Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords—

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

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

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I entirely concede that point. Forgive me: I have obviously not expressed myself well at this early hour of the morning. What I am saying is that those agencies touch on different areas of policy.

I entirely understand the noble Lord’s wish for greater clarity and his need to scrutinise our proposals. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, and I will go on saying it, when we can provide further information we will.

Consequent to that, the noble Lord rightly says that industry and the sectors look for more certainty. I am very aware of that. I, too, have had excellent meetings with, for example, the freight industry, with those involved in ports and so on. We are fully aware of that. It is in our interests, it is in their interests and it is in Parliament’s interests to provide as much detail as we can when we can. I am very sorry to say that I am not now going to be committing to do so at a certain juncture or in a certain format, but I can assure the noble Lord that we are analysing all these points and we will keep the House fully up to date.

I have very little further to add to this. Given the range of policy areas that this touches on, I could talk for a long time—but I do not think that noble Lords would want me to—about banking, about the chemicals agency or such things. Now is not the time for me to do that, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I thank the noble Lord, but I hope that he will reflect on one point. It is not the case that there is legal clarity at the moment about the legal status of some of these bodies and about what is consequential and what is not consequential on our leaving the European Union. That is the de minimis requirement, surely, of HMG in responding to this. There seems to be an extreme reluctance to do what would be normal in any parliamentary Select Committee —just examining the facts on all these bodies, how they are affected and what we are going to do as a model to inform our people in the negotiation.

I am not suggesting that the noble Lord should speak again in the next five seconds, but I conclude by saying that I think there is some work to be done in government with a view to a publication before very long. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brexit: New Partnership

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I completely agree with my noble friend. The whole spirit behind the White Paper and the Government’s approach is one of building a new partnership on the basis that there will be, as I said, issues on which it is absolutely in our national interest and those of member states right across Europe to collaborate and co-operate in the months and years ahead, and to enable our businesses both in the UK and right across Europe to continue to trade freely. As I also said, we enter these negotiations very much in a spirit of good faith and good will.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister acknowledge—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

All I will say on this point is that obviously we have had extensive consultation and talks with the nuclear industry. It remains of key strategic importance to the country and we have been clear that this decision does not affect our aim of seeking and maintaining close and effective arrangements relating to civil nuclear co-operation, safeguards and safety with Europe and the rest of the world.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, would the Minister acknowledge that it was a gross exaggeration for him to claim that our Front Bench statement represented a consensus about the White Paper? For example, on the question of the single market, the Government’s position is that they will not continue membership of it. The Statement repeated the catchphrase that they will seek an ambitious and comprehensive trade agreement with the EU. First, is that not what we have already? Secondly, are there not inevitably all sorts of attendant conditions to do with any trade agreement that are very similar to the arrangement with the arbitral role of the much-maligned European Court of Justice at present?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I should set out that we intend to forge a new partnership with the EU that has different hallmarks from the relationship at the moment. To give just three examples, in our new relationship we will have the ability to take control of our borders, to be outside the ECJ and to be able to forge new free trade agreements with non-EU countries. That is the basis on which we will proceed.

Brexit: Supreme Court Appeal Cost

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord on that point. The process also clarified the exact extent of the royal prerogative. We now have that clarity and I am thankful for it, although I am obviously disappointed with the outcome and the ruling, and we shall now proceed.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that on pages 2 and 3 of the judgment there is a list of some 80 names of people who were at the Supreme Court, as are required to be listed? I have two questions about when we find out the cost of this affair at the Supreme Court. First, will we know which of these people are paid for out of public funds? Secondly, does the whole exercise cost more than when the House of Lords Appellate Committee worked out of two rooms on the third floor here and huddled around this part of the Chamber at nine in the morning?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, when we publish the costs we will make them as transparent as possible. On the question of previous processes, I gently remind the House who changed those processes to the situation we have now.

The Process for Triggering Article 50

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That is a very interesting point. We need to be clear about the processes for ratification. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who I do not think is here, is the author of Article 50 and is bound to correct me but as I understand it Article 50 sets out one process and there may be another process for the final treaty. That process could be mixed if it is an extensive deal, or not. So, there are a number of routes forward on this point.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, the refrain we have heard time after time is, “The people have decided”. Does the Minister not agree that as the weeks and months go by, simply saying, “The people decided this, the people decided that”, will hardly be satisfactory, especially when the debate comes to tariffs and specifics? Does the Minister agree that answering every question in that way over the next year will simply not wash?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sorry but I have to gently disagree with noble Lord on this point. As I said, we did not simply arrive at this situation through the people’s decision. Representatives in this place and, most notably, the other place, made decisions and voted on legislation—especially the decision to give the British people the choice in the referendum. That is how this was decided.

As to the specifics, we are getting to the nub of the matter here. If we start having debates in this House about the process of negotiation on certain levels of tariffs, or other such things, that would be a considerable gift to those on the other side of the negotiating table. I say again: we must ensure that we do not get to that situation. We will, of course, give further information where we can, but we have to guard the national interest.

A New Partnership with the EU

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

On that point, is it not the case that two years is not a final deadline but only an interim stage where these broad principles are agreed? Is this not putting off the final decision to a point which could simply be a total failure quite outside the Article 50 process? Where would we be then in fact?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

If I understand the noble Lord correctly, the Government intend to stick by the timetable as set out in Article 50. So at the end of the two-year period, the UK will withdraw from the EU.

Brexit: Trade Arrangements

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Thursday 12th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord speaks with great authority on this, and he is absolutely right: there is nothing in Article 50 to suggest that we cannot negotiate the exit treaty and our new relationship with the EU at the same time. Indeed, paragraph 2 of Article 50, which I have in front of me, makes the point that the arrangements for a country’s withdrawal will be negotiated,

“taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Article 50 implies that it can be revoked within the two-year period? Is a corollary of that not that if there is any doubt about that—this goes back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about what has to happen within the two years—or if the negotiation is not reaching a reasonable conclusion, the Article 50 Bill can make provision to reverse engines or revoke the Article 50 timetable?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord makes an interesting hypothetical point; however, the Government are aiming to have a successful outcome to the negotiations. It is a matter of government policy that, once given, our notification will not be withdrawn.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I cannot answer the noble and learned Lord—who speaks, as he does so often, with incisiveness and complete clarity—on those two specific points, although I can certainly write to him. As I said, a lot of work is going on in relation to the whole area that was raised earlier. We will continue to engage with the noble and learned Lord and others right across the House to ensure that we come up with the best outcome.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that describing membership of the internal market as a detail, as he just did in answer to my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield, will be seen as astonishing by 26 other countries looking across the English Channel? What is going on here? If a decision is postponed for very much longer, will we not be left with a dog’s breakfast? The British Bankers’ Association has written an article in the Financial Times saying, “All this is okay. We can leave the internal market for other people as long as it does not affect us. We’ll have a deal that is good for us”, and the agricultural community says the same. Everybody thinks they can cherry pick, but that will not work in a negotiation with the rest of the Community.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I must correct myself if I said that it was a detail. I do not believe that. The ability to trade with EU member states is vital to our prosperity. As regards cherry picking, the whole purpose of the undertaking that we are now engaged in—that of collecting evidence—is to understand individual sectors’ challenges, concerns and opportunities as we go ahead, and then to assemble all that and come up with a comprehensive strategy. On that, I cannot really go further.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was obviously frustrated by the approach of the Charity Commission when he tried to register the Dag Hammarskjöld trust, and that his impression of the commission has been informed by and reflects that particular case. I must say that waiting several months for a response to a letter does not seem to be good customer service and I, too, would have been extremely frustrated.

For most charities with standard charitable purposes, the process for registration with the Charity Commission is quick and straightforward. In 2014-15, the commission registered over 4,600 charities. For organisations with purposes that are innovative or do not fall within previously recognised charitable purposes, the process of registration can indeed take longer. The law does not recognise wholly novel charitable purposes, but purposes can still be charitable if they are analogous to or within the spirit of charitable purposes specifically identified in the 2011 Act or if they were charitable purposes recognised by the common law before 1 April 2008. Where people want to register as a charity an organisation which has purposes that may not fall clearly within established categories of charitable purposes, the commission must proceed with caution in assessing whether the organisation really has been established for purposes that are charitable in law.

I turn to the specific issue of the Dag Hammarskjöld trust. I do not know all and every detail of the case and it is right that I should not, as the commission is operationally independent. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said, I have written to him responding to some of the specific questions he raised in Committee about what the Government knew about the case. I apologise to the noble Lord, but I cannot at this Dispatch Box add to the detail that was in the letter sent to him. I regret that, but I absolutely cannot—it is a very detailed case.

On his amendment—which is really what we are debating—the Charity Commission already reports its performance against principles of best regulatory practice, usually framed in terms of proportionality. It does this in its annual report, in its annual Tackling Abuse and Mismanagement report and in stand-alone case reports. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for not repeating the detailed ways in which it does all this as I set it out in Committee at length. This amendment, by highlighting one particular aspect of Section 16, casts doubt on the extent to which the commission should report on other aspects of its general duties. It is, in that respect, undesirable.

Finally, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lea, will reconsider the offer from the Charity Commission’s chairman to meet him and discuss this case. I fear that I have not been able to reassure the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary—although I hope that I have done so. I assure him that his difficulty in trying to register the Dag Hammarskjöld trust was not representative of the norm.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On the first point, he clearly does not feel that there is anything amiss with the accountability of the Charity Commission. I think he is hiding behind the phrase “operational matter”. When a matter of this importance is put before the House, and with the detail that I have presented, is it not incumbent on the Cabinet Office or the Minister and his officials to look further into it? In other circumstances or areas, one could call it a miscarriage of justice.

As to the question of co-operation regarding the unfinished business of the United Nations arising from the work of the Hammarskjöld Inquiry Trust, we will now have to await the findings of the Secretary-General as he presses the British and other Governments on their failure, to date, to release all relevant records to the UN. It will then be up to the United Nations, not me, to decide whether to point the finger at anyone.

There is one thing of which I am increasingly certain. Historians will take note of the high likelihood of the existence of a second plane and, similarly, of the high degree of suspicion that there was subsequently a cover-up by certain Governments, not excluding the British Government then and subsequently. In time-honoured words, history will be the judge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke at some length on this issue in Committee and will therefore not try the patience of the House on Report by repeating all that. I simply say that, as somebody who has worked in the charitable field for quite a lot of my life—I have been chief executive of more than one charity; I have been an honorary officer and a trustee, and I am currently a trustee of one charity—there is an underlying issue here which is of profound importance.

Charities with great experience of front-line engagement have come to realise that they are sometimes aiding and abetting the problems which exacerbate the difficulties faced by those whom they are trying to help, because they are removing the unpalatable symptoms of what is wrong and disguising what is causing the problem. They have come to see that through the experience of their own work. There are many trustees and many staff in some of what I think everyone would on balance agree are the better, more experienced charities who have come to realise that they simply cannot go on doing this, because they are treating symptoms and settling for that, and that one of the most important things they can do in the service of those whom they seek to help is to advocate their situation and to seek the changes which will overcome the causes of the problems of those who are the victims, and that it would be dishonest to do anything else.

Personally, I find the way in which the law on charity has operated in recent years to be perfectly acceptable, and charities have responded to that very well by recognising that they have a duty to ensure that what they are advocating really does arise out of the experience of what they are doing. That is not just a matter of legal, moral responsibility; it is also one of effectiveness, because if they can be seen to be speaking out of real experience that is a very strong muscle in their campaigning.

However, we have to face the reality that there are those who have never been comfortable with this situation and there have been noises in recent years that people would like to curb the sector. That in my view would be disastrous and totally unacceptable and unfair to those who are really trying on our behalf, sometimes valiantly, courageously and bravely, to do the things that are necessary. From that standpoint, to have it explicitly stated in the Bill has great merit. I am therefore glad to see the amendment here and I hope that the House will find its way to endorsing it.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I have no difficulty at all in accepting the premise of the amendment—and much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said—which states that charities should be free to campaign where that is an effective means of furthering their charitable aims. Speaking up for their beneficiaries, who may have no voice in the democratic debate, stands long in the tradition of the charitable sector. Yes, it may be uncomfortable for some to hear the hard truths that they are told, but that is democracy at work and freedom of speech in action.

Charities have always campaigned, which is as it should be in a free society, and charity campaigns have brought about much good, opening our eyes to issues others have overlooked, often resulting in beneficial changes to the law. Examples are legion and stretch back over generations, and long may that continue. My objection to the amendment is not therefore that what it says is wrong. Indeed, it is not even seeking to have the right to campaign reflected in law, for it already is enshrined in law, through case law, as the noble Baroness said. My concern is that seeking to compress that case law into an amendment in the Bill is difficult, to say the least, and would be likely to inadvertently shift the boundaries of what is permitted under the law in unanticipated and unhelpful ways.

As well as being fraught with difficulty, such an amendment is unnecessary. The implication of the case law is set out in Charity Commission guidance CC9 and, with very few exceptions, that guidance is well understood and observed. Unlike primary legislation, commission guidance can be updated, with proper consultation, to ensure that it remains congruent with case law and up to speed with developments such as the rise of social media.

The introduction of the Transparency of Lobbying Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act, to which a number of noble Lords referred, has recently made the relationship of the law and lobbying a matter of intense debate, and I can understand why. That Act is part of electoral law, and this is clearly not the time to rehearse that debate. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, was one of many noble Lords who referred to the so-called chilling effect that it might have had at the last election, so I am pleased that my noble friend, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has explicitly called for evidence from the voluntary sector and from noble Lords in his ongoing review of the third party campaigning rules that were updated by Part 2 of that Act. A clear view of the evidence about what impact the updated rules have, or have not, made in their first year is exactly what is needed on an issue that has aroused such strong feeling. The Charity Commission would obviously need to take account of my noble friend’s findings should it decide to review CC9. If there were any such review, the commission has committed to say so publicly and consult widely and wisely.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, the Charity Commission does indeed take action in cases where charities of all political persuasions are seen to have crossed the line. During the last election, a charity that was making a point that could be construed as being supportive of the Conservative Party was pulled up short. I therefore do not think it strictly true to say that it does not take action.

This Government welcome and support the campaigning role of charities, properly regulated and properly understood, and acknowledge the benefit that that brings to wider society. I hope that on that basis, and given what I have said to reassure the noble Baroness, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

The Minister has totally misunderstood the purport of my question, which I will repeat. It is clear that the dividing line about what is political has nothing to do with support for a political party. What the Minister just said is a red herring. Of course, things can be ruled out for direct or indirect support for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. My point was this. That is not in practice the dividing line drawn by the commission, where party political support is ruled out and other matters are ruled in.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Bridges of Headley

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for the explanation behind his amendment. I shall pick up on the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will need to write to her as regards the complaints procedures and the changes to be made in respect of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Perhaps I may begin by focusing on the actual words used by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, in his amendment,

“a proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted manner”,

and whether the annual report of the Charity Commission should refer to these. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the annual reports of the Charity Commission headed Tackling Abuse and Mismanagement in Charities, and the stand-alone case reports in which it applies the principles of best practice. However, I should add that the commission tends to frame this in terms of proportionality. The Charity Commission’s annual report for 2014-15 was published just yesterday—I am sure that noble Lords took it to bed with them last night to read. In the section on promoting compliance, the commission explains its approach:

“We use our powers proportionately according to the nature of the issue, the level of risk, and the potential of impact. However, even where we have regulatory concerns, it may not, in some instances, be proportionate for us to formally investigate a charity”.

The commission’s annual report also includes a paragraph specifically focused on how it is supporting the Government’s commitment to better regulation. There is furthermore an extensive section on enabling, which sets out not only the commission’s permissions casework—making schemes and so on—but also the work it has undertaken to prevent problems arising in the first place by making trustees aware of their duties and responsibilities, which is a key principle of proportionate regulation.

I turn now to the Tackling Abuse and Mismanagement in Charities reports. In these the commission is at pains to include some cases which show that it does not always have to make significant regulatory interventions, especially when the trustees who co-operate are either able to put the problems right themselves or can demonstrate that the initial concerns cannot be substantiated. For example, last year’s report set out the commission’s proportionate approach, stating that:

“As an independent, non-ministerial government department with quasi-judicial powers, we operate within a clear legal framework and follow published policies and procedures to ensure that we are proportional in our approach to tackling abuse and mismanagement”.

Finally, the commission’s published framework explains how it approaches all its work and helps to ensure that it continues to be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted. It sets out three questions that the commission answers before taking any action: first, does the commission need to be involved; secondly, if it decides that it does need to be involved, what is the nature and level of risk; and thirdly, what is the most effective way of responding? The commission prioritises issues that fall within three areas of strategic risk affecting charities: fraud, financial crime and abuse; safeguarding issues; and concerns about the terrorist abuse of charities. I hope that I have addressed the substance of the amendment, and furthermore these words are set out under Section 16 of the 2011 Act. The commission needs to abide by them in all it does.

Lastly, I want to address the specific case that may have given rise to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. As I hope he will understand, I am not able to go into the details of this case as it is an operational matter for the independent regulator, the Charity Commission. However, as the noble Lord said, he has been in correspondence with the commission and I understand that the chairman has replied and offered to meet him to discuss the case. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that offer. With regard to the specific questions that the noble Lord asked me directly, I will need to write to him in response.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the wider issue of registrations of charities. I point out that we know the number of registrations applied for and the numbers rejected. This year’s report sets it out in detail on, I think, page 41: last year there were 7,192 applications to register, 4,648 registration applications were approved, 2,248 charitable incorporated organisations were registered and 34 registration applications were formally refused.

I am concerned that the amendment that we are considering is not necessary. The commission already explains in its annual report how it is enacted in line with the principles of best regulatory practice. I therefore hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lea, somewhat, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I totally expected that the Minister would be unable to reply to my questions today; that is why I said, and he has confirmed, that he should write to me about the questions that I have raised—before Report, I think he said—and no doubt put a copy in the Library. I am slightly surprised that in the circumstances, since he is aware of the broad outlines of the case, he has had nothing to say about the special circumstances of a short-term trust. Is this a lacuna in the procedures of the Charity Commission, as I suspect?

I stretched the limits of the procedure in the time that I took when I made my opening speech, so I will leave it there at the moment and study the Minister’s reply. Incidentally, with no discourtesy to Mr William Shawcross, no, I have no wish to meet him, given the nature of the reply that he eventually gave to my letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. The overarching check will be that it meets the twin ends of the social investment to make some financial return and ensures that—the noble Baroness mentioned Eton—its charitable mission is fulfilled. We will have to make sure that it does.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, it would be going a bit far for me to say that I do not believe a word of this and that I have got the t-shirt—but not very far.

To caricature—although not a lot—the purpose of the Charity Commission is to do with tax relief. The bigger the tax rate, the bigger the tax relief. That is why it is good for public schools and good for the socioeconomic distribution of income and wealth in favour of the rich. It is not only me saying this: every study that has been carried out for the OECD, through to Milburn and so on proves that. The Minister may wish to caricature me as or put me in the category of a dinosaur from an earlier age—that is entirely his privilege. However, I am talking about what the analysis is today—and that is the analysis of today.

We have a growing problem in Britain in this regard and I would like to think how to move this issue forward before Report. We are obviously miles apart on the analysis—not the politics—of what these kinds of investment would do to the socioeconomic distribution. The answer is regressive. That is the analysis on which 99% of economists would agree.

There have to be safeguards. Things need to be said about this which have not been said so far. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, wants to say something useful on this.