European Political Community Summit

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, they provide an opportunity for agreements to be put in place, such as the UK’s agreements with Albania. Practical suggestions can be shared, and it can be ascertained how successes can be reflected across Europe. It is important when we look at illegal migration to note that there are two sides to the coin. The first is stopping illegal migration, but we also recognise that people migrate to countries for a variety of reasons, including bettering their lives, and some are fleeing persecution. The country that I represent on the world stage has a long tradition of standing up for the rights of the persecuted and that is really where we should be focused. Parties of different colours and different political persuasions have always stood up for that right and it is a proud tradition of our country.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Further to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, when the Prime Minister meets other member states, will he discuss concerns that others have about the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights? Will he do so particularly with the French Government, who have announced that they will disregard such rulings and have already begun to do so by sending an Uzbek asylum seeker back to Uzbekistan even though the European Court of Human Rights said that he would stand at risk torture and death? Can he also ask why they get away with it, but it causes a great rumpus here but no concern to the Lib Dems?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

It has often been said that I have an ever-widening brief, and I am now being asked to speak for the French Government.

I shall not take up my noble friend’s offer, but I assure him of two things. First, we do point out the importance of adhering to agreements. Indeed, the United Kingdom is at the top of the league for adherence to the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions. Notwithstanding the criticisms we often get, the action demonstrably shows that the United Kingdom remains a proud holder of the international obligations that we have signed up to.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been unusual in the debates that we have had so far in that far more has been said that I can agree with than that I disagree with. I even found myself agreeing with two-thirds of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, which is unusual. He is undoubtedly right that the negotiations cannot really be going as well as we would all like to hope, and as so many commentators and Ministers imply they are, as long as the EU has not been prepared to change its negotiating mandate. It will not allow a single jot or tittle of the protocol to be changed under its existing mandate, even though the protocol itself envisages the possibility of it being changed in part or in whole. That surely has to change. Maybe it has de facto; maybe the EU is agreeing to talk beyond its mandate. Let us hope that that is the case.

The disappointing aspect of the debates so far is that I have been waiting throughout for any coherent response from noble Lords, in their very powerful speeches about the illegality of what we are doing, to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in particular as to what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, implied that there is between the obligations that we have under the Belfast agreement and those that we have under the protocol. I have not heard any direct response to that question: what do you do when you have conflicting international legal obligations?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord but the Committee has heard repeated explanations of what the answer is. The answer is that the protocol contains Article 16, which allows for a process to commence by which disputes can be resolved with an arbitration process. That is the answer. There is no conflict because the protocol provides a mechanism for addressing conflicts.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for sidestepping the question by saying that he does not need to answer it because there is an article in the protocol that means you do not have to answer on what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations. Clearly, however, the Government and many noble Lords from the Province who have spoken think that there is a conflict and it cannot be solved just by invoking Article 16. If it can, fine; that is wonderful.

The other related question that we have not had a response to is the point made by the Lord Chancellor in the other place that Article 1 of the protocol specifically says that in the event of a conflict between the Belfast agreement and the protocol, the Belfast agreement takes precedence. I have not heard any response to that, nor to the point, which I might be alone in making, that the whole protocol is intrinsically temporary. We know that because the EU told us that it could not enter into a permanent relationship with us because we were then a member state and it could not, under Article 50, enter into a permanent relationship with a member state; it could be only temporary and transitional. That is why the protocol itself contains provision for it to be superseded, but I have heard no response to that point from anyone.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I heard the responses given to my noble friend so far, which he seems reluctant to accept. If he does not agree that the Article 16 process would be a way of resolving some of these conflicts that have arisen and caused problems, in what way does he feel that the passage of the Bill would itself resolve those conflicts, or indeed support the Good Friday agreement?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I certainly do not say absolutely that Article 16 is not the way to proceed, but I have spoken to lawyers much respected by people in this House—unfortunately I do not have their permission to give their names—who told me that we should not go down the Article 16 route because it would be a nightmare.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Why?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I will put the two in touch discreetly and thereby not betray confidences.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I am grateful for his patience, but it really is not good enough, when this Committee is debating these matters, for him to say that there are problems in using Article 16 but not tell us what they are.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am saying that there may well be problems. Indeed, I asked the noble Lord the other day, down the corridor, whether he was of the opinion that Article 16 could be used to solve all the problems. If it can be, fine; I am not ruling that out. However, if it cannot be, then the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is there on the table, and the issue raised by the Lord Chancellor is there on the table. Whatever about that, the protocol is intrinsically temporary. The whole basis of the negotiations that we entered into on the withdrawal agreement was that a permanent agreement could not be entered into in the withdrawal Act with the United Kingdom covering trade or other matters; that could happen only after we had left. Therefore, anything in the withdrawal agreement was intrinsically transitional and temporary.

Again, I have not heard a response on that today. I wait to be interrupted with a response to the point. Usually, it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who wrote Article 50, but he has forgotten what the alternative is.

These are important issues. We need to know why we were told one thing, that this was temporary, and now are told another thing, that it is permanent. Until we get an answer to those questions, I do not know that our debate can proceed as productively as it ought to. There are other more general points which I would like to make but I will save them for another batch of amendments.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has indeed been a very wide-ranging debate, but I will comment specifically on the amendments themselves.

The DPRRC refers to the power contained in Clause 18 as “strange” and notes that

“Despite its being highly unusual”


there will be “no parliamentary oversight” whatever. This was the subject of some debate in another place, with much head-scratching as to what the Government were trying to achieve. Indeed, we cannot know that, because they have not offered a clear justification. A former head of the government legal service, Sir Jonathan Jones KC, described this as a “do whatever you like” power, but why is it needed in the first place? We have no definition of “conduct”. Can the Minister have a go at giving us a definition today? If that is not possible, can we have a detailed explanation ahead of Report?

In the Commons, the Minister tried to insist that concerned MPs had misconstrued the intent and that Clause 18 simply makes clear that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation. I cannot remember any other legislation where the Government have felt it necessary to clarify that Ministers are acting lawfully. Until recently, we took it for granted that this was always the case. Therefore, is this power an admission that the Government’s approach to the protocol is incompatible with international law and, as a result, in conflict with the Ministerial Code’s requirements to comply with the law?

There were a number of very interesting contributions in this debate. I highlight that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which was very constructive, about bringing into the process which is being embarked on by the UK Government respected people from Northern Ireland. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to the proposals made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, gave a rather chilling example of the stakes we are dealing with and how important it is that we take every opportunity we possibly can to resolve the current position. This has been an interesting debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister.

When the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that he is miles away from the situation, I have known him long enough to suspect that there is a wee bit of code there. He is probably actually pretty close to knowing what is going on, and I suspect that he is right. I worry, because the Government are not engaging widely, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, or consulting. We have not had sight of what is on the table; we know what the EU has put on the table but not what the UK Government have put on the table. My fear is that, if the Government told us what was on the table, many people would be disappointed that they are only technical talks. Some people want them to be negotiations.

That comes on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I respect and understand his disagreement with the Government’s position—the Government want to mend it, not end it, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord thinks there is a more substantial issue with that. Ministers have said they want to fix it, not nix it. If you want to mend it, not end it, there are mechanisms, but there are also mechanisms if you want to end it. As Article 13 of the protocol states, it lasts as long as it lasts:

“Any subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom shall indicate the parts of this Protocol which it supersedes”—


so, if there is another treaty, this ends. There is nothing special about that; that is every treaty. A treaty lasts for as long as it lasts, and if there is a subsequent treaty then there is a subsequent treaty. So the noble Lord’s beef is not with us; it is presumably with the Government in order to open up the element of the withdrawal agreement and the associated TCA that he thinks are in contradiction.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Would the noble Lord deal with the Article 50 point? If it is intrinsically temporary and transitional, can it last for ever?

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been much discussion today, and it goes back to the issue of democratic deficit and how we deal with what Northern Ireland’s public representatives cannot deal with. There is a very simple solution. Under the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, amended by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, provision was made for the institutions according to a three-stranded approach: the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council, with east-west, north-south, and internal to Northern Ireland being addressed.

At the moment, we have no Northern Ireland Assembly, no Northern Ireland Executive and no North/South Ministerial Council that would hold these matters to account and address that democratic deficit. I would say to the DUP: there is a duty and an obligation to ensure, working with all the parties in Northern Ireland and both Governments, that those institutions are up and running. That will allow all of these issues to be adequately addressed by the MLAs who were duly elected in May.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, but, before doing so, I repeat what I said the other day: I feel extreme discomfort about the extensive reliance on Henry VIII clauses in this legislation. I sit near enough to the Convenor to almost feel partly convened on the issue of Henry VIII legislation: he and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, did suggest how this particularly egregious example of it could be constrained a little. However, I think neither was here when I posed the question of what the structural alternative was, in the context of negotiations, to relying on Henry VIII legislation. I still await a satisfactory answer to that question.

To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I share an interest with him in the EIS, because I was the Secretary of State who introduced them. I had forgotten that I was until he reminded me. Indeed, slightly earlier, when I was invited to speak on the 25th anniversary of their formation, I found that I was the warm-up act for Mike Yarwood at that event. But they are important and have been useful. They, at present, will cease under EU legislation unless that EU legislation ceases to apply in this country.

I want to make a general point, which I made earlier: the protocol is intrinsically temporary under European law. The Europeans themselves said, while we were negotiating the withdrawal agreement, that they could not, under Article 50, enter into a permanent relationship with the United Kingdom. Any arrangements reached under that agreement could only be temporary and transitional. Consequently, the protocol is transitional and temporary and not permanent. Indeed, in Mrs May’s protocol, it specifically said in the recital that the withdrawal Act, which is based on Article 50, does not aim to establish a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

It is elementary as a matter of diplomacy and of international law that a country is perfectly entitled to reach a new agreement in the circumstances as they then exist. That is what happened when the protocol was agreed. Both sides agreed a mechanism in Article 18 for ensuring democratic consent.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for effectively giving way. He rightly said, both in his letter to the Times and his remarks today, that, as long as there was good faith, fair enough, but if good-faith negotiations failed to reach an agreement—not if there was any lack of good faith, I think—we would be entitled under Article 62 to repudiate the treaty.

Certainly, the EU is showing a lack of fulsome good faith in two respects. First, it is refusing to accept in the current negotiations that any change to the protocol can be made—only to its implementation. Secondly, it is repudiating its original position that it could not enter into a permanent arrangement, which was the whole basis of the negotiations we entered into under Article 50. It is now trying to make something which was intrinsically temporary, and which it said could be only temporary and provisional, into something permanent. I would have thought that, in both respects, had the British Government taken such positions, he and his friendly noble Lords would have denounced it as an appalling demonstration of bad faith.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If the noble Lord’s position is that the EU is acting in bad faith, the United Kingdom, if it takes that view, is perfectly entitled to use the procedures set out in the protocol of independent arbitration—if it does not like that, it can go to the Court of Justice—to resolve any dispute. What the United Kingdom cannot do is ignore the dispute resolution mechanisms that are set out in the protocol and simply make an assertion that it thinks there is no good faith. Indeed, I had not understood it to be the position of the Government at the moment that there was no good faith. They are about to enter into negotiations.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord, particularly in relation to his tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In his absence—as his junior as it were—I draw this Committee’s attention to the quite extraordinary report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory and Reform Committee to which reference has been made before, particularly at Second Reading, but it bears repetition. Its seventh report of this Session says at paragraph 4 that this is

“a skeleton bill that confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms.”

It continues:

“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament”.


That is quite an extraordinary criticism of this legislation. It is made not by novices but by highly experienced and respected Members of your Lordships’ House across party lines. I find it deeply regrettable that the Government should think it appropriate to continue with a Bill that has attracted such cross-party criticism.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I came into Parliament nearly 40 years ago and was told first of all that you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. Now that I have been here so long, I feel that I can take the risk of asking some questions to which I do not know the answer, about a very important aspect of the Bill that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

There are two criticisms of the Bill, the first being that it is allegedly against international law. I do not believe that and have not really heard any answers to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. What happens when you have two conflicting international obligations? The second criticism is that it relies, very largely and to an almost unprecedented degree, on Henry VIII clauses. Historically, I am very reluctant to rely extensively on Henry VIII clauses, and I was rather shocked by the committee report to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just referred.

The questions that I want to ask, and to which I do not know the answer, are: first, what is the alternative in the context in which we are to have open-ended Henry VIII clauses; and secondly, why did the Government not adopt that alternative? I assume that the alternative to the Henry VIII clauses is to spell out in detail, in primary legislation, what you intend to do, but the context in which we are doing it is that we are simultaneously legislating and negotiating.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that we cannot do that. It seems to me perfectly compatible with the doctrine of necessity to do that. We have to do something, we need the power to do something, we have taken the legal power to do something, but we would like that something to be negotiated if possible. So we are simultaneously negotiating and legislating. If we spell out in primary legislation, in detail, the outcome that we want to get, in the context of a negotiation that involves give and take, we either have to spell out the maximum we want—what we want to take without any give—or the minimum we are prepared to accept: what we are prepared to give without any prospect of taking.

In this unusual situation of having to have the legal powers to act while we are negotiating and hoping for a negotiated solution, I am not sure what alternative there is to what the Government have done. I would be grateful to hear what noble Lords would do who share my reluctance to rely on Henry VIII clauses. Effectively, we are saying we are recreating the royal prerogative in the negotiation, giving the Government a free hand, while giving them the power to take legislative action if those negotiations do not achieve a satisfactory result.

Shortage of Workers

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that a general shortage of labour is a symptom of excess demand? You cannot assuage that by importing labour from abroad for the simple reason that workers not only produce but consume goods and services. The extra demand they create exactly equals the extra demand they assuage.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

That is why, when Tony Blair justified opening our boundaries to free labour from eastern Europe because there were 1 million vacancies, 3 million more people entered but there were still 1 million vacancies.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to read Hansard and respond to him in writing.

South Africa: Just Energy Transition Partnership

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure noble Lords that we are doing exactly as the noble Baroness suggests. We are talking to other partners and I pay particular tribute to the current COP president, Alok Sharma, who has championed this issue. In recent weeks, I have also had the opportunity to visit Egypt as part of my portfolio. The discussions with Foreign Minister Shoukry, the president of COP 27, centred around how we can take our learning and experience, including new, innovative structures, to make sure that they can be practically applied in Egypt as well.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, my pre-parliamentary career was working in developing countries on aid and development programmes and my African friends have driven home to me that the precondition of economic growth in Africa is not aid or trade, welcome as they are—and, still less, patronising advice from the West—but cheap and reliable electricity. Again and again they say that. If they have the opportunity of investing in renewables, and it is cheapest when backed up with other electricity from hydro or fossil fuels to provide reliability when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, they will choose it without any advice from us. Is it not hypocritical and damaging of us to cut off finance for them if they want cheaper, fossil-based electricity?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, again, my noble friend speaks with great insight and expertise, and I agree in the sense that this should not be in any way prescriptive. It should not mean the developed world preaching to the developing parts of the world. As I said earlier, it is about localised buy-in and real management and ownership of this transition by the country we are dealing with. Every transition is difficult, particularly in developing parts of the world. Of course, the ultimate case is to keep the lights on and ensure that the energy required across a given country is provided.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, on the “Today” programme on Radio 4 on Friday the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, asserted that “the EU cannot and will not renegotiate the Northern Ireland protocol”. In fact the EU can, should and must renegotiate it. It can renegotiate because any treaty can be renegotiated, and many are. It should renegotiate it because the sole justification of the protocol was to uphold the Belfast agreement, and the first article is that nothing in the protocol shall prejudice the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. As the former Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Buckland, said yesterday,

“that means … that the … agreement takes primacy over the protocol”,—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/22; col. 554.]

so the British Government, as co-guarantor of the agreement, have a duty to renegotiate the elements of it which are undermining the Belfast agreement.

The main point I want to make in the five minutes that I have is that the EU must renegotiate the protocol. It must because, legally, the protocol is not a permanent arrangement: it must eventually be replaced or it will lapse. That is not my opinion or the Government’s opinion; it was the whole basis on which the EU negotiated the withdrawal agreement: that, under Article 50, it did not have the competence to negotiate a permanent trade and co-operation agreement with a member state. Article 50 allowed it only to negotiate the divorce terms and temporary or transitional arrangements to smooth the departure of a member state. It said that a permanent trade relationship could be agreed under Article 218 only with a non-member state. That is why the EU refused Mrs May’s request to negotiate the trade and co-operation agreement in parallel with the withdrawal agreement. The UK had first to leave the EU, agree to sign the withdrawal agreement and become a non-member state before negotiations on a permanent trade and co-operation agreement could even begin, so how come there was a trade and co-operation agreement covering Northern Ireland?

The Northern Ireland protocol could be agreed under Article 50 only because and so long as it was temporary; it was needed to smooth departure, not least because there was no certainty that a permanent trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU would be in place by the time we left the EU. That should not be news to us because the former Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox explained to the House of Commons that,

“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states”. —[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.]

He went on to say that, if traders in future felt disadvantaged by the protocol, they should

“beat a path to the door of the Commission and the Court … to say, ‘Didn’t you say that article 50 is not a sound legal foundation for this arrangement?’ And I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 555.]

The original protocol itself spelled out that

“the Withdrawal Agreement, which is based on Article 50 TEU, does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom”.

That is equally true of the protocol in the final withdrawal Act, since it, too, is based on Article 50. Paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the protocol itself specifically envisages the replacement of all or parts of the protocol by a subsequent agreement. Nor does the provision in the final protocol for approval or rejection by the Northern Ireland Assembly alter the issue; even if the Assembly were to endorse the arrangements set down under the protocol, which was an agreement between the EU and the whole UK, not just Northern Ireland itself, that would not change its transitional nature.

The temporary nature of the protocol is a matter of EU law. I am puzzled that its author never remembers that nowadays. He and all the other spokesmen of the European Union in this House suffer from a selective memory and treat this protocol as if it is to be permanent and cannot and should not be changed, even if undermines the Belfast agreement, which was the very purpose of that protocol. Of course, I give way to the noble Lord, my former good friend.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is just possible that the noble Lord is confusing two versions of the protocol —the one negotiated by the previous Prime Minister and the one negotiated by the present Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister’s protocol was, on the face of it, clear, straightforward and temporary. The present Prime Minister’s protocol is permanent.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

The transitory nature of both protocols arises from Article 50, which the noble Lord himself wrote—and if he wishes to repudiate that and say that Article 50 does not mean what the European Union says that it means, that would be an interesting thing to do. If the European Union were now to change its view and say, “We were conning you and having you on when we said that we couldn’t negotiate a permanent arrangement under Article 50”, it would show that the original treaty was based on negotiations in bad faith, and that would give us a basis to seek renegotiation.

More positively, we should look to the EU to negotiate and renegotiate with the same spirit and the same objective that it did the original protocol: to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its parts. I welcome the fact that the British Government are moving forward on that basis.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, one thing I have learned in diplomacy is that you can reconcile everything. It is about having the vision and also the commitment to find an agreement. That is certainly the intention of the United Kingdom Government. We will continue to work with our colleagues and friends across the European Union to find solutions to the issues of the protocol. We do not have a functioning Executive; people are taxed differently from everyone else in the UK; you cannot access the same financial benefits; and laws and courts in Northern Ireland are different from elsewhere in the UK. These are practical problems. They must be addressed. We will continue to work with the EU in good faith. But from a personal perspective: where there is a will, you can find a way, and one hopes we can do exactly that.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, as the former Solicitor-General Sir Robert Buckland said in another place, the very first article of the protocol says:

“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement”.


So the Belfast/Good Friday agreement take precedence over the protocol. The UK, as guarantor of the Belfast agreement, has not just a right but a duty to ensure that elements of the protocol that threaten the Good Friday agreement are changed, as envisaged in Article 13 of the protocol. If the EU resists this—I hope it will not—it will be acting against both the letter and the spirit of the protocol.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has detailed what my right honourable friend Robert Buckland said, and I totally agree. As I said, the position the Government are taking is about not scrapping the protocol but addressing the very issues that are not consistent with the important agreement that was reached by all in Northern Ireland: the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to ensure that it is upheld.

State Pension Age

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a number of important points. We want a fair pension system, and her points about life expectancy, particularly in some of the poorer areas of the country, are valid. On the review, I know that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will want input from Members of this House who are concerned and who have expertise, and I encourage the noble Baroness to make sure that those points are made to my noble friend when she carries out her review.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Has my noble friend considered the conclusion of the Office for National Statistics that:

“Over a 20-year period the estimated change in deaths associated with warm or cold temperature was a net decrease of 555,103 … A decrease in deaths from outcomes associated with cold temperature greatly outnumbers deaths associated with warm temperature”?


Is it not good news that climate change has prolonged or saved the lives of more than half a million of our fellow citizens—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

—a laughable matter to the Liberal Benches over there—and how long does she expect this beneficial effect to continue?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My noble friend has again given us some interesting facts and data. I am afraid that the impact of climate change is way outside my brief, but I am sure everybody notes the points made.

Environment Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as the owner of a smallholding with a few sheep and poultry, albeit in France and outside the purview of this Bill.

This Bill is profoundly conservative in two senses of the word. First, it is Conservative with a large “C”, because the Conservative Party is, and always has been, about conserving all that is best in our country that we have inherited from our forefathers and wish to hand on to our successors. But secondly, it is conservative with a small “c” in its desire to resist any change, which is very widespread in this country, going way beyond the Conservative Party. The Bill, to some extent, enshrines that desire to keep the environment unchanged, as it is. But the environment in this country is largely manmade. Before man set to work, it was covered with dense and impenetrable forest. No one proposes we go back to that, apart from a few extreme rewilders.

The environment has changed considerably over our lifetimes. I was brought up in the outer suburbs of London, a few hundred yards from the first farm. I used to enjoy watching the horse-drawn ploughs ploughing the small fields. The landscape at that time was a patchwork of small fields surrounded by hedges, which changed over time, partly as a result of mechanisation and partly as a result of EU subsidies encouraging farmers to dig up their hedges and have larger fields. We need to be conscious that we cannot freeze time. Had we tried to do so, food production would be lower and the cost of living higher, and we would have to import a far higher proportion of our food than we do.

There is a paradox at the heart of the Bill: the environment is largely the result of human action, not human design. It is the spontaneous creation of the actions of thousands of farmers, foresters and landowners serving millions of consumers. Yet, we assume in the Bill that it needs a centralised, guiding bureaucracy, a 25-year plan, vast apparatus of law and regulation and subsidies diverted from promoting food production to providing environmental goods. Is all this necessary? We certainly need to prevent the environment being despoiled by plastic, waste, litter, industrial waste and unregulated pollution. But, quite possibly, those problems would be better dealt with by individual measures relating to each, rather than by setting up some central, guiding, Soviet-style planning apparatus to preserve what was never the creation of human planning.

But we are where we are, and where we are is outside the European Union, so we have to decide what our own environmental rules, policies and principles should be. Fears were expressed during the referendum campaign, and subsequently, that we would set lower standards than those enshrined in the laws we have inherited from the EU. We certainly do not want to see lower standards, less clean air or less pure water. But there are many dimensions of regulations apart from higher and lower. We should aim to make our regulations simpler to comply with and outcome-based rather than process-based, creating as few barriers as possible to entry into agriculture and elsewhere and as few barriers as possible for small operators, rather than privileging the large landowners and industrial farmers.

We can now relate our regulations to our national circumstances. In doing so, we should be able to apply the precautionary principle in a more rational and pragmatic way than has been the case in the European Union. Someone described the way the European Union approaches the precautionary principle as “You should never do anything for the first time”. Of course, if there are real reasons to fear harm from some new process or innovation, we should take precautions. We should, perhaps, allow pilot projects before licensing more widely. Certainly, we should take into account experience elsewhere. But we should not rule out anything and everything from which anyone can imagine a threat, particularly when those threats are invented by those who are fundamentally anti-science, anti-industry and anti-prosperity.

I hope we will be open to using GM crops. I declare an interest here as Rothamsted was in my constituency when I was an MP. Wonderful research is done there into GM, CRISPR and conventional development of new species, always with due concern for risks. As a result, new varieties are created that require fewer pesticides and herbicides and produce more output with less fertiliser. I hope we can take advantage of the research and adopt an approach based on measuring costs against benefits in our regulations. I recall that some EU directives did not do so. We must all take a more balanced and proportionate approach. I support the Bill but with grave reservations.