House of Lords Reform
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for ingenuity—very few of us can.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord True, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—if he would care to listen—I was struck by the thought that it might be quite difficult to persuade the public outside that, because of something said in this Chamber 25 years ago, the mandate of the Labour Party set out in its manifesto should be put to one side, and nothing more can be done to reform the House of Lords because some commitment was given by somebody 25 years ago in this House. I think that would sell with some difficulty in the Dog and Duck.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My concern is that the Bill has to pass. Obstructing it would be to obstruct the result of the general election. I am convinced that it will pass. It is a pity that we will lose so many of our friends, although I have a hunch that some of them will be miraculously reincarnated as life Peers on New Year’s Day—I certainly hope so.
I have three points to make. First, the Government are right to want to pause and draw breath after this first Bill. It seems sensible because the country needs a national debate.
The role of the Lords is not clearly understood. China and North Korea get by without a second Chamber but I think that most of us, and certainly most democracies, seem to think that there is an advantage in having an institution to keep a check on what a majoritarian Government can do in the primary assembly, to improve their legislation and to look out for regional concerns. I agree, but that case has to be made to the country because right now, it is not widely understood.
If we are honest, we also have to admit that we as a House could do our job better. These debates tend to be full of self-congratulation. Of course, it is a tremendous privilege to be here, and we do work hard—on primary legislation we do a much more thorough job than does the other place. But our scrutiny of secondary legislation is, like the other place’s, superficial and spasmodic, and we are too London-centric to cover the regional dimension optimally. To me, that points to wanting a House with more expertise relevant to legislation and drawn from a wider pool.
What does that mean for composition? Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am wary of direct elections. I lived in the United States and saw how having two Chambers which see themselves as equally legitimate all too often results in deadlock. That would be a more serious problem in a parliamentary than a presidential system. It is also the case that politicisation tends to squeeze out expertise, and we need expertise.
Indirect elections could be an answer. As a Scottish unionist, I like the Bundesrat model, at least for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; how best to provide for English regional representation is not for a Scot to tackle. But seats are allocated in the Bundesrat on the basis of degressive proportionality, favouring the smaller and more distant states, and copying that would reinforce our role as the cement of the union. But our legislative performance would not necessarily be improved at all.
So, are we stuck with an all-appointed House, as in Canada? Not necessarily: hybridity could be a good thing. Certainly, if our main task is to write good law, it will be a pity for us if we lose the expertise and experience of those who have had to apply the bad laws we have written.
My last point is this: let us at least correct the most glaring anomaly in the appointments system, as highlighted by Mr Johnson’s insouciant exuberance about convention. Most countries have honours systems but very few conflate recognition of past service with qualification for future work on legislation. Some of us are unqualified, frankly, and the House is mocked for its excessive notional size. The answer is simple, surely: follow precedent. Most Peers already have no right to sit here. If there are to be more life Peers, let us have two categories: those simply honoured with a title; and those who are willing to do, and well-suited to doing, a legislative job—and found to be such by the appointments commission, with a wider remit. Category 2 could be drawn from all parts of the kingdom. Degressive proportionality applies. There could —indeed, there should—be a ceiling on their number with a retirement age or term limits, after which they would transfer to category 1, but let us not drain away the current expertise until we have found a way of ensuring that we tap into more, and do so more systematically.
So, here are my four points.
Noble Lords
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am concluding. First, we need an informed debate led by a government Green Paper. Secondly, the House should be more fit for purpose, perform better and better reflect national and regional disparities—that should be our aim. Thirdly, it is high time that we distinguish between recognising past service and conferring a future right to legislate. Fourthly, this issue should not be rushed; it is dangerous nonsense to suggest that, until it is settled, the Government cannot do what their manifesto promised.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, on the basis of how quickly we are currently getting through Members’ contributions, we are likely to sit until 11.30 pm. If that is what Members wish, so be it, but I note the advisory speaking time of five minutes.
Sudan
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I join those thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate and pay tribute to his long and sustained personal interest in Africa.
I feel that we ought, as a country, to acknowledge some responsibility for the ongoing disaster in Sudan. For half a century, we were the colonial power. I was taught at university by a former governor of the Blue Nile province. He was a splendid man, but clearly we had failed to embed the structures of a stable society, because the disasters that followed our departure have been wholly home-grown. They did not and do not result from invasion, non-domestic terrorism or economic warfare; they are home-grown. Therefore, they are, to some extent, our fault. We really should not look away, because history means that we now host the largest diaspora community of Sudanese outside Africa. We should not look away because we are the lead at the UN on how to stir the world to live up to its responsibilities under Resolution 2417: how to stop the killing and the starving and how to find the 60% of the 2024 humanitarian aid pledge that has still not been funded? Rapid deployment of the full £89 million we pledged would set a very good example.
We must not look away despite all the difficulties of getting the Security Council into action. I doubt whether the Russians are proving very helpful. In Sudan, they now seem to be supporting both sides. For a long time, they supported the RSF. They have now, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, done a deal with the SAF, securing a Red Sea military base at Port Sudan. Their interest is in chaos, distraction and disruption. Conversely, we need to demonstrate to the global South that we care as much about saving lives in Khartoum as in Kyiv.
I am grateful for the Minister’s account of what we are doing in New York, but I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that the Security Council really must be more active. I have four suggestions for what could be done. The first is to secure a ceasefire. The August Geneva attempt by the Americans, Swiss and Swedes failed. Is it now our turn to try, perhaps with the French? Secondly, the arms embargo needs to be widened so that it covers all Sudan, and of course it must be properly enforced. Thirdly, I hope we are using our lead role in the Human Rights Council to get the fact-finding mission’s mandate renewed. Reported atrocities really need to be investigated. Fourthly, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, spoke about Chapter VII, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has proposed that there should be an international intervention force under UN or African Union auspices. Should we not at least be exploring that idea with our European and American friends? The Russians might resist, but why not put them on the spot?
Despite all that, I of course accept that by far the most urgent priority for British policy must be to seek to stop the Sudanese starving. We have heard the numbers—25 million, half the population, currently going hungry; 13 million children; 4 million under five; three-quarters of a million, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has just said, facing imminent starvation—so securing humanitarian access has to be the paramount task. Of course, operating in a war zone without a ceasefire has huge risks, but the world cannot wait. The work of trying to save these people cannot hang fire until a ceasefire is secured.
I am not sure that the scale of the disaster is fully understood in this country. The forced mass migration is now actually greater than what central and eastern Europe saw in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. What is going on is the largest child displacement anywhere in the world: 13 million people are fleeing their homes, chased out. Two million of them are seeking sanctuary abroad, three-quarters of a million in South Sudan, with nearly 3,000 joining them every day, 1,000 crossing into Chad every day and 1,000 managing to reach Libya every day. The problems for host countries make it a regional crisis, with regional assistance programmes needed. I am very glad that we announced in July that we would help Sudanese refugees in Libya, but £2 million is not a great deal.
To pick up on what the most reverend Primate said, I will consider how this should affect our immigration policies. I have three suggestions. There are currently 5,293 people from Sudan in the asylum backlog queue in this country; 2,129 of them arrived in small boats in the last year. Given that they are fleeing horrific ethnic cleansing, murder and starvation back home, it is not surprising that 99% of asylum cases—when eventually heard—result in the applicant’s claim being accepted and asylum being granted.
It is astonishing to me that the last Government wanted all small boat arrivals made inadmissible—automatically and in perpetuity—and wanted them all deported instantly. Apart from the illegality and immorality, that policy ignored the practical reality: because of the diaspora community here, the Sudanese who are granted asylum tend to settle in rather well once they are allowed to work. Given that, and the 99% acceptance rate, could we not fast-track the Sudanese in the queue?
Secondly, while 2,000 came in small boats, only 19 came in the official way via the official resettlement scheme we run with the help of UNHCR. Stopping death in the channel means providing safe and legal routes. Should we not tell UNHCR that we would take more? Back in 2019, the previous Government told it that we would take a global total—coming from anywhere and everywhere—of up to 5,000 a year. Last year we took 485 and, of them, only 19 were from Sudan. That does not quite match the scale of the crisis there, and I hope the new regime at the Home Office is having another look.
Thirdly and finally, perhaps the new regime could also look at the family reunion visa rules. About 600 family reunion visas are issued each year to the Sudanese. Given the size of the diaspora here and the horrors out there, one would expect rather higher numbers. Need the rules be applied quite so restrictively?
The big point, which all in this debate recognise, is that we in this country have responsibilities and must behave responsibly. We cannot say that Sudan is a far-off country of which we know nothing. We cannot wash our hands and look the other way; no one should, but this country certainly cannot.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I can remember from a time when I was a county councillor that the emergency planning committee was quite a central committee of the council; we do not see so many of those around these days. Unless we address the issue of resilience and preparedness at every level of government, we will not be in the right position to deal with problems, as I said in my previous answer. Yes, work is ongoing across government on that issue now.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
One of the striking and shocking aspects of this brilliant report is the proof that requiring regulators to operate commercially, competing for business, risks their capture by business. Grenfell shows the piper playing the tune that business wanted and that cost lives. I hope the Government will take up the recommendation to have a single regulator for the construction industry, and I really hope that they will site that regulator and all its regulatory functions in the public sector.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
One of the starkest issues in here is about dishonesty, incompetence and responsibility, including not even checking the qualifications of those responsible for undertaking inspections. I do not know if the noble Lord’s response to the report was similar to mine but, as he can see if I hold it up, there are lots of pink and red marks where I have highlighted it. I went through it thinking at every stage, “How did this happen? How could this happen?” I am grateful to him for his comments, and we will report back to the House on those points.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard ExcerptsMonday 23rd October 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 175-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (20 Oct 2023)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I offer a very brief word in support of what the noble Baroness has just said on Motion ZE1. I know very little about the politics and governance practices of the West Midlands, but when I lived in America I was privileged to watch at close hand the governance practices of the Deep South and of Mayor Willie Brown’s San Francisco and Mayor Daley’s Chicago. As I listened in both the previous debate and this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, explaining what looks to me like a rather unusual practice developing in the West Midlands, I was strongly reminded of the practices of state governments in the Deep South of the United States. I do not think that is a road we should go down, and I very much hope the House will once again support the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am once again grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group of Motions and amendments. As I indicated at the outset, the Government cannot support the three amendments to the government Motions in this group.
Motion F1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would have the same effect as the original amendment but apply only to local authorities. I urge the House not to go down this road. The basis of the CCA model is that only upper-tier and unitary authorities can be members, not least because they are the bodies in whom financial responsibility will be vested and who will contribute financially to the running of the CCA.
However, as I am sure the noble Baroness accepts, because we debated this at length at earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise the vital role that district councils play. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, and as Ministers said in the other place, we are sympathetic to the idea that district councils should have voting rights pertaining to them as non-constituent members. We have deliberately left scope for this to happen. However, we are clear that that should be a matter to be determined at the local level. District councils need not be shut out of the room, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested, nor do I expect them to be so. We expect the upper-tier local authorities that we agree devolution deals with to work with district councils to deliver the powers most effectively being provided. In discussions thus far, we are encouraging potential deal areas to consider how best to involve district councils, in recognition of the role they can play. My ministerial colleagues have been engaging personally with district councils and the District Councils’ Network on this issue.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has returned to the charge on virtual or hybrid meetings with her Motion J1. As I stated in my opening remarks, at the heart of the issue is the strength of the scrutiny exercised by local authorities and the importance of maintaining the integrity of local democratic principles. I need not remind the House that virtual and hybrid proceedings have significant limitations for scrutiny and interaction of members of any legislature. As such, we do not agree that councillors should be able to attend these meetings and cast their votes remotely. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendment in lieu. I respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who drew the comparison with committees of this House, by saying that the functions, roles and powers of committees of this House are wholly different from the functions, roles and powers of committees of local authorities.
Afghanistan
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
On the geopolitics, I echo the comments of my former colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Ricketts, but I will use my time to point to a lacuna in the Lord Privy Seal’s five-strand speech.
I have in mind the plight of the 3,117 Afghan asylum seekers who are already here, trapped in the 70,000-long queue of those seeking asylum, not allowed to work and with no recourse to public funds, other than the miserable £5 daily subsistence allowance. It is plainly wrong that, as recently as last week, some of them were receiving rejection letters based on the current Home Office guidance, which states that
“the proportion of the population affected by indiscriminate violence is small and not at a level where a returnee, even one with no family or other network and who has no experience living in Kabul, would face a serious … threat to their life or person”.
That is shaming. That was last week. Surely it was obvious by then that anyone who had fled Afghanistan, perhaps particularly those who had come here, would be at serious risk if sent back. We must not send them back.
Is it not obvious that, where someone has been refused asylum and is in the long, slow appeals process, the initial claim must now be reassessed, in the light of the changed situation, to see whether asylum can now be granted and the stress and expense of the court procedure avoided? I would be grateful if the Minister replying to the debate assured us that all current Afghan asylum cases will now be so reassessed—better late than never. Let us do the decent thing.
I hope that he will also respond to the leader of the Opposition’s call to drop the plan in the Nationality and Borders Bill to criminalise those fleeing from the Taliban who arrive in small boats. I hope that he will also respond to the Liberal Democrat leader’s appeal to extend the scope of the ARAP programme to anyone, employee or contractor, who worked for or helped any UK agency, military or civilian—be it the BBC World Service, the British Council, the embassy or NGOs. The Taliban will not discriminate by the British funder and neither must we. The scheme must be extended to those who have fled Afghanistan but would have been eligible for it had they felt able to stay. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that score as well. We may be facing defeat, but we can still avoid dishonour.
G7 and NATO Summits
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, China is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases and accounts for more than half of the global demand for coal—so we want to work with China in the run-up to COP to raise its ambition on climate change and find a path to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees at COP 26.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Cornish weather and on managing not to insult or annoy Canada. The biggest challenge to the G7 was clearly the accelerating pandemic, which has now taken 3.5 million lives across the world, with more dying this year already than in all of last year. The shaming fact is that only 0.3% of vaccine supply currently goes to low-income countries. Some 11 billion doses are needed now—so I am afraid that the G7 failed the challenge. Its aspiration to supply 870 million doses by the end of next year, and our talk of contributing 100 million, is painfully inadequate in both quantity and speed. I am afraid that Gordon Brown is right. Will the Minister please convey to the Cabinet the feeling of very many of us in this House that it would be good if we raised our game on vaccine supply before the G20 meeting in Venice?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. He is right that this is a huge global challenge and we all need to work together to deliver on it. However, I point out that the Oxford vaccine is a very important way of helping tackle this pandemic. Of course, we part-funded it, and it is being produced at cost to low and middle-income countries and at scale through manufacturing partnerships across the world. This is already ensuring that more than half a billion doses of the vaccine are available across the world. Of course, we have to ensure that we continue to roll it out, but it is also worth remembering the huge contribution that we have already made through the Oxford vaccine.
House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
Technically, the hybrid House has been terrific, and the technical staff warmly deserve the thanks they are getting from all around the House. Professionally, it has been acutely frustrating. The nadir for me was when we all had two minutes each to give our verdict on the treaty which now governs relations with our nearest neighbours, although I guess that the limitation may have suited the Government rather well.
That is the trouble. Like the Constitution Committee in its important report, I do not believe that we have been holding the Executive to account as well as we should and as well as we normally do. Hearing the arguments tested in debate really matters for a Cross-Bencher such as me, by definition knowledgeable on only a small minority of the issues that the House has to tackle and not helped by the kindly tutelage of any Whip. The constraints of the hybrid House preclude the spontaneous to and fro, interventions and give and take of genuine debate. Set-piece speeches help me a bit, but not much, in making up my mind; it is the real debate that counts, so the sooner we can all get back, the better for me and, I think, for the effectiveness of the House.
I would retain two innovations. First, electronic voting works well, and it is astonishing that the Leader in the other place spurns it, insisting instead on proxy voting. The UCL Constitution Unit in its admirable recent report revealed the astonishing fact that, on the last sitting day before Easter, the Government Whip in the other place cast 329 votes. That is, as the chair of the Procedure Committee in the other place delicately put it, “open to abuse”. I am with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for the reasons they gave. Instantaneous electronic voting is now common in legislatures. Ambulant voting, as in our Lobbies, is beginning to look a little archaic. I would phase in the change, permitting those who want to stretch their legs still to do so—I do not believe many would. It think that it would rapidly be possible to reduce the time Divisions take, perhaps to three or four minutes.
Secondly, I would retain remote participation, but only in a severely limited form. Yesterday, I took part in a hugely valuable committee hearing with witnesses in New York, Sydney and Singapore. I agree with the Constitution Committee that that should go on being possible.
However, for the business in the Chamber, participating and voting remotely should be permitted only exceptionally for those unable, for reasons of distance or disability, to get here. It should not be permitted for those who could get here but choose not to do so. We signed up to be here; that is our job, and I think we do it better when we are here. I therefore warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said today—I would add that I greatly admired the way he supported Lady Thatcher in the House in her latter days; it did him enormous credit.
Finally, I would make any decision to participate remotely irrevocable for a Session and not changeable from day to day, whereas we should all be free to choose, Division by Division, whether to cast an archaic ambulant vote or a daringly 21st-century electronic one.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is next on the list, has withdrawn. I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs.
Global Britain
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, we remain committed to transparency and we will continue parliamentary and independent scrutiny of the aid budget. The form that this takes following the merger will be set out in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I worked for Judith Hart and with Clare Short, and I admired the work of Andrew Mitchell. What made them great Development Secretaries was not just the independence of the ministries, but their passion for development and the support they got from No 10. I am not reassured by the Prime Minister’s continuing to parrot the false dichotomy of national interest versus helping the poorest. It is poverty abroad that breeds disease, disorder, migration and terrorism. The noble Baroness assures us that the fact that the Statement made no reference to the primacy of the poverty criterion is not sinister. I hope she is right. Will she please disassociate herself from the totally unworthy slur on a professional department of calling it a great cashpoint in the sky?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have very happily talked on record several times already during this Statement about the fantastic work of the department and the fact that we want this to be at the centre of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Foreign and development policy will be fully integrated in Ministers’ portfolios in the new department, and we want to bring the best of overseas development and diplomacy together, to make sure that we have a coherent and strong international strategy that means we can play our part in the world in the way that we want to, and show leadership, as we have done in so many areas already.
Global Britain
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we have a clear timetable for negotiations going forward and look forward to them beginning. We remain committed to world-class environmental, product and labour standards. Our reputation for quality, safety and performance is what drives demand for UK goods. We have absolutely no intention of harming this reputation in pursuit of any trade deal.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Would the Minister go a little further in answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wood? I too was struck that the Commission mandate shows that there is very real concern over there that we may be about to abrogate the European Convention on Human Rights. Can she confirm that we have no intention of doing so?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I can confirm what I have said previously: we are very proud of our international reputation in this area and will not put it under threat during any negotiations.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard ExcerptsTuesday 21st January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (20 Jan 2020)
Lord Dubs
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not sure that I have every figure at my fingertips, but let me do my best. Section 67 of the 2016 Act covered children being able to come to Britain without having family here. The Government capped the total at 480. I understand that we are quite well short of that, even today. The Government said the number of 480 was limited by the ability of local authorities to find foster families. That is not the case with children joining their relatives here, where clearly local authorities do not have to find foster places. I think, to date, several hundred children—the Minister may correct the figure—have come under the family reunion provisions in the Dublin treaty. We might be talking about 800. Without having the exact figures, we are probably talking about 1,000 or 1,000-plus in the Greek islands and in northern France. In the context of the international situation, that is very few.
The Minister said that we have taken a certain percentage of the EU total. Yes, we have, but probably only in relation to the size of our country. I do not dispute the figure from the Minister. However, refugees in a wider sense are going to be the most challenging issue to the whole world, and certainly to Europe and ourselves, over many years. But what we are talking about here is a very small number of children, who will be positively affected by this measure. That is why I am pretty keen on it. We had a small demo in Parliament Square yesterday, with a lot of people supporting it. We have had more than 200,000 signatures on a petition supporting the provision. I believe that we are essentially on the side of public opinion. I believe that we are essentially on the side of humanity. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee and I support him now. I need to declare an interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council. I also need to declare total bafflement; I have absolutely no idea why Clause 37 is in this Bill. I do not understand what the Government are planning to do. I took part in Committee and, after speaking on this, I listened to the Minister at Second Reading and am still none the wiser as to why it is here.
What is on the statute book now in the 2018 Act is a commitment that the Government will seek to negotiate a reciprocal arrangement for these poor children. This clause repeals that requirement and replaces it with a commitment, in almost exactly the same terms, to make a statement to Parliament, which is not a very strong commitment. Why do the Government want to repeal the 2018 Act in this respect? We have heard three possible explanations: first, that it is unnecessary to keep this on the statute book because the Government intend to negotiate on this matter, and the Minister told us that a letter had been written; secondly, that it was always inappropriate to the 2018 Act; thirdly, that it is important not to tie the Government’s hands.
I do not find the first explanation very easy to understand. If the Government are seeking to negotiate and have written a letter designed to open negotiations on this matter, why should they want to repeal the commitment to negotiate? It does not make any obvious sense. On the second argument, regarding inappropriate positioning in the 2018 Act, they say it is much better to put it in the new immigration Bill. But there is no new immigration Bill as yet, and these negotiations are about to start. Also, the Government are not removing from the statute book any reference to this issue; they are replacing it with the language we see in Clause 37. If the 2018 provision was inappropriately placed, the 2020 provision that the Government seek is inappropriately placed. I do not understand that one.
Moreover, it is not a matter appropriate to an immigration Act, because what we have in the 2018 Act and in this Bill is a reciprocal requirement. The idea is that the Government would negotiate to ensure that the 27 would be willing to take poor children in this country who are in this plight and enable them to join their family elsewhere in the 27. The provision for the emigration of small children would be highly inappropriate to an immigration Act or immigration regulations. I believe it follows that the argument about it being inappropriately placed falls.
The third argument is still more difficult and slightly awkward. I am sorry not to see him in his place, but at Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said:
“It is vital that the Government are not legally constrained in those discussions.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 554.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that the Government do not wish to see their hands tied. However, nothing in the 2018 Act would tie their hands; they must seek to negotiate. We are not saying that they cannot conclude a deal unless they have successfully negotiated. For myself, I do not think it likely that the negotiation on this point would fail, but we are not saying that if it did, everything would be off. We are simply saying that the Government should have a go. I do not see how that would tie anyone’s hands.