreign Secretary himself has publicly contemplated the prospect of a hard border, and his minute to the Prime Minister has been published.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Certainly, I was unwilling to impute evil motives to the Government, but I am even more unwilling to try to interpret the tergiversations of the Foreign Secretary.

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

My Lords, I was very moved by the speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, the former Primate of All Ireland. I hope I can say without causing too much offence that I wish all the leaders of Christian denominations in Northern Ireland and Ireland as a whole had behaved over the years with his generosity of spirit. In saying that, I include the members of the Church of which I am a member. In his remarks, he reminded us of the terrible collateral damage we can do to things that really matter if we simply blunder forward, motivated in some cases by dogma in what is, after all, very largely a faith-based project. I am sorry to use that expression after referring to the noble and right reverend Lord, but that is what it amounts to.

I do not want to go through all of the arguments that have been so persuasively used or all the evidence that has been stacked up. I spoke about this issue briefly at Second Reading because I feel passionately about it. As an addendum to the Good Friday agreement, I chaired the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. The report was denounced at the time by some Members of this House and by some present members of the Government. I remember one calling that policing report “a moral stain”, but it has stood the test of time. I am delighted that we have not had the same number of police officers killed in the last 20 years that we had in the preceding 25 or 30 years, when 300 died. I therefore feel very strongly about this and I entirely endorse what the noble Lord said earlier about the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union in taking these things forward.

I remember when I was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland—a destination, according to the Prime Minister’s friends, that she regarded as a Siberian power station. I remember how important it was to meet Ministers from the Republic in Brussels. Very often, they were meeting representatives of Northern Ireland or the Northern Ireland Government for the first time in serious official discussions, so all of that matters. I want to point out the dangers involved when you wrap up together the border.

There is a wonderful book about the border by Colm Tóibín, called Bad Blood. That is not the sort of place for which you can provide easy technological solutions. We have heard a lot about that Smart Border report, which was a consultant’s report to the European Parliament. I thought I had to take it seriously, because I heard it advocated on the “Today” programme by one of the self-titled “Brains for Brexit”, who gave a whole interview about the importance and the value of this report. So I read it, and the first thing he says is that he does not know very much about Northern Ireland. You can say that again. He goes on to point out that the report does not cover agrifood or things such as phytosanitary standards, and says that while he talks about how you can speed up customs arrangements, he does not remotely suggest that you can do without a border or customs arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic.