Continuity Agreement: Kingdom of Morocco

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Stevenson on getting the opportunity to debate this, and I particularly congratulate him on his initiative in making a very interesting constitutional suggestion. A lot of colleagues will probably have seen the Order Paper and thought that this subject was slightly technical and esoteric, which may be why the Chamber is not in danger of bursting its seams, but my noble friend has raised a very general point, which is that we are bad in this country at ratifying treaties. It is an important legislative role in other countries and, of course, the United States does it with great thoroughness—with such thoroughness that the executive branch tries to avoid any ratification process starting in the first place. Nevertheless, that is democracy, and I think there is a great lack of democracy here, where the bureaucrats negotiate these agreements and there is no opportunity at all to call them to account, or for Parliament to express a view on the content of these agreements. So I thought it was a very good suggestion, and I know my noble friend Lord Stevenson is a serious and determined colleague. When he makes a suggestion, it is not just intended to be a nine-day wonder. I am sure that he will continue with this and take it further, and he will certainly have all the support I can personally give him.

The agreement with Morocco carries forward our market access which we currently have as members of the European Union—I say “currently have”, but that means only long as the transition period lasts. I have to make a confession: during the debates on Brexit over the past four years—we had an awful lot of debates in the media, in this House and in public meetings, and I have taken part in all three types of debate—I quite often attacked the Government, and indeed tried to mock the Government. I said how utterly absurd it was for the Government to say that they wanted to sign more free trade agreements with more countries around the world and to go ahead with Brexit, which involved us overnight losing our access to about 45 different trade agreements that the EU already has with these countries. In actual fact, I must congratulate the Government on having, in this particular case—and one or two others, such as with Jordan—managed to agree in principle to carry forward the existing EU agreement without the discussion breaking, as I suspected it would, into completely new fields, with new demands for new concessions that would make this a very long-winded process. So it is only fair to say that I congratulate them on making that progress.

However, I very much retain my view that it would be a great mistake to open negotiations on new free trade agreements with countries where we are not just carrying forward an EU agreement and with those with which we do not currently have a national free trade agreement before we have concluded the negotiations with the European Union or the United States. When I say “before we have concluded”, I mean before we have either concluded them or have determined that there is no purpose in pursuing that particular subject with those countries for the foreseeable future—which of course is another possible outcome.

My reason for saying that is that, whereas in an agreement like this, which carries forward the terms of the existing EU-Morocco agreement, there is no change in the competitive position of exporters from the United States or the European Union—they pay duties at the present time, if there are duties and tariffs, and they will continue to pay them, and they are not a party to this particular deal, so their position is unchanged—if you started to negotiate a new agreement with another country where there are tariffs and quotas, we may find ourselves in a position where perhaps we can negotiate a position in which British exporters will not be paying them while, presumably, exporters from other countries will. British exporters would then gain an advantage in that particular market vis-à-vis exporters from those other two countries—looking at the EU as a country. The EU and the US might be less than pleased, although of course the amounts involved may be tiny. I think that Morocco accounts for less than 0.5% of our exports, but this could happen on several occasions in several different places. It is possible that this could be a considerable factor in the negotiations we might have with the EU and the US.

Goodness knows, those negotiations are going to be complicated enough, and there is no way that the Government will achieve their aim of concluding them by the end of this year. Given that, importing this new complication would be completely crazy and really would be very foolish because, after all, the EU and the US account for three-quarters of our exports. We would be threatening their position, or at least making life more difficult in the context of those important negotiations, for the interests of our exports to countries that represent perhaps less than 1% of our trade. That would not make any sense. I therefore retain my view about the tactics of this, despite recognising that the Government have actually succeeded in carrying forward the EU agreements in these cases in a way that I did not anticipate. I hope the Minister will agree with that apologia on my part.

Before I finish, I have another question to ask. It is clear that on the last occasion, the Foreign Office did not anticipate that the Polisario Front would wish to litigate in order to try to stop the entering into force of an EU-Morocco trade agreement. It has done so and it has succeeded, so it has held up the whole process and we will see what happens. I am told in the briefing which has been produced for members of the European Union Committee:

“We note that FCO officials have told us that they are confident the UK Agreement is consistent with EU law and the Government’s position on the status of Western Sahara.”


It may be that they are confident and that they are right. Last time, they were confident, but they were not right; they were wrong. My question to the Minister therefore is: what confidence does he have, and why does he have it, that on this occasion the FCO officials have got it right and that we will not go back to where we started and find ourselves entering into further litigation?

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I would very much like to hear the Minister explain the legal basis on which this matter rests, in view of the issues that have been raised in relation to Western Sahara. The issues raised are quite important, but at the moment I do not see exactly what the answer in which the Foreign Office will be confident is. I am willing to agree that I may be utterly wrong and that the noble Lord may be able to convince us all.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I think the whole House—and indeed the country—should be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for having raised this important matter, the effect of which goes way beyond this Trade Bill. I am very concerned that the assurances that have been given this afternoon by the Minister apply generally to all legislation and not just to this Bill. Perhaps I misunderstood the way that the Minister expressed herself on that: perhaps when she sums up she can once again make it absolutely clear.

Obviously, if it were the case that Explanatory Notes or ministerial Statements under the Pepper v Hart doctrine could be interpreted by the courts as being the equivalent of legislation, two appalling things would happen. One is that the Government would become extremely lazy in their drafting of legislation, because they could say, “Well, we can get it all right in the ministerial Statement in the House”, or something of that sort. The second, even more serious issue would be that a lot of legislation—the Explanatory Notes concerned or the ministerial Statements—would not be subject to analysis, debate and amendment by the two Houses of Parliament. That would be an absolutely disgraceful and tragic end to this particular tendency. So what has happened this afternoon is extremely important.

It is very important that what the Minister has said to the House this afternoon should be brought to the attention of all members of the Government. Once again, I would be very grateful to her if she would just repeat that these statements—I asked her specifically about the Pepper v Hart issue, but it applies to Explanatory Notes as well—apply generally to all legislation and are not tied in any sense to this particular Bill. This just happens, by accident, to be an occasion when we have two very distinguished noble and learned Lords taking part in the debate who spotted this issue, which if it had not been dealt with could have led to very serious consequences.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, as I think the only person in the Chamber who participated in Pepper v Hart, it is right to say that the decision of the majority in that case was that statements made by the mover of an amendment or a provision explaining how that provision was supposed to operate could be referred to in a case of ambiguity in order to resolve the true meaning of the phrase. I did not agree with that for reasons which I set out and with which I will not bother your Lordships now. The decision in Pepper v Hart still stands as the legal decision. I venture to hope that it will not be used very often because it is only in a case of ambiguity that it should be used at all. If you look at the detail of Pepper v Hart, you will see that statements relied upon as being explanatory leave a certain amount to be desired.

Withdrawal Agreement: Attorney General’s legal opinion on the Joint Instrument and Unilateral Declaration

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I have had the opportunity to study the earlier and most recent legal opinions of the Attorney-General. I agree with him that as a matter of law there is a risk. But I was a mathematician before I became a lawyer. One has to find out the size of the risk. Every one of us who crossed the street today to come here had to take a risk, did we not? I came yesterday by aeroplane, which also has a risk. The question is: what is the risk? A good deal of the discussion that has just taken place is about what happens in the event of extremes, but the most important way to annihilate the risk is by reaching an agreement that supersedes the protocol altogether. If we want to see how probable an agreement is, we have only to listen to Mr Johnson, who said: “They are keen to sell us their prosecco”. The European Union is as keen to have a free trade agreement with us as we are to have one with it. In fact, its trade is greater towards us than our trade is to the EU. Therefore, the chances are high, to be judged on the facts as they are now, that there will be an agreement to supersede the protocol. That is what one has to measure. So far as I am concerned, the risk is negligible—a very unlikely event. I would feel sorry if the future of our United Kingdom, in this connection, were determined by an appreciation of a so-called risk that is practically negligible.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Just to deal with “egregious” first, surely the word derives from the Latin “e grege”—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am beginning to find myself answering questions that I should pass on to my noble and learned friend. So far as I am concerned, it is unlikely that all the member states, if they have plenty of time for implementation, will, except for us, have implemented them on exit day.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I am still not quite convinced by the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Clearly, if a directive has not completed its legislative process by 29 March 2019, there is no question about it: whatever happens to it later on is nothing to do with us and it does not in any way enter English law. Equally, if a directive has been assumed into domestic law and been implemented, there is no doubt that it is part of English law. However, where a directive has completed its legislative process, has been implemented into English law in the normal way but has not come into force because it contains a provision under which it comes into force only at a certain date after 30 March, the English law—or, for that matter, the Scottish law—has already been altered and adopted the new provision. Those provisions enter into force at a certain date subsequent to 30 March but without any further change in the corpus of statute because the measure is already provided for. Surely, in those cases, that directive remains in force in English or Scottish law in the normal way. Even though it had not reached the point at which it would come into effect on 29 or 30 March, it would nevertheless be part of the corpus of law in all the union countries.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

If it has become part of our law, even if it is postponed, it is subject to this Bill. If it has not come into our law, it is not part of this Bill. I shall not answer any more questions.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am listening with great attention to what the noble and learned Lord is suggesting. Is he proposing to put down an amendment to allow the court, notwithstanding the restrictions that are being imposed in this Bill, in the event of what is described as being an academic case in which the outcome is not likely to be very different one way or another for the applicant, nevertheless to proceed under those circumstances if its intention is simply to make a declaration? That is not provided for in the Bill at present. Is the noble and learned Lord proposing to put down on Report an amendment that would give that suggestion effect?

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

If that were necessary. I regard it as something that could happen under the existing clause because the outcome for the applicant could include a declaration, in my judgment. It is a question of whether the court thought a declaration appropriate. If it did, it could do so, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 64.

National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

We have had a very thorough and memorable debate on this important subject, and that is not a bad thing. It is striking that the House should be so full on this occasion, because the NHS is very close to all our hearts and to the hearts of the whole of this country. We had a very powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and against that we have had attempts by a spokesman on behalf of the coalition, and by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to whom we always listen with great respect on these occasions, trying to reassure us that things are not quite as alarming as they appear to be—not quite as alarming as the BMA, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, once presided over in a very distinguished fashion, appears to think.

Before we accept those blandishments and reassurances, we need at least four very specific assurances from the Government tonight. One is on the matter very well raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Clause 5 is extremely weak in providing any protection against the absoluteness of the requirement for CCGs to go out to tender. It simply says that they do not have to do so if in fact there is no other party able to provide the relevant service. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very clearly said—and he is absolutely right—in a large urban area such as London or the West Midlands, there will always, or almost always, be somebody else who is technically capable of delivering the service, so that is extremely weak protection. I am not very reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said on that subject. It is no use saying “We’ve got guidance”. We are now passing the law, and guidance cannot override the law. What is more, when we have changed the law you can be absolutely certain that an awful lot of lawyers and some very aggressive companies will be waiting to use this law to try to force open a business opportunity.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Can the noble Lord say what sort of clause he proposes instead of Clause 5 that would be consistent with the European legislation and the regulations made here under the previous Government in implementing it?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am in favour of scrapping all these regulations completely and simply voting them down tonight. That is my simple answer. I put the onus on to the noble Lord—if he can come up with a suggestion which reassures me, so much the better.

My second concern is over the future of networks. I was lobbied over the weekend by one or two doctors in Lincolnshire and I undertook to speak about this matter. One of them served as a junior doctor in Newcastle under the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and was full of affectionate and very admiring memories of the way in which he ran his department. Nevertheless, those doctors are deeply concerned—as are so many across the country—about the impact on networks. We have all read the handouts and papers from the BMA on this subject. I notice from the way in which the regulations are drafted that the protections regarding networks and integration in Regulations 2 and 3(4) in no way override the requirement in Regulation 5 to go for tendering. That is not a sufficient protection. They simply say that there is one criterion, and that is not good enough. If the Government want us to take these regulations seriously, I expect them to provide some specific reassurances on that.

My third concern is this. We all know that the ratio of fixed to variable costs in healthcare is extremely high. To use a technical term, the operational gearing of healthcare, particularly in the secondary sector, is very high. That means that if you take out any particular activity from a general hospital, the existing overheads will then fall on a reduced range of activities and therefore a reduced range of revenues. So you will make unviable—or are likely to make both financially and possibly technically unviable—other services which are being delivered in that particular hospital.

Under these new regulations, will it be possible for a CCG to take the view that it does not want to tender either service, which, if it took it away from the existing provider, would make that provider unviable not merely for that service but for the whole range of services currently being provided? In other words, will it be possible for a CCG to take the view that it is not in the interests of the patient in that particular area to run down or destroy a local hospital or a local unit? Will the regulations provide any protection for a CCG which, in the public interest, decides not to tender out for that particular purpose?

My final concern is one on which, again, I should like a specific reassurance from the Government—it can be in a yes or no form. We live in an international digital age. We know that medical services, even remote surgery, can be provided not merely here but anywhere around the world. If electromagnetic waves travel at speed c, that merely means that you have something like a 20th of a second delay if you are operating from India. A 20th of a second may not be crucial to that operation in terms of security.

Therefore, we may well face the possibility of tendering out services all around the world. It may be that a CCG will quite legitimately decide that the Massachusetts General Hospital is the best place to go for a particular type of surgery. That is fine but, again, if a CCG decides—or, more likely, if the national Commissioning Board decides—that it is in the interests of this country to keep a capability here, will it be protected in taking that decision against Monitor or against the competition laws which will then operate?

An even better example, perhaps, than remote surgery is imaging. Whether it is computerised thermography, ultrasound or magnetic resonance, these things can be read anywhere around the world in real time 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It may well be that very good offers will come in from India to provide this particular service. In those circumstances, if we went for those offers in a particular region—perhaps in the whole country—we would not have any radiologists left at all. They would all have gone somewhere else in the world. Will the national Commissioning Board and the CCGs be protected if, in the interests of keeping what they regard as an essential capability in this country, they decide that it is not appropriate to tender out a service or to accept a tender, however financially and technically attractive that tender might be?

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Davies of Stamford

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I will just respond to him before giving way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Indeed, I must not caricature the Government’s position; believe it or not, I do not want to do so. I want to reveal the Government’s position. I am trying to draw out the Government. We succeeded in doing that this afternoon; perhaps the latest intervention from the Minister is part of that. It was extremely useful, but I think it is clear that the Bill imposes certain duties on the Secretary of State and we have often heard, when it comes to the powers that he has, that it is not quite clear what the position is.

What I am particularly concerned about in the area of health education and training, but also in other areas, is, first, that the Secretary of State will be in a position to answer parliamentary Questions about anything to do, in this case, with health education and training. It might be on planning for numbers, public health or whatever, but there should be no sense in which he will simply say, “That is the responsibility of somebody else. I cannot answer that”.

Secondly, I am concerned about the actual powers that the Secretary of State will have to intervene—the ability he will have simply to give directions to one of these quangos, to override it in certain circumstances. The circumstances in which he would be able to override it need to be clearly defined. They should, of course, be defined already so we can look at them at the same time as we look at the new duties. However, they are not defined and we need to know that they will be. I will give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I did not intend to intervene; I was hoping that the noble Lord might have finished.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

That is a very tactful way of putting it. I do not intend to speak for very much longer, but I want to complete my remarks. I simply want to say that any self-respecting person—and I am sure that the Secretary of State is one—would not accept being given duties and responsibilities without being clear about the powers that he or she had to fulfil them. I would not do so. This is a very anomalous position, where we are told that future consideration will be given to what exactly the powers will be, that future Bills will define them. I do not think that is a satisfactory situation at all, if that is the position.