European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill. Having spoken on a number of other Bills that dealt with our departure from the EU, particularly those relating to our leaving with no deal—at one time a real possibility—I congratulate our Prime Minister on this result.

Of course, we are only here because so many people in this House and the other place were so opposed to Mrs May’s deal that it has been replaced by this more satisfactory outcome. I wrote in the national press trying to persuade people to accept the previous Bill, but, not unusually for me, I was unsuccessful, and the reason we are here in a much stronger position is in no small part down to those who rejected the earlier Bill.

I want to talk about citizens’ rights. When no deal was looming, I was invited to join the British parliamentary emergency taskforce on citizens’ rights, which was all-Party, from both Houses and led by the very able MP Alberto Costa. A meeting was set up in July in Brussels with Michel Barnier and a very impressive parliamentary delegation, including Members who are in their place, Dimitri Scarlato of the3million and Fiona Godfrey of British in Europe. Ms Godfrey, in particular, gave an impassioned speech about how she was, in effect, a model EU citizen who had changed her life to reflect an EU lifestyle. She and, of course, we were anxious to get reassurance that if there was no deal the EU would ensure that no damage to her life would occur, or that it would at least be minimised, and that steps would be taken to accommodate her in a similar fashion to our settled status programme. It was a very moving speech. She was far more eloquent than me, so I can only apologise for not doing her the full justice she deserves. However, M Barnier was implacable. To him the integrity of the EU and getting us to sign up to the offer then on the table was far more important than the humanity of offering 1.5 million EU citizens the comfort that all would be okay for them. I was shocked.

So although we have now, thankfully, moved away from no deal, I have been keen to ensure that UK citizens’ rights are properly protected from M Barnier’s previous attitude. This Bill achieves that and it also brings EU citizens’ rights into UK law under our dualist system, with a better offer than that which the EU has been able to offer so far to UK citizens.

The EUSS is performing well. Applicants in the UK can apply for free and have until June 2021 to apply, or later in genuine cases; there have been huge grants—some £9 million, I believe—to ensure all are reached. A member of the delegation has commented in the press today that there is a lack of clarity on EU citizen’s rights, but I do not think that is right. I am aware that some wanted a declaratory system rather than a constitutive system, but the Bill confers rights on EU citizens. Some argue that too much control is given to Ministers as the settled status scheme is not yet underpinned by legislation, but the agreement is in international law so there is no practical risk. On the wider point, frankly, I think the British public is fed up with Parliament trying to micromanage this process, and they have now elected a strong majority Government to get on with the job.

The independent monitoring authority will hold the Government to account and is to be welcomed. Perhaps the Minister can offer some further guidance on some of its detailed working. I see that civil servants are barred from holding office at the IMA. I have no quibble with that—perhaps Mr Cummings suggested it—but is it normal for such organisations to have the chairman and all the non-executives appointed, and possibly removed, by the Secretary of State at will?

I welcome the rights we have offered EU citizens who live here, which was always the intention, both for settled and pre-settled status. Despite the concerns many have had—some, no doubt, genuine but others frankly designed to cause unnecessary anxiety—we have shown that we can reach a fair agreement with the EU for our withdrawal. I am convinced we will also be able to do so for our future trading relationship, which will be to this country’s enormous advantage.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 187, which specifically refers to the European Investment Bank. I did so because, almost invisibly, the EIB has made a major contribution to investment in UK infrastructure. The advantage of the EIB, of course, is low interest rates, but it also offers commercial expertise and very highly prized advice.

I just want to illustrate the importance of the bank to our economy with some statistics. For example, in the field of transport, in 2016 over €2.5 billion was loaned to various projects in the UK. That included loans to Merseyrail for rolling stock, to the Port of Dover and to Aberdeen harbour, and over €1.75 billion for social housing. For energy projects, €3 billion was loaned, and for education projects, €0.75 billion. In my own country of Wales, in 2016 Swansea University borrowed €71 million for a splendid and wonderful new campus. It is so large that it is almost the size of a small town and it is very highly regarded. Bangor University borrowed €10 million for a new campus. Here in London, Transport for London is, in Britain, just about the biggest borrower from the EIB and has relied on it very heavily. Since 2002, there have been loans to London Underground for the Northern line extension, for Crossrail rolling stock, for Stratford International station, for the East London line and for the DLR Woolwich Arsenal extension, and that is in addition to seven other Underground schemes.

Noble Lords will see immediately the importance of this borrowing to some fundamental sectors of our economy: energy, transport, education—particularly universities—and urban regeneration and housing. In 2015, in total the UK received over €16.5 billion. In 2016, that went down to €9 billion, and in 2017 it was around only €3 billion. There was an immediate drop-off in the number of projects funded, and new lending by the EIB to the UK fell by almost two-thirds last year.

The Welsh Government had been hoping to use the bank to fund the South Wales Metro project and the M4 relief road. Already in Wales, providers of social housing have had to look elsewhere for funds, and that of course costs more. An increase of 200 basis points in the cost of capital would lead to an increase of around £1.5 million per annum for each £100 million borrowed.

There may not be an official moratorium on lending to the UK by the EIB but clearly the bank is already concerned about the future basis for repayment. It has been suggested that we should set up our own development bank, although so far the Government have not expressed interest in this. Can the Minister clarify the position of the UK Government on setting up our own investment bank? However, even if the Government were keen to do that, it would take years for a new bank to gain scale and expertise. There could also be uncertainty about its status. There could be a problem with the classification of its funding, as it could be classified as providing state aid, and we know that the Prime Minister has already said that she wants to observe international rules on state aid. The recent experience of setting up the British Business Bank and the Green Investment Bank indicates that it can be a complex and lengthy process. As a minimum, I believe that the UK Government should make it clear that they wish to negotiate a specific mandate for continued bank lending by the EIB to the UK as part of our future arrangements.

On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, 90% of EIB lending is to EU member states. However, it also lends to EFTA states and to others preparing to join the EU. It therefore would not stretch the imagination too much that it might be possible for it to lend to those preparing to leave the EU. The rules and conditions of the EU guarantee for the EIB’s external lending are decided by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and those rules were most recently decided in 2014. The Government need to negotiate an amendment to that decision. Do the Government intend to do so?

I hope I have illustrated that the amendment does not refer to a hypothetical situation. This is not a prediction that doom might come but a factual statement of the situation with the European Investment Bank as it is now: it has stopped lending. This has had a serious impact on our infrastructure, which is already showing signs of strain as a result. The lending could dry up altogether and projects will have to find an alternative source, but that source will be more expensive and less reliable. I urge noble Lords to take an interest in this issue, which is fundamental to the development of our infrastructure in this country.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I shall speak briefly to Amendment 183. I am aware of the EIF because of its investment in the UK venture capital industry, in which I serve on a professional basis from time to time. I understand that the Chancellor has committed an extra £2.5 billion to the BBB specifically to make up for the loss of future investment from the EIF into venture capital funds in the UK, which would negate the need for this. There is a problem in that the EIF, from Article 50 being triggered, has announced that it is looking only at funds where two-thirds of the investment will be in the EU and at least 50% in continental Europe. So organisations that contribute enormously to our economy—for example, social impact investment companies such as Bridges, which is 100% investing in UK companies—have, from the moment of Article 50 being triggered, had the decision-making process frozen by the EIF. This has been damaging to them. I suggest—the Minister might care to comment—that the problem is not here and then after we exit the EU but in the transition period. For some unknown reason, the EIF is freezing the money rightfully due to UK investments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I can at least discuss the EIB with the qualification of someone who nearly borrowed money from it. I commend the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because it was EIB expertise that helped me to persuade the Government to fund the Jubilee line extension. We were then able to have even cheaper money called government grants, so it was all right in the end.

This group of amendments illustrates that in the whole Brexit debate there are unintended consequences that were clearly not thought through at the time of the referendum. We discussed some on Monday, such as haulage, airlines and so on. What we need to hear from the Government tonight is either that they intend to pursue this course and try to produce appropriate associate agreements—or whatever the right term is—with these institutions, or that they will set out how they will provide the money and expertise that make sure that they do not put a serious dent in the already inadequate investment programmes in the United Kingdom.

Brexit: Trade in Goods (EUC Report)

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Verma and her committee colleagues on this report. I have spoken in many a debate in this Chamber about the importance of trade. Indeed, I have debated the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in the past. I hope I will be consistently more optimistic than he felt able to be on this matter. The wider Brexit debate has been dominated by trade, often with the focus on financial and other types of services of which we are a strong exporter. So it is important, as has been said, to turn our attention to the trade in goods, which the report analyses, not least because goods make up 56% of our trade, although only 20% of our gross domestic product.

It is reassuring to see the level of detail in the sub-committee report, which shows how this House can lead the way in examining in depth issues critical to our daily life and business. While the report modestly claims in paragraph 10 that it is made for this debate, it is for a far wider audience and will, I hope, be considered long after the debate given the many important points that the Government should, and no doubt will, heed. For example, many noble Lords, be they Brexiteers like me or remainers, can support the need for a transition period, which I first raised in my response to the Queen’s Speech a few weeks ago. It is as important in goods as it is elsewhere. Such a period would allow us to bridge the gap between our current arrangement with the EU and the eventual free trade agreement that is surely in the interests of both parties. I am happy to put on record that I support the Chancellor on this wholeheartedly.

To date I have focused my remarks in this Chamber on services—in particular, financial services—rather than goods, but the report makes the excellent point that there is a blurring of the two as many manufacturers make their real money in post-sales services, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. However, I would caution against some of the tone of the report, at least in emphasis if not the sum of its content. For example, the report opens with the statement:

“Brexit will fundamentally change the UK’s conditions of trade with the other 27 EU Member States”.


Yes and no, but this sweeping statement misses a fundamental point: whether in goods or services, maintaining the status quo, which is one of free trade, should be our starting point. On customs, our current standards are identical to all others in the member states. Witnesses will have stated the nub of the truth: tariffs are not helpful or welcome. We can change them once we have left, should we wish, but why would we not tread carefully at the beginning? This means a liberal interpretation of country of origin rules as well as non-tariff barriers such as regulation.

On the WTO, when we move to establish our own schedules, most agree that we can simply adopt the current EU ones as our own, giving us an arrangement closer to the status quo than many assume. On striking that elusive free trade deal, however, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Horam, we start from an unusual position: that of being able only to add to tariff barriers. It is usually a question of navigating an existing, complex array that needs to be unpicked. That is why I remain optimistic about maintaining access to a functioning market in goods—and, for the record, services—as well as ultimately pursuing and achieving a free trade agreement. Unlike some in other political parties, I believe that we could and should keep our important ties.

The only cause for pessimism is the approach taken to date by the EU Commissioners. These people are unelected arbiters for hundreds of millions of people. Their approach to the generous offer by the UK Government in respect of the 3 million EU citizens living here and the 1 million UK citizens living in the EU indicates to me that they will not be driven by a pragmatic, problem-solving determination to make things happen, but rather will seek to score political points to protect their own view of the world. This is a real threat to serious, productive negotiations and I urge the real principals in this matter—namely, the relevant heads of state—to instruct these agents to act in the best interests of all EU citizens hereon in.

We also need to consider the nature and dynamic of our trade in goods with the EU. What stood out in the oral evidence to the International Trade Committee in the other place on its report UK Trade Options Beyond 2019 was the witness statement of Professor Patrick Minford. It stood out most obviously because, unlike nearly all the witnesses to the present report, he at least represented a declared Brexit perspective as chair of what was then Economists for Brexit. More than that, he made trenchant criticism of the EU as a trade actor—that is, how corporatist it tends to be and therefore how protectionist, an approach that makes it difficult for small players, or even international companies, to compete. In that oral evidence it was said that the EU simply has a higher standard in product regulation. Be that as it may, and I am sceptical, it gives little or no credence to the idea that consumers and the market are better arbiters of quality and can vote with their feet. This is one of the problems with the EU and departing from this approach is a key advantage for the UK.

I make one plea following my discussions with employers in the agricultural part of the food and drinks sector, a sector the committee chose to dissect. Paragraph 50 touches on this. I was surprised to read that only some 20% of workers in the sector are non-UK EU nationals, although it is not clear whether this is the rate for seasonal migrants. Like many Brexiteers I recognise the need for, and welcome, migrant workers who come to this country to work at proper wage levels. The agricultural industry is worried that the 2019 harvest, for which plans are being made now, will need certainty of labour. I would welcome it if the Minister announced that this issue will receive early attention. Similarly, it is undoubtedly important that we invest in the necessary infrastructure to support HMRC and our customs officers, to enable them to meet the new burdens that await. However, I also stress at this point that our systems are perhaps better than people think. For example, 99% of customs documents for non-EU trade are submitted electronically.

This brings me to my final point. As we push for a more liberal trade agenda, not least in our new-found membership of the WTO as an individual country, we can do so with the fastest-growing nations on earth—of which the EU, I am afraid, contains very few. I could not agree more with the report’s stress on the need to make sure that our embassies, consulates and high commissions are properly staffed with economic and trade experts to take advantage of our new-found freedom, outside the customs union, to have free trade with India, China, Japan, Brazil, South Korea, Israel and, in particular, the USA. These are rapidly growing nations and, for our own prosperity, it is vital that we seize the opportunities that free trade presents for us to share in it. In advocating a transitional period, it is also vital that this is for a finite time and crucial that during it, we are allowed to negotiate these free trade agreements in earnest and ensure adoption of the Authorised Economic Operator—AEO—scheme. It seems bizarre that we are currently not allowed even to enter negotiations. I hope this will change during the transitional period. Free trade is ultimately what will make us successful. It is a long-term strategy, of course, but one we should not lose sight of among the weeds of the Brexit negotiations.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an extraordinary afternoon as Peers have greeted each other in the Corridor, saying, “What number are you?”. I am number 129. While it is tempting to say that I agree with numbers one, five, eight, 16 and 30, that would not be in the fine traditions of the House.

This House is usually thought of as an august, deliberative body. It can indeed impress with its breadth and depth of knowledge and grasp of legislative detail, and, in certain circumstances, it can much improve Bills put before it. But I doubt whether this is one such Bill that will allow us to showcase the best of your Lordships’ skills. Indeed, I fear just the opposite—that we could make ourselves conspicuous by our lack of democratic mandate and overstep the constitutional boundaries which we are all responsible for upholding.

The Bill, as many have said by way of criticism, is short on detail. Indeed it is: that is because its purpose is simple and exclusive—to grant a parliamentary mandate to the Government to trigger Article 50. The other place understood this and voted it through with a significant majority, despite some confusion in the party opposite and disquiet from many in all parties who did not want to be in this position. I ask noble Lords who are still thinking of tacking on amendments to ignore their own personal views on Brexit at this time. We all had our say, along with the rest of Britain, at the ballot box. I ask them not to rerun the argument as to whether they believe it will harm Britain or not. I ask them to focus on whether Brexit, the referendum, the Bill and Article 50 are the will of the people. As democrats, that will requires us to do our duty and carry it out.

We have heard many esteemed figures, not least a former Prime Minister, say that people did not know what they were voting for and, as such, should be given a chance to reconsider, to vote again on an eventual deal, or even to have the referendum question put again, only this time with more detail, such as questions on the single market, on the free movement of people and so on. I fear that this simply will not wash with the British people. It is similar to when we saw EU countries vote down the EU constitution, only to be asked, shamefully, to vote again until they got it right. Put simply, Britons knew what they were voting for and the Bill, unadulterated, is a key enabler to carrying out that popular will.

The 2015 Conservative Party manifesto promised an in/out referendum. The Conservative Party was elected on that manifesto and duly held that referendum, and the people voted to leave. The manifesto, it is worth saying, went on to state that after the referendum the Government would “respect the outcome”. I hope that noble Lords will keep that sentiment at the top of their minds today and respect the tradition of this House of honouring the elected party’s manifesto. It is now said that, having voted to leave, people did not know what they were voting for. This is patently nonsense. We can be certain that leaving the single market was accounted for in the vote, not least because Michael Gove said so specifically during the campaign—many of us heard him say so on the Andrew Marr programme—as did others. Crucially, staying in the single market would mean not having sovereign control of who can come and go. Who can deny this? Sovereignty was an aspiration of the majority of voters.

Having canvassed in a dozen or so extremely marginal seats over a number of elections, most of which Labour subsequently won, it has been very clear to me that people have been very unhappy with the four pillars of freedom of movement and that successive Governments, including ones I supported, have just not listened. Can it be realistically posited that people expected Britain to continue paying into the EU budget after we left, or that our laws would continue to be written in Brussels? No, and that is why the Government’s current strategy—of setting out clearly that we will leave the EU, including the single market and of course the customs union, and seek a bespoke deal for Britain that is in the interests of Britain, of our allies in the EU and, I truly believe, of our other trading partners, particularly developing countries—is the right one. Anything else is simply a defiance of the democratic will.

I call on noble Lords from the Liberal Democrats to reflect on this. It was not so long ago that having a referendum on EU membership was their party’s policy. It is a shame that they have forgotten this. I appreciate that some in opposition parties see this as an opportunity to position their party for an election which they worry may come soon. It is entirely understandable that they should want to do this and draw attention to their views in this way, fuelled in some cases by an indifference as to whether this House remains appointed, or even in existence. However, I simply comment that the British people will see through this. They do not like opportunism and in my opinion the British public always call it right, to the point that I even grudgingly accept that this was the case in 2010, with the creation of the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, exhorted us twice to listen to Gladstone and “trust the people”. We will do this by passing the Bill without amendment. This House should support the Bill and then use its undoubted talents, which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, to shape and make a success of Brexit via the great repeal Bill, the right forum for determining what form Brexit might take. I hope that the Minister will confirm that there will be that opportunity and other junctures to debate the nature of Brexit and the protections which we as a House believe should be sought.