Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and my noble friend Lady Bray on their impressive maiden speeches.

I am sure I am not the only one in this Chamber who longs for the day when we are united in holding the Executive to account for decisions and policies made here at home. But I cannot see how we can get to that point unless and until retained EU legislation no longer takes priority over domestic UK legislation. Surely that is a prerequisite for parliamentary sovereignty to be restored—and with it the fate of the people in Parliament and the Government’s ability to deliver—and indeed for the opportunities and benefits of Brexit to be realised. It is, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, the logic of delivering Brexit.

Now I recognise that some noble Lords are absolutely determined that this should not happen, and that the consideration of this Bill should be used as a chance to delay, in the hope that Brexit will never be enacted. I completely respect their right to hold such a position and to articulate it—if only they would. But I fear that instead we are in for another bout of Brexit-bashing amid the familiar and disdainful refrain that “they”—the people who voted leave—did not know what they were doing. As someone who knew exactly what he was doing when he voted leave, I fear that continued skirmishing simply delays the healing we so desperately need.

Like my noble friend Lady Bray, I have faith in our parliamentary democracy and in the people—as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough just reminded us—to ensure that, once accountability is brought home, as this Bill provides for in the medium to longer term, “they”, the voters, will decide at a general election whom to hire and fire on the basis of policies decided and delivered in the UK for the UK. They will have the final word. But for that to happen, this Bill—however uncomfortable we may find it—must pass first. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his tireless tenacity in ensuring that it does. He deserves our support.

Protection for Whistleblowing Bill [HL]

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I begin, like other noble Lords, by offering my heartfelt thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, rightly described as her persistence in championing this vital issue and to Mary Robinson MP in another place for her efforts. I say “heartfelt” because this cross-party Bill is personal. I was a whistleblower without the protection that this Bill would provide. It was one of the most frightening experiences of my life—and I have certainly had a few because of my disability.

I will never forget the sense of isolation and self-doubt that threatened to overwhelm me—until I googled “whistleblowing” and came across the wonderful Cathy James, the then chief executive of the UK’s premier whistleblowing charity, now called Protect, and her equally helpful colleague, Francesca West. Within minutes of calling their helpline, I was assured that the situation I was describing did merit my concerns.

As recorded in Hansard, I shared my deeply unpleasant experience with noble Lords in our debate on civil society and lobbying on 8 September 2016, so I do not intend to rehearse the details today. However, I will reiterate that I would never have believed that the behaviours I witnessed in the charity sector were possible had I not seen and experienced them myself. Bullying pressure was applied by a senior director to try to force me to approve a payment from charitable funds, which I made clear in writing would be unethical. The wholesale and expensive restructuring of the organisation I was working at resulted in a swathe of thoroughly decent former officers from different wings of the Armed Forces effectively being removed from their roles as charity managers because they had had the temerity to stand up to the civvies who had the whip hand on the charity’s executive board. This was done so cynically and systematically, with these former senior officers required to reapply for their jobs after years of excellent appraisals, only to be told that they had failed a psychometric test. All this happened without any real accountability. It was a clear abuse of power.

The individuals concerned—Chris Simpkins, Sue Freeth, Sharron Lewis-James and Jane Charlton—have all since moved on, and the wonderful charity to which I refer, and for whose vital work I will always have the greatest respect, the Royal British Legion, is thankfully now under new management. Yet for some, the scars left by those individuals’ actions and behaviours will never heal.

I was the lucky one. Thanks to Cathy James, who put me in touch with an outstanding solicitor, Clive Howard, then at Slater and Gordon, I had a degree of protection from those individuals which meant that I could, reluctantly, leave the job I loved on my terms. The same did not apply to the county managers I have mentioned, whose sense of honour, I suspect, played a part in their not pursuing the same course that I was forced to take. Another factor was that they probably felt they had nowhere to go, and the individuals that I have already mentioned will have known that too.

This Bill is crucial because it would have provided a shield for myself and the county managers and, no less importantly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has already said, a deterrent against such actions and behaviours being seen as acceptable in the first place. So I particularly welcome the provisions in Clause 1 and the expansion of the range of relevant matters to include mismanagement of public funds—to which I would add the mismanagement of charitable funds—and the misuse and abuse of authority, as proposed. I also welcome the proposed establishment of the office of the whistleblower and its objectives, including the promotion of good governance. Clause 6, and the preservation of the confidentiality and anonymity of whistleblowers, is paramount. I could not risk going to the Charity Commission, because neither would have been guaranteed in my case.

In conclusion, this Bill is sensible, it is necessary, and it enjoys cross-party support. Subject to further scrutiny in Committee, it deserves the support of your Lordships’ House as well.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus my remarks on an issue that is so pivotal to the economy that our failure to address it strategically makes no sense to me at all. The costs to the Treasury—and ultimately the taxpayer—of continuing to do so are astronomical. Before I elaborate, perhaps I can share some figures that will help place it in context. Business success, and thus economic growth, depend on many factors, and growing new markets is surely one of them. So, imagine a global market worth an estimated $8 trillion, of which the UK share alone is worth more than a quarter of a trillion pounds. I am part of that market—yet within a mile of this building, I am constantly reminded of why it remains largely untapped.

Some noble Lords may have gone to Prêt à Manger to get a sandwich this lunchtime. I did not because I could not: even in 2022 I cannot get into its nearest outlets in my wheelchair. They might as well stick a sign in the window saying, “Wheelchair users not welcome. Your money is worthless”. Just imagine if that happened on grounds of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But that is the day-to-day economic reality for many disabled people in one of the most advanced countries and economies in the world: ours. But then there are only 14 million of us, so who cares? I say we should all care. Businesses should care and the Government should care. My noble friend the Minister mentioned our debt interest payments in her opening remarks; with debt interest spending forecast to reach £83 billion next year, the Treasury should definitely care.

Two stats highlight the serious amount of tax revenue that the Treasury is missing out on. First, 75% of disabled people and their families have turned away from a business because of poor accessibility or customer service. Secondly, at least 4 million people in the UK have clicked away from a retail website because it was inaccessible, taking with them an estimated combined spend of almost £12 billion. By 2019, that lost business—the “click-away pound”—had grown to £17.1 billion.

So this is a seriously expensive problem, yet as soon as the Government hear the word “disability”, they seem to lose the power of rational, strategic thinking. All sense and ambition are lost in a policy dead end otherwise known as the DWP—a department that takes not being fit for purpose to new heights. I will give one example: according to the Government’s own figures, only 1.3% of British employers are signed up to Disability Confident, its flagship disability employment scheme. If that is success, I hate to think what failure looks like.

Whether it is lost tax revenue, the 30% disability employment gap or the £60 billion spent on disability benefits alone in the last year, the numbers are so big that we can no longer afford to pretend that this is not a massive economic issue. In conclusion, that is why, as the cost of living gets ever higher, it is vital that the Treasury ensures that the outcomes of the DWP’s employment programmes represent taxpayer value for money; that the DWP’s approach to closing the disability employment gap matches the scale and urgency of the challenge; and that the market shares I have highlighted, and the tax revenues, are tapped. No business can afford to think in silos, and neither can we.

Trade Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. I want to focus on the point that he rightly makes about the Government’s accountability to Parliament and, in particular, the question of how they are going to be accountable to Parliament. I join the tributes to the noble Lord and others, including in the other place, who have put the arguments extraordinarily well, which will be sustained into the future. I also pay tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench, not least for the constructive way he has approached all our debates throughout the consideration of this Bill.

First, before I get on to Parliament’s accountability, the Foreign Secretary, in exchanges on the Statement yesterday in the other place, said:

“the arguments around genocide and the importance of its being determined by a court are well rehearsed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 625.]

They may have been rehearsed, but they have not been resolved, and that is important. I cannot compare with the descriptions in our previous debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, who will speak in a moment, but the questions that she set out of which court, under what circumstances and by what processes genocide will be determined are absolutely instrumental. It will not be in this Bill or the Act, but we need to keep pressing on that issue.

In this Bill, not least by virtue of Sir Bob Neill’s amendment, which we now see as Amendment 3C, we have a process. We have set up that process, it is important and we need to get it right, but I want to illustrate to your Lordships that it is not sufficient. Let me give two examples. First, it relates to free trade agreements; it does not relate to our treaty-making processes in general. We will come back to this regularly, but I think we are beginning to realise, not least after leaving the European Union, that we are making treaties to a greater extent and with greater importance than previously. Parliament should play a central role in those processes, which brings me to the point that my noble friend was making about how the Government are accountable. They should be accountable, but in some respects they are not, because the exercise of the prerogative means that we are not, in Parliament, involved; we simply receive. Where free trade agreements are concerned, we are going to be involved.

Secondly, Amendment 3C refers to a “prospective FTA counter-party.” What is that? It is a state with which the Government are in negotiations relating to a bilateral free trade agreement. We have all been hearing the debate about China. The Government are not in the process of negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with China, so the question does not arise. If the Government were to enter into a bilateral investment agreement with China, would that qualify under this amendment? I think the Government would say not. If China were to seek accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—of which, in due course, we hope to be members—would that qualify under this amendment? I think the answer is that it would not. So we could enter into a substantive, wide-ranging free trade agreement with China without this amendment ever being invoked.

The proposition I generally make, as a member of the International Agreements Committee, is that we have an instrument in this House that I hope we will use actively to examine not only bilateral free trade agreements but the whole structure of free trade agreements and international treaties and agreements. Not neglecting the Grimstone rule, which relates to free trade agreements, we should bring forward reports on the negotiating objectives and give at least this House—and, probably by extension the other place, by remarking on what we say—the opportunity to do what my noble friend said, which is say what Parliament will not put up with. That is really important. It may not be written into law at this stage—although I suspect that it ought to be one day—but it will be a further important step in moving the public debate. Although it is not in this Bill, which will be an Act, we should be active in considering by what means we exercise scrutiny of international treaties, trade agreements and agreements generally.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Lansley. I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Alton for the way he has brought noble Lords together in support of the Muslim Uighur people and the crucial principle of our common humanity.

I have only two points to make. First, I am saddened by the Government’s position, because the genocide of the Muslim Uighur people cannot be swept under the carpet as the Government’s rejection of the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House implies. The reason is simple: to be able to sweep an issue under the carpet, one has first to be able to lift the carpet. The carpet is too heavy to lift, because it is saturated with the blood of the Muslim Uighur people, who, as we have heard, are being subjected to genocide by the Chinese Communist Party regime for the supposed crime of being Muslim.

Secondly, in a few weeks’ time, on 6 May, Muslims will vote in the local elections. I trust they, and all who care about human rights, will ask their candidates what their party is doing to stop the genocide of the Muslim Uighur people.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for joining the debate about three minutes late. I was in a minor road traffic accident with a slowly reversing delivery vehicle. While my chariot has a few scratches on it, I do not, so I live to fight another day.

I congratulate all Peers on the superb speeches we have heard yet again today, and I thank the Minister, who has been exemplary in his courtesy in dealing with us troublesome Peers making the amendments, for his patience in defending the Government’s position. But I simply do not understand why the Government I support, which are so robust on so many matters, are so lily-livered when it comes to China—or the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party, to be more precise.

As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, we all know and understand that we have to trade with China for the time being, because we get too many vital supplies from them, and we do not yet have sufficient alternative resources onshore. So it is legitimate to say, in the medium term, and possibly even in the long term, that we have to carry on trading; and calling China a trading partner is legitimate. But in this House, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has described China as a “strategic partner”—the terminology that we would usually use to describe a NATO ally, not a country behaving as China does.

What does China do? This so-called strategic partner of ours has destroyed what remains of democracy in Hong Kong and removed all human rights. It is stealing sand banks in the South China Sea and turning them into military bases. It is threatening all its near neighbours. It is increasingly flying armed aircraft sorties into Taiwan’s airspace. It is building up massive military forces capable of invading Taiwan in the future. It has lied and lied again about the origins of Covid. It has launched a trade war with Australia, which had the effrontery just to ask for an independent inquiry into the cause of Covid—something we have never done. It has a massive cyberwarfare capability and has used it against companies and government organisations of the United Kingdom. It is running concentration camps in Xinjiang province, with up to 1 million people detained. It has been accused of genocide by Canada, Holland and the United States.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said again in his excellent speech today, last week, more than 50 lawyers published a 25,000 page report stating that every single article in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide had been broken by the Communist Party in Xinjiang. These are not the actions of a strategic partner; these are the actions of a hostile state.

Trade Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

It is in our DNA to call out injustice and fight for freedom. The Uighurs are calling out for justice and are fighting for freedom. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a perfect example of calling out injustice and fighting for that freedom. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that we are seen to be doing the right thing. I am honoured and privileged to support him once again.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Polak. Like him, I feel honoured to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I also pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his resolve, persistence and most of all his humanity, because that is what this is ultimately about—our common humanity and common responsibility to bear witness to the values that underpin free democratic societies like ours. It is surely the responsibility of those who have power to stand up and protect the universal human rights of those who have absolutely none and who are victims of genocide—whether they be Uighurs, Rohingyas, or Yazidis.

As we have already heard, yesterday our Foreign Secretary gave a powerful speech to mark the UK’s return to the United Nations Human Rights Council following its re-election last October. As my noble friend Lord Alton told us, the Foreign Secretary described the situation in Xinjiang as “beyond the pale”. He is right to do so because if we want to be taken seriously by our global partners, including those whose agenda is to supplant our value system—especially democracy—then we need to deserve to be taken seriously.

That was yesterday; today, we have this fantastic opportunity to answer the Foreign Secretary’s call to arms and, by our deeds in the virtual Division Lobbies, to lend his words essential credence. This carefully crafted amendment enables us to do just that. Contrary to the impression given by the Government, time is of the essence—because genocide is not an academic question. If we want to stop and prevent genocide, we need to facilitate action now, today, by passing this amendment.

There is another reason why we should support the amendment. The Foreign Secretary highlighted in his speech that what is being perpetrated in Xinjiang is being done on an “industrial scale”. I wonder where we have heard that description before because, as any Holocaust survivor would remind us—as if that were necessary—we have been here before. It is astonishing, is it not, that we human beings have an amazing propensity to pretend that each generation is far too sophisticated to repeat the tragic mistakes of the past—yet, as the Holocaust survivor Primo Levi told the world, that is the best way of ensuring that we do repeat the tragic mistakes of the past.

As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, there is another reason why we have been here before. Like him, I am also thinking of the infamous words of Neville Chamberlain during the Munich crisis in 1938, less than 100 years ago, when he referred dismissively—as we were reminded—to

“a quarrel in a far-away country, between people of whom we know nothing.”

In relation to the Rohingyas, the Yazidis or the Uighurs, are we really saying, in 2021, that appeasement pays and we simply do not care about the victims of genocide?

We should care a great deal. This amendment gives us the opportunity to look in the mirror: do we want to walk the walk and stand up for the values we profess to believe in, or do we encourage disrespect, cynicism and further genocides by only talking the talk? Is that what we want genocidal despots like Xi Jinping to think? This is the first test of global Britain’s commitment to freedom; let us not fail it. Let us pass this amendment and so enable the elected House to debate and vote on it.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, of course it is rare for this House to resist the opinion of the other place, and to do so again is deeply unusual—but there is a very good reason for doing so on this occasion, and we know what that reason is.

Certainly, on the last occasion in the other place, we saw a regrettable piece of sharp practice, which has been described by others, where the powers that be knitted together two amendments from this House, thereby diminishing the Commons vote. I am sure there was a great deal of back-slapping about who invented that wheeze, but it was unworthy on a subject as serious as this.

It is clear that there was, and remains, a huge clamour of voices, up and down this country and around other parts of the world, calling for this amendment to be passed—because it concerns an issue of profound moral obligation. We are signatories of the genocide convention and people of our word, and we are proud of this. It is worth remembering that we said, “Never again”.

My father’s generation, which is probably that of the fathers of virtually everybody in this House, fought in the Second World War, and he came home from war battle-worn and haunted by what was revealed when the gates of Auschwitz and other camps opened, having seen the evidence of the barbarity that had been perpetrated. He and others like him of our parents’ generation asked themselves thereafter about the horrors and whether they could have been prevented if there had been greater activity, in the 1930s and the years of the war, around what was taking place. Was there a point at which the Nazis could have been stopped in their hellish determination to extinguish a whole people? I wonder what my father would say now.

The genocide convention is about preventing atrocities, not waiting to count the bodies in mass graves to see if the tally is great enough—or waiting until the multiple crimes against humanity reach a level where, somehow, a bell rings. All the evidence received directing us to this most grievous of crimes points to genocide. You only have to hear the testimony of Uighur women, as I have, to register really deep alarm about them having children removed from them or being deracinated and stripped of their language, their culture, their religion and the family they love, placed in institutions a bit like borstals to whip them into line. You would also register alarm about them watching their husbands being taken off to forced labour camps or to disappear forever—and them being sterilised, prostituted and raped themselves. Their personal testimonies are so moving, and there is also the external photographic evidence of destroyed mosques and burial grounds. I have rehearsed that again —you have heard it before—because we must not forget what we are talking about here. The Uighur people are experiencing human degradation, torture and ways in which the human identity is taken from them.

I listened as others spoke about the courts, and I want to clarify some things for the House. Of course, the International Court of Justice is the court for the determination of serious crimes of genocide. There are two international courts that can potentially deal with genocide: the International Court of Justice is where plaints are laid by one nation against another, which is different from the International Criminal Court. The problem with the former—which is the traditional court where matters of this gravity would be dealt with, when a nation is conducting itself in this way—is that, after World War II, a small group of nations were given special status on the Security Council, and they have special powers and can exercise a veto. China is one of those powers, and we know that it would veto any plaint laid against it at the International Court of Justice. I will make it clear: that route to justice is therefore blocked.

The International Criminal Court should not be confused with that; it is where individuals are tried for grievous crimes, but the nation to which those individuals belong has to be a signatory to the Rome statute. China is not a signatory, so that route to justice is also blocked in relation to genocide. This turns us all into bystanders, and that is the problem.

When asked to declare a genocide, our Government says, “This is not a matter for Parliament; we can have debates and committees about it, but it is a matter for a competent court.” Of course, that means that we do not act at all; it is a recipe for inaction, which is why today’s debate and those that have gone before—as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said—will come back if we do not decide today because most Members of Parliament, and many of the people up and country, feel that inaction in the face of genocide is not a position this nation can take.

We have very competent courts, and there are few courts more competent than our higher courts. Creating a procedure which lets a court determine whether there is sufficient evidence is the line that I would be arguing for today, but we are forced to present an alternative because we are meeting such resistance from government.

Trade Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Ernie Bevin was making these arguments about Russia in the 1930s, because, as a trade unionist, he saw what Soviet Communists were up to in the trade union movement. That is what turned him strongly against dealing with Russia. The biggest problem he had was getting agreement on what was actually happening in, first, Nazi Germany, then Russia. When I was searching in his papers, I came across correspondence between him and Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin produced a great film, “The Great Dictator”, which exposed and ridiculed Hitler and Nazi Germany and had a huge impact on opinion across Europe and the United States. However, the film was nearly not made, because the financial backers of Charlie Chaplin in Hollywood were worried it would be banned in Britain. We should support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this all-party amendment so powerfully advanced by my noble friend Lord Alton and supported so eloquently by other noble Lords. I know that my remarks cannot compare with the brilliant speeches we have already heard, so I shall keep them brief.

As I assume do all noble Lords, I believe passionately in freedom—freedom of trade and freedom of conscience. So I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. Just how bad does it need to get before global Britain stands up for that freedom?

I conclude with a question to all noble Lords and, crucially, Members of the other place. If we really believe in freedom, and if we want others to respect and honour it, how, in all conscience, can we not support this amendment?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I refer to my entries in the register of interests. This has been a comprehensive and very thorough debate, as it should be. It has been ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, introducing his amendment and who I think is now collectively our noble friend Lord Alton, for introducing so—

Covid-19: Small Businesses

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Rural areas are badly affected, as indeed are city areas. Like other SMEs, rural businesses can access support including loan guarantees, business grants and the tax deferrals I referred to. Those needing advice can now access free advice on the right finances from local government-backed growth hubs, which are part of the LEPs. But I totally accept the point made by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, given that the OBR has warned that the UK economy will shrink by 11.3% this year—the biggest fall for 300 years—and that unemployment will peak in the second quarter at 7.5%, and given that the Chancellor said in his recent spending review that we are facing an “economic emergency”, will the Minister agree with me that, as soon as we possibly can, we need to shift the focus from saving lives to saving livelihoods and thereby signal our support to small business people across the UK?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that, as soon as we possibly can, we need to lift these restrictions to get the economy moving again, but we are indeed facing a public health emergency at the moment, as he has said.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, on this anniversary of Kristallnacht, when some of us mourn the cruelty of the death of grandparents we never knew, I join in expressing my sadness at the death of the late Lord Sacks, a truly inspiring member of your Lordships’ House. He bore his greatness well.

It is a pleasure to follow the attractive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, disagree with him though I do. I simply suggest to him that I suspect that hungry lawyers and busy grocers share more instincts than he imagines.

I am persuaded by the clarity of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge in his presentation of the proposition that we should expunge this part from the Bill. Indeed, it is my view that we should stand fast, and make it absolutely clear to the Government that we will do everything in our power, however long it may take, to achieve that end.

I listened with great interest to the eloquent and ingenious arguments, presented in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. In my view, the noble Lord fails in those arguments for at least three reasons. First, these proposals are a deliberate and unnecessary flouting of international legal obligations which the European Court of Justice would never support. If there was any implication in what he said that it would, the noble Lord is simply wrong. Secondly, he offers no justification for the breathtaking and extraordinary use of secondary legislation on the fiat of a Minister to break treaty obligations, especially as such secondary legislation is unamendable. Thirdly, and this is a point made by my noble friend Lord Pannick, there is the issue of the arbitration provisions. To avoid those provisions is simply an abuse of process, and nothing less.

Do we learn anything from what is happening elsewhere at the moment, in relation to these proposals? Why has President-elect Biden’s election engendered such support across the democratic world? What unfolded in recent days, as I saw it in many hours of the day and night while watching the extraordinary output of CNN, promises the world the speedy return by the United States to the honouring of treaties, multilateralism, and to trust between nations. Trust between nations, however, requires one to trust the Governments of each of those nations.

I remind the House of President-elect Biden’s long-standing commitment to the Good Friday agreement, and that his commitment, and his understanding of it, will engender intensive scrutiny by the United States of the United Kingdom’s adherence to all its obligations, including the Good Friday agreement. As my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames said in his powerful speech, the Belfast Protocol is a living instrument, and a very sensitive organism, which we should not damage in the course of negotiation tactics. The prospect of a United States-United Kingdom trade treaty, so important to this country, will not turn on the feeding and the properties of chickens.

Such issues are always negotiable. It will depend on the perceived adherence of the United Kingdom to important treaty obligations and on what the United States thinks of the integrity of the United Kingdom. Why would one make a treaty with an untrusted partner? There are plenty of other potential partners around.

My conclusion is that this part of the Bill has no place in our legal tradition. Indeed, it damages our economic interest and reputation in a key area of commerce—the extraordinarily successful legal services provided by British lawyers and the British legal system all around the world. Worst of all, as my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames made clear, it threatens stability in Northern Ireland, which was hard won, to the credit of all sides there.

There was no manifesto commitment to break international law in this way. Rather like President Trump’s allegations of electoral irregularities, this part of the Bill is completely unsupported by anything remotely ascribable as cogent evidence. I will vote against all these clauses standing part of the Bill. I hope others will join with me in any future debates in standing firm on these extremely important issues of principle.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, may I begin by joining with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and other noble Lords in mourning the loss of our noble friend Lord Sacks?

I shall speak to Clauses 44 and 45. I may be being thick but, for me—and I think for millions of people who voted for the UK to leave the EU—these clauses go to the heart of why we felt there was no alternative. I did not vote to leave the EU almost four and a half years ago because I hate Europe or because I am xenophobic. I did so with a heavy heart because I believed that, unless and until we had left and the transition period had passed, British democracy would be inexorably undermined by a lack of transparency, accountability and control. I did so because I believe in a stronger, not an ever weaker, Parliament, in government that is more accountable, not less, and in a people that thus have more power, not less.

The idea that we should surrender in the final round makes no sense at all. For that is what we would be doing without this insurance policy. Whether we like it or not, it is an inescapable fact that, without it, the integrity and viability of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could be at risk. Of course, who in your Lordships’ House does not hope that we achieve a favourable outcome through the Joint Committee process? However, this is not guaranteed by any means.

It is worth reflecting on the practical consequences of an unfavourable outcome. My noble friend Lord Lilley posed the key question: what would it mean for people’s lives and livelihoods in Northern Ireland? As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, made clear, it would have a terrible impact.

Essentially, damaging defaults would come into effect, which would achieve the very opposite of what noble Lords, the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and the President-elect of the United States all reject—the effective creation of a hard border in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to say how excited I am personally by the election of the first woman and person of colour as Vice-President of the United States. It must mark one of the most exciting milestones in my lifetime and is a testimony to the overwhelming, inevitable logic of equality.

If Michel Barnier or President-elect Biden want to protect Northern Ireland’s integrity and equality through the Good Friday agreement, surely they must accept that a hard border would not achieve that objective. It is therefore essential that we safeguard the gains that have been made and ensure there is a safety net in place to protect the people of Northern Ireland—their jobs, their livelihoods and their financial security—should the EU fail to agree reasonable solutions in the joint committee. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, these clauses do that pragmatically. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. If parliamentary sovereignty is to mean anything, these clauses must stand part of this Bill.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, earlier today in the debate on the Agriculture Bill, there was a great deal of rightful praise for the impact of your Lordships’ House, particularly on the crucial issue of trade standards. That reflected 90 hours of debate. We are already well into double figures on this Bill, and that is a good job: first, for the coverage of crucial issues, particularly the effective destruction by the Bill in its current form of the devolution settlements canvassed in earlier sessions; and, secondly, because the time taken to get to these amendments has meant that there is a positive global atmosphere for today’s debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has just alluded.

I want to respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, who said that nothing had changed since Second Reading—although he was right to say that nothing had changed in the government position. But the global picture has changed. Had this debate been happening even a week ago, the atmosphere and environment in which it was occurring would have been very different—far more fearful. It would have felt more like the Committee was swimming against a fast-flowing current. But now the Government are the side in this debate that looks isolated and exposed. The global tide is running in the opposite direction, and they are high and dry.

The technical issues have been very clearly set out by major legal minds, and I do not intend to draw on the highly useful multiple briefings received from the major legal institutions of the nation—backing the action of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in particular—to repeat what they have already said. I simply offer the Green group’s support for all the amendments in this group tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and for all the non-government amendments, and I will reflect on the national, and indeed global, reasons for your Lordships’ House to follow the lead of the noble and learned Lord on Part 5.

Today dawned with the dangerous forces of disorder and decay—those who want to sweep aside the rule of law and who demonise the vulnerable and the different, building walls and seeking to install nets to keep them out—very much on the defensive. Donald Trump has lost the US presidential election. The EU has decided to impose sanctions and deny funding to members that defy the rule of law—a move very clearly directed at Hungary’s far-right regime. In Poland, an outpouring of anger led by women against a further tightening of tiny abortion rights has developed into a far broader challenge against regressive forces. In Thailand, young people are standing up against the long-term repression of the combined forces of the military and tradition.

By backing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the Committee can today begin to point the UK in the direction that the rest of the world is travelling: towards restoring a democratic culture and the rule of law. That restoration protects the Good Friday agreement, that crucial bedrock of security and communal trust. That the unelected House—a phrase we hear a lot from the last-stand defenders of our isolated Government—should be doing this is, however, a pointer to the future.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, imagine this: a foreign power—a trading bloc—is desperate to make an example of a former member state to discourage any others tempted to follow them to freedom. So desperate is this foreign power to protect its empire that since a withdrawal agreement was signed with the former member state, it has issued new threats to the very viability of the former member state’s internal market, and therefore to its future prosperity and security. In short, the empire cannot afford for the break-away member state to succeed. It must be seen to fail. That is the reality this country faces; a reality that I am amazed so many still choose to ignore. Surely when any UK Government realise that the UK is in great danger of being put in a headlock by new threats made since the withdrawal agreement was signed, it is that Government’s duty to counter the new threats through legislation empowering them to act if necessary.

I hear what some of my noble friends have said about Part 5 of the Bill, and I hope they know that, while I may beg to differ, I have the utmost respect for them. However, I fear that other noble Lords’ views remain rooted in a refusal to reconcile themselves with the reality of the referendum result to leave the EU. Nothing, it seems, will extinguish the Euro-federalist dream. But at a time when coronavirus casts such a dark shadow over so much of our lives, neither should we extinguish hope for a better future beyond coronavirus: hope for a return to the growth that will underpin our economic recovery and, with it, the security of the NHS and all that we hold dear.

We should not underestimate how much the Eurocrats stand to lose if the British people are allowed to make a success of their lives after Brexit. Their empire will implode. Brussels can go for broke if it wants to; the United Kingdom must go for growth. Pre-empting a foreign power’s threat to the integrity and viability of our internal market is essential if we want all parts of the UK to benefit from that growth. People will not understand if we fail now to protect them from the very real threat posed to their future well-being and prosperity from a foreign power, the EU, which above all else needs Brexit to be seen to fail. That means poverty, not prosperity. No Government could wish that on their own people. That is why, for the people’s sake, this Bill deserves our support.

Covid-19: Businesses and the Private Sector

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, as others have said, the contribution of businesses and the wider private sector will be pivotal to our recovery from Covid-19. While no one can take any pleasure from the economic situation in the EU, it seems increasingly clear that the eurozone is going for broke. We must go for growth. It is the only way to shift the coronavirus debt. Our new Chancellor has more than stepped up to the mark, but it is the taxpayer who will have to step up to the plate until we have driven down the debt. That is why we need to unleash the energy of enterprise; we must give business the freedom to innovate, to develop new markets and to grow UK plc.

As someone who owes his life to the NHS, I say we all have a stake in enterprise, wealth creation and growth, for only a competitive, thriving Great Britain offers the security on which our welfare state and the public sector depend. So it is even more important that the Government defend the national interest in our negotiations with the EU, the US, Canada and other trading partners. David Frost’s letter to Michel Barnier signals to the EU, its 27 member states and the world that we are serious in our commitment to trade competitively and to maximum mutual benefit. His commendable clarity is essential if we are to deserve to be taken seriously when Liz Truss, in the other place, says:

“Britain is open for business.”


She deserves our support.