European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Callanan]

This legislation is being repealed in consequence of the repeal of the 2008 and 2011 Acts, which has rendered them redundant and no longer necessary. Removing this legislation from our statute book is consistent with our goals of ensuring an effective, functioning statute book on exit day by providing clarity and avoiding confusion by making reference to legislation that no longer exists within our statute book. For reassurance, I make it clear that the repeal of the legislation that approved matters in accordance with the 2008 and 2011 Acts does not have any effect on the validity of anything done in relation to those decisions or treaty changes approved by them.

Secondly, these regulations also make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act 1948, and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, to reflect the introduction of a new category of law, called “retained direct EU law”, into the UK’s legal system. Retained direct EU law is the directly applicable EU law that existed immediately before exit day that will be converted into UK law on exit day by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

The Statutory Instruments Act established a number of rules that apply when making SIs, and similarly, the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order applies when making statutory rules—the Northern Irish equivalent—under powers in primary legislation. To provide certainty, it is important that we ensure that these same rules apply to instruments made under powers in retained direct EU legislation so that it is clear what procedures must be followed to ensure that instruments made under powers in retained direct EU legislation are properly made.

These regulations therefore make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 to make it clear that the normal rules apply to making statutory instruments and statutory rules under powers in retained direct EU law. This will create certainty about the proper procedures to be followed where such powers are used in the future and will assist Parliament in considering the use of such powers.

Similar provision has already been made to deal with Scottish statutory instruments made under retained direct EU legislation through the amendments to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act in Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Therefore, these regulations take an approach consistent for the purposes of England, Wales and Northern Ireland with that taken for Scotland by the Act itself.

The Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act established the rules for laying documents before Parliament where an Act or piece of secondary legislation required that documents be laid before Parliament. Similarly, therefore, the consequential amendments made to the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act will ensure that the same rules on laying documents before Parliament apply where retained direct EU legislation requires those documents to be laid before Parliament.

Given that these regulations amend primary legislation that is of constitutional importance, we thought it would be appropriate to allow Parliament the opportunity to debate these regulations through the use of an affirmative instrument. However, I hope that after my explanation noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible use of the consequential power, and that what we are seeking is appropriate to ensure continuity as a new category of law is introduced into our legal system on exit.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which, in so far as is possible on the subject, was admirably straightforward. He is quite right, as he said at the beginning, that there was—and will continue to be—a lot of controversy over the ministerial powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. This one is perhaps not yet of mountainous dimensions in terms of controversy, but I have some questions.

First, no doubt simply because of my unfamiliarity with the field of secondary legislation, can the Minister remind me whether there are any limits on the ability of SIs to amend primary legislation under the Act? I have entirely forgotten—perhaps mercifully—a lot of the debates on the Bill. The regulations amend primary legislation. I would welcome a reminder of whether there are any limits on that.

My second question is about the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013. I appreciate that the implementation of those measures—the accession of Croatia and the Irish protocol to the Lisbon treaty—is not affected by these regulations, but what will happen to their implementation when and if the ECA is repealed? How will they continue to be implemented? They have been implemented through the European Communities Act by making them EU treaties for the purposes of that Act. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum rightly states that their,

“implementation is unaffected by these regulations”,

but that prompted me to wonder what happens when and if the ECA is repealed. I would be grateful to learn how they carry on being in force, or will that matter be dealt with during the standstill transition by repealing a lot of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in the EU withdrawal agreement Bill? I hope that I do not stray too far, but this subject is quite complicated.

Similar issues arise in relation to the decisions mentioned in paragraph 2.11. I remember spending time during the passage of the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 speaking about Albania and Serbia being observers in the work of the fundamental rights agency—I cannot remember whether I referred also to the Canada competition laws; it was in the same Act, so I must have done. These approvals are no longer necessary if Sections 1 to 13 of the European Union Act 2011 are being abolished, so the 2017 Act becomes redundant. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The repeal of the Act approving those decisions has no effect on the validity of those decisions or anything done in relation to those decisions”.


So if we repeal the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017, paragraph 2.11 of the memorandum states that such repeal,

“has no effect on the validity of those decisions”,

which is interesting. How are they still valid? The Government are repealing the Act which approved the decisions about Albania and Serbia being observers in the fundamental rights agency, et cetera, but they state that it has no effect on the validity of the decisions. On what basis, then, do those decisions approving Albania and Serbia continue to be valid?

That takes me back to my previous point. That statement implies that we want those decisions to continue to be valid. If we want to continue the validity of the Serbian and Albanian observership in the fundamental rights agency, I presume that we want to continue the validity of the recognition of Croatian accession and the Irish protocol. I am wondering whether my question about how they get knocked out by the repeal of the ECA is correct, because presumably they are on a similar level. If the Albania and Serbia observerships are to remain valid—which they would be in a standstill transition anyway—presumably that also applies to the Croatian accession, et cetera. So how do they continue being valid, and if they do, will they still be valid after 29 March? I apologise if I am just being dense.

Then there is the question about the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applying. Obviously, that is welcome. It is interesting that it is being done now. Perhaps the Minister could remind me why the Government did not agree to incorporate this in the EU withdrawal Act. Our attention is drawn to the 12th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published last February. One of the things it objected to was tertiary legislation—the ability for Ministers or other bodies to make further subordinate legislation without there having to be any parliamentary procedure or any requirement for it to be made by statutory instrument. The committee wanted all tertiary legislation to be subject to the same parliamentary control and time limits as are applicable to secondary legislation. If I understand this correctly, it talks about the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applying to SIs. Does it apply? The DPRRC report also referred to tertiary legislation which is not made in statutory instruments. Is this extension of the 1946 Act limited to what is made under statutory instruments or does it meet the entire objection in the DPRRC report of last February? I hope the question is clear, because I am confused about why the Government are doing this now and did not do it in the Bill.

I am also trying to understand the scope of this welcome reform—whether further transparency and normal rules of scrutiny should apply. The answer would appear to be only where that secondary legislation is in statutory instruments, and not if it was made by some new agency, for instance. In paragraph 2.12, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the ability to subdelegate regulations made under certain withdrawal Act powers—tertiary legislation made by an agency, for instance. It says that,

“it is important that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is amended to cover these scenarios”,

so you would think that meant all tertiary legislation, but then it goes on to say,

“so that there is certainty about the proper procedure for making SIs under such powers”.

I am dependent on the report from last February to understand that not all tertiary legislation is made in SIs. I suppose it makes sense, but I am a novice in secondary legislation. What is the extent of the concession—the welcome reform—that the Government are proposing for the extension of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946? Does it apply to all tertiary legislation, including that not made under SIs or by Ministers but by other bodies?

I think that covers all my questions. I hope that I have not been too confusing and that the Minister is able to answer my questions.

Brexit: Dispute Resolution and Enforcement (European Union Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, was delighted to serve under the splendid chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who has introduced our report so comprehensively and indeed does a very good job of keeping us in order. It is also a pleasure to participate in a debate with colleagues from the sub-committee. I note that we now have two Lord Andersons. We have the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, of that ilk, who is a valued colleague on the sub-committee, and we have the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I am particularly pleased to take part for the first time in a debate with him because our paths crossed when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and I focused on EU justice and security matters as an MEP. His interest in the EU dimension set an example that was not always followed by British officials and institutions.

During the debate, we have noted various features common to Brexit negotiations as a whole that pop up in this area. I should just like to enumerate them. The first—the big elephant in the room—is, of course, the red line against the jurisdiction of the ECJ. It has bedevilled the whole of the negotiations, but particularly in this area, where its impact is greatest and most damaging. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, such prejudice against the court is fuelled by the empty and ill-informed rhetoric of the Brexiters. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, rightly described it as a “thick red line”: given the Brexiter confusion between the ECJ and the ECHR, perhaps it is “thick” in more ways than one.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, noted that the Prime Minister still said a few weeks ago that the role of the ECJ in the UK would cease. He rightly described that as misleading. I would go further: it is totally wrong in the light of the Government’s own contributions. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said, “Now you see it, now you don’t”. The second common feature of the whole sorry saga of the Brexit negotiations is dishonesty and unreliability. What can we trust that we hear from the Government? Is it still going to be true tomorrow? “Will you still love me tomorrow?”

The third feature is that all of the alternatives to EU membership are more messy, more complicated, more difficult to follow and less transparent and accessible for citizens and businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, we will have multiple systems of dispute resolution and enforcement. Some of those are the special regime for citizens’ rights, the withdrawal agreement, the transition and the future relationship. Then we have the dispute resolution between the parties and the attempt at private enforcement by citizens and businesses.

The fourth feature is a belief that everything is political, with a disdain for a so-called legalistic approach. This apparently applies to the debate on the Irish backstop. This pejorative term—it is used pejoratively—fails to recognise that the EU has a legal and constitutional order. It cannot just throw this over. I think that many Brexiters do not like courts and judges, full stop. We are undermining our negotiating ability by failing to recognise the fundamentals about the EU legal order. Linked to that is the complacent idea that the UK can expect a bespoke arrangement just to suit us because we are big, important and we are—well, us.

The fifth feature is the failure to put forward credible and workable proposals. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, they have not surfaced. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us and as my noble friend Lord Newby mentioned on Monday, proposals always seem to be happening “soon”, “in due course” or “when the time is right”. That time is now. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, just said, we are deafened by the silence. This is creating enormous uncertainty and anxiety out there in the real world because the enforcement and dispute resolution options for the future relationship will be shaped by the closeness of the partnership. We are in that cart-before-horse situation where the Government’s failure after two years to decide precisely what model they seriously want to pursue has held back sensible discussion on mechanisms.

The July White Paper clarified what the Government meant by the term the Prime Minister had used in two speeches that the UK would “respect the remit” of the CJEU when participating in agencies and programmes. The White Paper explained that this meant respecting the court’s ability to adjudicate in cases of disputes about decisions made by those agencies “that affected the UK”. There was then rowing-back, a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea. He pointed out the words at the end of—I shall be precise—paragraph 38 in chapter 4.4.3, which added,

“noting that this would not involve giving the CJEU jurisdiction over the UK”.

We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that we have had lots of smoke and mirrors about direct and indirect jurisdiction, but how can the Government say that respecting the “remit” of the ECJ does not mean its jurisdiction? Please can the Minister precisely explain the distinction between those two terms?

Interestingly, the Government’s response to the report that we are now debating came just a week before the White Paper. It said that,

“if we agree the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency this would mean abiding by the rules”,

including that,

“the UK would have to respect the remit of the CJEU”.

But it added another rider:

“our Parliament would remain ultimately sovereign. It could decide not to accept these rules”.


It then had the grace to acknowledge that there would be consequences for our membership of the relevant agency; that is, Europol. It seems telling that, just a few months ago, the Government should say, “We’re going to respect the remit, but of course, at any time, our Parliament might decide in its sovereignty that it’s going to throw over those rules”. What is Mr Barnier meant to work on when he has this chopping and changing all the time?

Two areas have been cited in the debate where there will in any case be an element of jurisdiction of the court, direct or indirect: obviously, on the European arrest warrant, assuming that the problems about non-surrender of nationals do not bedevil our participation—a problem solved within the context of the EAW. But if, for instance, a UK surrender request to a French court is contested by the wanted person, the French court could refer that case to Luxembourg. To use a phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, we could not rely just on a “cordial, friendly understanding”; there would be legal norms to be enforced. The second area is seeking a data adequacy assessment, which will be made in the light of EU law.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said that the EU and UK legal systems would be diminished by our non-participation in the EU’s legal order. UK lawyers have made a big and positive contribution to developing EU law, and its ending is much to be regretted. It was such an element of strength for us. In the whole justice and security area, we kept wanting opt-outs and so on; we have never played to our profound strengths in the legal area. Nowhere was that more obvious than in Luxembourg.

Unfortunately, the Government do not seem terribly interested in the loss of access to justice and enforcement of rights for citizens and businesses, which will be difficult particularly for small businesses. I, too, will be interested in the answers to the questions raised in our report, and expertly put by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about how that is supposed to work for citizens and individuals. That the Government seem so uninterested in that topic tells us all we need to know about “taking back control”. It actually means robbing people of their rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Government I very much welcome the EU Justice Sub-Committee’s report Dispute Resolution and Enforcement After Brexit. The detailed analysis and consideration of the areas covered by the report is a welcome contribution to the wider discussions on how disputes between the UK and the EU should be resolved after we leave in March 2019. The report was ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and we are fortunate to have the benefit of her vast experience of these matters. I also thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their constructive and insightful speeches during the debate.

I will say as much as I can on these matters and respond to as many questions as possible, but I ask noble Lords to accept that this is a live negotiation. Many of these matters are being discussed and negotiated on at the moment. Some parts are agreed; others are not. Some parts are agreed at the technical level; others are outstanding and waiting for related parts to be agreed. In some respects, therefore, it would not be helpful to go into too much detail on some aspects of the negotiations. Nevertheless, I will try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible.

Noble Lords have expressed concerns about how disputes will be resolved after the UK leaves the EU, in particular—this was referred to by many noble Lords—the proposal that the jurisdiction of the CJEU would be replaced by a judicial or quasi-judicial body to oversee disputes between the UK and EU. I assure noble Lords that, since the EU Justice Sub-Committee published its report in May, we have made significant progress in the negotiations on establishing appropriate and workable dispute resolution mechanisms. I would like to update noble Lords on these negotiations and note that the UK and the EU are close to concluding a withdrawal agreement that sets out the terms of the UK’s orderly exit from the European Union. The withdrawal agreement will provide important certainty to individuals and businesses, setting out the deal on citizens’ rights, on the financial settlement and on the implementation period. We are close to reaching agreement on a number of other separation issues, which will provide for winding-down provisions across a number of areas as we leave—for instance, cases pending at the CJEU and ongoing customs processes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked specifically for an update on these ongoing judicial proceedings. I can assure her that the relevant provisions will set out the process winding down UK involvement in legal proceedings before the CJEU in an orderly manner. These will support the legitimate expectations of, and efficient access to justice for, those who have spent time and money progressing cases through the UK and the European court systems, allowing all cases in train at the end of the implementation period to continue to their natural conclusions. Once the final areas of the withdrawal agreement have been settled, we will consider the necessary legislative requirements for those areas. I realise that this will be a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in particular, but it remains the Government’s position that, in leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the United Kingdom.

A number of noble Lords asked me about judicial co-operation and the European arrest warrant. We are pleased that we have reached agreement with the EU on the content of Part Three, Title V, of the withdrawal agreement on ongoing police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Title V provides clarity and legal certainty for individuals, for law enforcement stakeholders and the judiciary in the unlikely event that we do not reach agreement on future police and criminal justice co-operation as part of our future security partnership with the EU. We want to continue to play a leading role in Europol and Eurojust, and we will continue to do so during the implementation period.

[Baroness Ludford]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister—he might be going on to answer this question—but he has just repeated the mantra about ending the jurisdiction of the court, and he has cited the fact that we want to stay part of agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. How is the remit of the court, in respect of enforcing the rules regarding the UK, going to work if we do not recognise the jurisdiction of the court?

[Lord Callanan]

If the noble Baroness will have a little patience, I will come on to talk about the agencies and the remit of the ECJ.

Withdrawal from the EU will mean a return to the situation where the UK and the EU have their own autonomous legal orders. The Government agree with the committee’s observation that the withdrawal agreement and the future partnership must respect the autonomy and integrity of both legal orders.

On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Anderson, this is not about demonising the CJEU in any way. Our position has always been that we respect the role of the CJEU as the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of EU law, and we respect the autonomy of the EU legal order, as indeed we expect it to respect ours. However, it would be wholly unprecedented for a non-member state to be subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU, and we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the court of one party to resolve disputes between the two.

There are, of course, limitations under EU law on the extent to which the EU can be bound by an international judicial body other than the CJEU. Therefore, we will also need to find a principled and pragmatic solution to respecting our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order. For these reasons, the EU and the UK need to agree on how both the provisions of the withdrawal agreement and our new deep and special partnership can be monitored and implemented to the satisfaction of both sides, and how any disputes that arise can be resolved.

As the committee acknowledged in its report, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for dispute resolution after our exit. Despite the fact that dispute resolution mechanisms are common within international agreements, the form these mechanisms take varies considerably across the spectrum of agreements, given the different areas of international co-operation, and consequently the varied nature of potential disputes that could arise. That is why we are negotiating bespoke mechanisms across the different areas where we need a dispute resolution mechanism.

The sub-committee and noble Lords have raised concerns on the rights of EU citizens. Let me assure the House that, in setting out governance principles, we will ensure that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and of course UK nationals living in the EU, are safeguarded. This reflects the fact that the Prime Minister made it clear that that was her first priority for negotiations. The agreement reached in December and set out in our joint report with the Commission, alongside Part Two of the withdrawal agreement, will provide these citizens with certainty about their rights going forward.

In the UK, EU citizens’ rights will be upheld by incorporating Part Two of the withdrawal agreement into our law. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, noted, there will be a time-limited period when our courts may choose to refer questions on specific points of law concerning citizens’ rights to the CJEU for a decision, having had regard to whether relevant case law exists, but it will be up to our courts to decide whether to do so. Let me reassure the noble Lord that it will be for our courts to make final judgments, not the CJEU. Any continuing CJEU role in our legal system will be temporary and narrowly defined. The ability of UK courts to make voluntary references to the CJEU will, as the noble Lord is aware, be time-limited to eight years. These short-term, limited arrangements have been agreed to help ensure consistency and certainty for citizens over these new rights as they are implemented.

For the implementation period to operate effectively, the UK will need to remain in step with the EU. The withdrawal agreement will be underpinned by a duty of good faith, with a joint committee in place enabling either side to raise issues or concerns. These arrangements will help ensure the implementation period works properly for both sides. We have agreed that, for the implementation period, the existing EU mechanisms for supervision and enforcement will apply, including continued CJEU jurisdiction. This is necessary so that there will be one set of changes for businesses and people. I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who raised their concerns about the need for certainty during the transition period. This does not change the fact that in the long term, after the end of the implementation period, the UK will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the CJEU.

Let me answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, by making it clear that the implementation period will not be extended. I thank him for the offer of co-operation from the Bar Council; we continue to have regular consultations with lawyers in practice, as well as the judiciary, on all aspects of the complicated legal mechanisms in both the withdrawal Act and the future partnership.

Brexit: No Deal

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

The proposed backstop on Northern Ireland is the subject of intense negotiations at the moment. We remain committed to there being no hard border in Northern Ireland and we remain committed to the Belfast agreement, and we are negotiating with those two matters in mind.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the leaked no-deal alternative to Chequers from the ERG amounts, in the words of the esteemed former Chancellor, George Osborne, to,

“a whole load of other batty ideas from the nether reaches of the Tory Right”,

coming out of the woodwork. He says that they include a “star wars” system and an,

“expeditionary force to retake the Falklands”—

although Argentina is supposedly one of our new trade friends. Can the Government still, with a straight face, give any credence to no deal?

[Lord Callanan]

I cannot comment on the document referred to by the noble Baroness because I have not read it. However, as I have said repeatedly in this House, we do not want no deal. We are negotiating to get a good deal, but a responsible Government will prepare for every eventuality, and we are preparing for no deal through the issuing of technical notices.

Brexit: Negotiations

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, only to the extent that Chequers is dead. As reported by George Osborne’s Evening Standard, the French Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau,

“scoffed at British media reports that her boss President Emmanuel Macron was softening to the Prime Minister’s proposals”.

Instead of trying to dodge, weave and divide and rule, could the Government not just concentrate on honest and competent negotiating?

[Lord Callanan]

We are concentrating on honest and competent negotiating. In fact my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DExEU is actually in Brussels today meeting with Michel Barnier. I have met the French Foreign Minister and she certainly did not say that to me. The Latvian Foreign Minister said that Chequers constitutes a good ground for trying hard to reach a deal, the Danish Finance Minister said it was a realistic proposal for good negotiations and Michel Barnier said he was also confident that we would reach a deal.

Brexit: Negotiations and No-deal Contingency Planning

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I welcome him back, though I regret that, while we were all at the seaside, his Government—as is clear from the Statement—have failed to provide a workable path through the morass of negotiating objectives. To quote Bloomberg:

“As politicians dither, Britain’s economy is taking a hit”,


with Brexit costing 2% of economic output, even before we have left.

During a summer of government squabbles, I spent time watching how fast lorries could load on to European ferries at the moment. I then went on to feel the effect of the falling pound, while hearing about the likely lack of Danish sperm—I kid you not—portaloos along the M20 and the ending of the EMA pharmaceutical approvals for our Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Meanwhile, I was reading Charlie Clutterbuck’s Bittersweet Brexit, though I have yet to find the sweet bit.

Meanwhile, back here, we have a plethora of groupings, mostly within the governing party. There is Better Brexit, Stand Up 4 Brexit, the ERG’s “Hell, any sort of Brexit”, David Davis’s “I won’t vote for Chequers” Brexit, Boris Johnson’s “diddly squat” Brexit, the Leave.EU members in the Conservative Party’s Brexit, an alternative Best For Britain Brexit, Macron’s “blind Brexit” or perhaps a Europe of concentric circles, a “half DExEU staff leaving” Brexit or even a “jump off the cliff” Brexit. These sound funny, but this is serious stuff. What is clear is that, 44 days before the October summit, Chequers will not fly. We said so at the time; we said that it ignored services, failed Northern Ireland and was logistically unworkable. We now know that the EU will not accept it, but neither will the House of Commons, where there is simply no majority for it.

So, please, no more nonsense of just “some risks” to no deal. And, please, let there be less money wasted on preparatory work which is somewhat otiose. We need a deal that can work. It is time that the Government got honest and ruled out no deal once and for all. It is time that the Prime Minister ended the uncertainty for UK citizens in the EU and for EU citizens here and made firm commitments not just “when” the agreement is “signed”, as in the Statement that the Minister has just read out, but now.

I agree strongly with the No. 10 spokesperson who said:

“What we need at this time is serious leadership with a serious plan”.


But that is not what this Statement provides. Indeed, a survey in the Conservatives’ most marginal seats showed that three-quarters are dissatisfied with the Government’s handling of Brexit—they clearly have judgment.

It is time for the Prime Minister to ditch her red lines and get real. If we want trade to thrive with our nearest neighbours, if we want to continue inward investment as a path into European markets, if we want to continue free flow of our food and agricultural products and if we want a border-free Ireland, we have to be in a customs union with the EU and we need a deal on services. We also have to recognise that while the withdrawal agreement has only—“only”—to win the approval of the Commons, the European Parliament and the European Council, the subsequent trade deal will need the consent of every member state, their various parliaments and assemblies. That will mean us negotiating a deal to win their support. Closing off doors now, with unrealistic demands, will mean only U-turns down the line.

It must be evident to this House that the Government must change course and propose a credible plan that can command the support of Parliament, protect jobs, the economy and the environment, avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland and be acceptable to our partners. The Statement that the Minister has read out gives us no confidence that that is the way that we are going. The Government have six weeks to get this right. More of the same will not do. So will the Minister pledge not just to listen to his hard-Brexit friends but to seek to navigate a way forward that can win parliamentary and EU endorsement?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the DExEU website today displayed a rather apt message:

“We’re experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again later”.


That perhaps sums up the incoherent, divided and irresponsible position—or, rather, positions—of this Government. That the Trade Secretary could on Sunday dismiss the Chancellor’s forecast of the need for extra borrowing of £80 billion by 2033 while staying in post shows the Prime Minister’s utter, weak inability to impose rationality or discipline on her Government. The Chequers plan is a dead parrot, so the important question is: where do the Government go from here? I would like an answer and I think that Parliament deserves an answer, as do the people.

The Statement claims that the no-deal notices, of which we expect another batch, “prioritise stability”. The way they seek to get any continuity at all in the event of no deal is, in fact, by relying on a series of mini-deals to prevent the absolute disaster of grounded planes and the absence of crucial trade. The Government are saying, “Please, Brussels, can you rescue us from our absurd no-deal threat?”

There will be a particular set of 5 million people who will be badly hit by no deal: the 3 million EU citizens in this country and the 2 million Brits in the rest of the EU. The failure to give a unilateral guarantee two years ago—which would have been reciprocated, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said at the time—is creating an agonising limbo of anxiety and depression. Meanwhile, Brexiteers are moving assets or citizenship to other EU countries.

To get a little personal, I do not know whether the Prime Minister gets her glucose patches—on which I can comment, as she is commendably open about them—from abroad, but my type 1 diabetic husband gets his glucose sensors and insulin from elsewhere in the EU. There are many other people with medical conditions who are vitally dependent on such imports. That a Government could calmly contemplate upsetting such a flow and creating distress and potentially worse is breath-taking in its dereliction of a basic duty of care.

The prominence of no-deal planning seems to fulfil a number of purposes, all of them within the Tory party. It is a sop by the Prime Minister to the hard Brexiteers, who positively want this outcome, and a warning to the “chuck Chequers” brigade to accept Chequers as somewhat less bad. There are two things that it does not do: it does not put pressure on the Brussels negotiators and it does not inspire confidence in the public—on the contrary.

There is this sentence in the Statement:

“While it is not what we want, a no-deal scenario would bring some countervailing opportunities”.


This is obviously a bone thrown to the ERG faction. What exactly are the “countervailing opportunities” for small businesses losing their export markets, or patients losing their essential medical supplies? The no-deal scenario means lots more costs to businesses, higher prices for consumers, an avalanche of new bureaucracy—such as pharmaceutical companies having to register medicines twice, showing that EU red tape ain’t got nothing on Tory red, white and blue tape—and more taxpayers’ money spent on quangos and civil servants, stockpiling and so on.

Panasonic and Muji are but the latest companies to announce that they are moving their HQ across the Channel. We face this dire outcome because the Tory Government have proved totally unable to deliver a workable or tolerable Brexit deal. Indeed, not only do they provide absolutely no reassurance about how to resolve issues between the UK and Ireland in the event of no deal, they actually advise businesses and individuals to contact the Irish Government. We know that the Tory Government love outsourcing, but this surely goes shamefully too far in abdicating responsibility for the border communities.

Can the Minister tell us that the Government will reverse their refusal to guarantee that MPs will see the full impact analysis of a no-deal Brexit before the final vote on any departure from the EU? Both the previous and current Brexit Secretaries have, in the past, supported a second referendum, so presumably they think that it is a demonstration of democracy, exposing the PM’s comments as a sham. We on these Benches insist on a final say on the deal. We are joined, it is announced today, by 70% of Mumsnet subscribers: a very sensible bunch.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments, which I thought were long on criticism but a bit short on workable alternatives. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, enjoyed her holiday so much—discussing sperm and Portaloos seems to have had a positive effect on her vitality. I say to her that we are providing serious leadership and have a serious plan, in stark contrast to the Labour Party, from which I have heard no plan at all, apart from one that says that we should remain in a customs union—but then it cannot even bring itself to vote for the trade deals that are negotiated under that customs union. So we are providing a way forward through serious negotiations in the national interests.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her comments and I can tell her that the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement is agreed. She mentioned medical supplies. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with its partners across government, in the health sector and in industry, to prepare for the possible disruption to the supply chain of medical supplies including medicines, vaccines, medical devices, clinical consumables and blood products. And, yes, we will provide a full economic analysis of the deal that has been negotiated before the House of Commons and this House have their meaningful vote.

Brexit: Parliamentary Processes

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I have never been compared to the Vatican before. Is Parliament responsible and wise? Parliament is always responsible and is extremely wise in whatever it says and does.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is apparent to all that the mantra of taking back control and parliamentary sovereignty has been a fig leaf for an executive power grab, as exemplified by the disrespectful publication, on the last day of Parliament, of the White Paper on implementation. I guess that, like last time, we will be lucky to see it before the Statement. Will the Government, even at this late stage, change the habits of a lifetime and emulate the arrangements in the European Parliament, which has full involvement and information on the Brexit negotiations?

[Lord Callanan]

We will discuss the White Paper later, and the noble Baroness will have a chance to ask further questions on it then. The Executive are accountable to Parliament. DExEU Ministers have given evidence to a broad range of committees on a total of 37 occasions, we have made 108 Written Statements in both Houses, and I think we spent about eight hours last night discussing the very issues that the noble Baroness refers to.

Brexit: Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, before I comment on the Statement, I note the Prime Minister’s Written Statement on a machinery-of-government change, which was published but surprisingly not covered in the Statement. It says that the Prime Minister will lead on the negotiations with the EU, with Mr Raab demoted to being her deputy and with the Cabinet Office Europe Unit having,

“overall responsibility for the preparation and conduct of the negotiations”.

That does not seem to be much of a vote of confidence in DExEU, which, with its Secretary of State, and I am afraid to say the Minister here, has been somewhat sidelined. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

I welcome this White Paper, although its publication on the last day of term is perhaps somewhat disrespectful to Parliament, as I said in Questions earlier. There is a sense of unreality threaded through it. The Statement says that the Government are,

“committed to delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit”—

this while Ministers continue to sabre rattle about no deal, which makes the assertion later in the Statement about being “a reliable negotiating partner” somewhat difficult to believe. I am afraid that even the Minister could not keep a straight face when he repeated that part of the Statement.

There is a clear assertion that the financial settlement is already agreed, so why does the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union continue to question the Government’s commitment to honouring this bill? We chop and change. We hear one thing from a Statement in Parliament and then we hear quite other things from Ministers in the media, which is completely unacceptable.

On citizens’ rights, some of us noted that the Statement says that EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU will be allowed,

“to live their lives broadly as they do now”.

That is quite a loaded word, “broadly”. What does it mean? What rights that they have now does it rule out?

Will the withdrawal and implementation Bill incorporate the full text of the withdrawal agreement and the framework on the future relationship? It would be useful to know. Before Parliament comes to the Bill, there will be a Motion, after the negotiations are concluded, on whether Parliament approves the deal—I look at the Chief Whip at this point, as the noble Baroness did. Are the Government planning a decent gap between the tabling of the Motion for approval of the deal and the debates in Parliament? Also, how many days are they scheduling for debate on that Motion? We went round the houses on whether the Motion should be amendable. Are the Government committed to allowing it to be amendable?

The White Paper repeats the commitment,

“to providing Parliament with appropriate analysis prior to the vote”,

on the approval Motion so that Parliament can make an informed decision. Will there be independent input into the analysis?

The application of EU law will continue at least until December 2020. The Statement rather glosses over the implications for the EU withdrawal Act, some of which were picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. We have to look at the White Paper to attempt to understand the full interaction with the EU withdrawal Act. Paragraphs 63 to 67 will bear much detailed scrutiny. Paragraph 73 proposes the extension of the correcting power until December 2022. Could the Minister bring out the full implications of that? Paragraph 75 says that the new Bill will have provision to “defer, revoke or amend” the SIs that will have been passed under the withdrawal Act. That sounds like Henry VIII powers squared. How shall we deal with it all? It sounds incredibly complicated.

In last night’s debate, I talked about how the Government were disingenuous, bordering on dishonest, about some items—and that is certainly true about the reference to the European Court of Justice in this Statement. We have the usual assertion, which the Minister did not quite repeat last night, that the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ ends when we leave. But that is not true, is it? The White Paper also says:

“EU mechanisms for supervision and enforcement will continue to apply to the UK”.


Does that include Commission infringement proceedings? It certainly includes the supervision and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—which, of course, will have been deprived of its UK judge. Do the Government think we are stupid, and do not understand the full implications of what will happen during the transition period, and even afterwards? The jurisdiction of the ECJ is not ending even if we leave next March, and it would behove the Government to be a little more candid about the reality of the situation.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments, and I shall take each of their questions in turn. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her kind wishes for the holiday. Let me extend the same wishes to her: I hope she enjoys reading the White Paper alongside her bucket and spade on the beach. I take her point about timing, but we thought it was important to get the White Paper out before the Recess to give Members of Parliament in another place and here the chance to look at it carefully before we come back in September.

Northern Ireland is not in the White Paper because those provisions are not agreed yet. We did not want to leave the White Paper until everything was agreed; we wanted to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the provisions now. Obviously, those provisions are not agreed, and we will come back to the House when we have an agreement.

As for the implementation period, the EU withdrawal Act will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on 29 March. We will, however, have to ensure that the UK can continue to apply EU law during the implementation period. This will be achieved by way of transitional provision in which the EU withdrawal Act will amend the Act so that those elements of the ECA strictly necessary for the operation of the time-limited implementation period are preserved for its duration; I hope that is clear.

On no deal, yes, obviously if there is no withdrawal Act, all the issues agreed under the withdrawal Act will cease to apply. We will need to look at those matters again, but preserving the rights of EU citizens would be a top priority in such circumstances. As for timing, yes, we are still targeting an agreement in October, and the EU also agrees with us in targeting that. I repeat the obvious point that if we do not have an agreement in October, parliamentary time to implement the necessary legislation will, of course, start to get extremely tight.

With regard to a debate on the White Paper, happily the Chief Whip has been sitting here and he tells me that he thinks that a very positive suggestion. Provided that other business is dispensed with in an appropriate way, he will endeavour to find the time for that debate. I hope that summarises his view correctly.

Moving on to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the Prime Minister is of course leading the negotiations. On something of such crucial importance to the United Kingdom, I think it would be expected that she would lead on behalf of the country but she will be ably supported by the Secretary of State, who will back her up in all the critical areas. On citizens’ rights, let me repeat the answer that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: of course we want to see citizens’ rights preserved and we expect to see them broadly or essentially preserved. I would be happy to write to her with all the details but it is a hugely complicated area. We published the details in December. I am sure that days on debate for the Motion will be agreed by the usual channels.

With regard to the ECJ, as set out in the draft withdrawal agreement the Court of Justice will have an ongoing role on citizens’ rights but this role will be temporary and narrowly defined. Our courts can ask the CJEU for a legal view on the interpretation of the citizens’ rights parts of the withdrawal agreement if they need answers to questions before they can decide on a case. It will be for the courts to decide whether they need that legal view on interpretation.

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the Minister sits down, what then does paragraph 78 mean? It says that,

“during the implementation period, the existing EU mechanisms for supervision and enforcement will continue to apply to the UK” .

That means the ECJ.

[Lord Callanan]

I will write to the noble Baroness but I am conscious that Back-Bench Members want to have some time for questions as well.

Brexit: Preparations and Negotiations

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, today is the start of a summer charm offensive at home and abroad to sell the Prime Minister’s Chequers Brexit deal and the White Paper. I hope it is more successful than her efforts in her own party, and more successful than the translations of the White Paper that the Government have had done. I believe that the new Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is starting his own grand tour today in Berlin. I hope he can do a good job of translating “dog’s breakfast” into German. One native German-speaking senior EU official is reported to have said of the German translation:

“To be honest I haven’t seen it. I have worked with the English translation so far and while my English isn’t perfect, the questions I would have are not related to language problems and more related to content”.


The attitude of specialness and unreality that permeates the White Paper—we can have a tailored deal breaking all the EU structures just because we are British and do not have to fit the rules that others live by—has done us a lot of harm over the years, not least now. As a member of the EU we have had opt-outs, rebates and special treatment, but it was never enough. I was going to say it was summed up in the memorable words of the witty liberal Prime Minister of Luxembourg Xavier Bettel:

“They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out, and want a load of opt-ins”—


but the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, got there first. An example of this cherry-picking is accepting the common rulebook only for standards checked at the border, which would not include food labelling, pesticides or GMOs. Michel Barnier asked:

“How are we going to protect European consumers?”


The new Brexit Secretary is hardly on the right course to persuade and charm. His idea of diplomacy is to resurrect the mindless threat of refusing to settle agreed debts via the divorce bill. This is not only in contradiction of the Prime Minister’s pledge in Florence that the UK would honour its commitments, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed out, but it would mean that no country would trust a Conservative Government to negotiate a trade deal in good faith.

Le Monde notes that the Government have sent “contradictory messages”—really helpful. The whole country is tired of the Conservative civil war. Brexit was always going to be a painful process, as many noble Lords, not least on my side, have explained, but this civil war inside the Tory party—not the easy deal they promised—has made Brexit chaotic and incoherent. They have created a mess that is now the stuff of nightmares. Was it the will of the people to be issued with ration books? Will they be blue like the passports, but printed in France?

Many Tory Brexiteers are in fact irresponsible nihilists and anarchists, just wanting to destroy, with no positive ideas of their own and mostly too lazy to engage in the detail, such that all the hard work of trying to make any sense out of Brexit without destroying the country has in fact had to be done by remainers. Many Brexiteers are either irresponsibly cavalier about a kamikaze no deal or positively wish for it, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said.

I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, confirmed this when she said that we should Brexit “at almost any cost”. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he was “comfortable with uncertainty”. Those people leading lives where they are only just keeping their head above water cannot afford more uncertainty.

I would say that it is us remainers who are in a way the heirs to Thatcher. We may not agree with her on much, but at least on the EU she sought to change, not destroy, and she would have been sharp on the detail and committed to the economic benefits. As was reported in the press this weekend, a draft of a 1988 speech by her read, regarding her attitude to the EU:

“Above all, it means a positive attitude of mind: a decision to go all out to make a success of the single market”.


Margaret Thatcher would surely be horrified by the insistence of one of her successors on pulling out of the single market and the customs union.

Theresa May has taken her Cabinet to the north-east today to prove that her Government are listening to the nation beyond London. I understand that she was to take part in a televised Q&A with workers at a local firm near Gateshead. I hope that she heeds the one valuable comment made by Boris Johnson in his Personal Statement last week—although in his case, it is a bit pot and kettle—when he said that,

“we continue to make the fatal mistake of underestimating the intelligence of the public, saying one thing to the EU about what we are really doing and saying another thing to the electorate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/18; col. 450.]

There are many such examples in the White Paper and in the amendments that the Government accepted to the customs Bill last week. That has been explored, so I will not dwell on it. There is no reciprocity in the White Paper; there is reciprocity in the customs Bill. The Minister said today that the Government are asking for a “reciprocal revenue formula”, whatever that means. He might have a chance to explain further.

The Government have pledged not to lower high standards of employment, environmental and consumer law, yet we know from their previous statements that many Brexiteer Ministers want to do just that.

As for human rights, not only have the Government refused to embed the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in domestic law and played fast and loose with abolishing the Human Rights Act and pulling out of the ECHR—imperilling cross-border co-operation in law enforcement and data flows—but now the Home Secretary has, unbelievably, said that he is relaxed about the US imposing the death penalty on British citizens. This is contrary to the fixed policy and decades of effort by the EU as well as the UK. It will go down very badly when we try to argue about continued participation in EU extradition and database arrangements.

Another example is the European Court of Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, “We will end the jurisdiction of the ECJ”—not even the usual formula of “direct jurisdiction”. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, this is fiction. We will be subject to a lot of ECJ case law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, the ECJ will interpret the common rulebook. He made a persuasive case for the Supreme Court to continue to be able to refer.

As my noble friend Lord Wallace pointed out, where the UK participates in an EU agency:

“The UK will respect the remit of the ECJ”.

That is the wording of the White Paper. We will be in about 15 agencies in the security field—and about 60 altogether, said my noble friend Lord Newby. So we have just smoke and mirrors here.

As for the assertion that we will be taking back control of our laws and reclaiming UK sovereignty—having domestic regulatory freedom, said the Minister—in fact we will be implementing the EU’s rulebook. The word “common” is a fig leaf. If Parliament refuses to implement it, we will face the withdrawal of trade access. It is a sham, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, and it will unravel, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said.

There are other examples that I do not have time to explore, including fisheries and financial services. A large motivating factor in Brexit is recognised to be mistrust of politicians and the elite—which, despite their protestations to the contrary, very much includes Brexiteers—and their failure to tell the truth about the reality of trade-offs. The White Paper will just compound the problem.

I hope that the Prime Minister can explain the double standards to the people in the north-east, where Jacob Rees-Mogg is feathering his own nest with licences in Dublin while telling ordinary people that they will have to wait 50 years for the benefits of Brexit. That is not a good look. Did the Prime Minister tell the people in the north-east about the accurate forecast of one of her predecessors this weekend—John Major—who said that those who have least will be hurt most?

Boris Johnson made one other pertinent remark last week when he said:

“It is absolute nonsense to imagine, as I fear some of my colleagues do, that we can somehow afford to make a botched treaty now, and then break and reset the bone later on”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/18; col. 450.]


That is precisely where the Government are headed on the political declaration on the future relationship that will be appended to the withdrawal agreement. If that consists of only vague principles and nebulous aims, as looks likely, it will amount to jumping off a cliff without ensuring that a safety net awaits at the bottom. We need a political declaration that is comprehensive, detailed and unambiguous about rights and obligations.

Finally, many noble Lords have tonight backed a people’s vote on the deal. There is a very encouraging trend of increased support. The people must have an option to remain—and, instead of Brexit, we need a new fairness deal for Britain and a national discussion on our identities and feelings, grievances or otherwise, in order to heal this country.

EU Exit: Future Relationship White Paper

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I obviously have not had time to read the document. It was given to journalists at 9 o’clock this morning. The MPs did not even get it when they should have started, but I did, so I thank the Minister. I have had an hour with the document; we know how to do things in this House. Because I have not had time to read the whole thing I will leave detailed comments to our debate on 23 July—assuming it is still in play by then. The three-page Chequers document having failed to survive three days of Cabinet unity, I hope that this 98-page document perhaps survives 98 days.

It is of course welcome that we now have a negotiating proposal—perhaps some 12 months overdue—and I am pleased that it is more comprehensive than the Chequers statement, acknowledging the importance of services, data issues, broadcasting, justice, security and other issues highlighted in the reports of the Lords EU Committee. We look forward to a second White Paper foreshadowing the withdrawal and implementation Bill next week.

In today’s foreword, the Brexit Secretary talks of achieving agreements that are “unprecedented”, “unrivalled” and “unparalleled”. Given that we will be asking our European partners to break with their conventions and legal norms, it might have been advisable for the Government to set out such detail rather earlier. Furthermore, it would have been better if, as in the Monks amendment passed by your Lordships’ House, the Government had sought Parliament’s endorsement of their negotiating mandate before discussions with Brussels. That would have given real authority to Mrs May ahead of her talks.

The Chequers paper was a rather miserable little “concord”. It had nothing on services, despite the UK being the world’s second-largest exporter of services, with £63 billion of non-financial and £27 billion in financial services being sold in the EU and comprising 80% of our economy. Luckily, though, services have found their way into the White Paper with plans for an “ambitious economic partnership”, with,

“continued and relatively liberalised trade in services”,

and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the Government acknowledging the importance of access to talent, the ability to move people across borders—including fly-in, fly-out—and cross-border data flows, as well as the needs of the creative industries.

The White Paper wants the new economic and regulatory arrangements to be based on autonomy of each party over decisions regarding access to its markets, with a bilateral framework of treaty-based commitments to underpin the operation of the relationship, respecting the regulatory autonomy of both partners. Whether this amounts to something acceptable to the 27 members of the single market, especially as the White Paper also rules out passporting, which will exclude EU nationals and firms from access over here, is, I contend, a big question. It will be vital for our future relationship to encompass and safeguard our wealth-creating, tax-paying service sector, so what assurance can the Minister give that this White Paper approach will achieve this, and will be acceptable to our European partners?

With regard to EU migration, the Leader of the House said on Monday that,

“no preferential access will be offered to EU workers that is not on offer also to other trading partners”.—[Official Report, 9/7/18; col. 813.]

Today’s Statement confirms this, saying that the approach to EU mobility will be in line with that for other trading partners. Obviously, at present the arrangements for EU workers are very different from those with any of the 57 countries with whom we have trade agreements via the EU and which the Government want to continue. Are the Government therefore saying that in future workers from South Korea, for example, or any other of our trading partners will have equal access to jobs as do EU nationals? Or is Dominic Raab right when he said on the “Today” programme this morning that whether EU citizens would get special treatment was “subject to negotiation”—in which case, why is it not part of the negotiating proposals? Will the Minister clarify which of these two is the Government’s intention?

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation, for example, has stressed that:

“Mobility needs to form part of the exit agreement”,


including temporary and seasonal roles. For example, it wants the right to work to be attached to the individual, so that they can move from job to job as their career moves, and not be attached via sponsorship to a single employer or the promise of a permanent contract. Meanwhile, any move to put EU workers on a par with those from far-flung countries would not be well received by the food and drink industry, highly dependent on EU nationals. Business needs to know about this and soon. What is the position of the Government?

A central tenet of the White Paper is to keep the UK in a free trade area for goods, to help create a frictionless border and reduce supply-chain worries, but there are two big problems with this. First, part and parcel of many goods is the design, the IP and the servicing of those products. An example is Rolls-Royce engines, where the maintenance, the servicing, the training, the data exchange and IP are bound up with the straight export of physical hardware. It is not that easy to distinguish between the two. Secondly, the proposed mechanism, what is called a facilitated customs arrangement, rather makes Heath Robinson look simple. It expects VAT, standards, numbers, rules of origin details, safety and hygiene all to be checked by remote, high-tech and yet to be developed software. I have my doubts.

The negotiation on future relationships with the EU are of immense consequence to Gibraltar as well as to the devolved authorities. Will the Minister therefore reassure the House on their involvement in drafting the White Paper and confirm that Gibraltar and the Scottish and Welsh Governments are content with its content and will be fully consulted as negotiations continue? We all want a successful outcome to negotiations on our long-term relationship with Europe. It is our closest neighbour, our ally and our largest trading partner. It is key that the so-called European Research Group—it may be a group but it is not European in outlook, nor is research its methodology—does not derail a deal that could be in the national interest. The White Paper may not be the right answer—we have yet to digest it—but the Minister would be wise to heed the words of his noble friend Lord Hague, who wrote that hard-line Brexiteers need to realise that the type of Brexit available is constrained by three factors: the current parliamentary arithmetic, the needs of big manufacturers for frictionless trade, and the complex realities of the Irish border. He warned that fighting against that reality, a la David Davis, Boris Johnson and the ERG, with no alternative is an “indulgence not a policy”.

Labour has an alternative, within a customs union and with a proper agreement on services, but for now our attention will be on what has been published today. We will see whether it meets our tests—to preserve and grow jobs, to maintain standards in the environment, to share prosperity throughout the country, and to safeguard peace in Northern Ireland. I look forward to our longer debate on 23 July on all that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, naturally it is a landmark moment that we finally have a government position on Brexit after more than two years, but that exhausted sense of relief is tempered by a huge number of caveats. The first of these is that it has in fact not calmed tempers within the Conservative Party but ignited an all-out war within the governing party: strong and stable this plan is not.

I will have to mix my foodie metaphors. On Monday, I said that the Chequers plan looked like a series of fig-leaves—over the sovereignty of Westminster to reject EU regulations, over the autonomy of the UK legal order, over the pretence of business-friendliness—and I maintain those critiques now that we have the White Paper. However, in addition I suggest that the White Paper describes not a soft nor a hard Brexit but a scrambled Brexit. This is exemplified by the farce of the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU starting his Statement in the other place before MPs had a copy of the White Paper. He actually tried, after the uproar, to suggest that the clerks might be to blame, but actually the Statement is predicated on being delivered before the White Paper is published. It says:

“Shortly, we will publish the Government’s White Paper”,


on Brexit. So it was always intended that the Statement would be made before the White Paper. I think this is executive arrogance rather than taking back control for Parliament.

The scrambled incoherence of the White Paper is exemplified by the suggestions on the agri-food sector. Page 16 of the White Paper talks about,

“a common rulebook for agriculture, food and fisheries products, encompassing rules that must be checked at the border, alongside equivalence for certain other rules, such as wider food policy”.

There are quite a few contradictions there. How is it frictionless trade if there have to be checks at the border? How does that common rulebook for agri-food work if the UK is outside the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy? How can you have a common rulebook for some aspects of food but equivalence for other aspects of food policy? Perhaps the Minister will explain and unravel some of that. The fact is that the facilitated customs arrangement is baroque, complicated and bureaucratic; it is likely to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, how on earth can you separate goods from the services that are essential to their production, whether that is legal services, software, intellectual property or others? There is also the serious worry about the potential for fraud and smuggling with these differential tariffs that are meant to be applied at the border; that is leaving aside the question of whether the EU will agree to operate its intended side of the arrangement.

Michel Barnier is surely right. He said that only staying fully in the single market and the customs union can guarantee frictionless trade, yet the Government maintain this claim of “frictionless trade”. That is an absolute term; it does not mean a little bit of friction—it means no friction. How do the Government intend trade to be frictionless? How can there be an independent trade policy, which is alleged in the White Paper, if the UK has committed itself to a common rulebook, including on agri-food products? How will that work when the US invites us to accept the famous bleached chickens and GM food?

The cakeism which runs throughout this White Paper is exemplified by the comments on services—a massive hole in the plan—which are 80% of our economy, and which we do not intend to be part of the single market. When one thinks of the efforts previous Conservative and other Governments have made to try and deepen the single market in services, this is a betrayal of everything that Mrs Thatcher tried to do.

Can the Minister tell me how,

“new arrangements on financial services”,

will,

“preserve the mutual benefits of integrated markets”,

while maintaining the autonomy of rule-making? Those two are surely in contradiction. We will not have integrated markets with autonomous rule-making.

I fear that what the Government are setting up is a further loss of trust in the public. There were so many deceitful statements that came out of the three pages after the Chequers meeting last Friday, which appear to be repeated in the bits of this White Paper which I have been able to read. For instance, the White Paper says:

“We share an ambition for our country to be … more prosperous than ever before”.


But the Government’s own impact statements, which we finally wrestled out of them, all show that we will be poorer. Our economy will shrink; we will have less money for public services. So how will we be more prosperous if the Government have committed to the statements made by the OBR? There are so many statements in here that are just not true, such as that this will,

“return accountability over the laws we live by”,

to the UK Parliament. We will comply with the common rulebook, and yet we will have autonomy over our laws. It does not add up; we are setting up for the people to be let down and it is the people, therefore, who should have the final say on what the Government come back with. Otherwise, the forces that led to the decision in the referendum two years ago will just be magnified.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. Let me address some of the issues that they raised.

First, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her comments about the prompt delivery of the White Paper in this House. I am glad to see that our processes are more efficient. When I was preparing for appearing here, I was listening to the exchanges in the House of Commons, so I dashed to the Printed Paper Office here to check that they had sufficient copies to deliver to everybody. Noble Lords were busy collecting them at the time and said they had them available in good time; I am pleased she got hers and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, received hers in time as well. There was some information that was released to the press under embargo, as is normal practice, but it was released only once the Secretary of State stood up—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, in the same spirit, I thank the Minister for the full and careful explanation he has given today and thank him and the Solicitor-General for their assistance in going into this carefully. My concern was about setting up the Government and Ministers as gatekeepers to the court room without any clear principles or certainty about whether there would be regulations. We now have on the record a much clearer indication of how these powers might be used. That is not perfect but it is a distinct improvement on where we were and I do not intend to press my amendment in that circumstance.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Government will keep an open mind in the future about the charter in the terms in which the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was framed—that is, as a guide to interpretation of retained EU law. While the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said that most of the charter rights are found in other sources of law, not all of them are. This may prove to be an issue in the Brexit negotiations, which is why I hope that the Government might have cause and justification to revisit it.

I suggest that in the context of security co-operation and data transfers for the tech industry, this may be a factor in the extent and scope of our co-operation with the European Union in the future. I therefore make a plea that the Government do not totally close their mind to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a guide to interpretation because I think that could be well received by those whom we have to persuade on the scope of co-operation.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith, for their observations about engagement with the Government over these matters. The Government have listened and the other place has agreed to significant amendments in respect of certain challenges based on general principles of EU law. Given that, I hope that the House will endorse the decision today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the pursuit will be far from trivial when the answer is seen.

It is our most significant law-making body. After all EU legislation has been proposed, in secret, by the unelected Commission, it is then negotiated, still in secret, in the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or COREPER. Now most of your Lordships know what it is. When it has finished, the legislation goes to the Council of Ministers, where the United Kingdom has been outvoted on every single piece of legislation that we have opposed in the past 10 years. That is the system which has resulted in those 20,000 laws being passed, with our Parliament wholly irrelevant.

I look forward to an explanation from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, or one of his noble remainer friends, as to why they want to go on with it and how they have the nerve to pray Parliament in aid of their desire to do so.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it is in the national interest that Parliament should not be faced by a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It must be able to prevent a slide into a disastrous no deal outcome. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that is not an arcane interest because many ordinary citizens would be hugely harmed, including those who voted for Brexit, if that happened.

Was not the referendum fought by the leave side partly on the basis of a need for the Westminster Parliament to take back sovereignty? It is truly ironic that many of those who said that oppose a meaningful vote for Parliament now. Indeed, some noble Lords opposite who have spoken want specifically to hobble Parliament by barring it from amending a Motion. This is not a remainer cause. It is not about destroying or sabotaging Brexit—that is a distortion and misrepresentation—but about whether Parliament has a constitutional right and duty to call the Government to account and should have a decisive political role on the course of Brexit. The idea that that undermines the Government’s negotiating position is farcical.

The noble Lord, Lord Spicer, said that the essence of why he opposed staying in the EU is that the nation state is the best unit for democracy, that Britain is the home of democracy and that it offers a forum for accountability. That is the point. That is what Motion F3—I avoid “Grieve II”—achieves. It is not a negotiating power for Parliament but a power to call the Government to account for how they are conducting the Brexit negotiations. Its purpose is to prevent or at least manage a crisis by thinking ahead of that time and what the structures would be. The virtue of writing this into the Bill is that we will then know what mechanisms need to be followed if a crisis arises. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it is important to give the Commons the opportunity to vote on what the Government apparently agreed last week.

I have great admiration for Dominic Grieve as a parliamentarian and constitutional lawyer of the highest calibre and integrity. He is a loyal Conservative, much to the regret of some of us because we would like him to be a little more of a rebel. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about the character of Mr Grieve and that the hatchet job on him by the Daily Mail was a total disgrace. It showed the degradation of our political media culture and discourse.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that his amendment was not the best way to accomplish what he wants. I do not need to elaborate any further. It would unhelpfully complicate matters. I will accept the guidance of a former Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on Commons procedure, which I do not understand, that it is necessary to pass Motion F3 to allow the other place to consider how it wants to proceed.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—