European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister, and the government White Paper, state that there is to be no “partial membership” of the European Union. The UK is to leave and will be out. The Prime Minister has further made it clear that she hopes for a good deal, one that is mutually of benefit to both sides and the most satisfactory to aim for and to achieve—a win-win solution. She has also made it clear that in the absence of any acceptable future arrangement the UK will up sticks and leave. It is to be assumed that this would be at the end of the two-year period set aside in Article 50, or possibly by mutual consent, somewhat delayed by the pace of negotiation, to more than two years, but certainly not indefinitely.

If the first of these is plan A and the second is plan B, is there not also a real plan C that must be borne in mind? I have referred in previous debates to my concerns about the all-too-prevalent presumption that the European Union, not least during the period of Article 50 work, is going to be and will remain a stable and unified entity. I do not believe that to be more than an optimal assumption about the state and configuration of the EU in two or three years’ time.

The euro problems are not resolved, migration flows may further stress relationships throughout continental Europe, and the prospect that several parliamentary and leadership elections are imminent this year may also presage a potentially very different negotiating climate, and replacement interlocutors for Article 50. That may lead to some delay, but I think that the ultimate and critical hurdle has to be political in the sense that the EU has to engender European parliamentary approval and a qualified majority of nation member Governments, to a final Brexit deal. However, on such an issue the Council would surely, as is already normal, seek unanimity. As Sir Ivan Rogers prophesied, a period of years, or even decades, of negotiation and stalemate could be the prospect.

I believe, therefore, that there must be a plan C that addresses the political difficulties I have outlined, and not just those concerning the trade and many other international relationships that have grown up for the UK and the EU in the past 40 years, and been much debated today. The reality hurdle, or stumbling block, has to be: will the EU nations agree and maintain a common political approach over the coming two years, maybe a bit longer?

I, for one, will not wager any bet, large or small, on that being the case. A plan C, which may presumably be a variant of “We’re off plan B” must be considered. How do we respond if faced by a protracted lack of political unanimity in the EU nations, even though many trade, research, residency and other aspects have been favourably negotiated and backed by some, but not all, of the EU nations? On residency that must surely be a first priority issue for the Government. A plan C must be prepared to consider the range of such possibilities where neither a plan A nor a plan B will be achievable and satisfactory, or likely to gain parliamentary approval. Meanwhile, I support this short enabling Bill to invoke Article 50 without amendment. The time to consider future-related legislation and challenges is not for this short Bill.

The opportunities to debate, and if necessary challenge the Government, will arise during the next couple of years, when issues become clear and are not merely supposition. As a short postscript, I suppose for some there is also a plan D—for the UK to remain, as now, in the EU—but I have no time to take this type of plan seriously.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, after hearing the Minister’s responses to the fourth Oral Question last Wednesday on the residential and continuing rights of European nationals already living in the United Kingdom, I add my voice to the many, both inside and outside Parliament, and in trenchant speeches today, who have condemned the expressed government attitude. This issue was also discussed in the House yesterday, with much the same equivocation and uncertainties from the Dispatch Box. The Minister referred to negotiations with the EU affecting the single market and trading arrangements, but not those about people. As a “Yes Minister” type of response by the Minister last Wednesday, it was classic. The actual real-life and immediate and future concerns of 3 million people were shuffled under the carpet by a rubric that exuded extreme and noncommittal caution and blindly defied political nous and basic common sense.

As was made obvious yesterday, the Government are not really certain whether to discuss this issue with the EU authorities or with each and every one of the other 27 countries in the EU. That is hopeless; we should be clear what we will do. There are two particular issues. First, what is the right immediate policy and, secondly, what should the long-term steady state be post completion of Brexit negotiations? Surely we would not be starting these negotiations on a favourable footing with the 27 were we so much as even to suggest that some of their nationals already resident in the UK might one day be refused right of abode, be told to leave or be booted out—or is this a sneaky cunning plan to massage a reduction in the net migration figures? I hope not. Do we really mean to start by inferring that we could be expecting trouble from the 27 about the residential status of UK citizens presently domiciled in their countries and so, to counter this, are keeping the 3 million EU residents in the UK as a club in our negotiating locker? This is about real people, their lives and livelihoods, their families and their futures. It is not about foodstuffs, textiles, the trading of goods and services or other inanimate objects. Is this not a situation in which the UK should be giving a clear, positive and constructive lead, which can be welcomed and adopted by the 27 in a win-win outcome?

Let us say without further equivocation that not only will European nationals resident in the UK not be in any way affected in the near term—as made clear by the Prime Minister last week—but that it is the Government’s intention to treat their right to remain as a firm, long-term, red-line undertaking. It should be deliberately adopted as a non-negotiable position. Why must all wait for David Cameron’s replacement? He has stated the short-term position. Is it not down to him to get agreement now, very quickly, to the longer-term one? I urge the Government to make clear this direction of travel and to spell it out now as their intention. I suspect that cooler heads may still seek to establish a halt to—or rather a control of—newcomers after a certain date in the not-too-distant future, but for those already here or arriving to live and work in the weeks before that date, the clear government policy and intention surely should be that the current status and right to remain of EU citizens will not be abrogated by Her Majesty’s Government. In the face of many tricky Brexit issues to resolve, this one, dealing with people and their lives and not with things, should not be left to fester on the pile. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Strathclyde Review

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I venture to speak in this debate because, when it comes to tabling and then moving an annulment Motion to an affirmative instrument, I have form. I tabled an annulment Motion to the Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2008, an affirmative instrument. One long-standing tribunal, the Armed Forces Pensions Appeal Tribunal (England and Wales), dating back to 1919, was to be scrapped. Its work was to be taken on by a widely drawn social entitlement chamber. The Royal British Legion, COBSEO and senior members of the existing tribunal all told the Government that this did not make sense, well before the order reached your Lordships House.

It was clear that the order had had little consideration in the other place, and it was being taken for granted by the Government that your Lordships would also nod it through. So I tabled my annulment Motion just before the 2008 Summer Recess. I was of course made aware of the convention about such an amendment, but I felt that the issue was of such importance to Armed Forces veterans that I should proceed in the hope that the Government might think again. Indeed, during the Recess, the Government took greater heed of the expert advice that they had received. They decided to set up a separate Armed Forces chamber. The Lord Chancellor, then Jack Straw, and the Senior President of Tribunals signed a joint undertaking that no later attempt would be made to unpick this arrangement unless first approved by Parliament. This was subsequently incorporated into a Written Ministerial Statement on 16 October by the Lord Chancellor, and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for this House. When the House came to debate the order on 23 October, I moved my annulment Motion but had already agreed with the Government that, in the light of the changes they had made and the Written Ministerial Statement, a key undertaking, I would not divide the House on my amendment.

In keeping with his terms of reference, the review by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, offers three options for consideration to replace the present arrangements on the debatable ground that the Government have an explicit, invariable right to carry all their proposed legislation—a position where, to quote from the review,

“the veto is left unused”.

None of these three options seems to be a widely favoured runner, being either too extreme or having to rely on achieving a legally binding or codified consensus across both Houses.

My proposal, for what it is worth, based on my experience in 2008, is not to seek to change the current “convention”—it should by now be in quotation marks. The House should not readily surrender its very long-standing power to move a veto in exceptional cases. The historical record of the rarity of annulment defeats, going back to the 1950s, is well known. Since my Motion in 2008, there have been only nine attempts in over seven years to reject, as opposed to regret, an affirmative SI. In only one were the Government actually defeated before the recent case and the heavyweight, OTT reaction to it. In the same period, more than 1,500 affirmative SIs were passed by this House; a success rate for the Government verging on 99.5% of their business—surely close enough to the “certainty” that the Strathclyde review envisages.

Given such figures, it seems statistically most premature to be doing more than considering a possible way forward—contingency planning, as it were—in the event that the examples relating to tax credits and electoral issues prove to be the harbinger of frequent and successful attempts in this Parliament to thwart government SI business. Although the recent experience was a greater setback for the Government than my case in 2008, the principle of expecting the Government to think again, ahead of a debate, a vote or on an annulment Motion, is sound. It is a fine example of holding the Government to account and gives them the opportunity to reconsider, modify their original intention and seek a better consensus and more widely acceptable outcome. It would be wrong to give the Government a freedom from expert scrutiny, which this House demonstrates, time after time, in the course of its work. Government should welcome that scrutiny and not seek in narrow party interest to weaken, let alone bypass, that input to legislation.

With the benefit of hindsight, I see that it was a mistake for the Government to have relied so much on the supply argument in the tax credit SI. In casting my vote, I supported this, but I did so with a heavy heart because I felt that the arguments so forcefully put for the other side during the debate needed far greater consideration. Indeed, the outcome indicates that the Government have, in part, acknowledged the strength of the counterarguments.

To conclude, I do not favour any of the three options. I would prefer to remain, for the moment, with the current “convention”. It is the least objectionable of the possibilities before us. Indeed, I shall not hold my breath in expectation that any of the options put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be adopted. Perhaps if a wider look were to be taken at the complex constitutional issues involved, a better solution than the present one might evolve. Again, however, I do not propose to hold my breath.

G7

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, there is quite a lot there, but first I must thank the noble Lord for correcting me on the current EU Trade Commissioner. He follows these issues far more closely than I do myself and, unfortunately, I had not spotted from the name in my brief that I had got the gender incorrect, so I am pleased to be told that the Trade Commissioner is a woman.

On TTIP, the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that there are a huge number of benefits in the agreement for small businesses because it will help them to export, as well as for consumers generally in terms of cheaper goods and increased trade. I will reflect on his comment about the promotion of the benefits of TTIP, but that leads me back to the point I made earlier, which is that because there is so much to be gained from this trade deal, I think there are some misplaced concerns about issues which are not relevant. They are not ones that we need to be concerned about because we have got the necessary assurances. I know that the noble Lord was very much involved in the balance of competences exercise. I will look at it again.

On corruption and the overseas territories, although I may not be able to find the specifics, I can make the general point that one of the things that we as a Government have done in terms of increasing transparency is to ensure that the Crown dependencies are part of the first wave of the new arrangements for ensuring that transactions are properly recorded as part of one of our new measures to increase transparency, so they are very much part of the effort to make progress in this area.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, in the discussions which the Prime Minister had with President Obama, did the President raise concerns about the reductions which have taken place in the Armed Forces in recent years, and about the lack of clarity on the future defence budget? If so, how did the Prime Minister reply?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Unfortunately, I do not get to be a fly on the wall in these meetings, but the point that I am sure the Prime Minister would have made on defence is the one that he makes continually: this year we are spending 2% of our GDP on defence, and future defence spending will be decided in the review. We must not forget that it is clear in the Government’s manifesto, and we are clear, that there will be no reduction in the regular forces, we will replace Trident, and we are committed and able to spend some £160 billion on defence equipment over the next 10 years.