European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to address Amendments 152, 197 and 206, on the matter of the customs union. Before I do so, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word of admiration about and pay tribute to the people outside this building—many of them waving British as well as EU flags—who have been there for several months, hoping to impress on us the importance of the case. We in this House—from the comfort of these Benches—should not be tempted in any way to neglect or slight efforts made by our citizens to bring their concerns to our attention. I have been most impressed by them. I have often spoken with them; one young lady, on a very modest salary, told me that she paid quite a lot of money on a fare from Manchester and was sleeping on a friend’s floor in order to stand for 12 hours outside this House. Her account was very typical. I counted more than 140 people one evening, when the temperature was getting very close to zero. I believe that sort of dedication and selfless concern for the future of the country is most impressive.

I am well aware that many of my colleagues in the House have come to this debate in the belief that they are carrying out an instruction from a referendum. I reject entirely that concept, which clearly contradicts the idea of a sovereign Parliament. By definition, if a body is sovereign, it cannot receive instructions from anyone. That is a matter of definition; it is what philosophers call an analytic truth. Even more absurd would be the idea that we could take instruction from a referendum in a previous Parliament. Heaven knows what Parliament would be subject to after a certain period in which we adopted that proposal. One can easily see to what ridiculous results that would lead. It would also make a nonsense of the fundamental principle of our constitution that no Parliament can commit its successor, and if you abandon the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the belief that goes with it that no Parliament can commit its successor and therefore every Parliament after a general election can open a new page, there will be very little left of our constitution that people who take that line will still believe in.

[Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)]

Would it not be true to say that the sovereign Parliament gave the people the decision through the referendum?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, as I have explained, I do not accept that we are in any way under instruction from anybody. I have heard the word “instruction” and it deeply shocks me. As a matter of fact, I heard it from the then Leader of the House in the days following the referendum. For the reasons that I have already set out and I do not need to repeat, that is a pernicious doctrine that is extremely dangerous in its constitutional ramifications and should be rejected.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I will not give way for the moment; I would like to make a bit of progress.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that even if you were to believe that we are under some kind of instruction relating to Brexit it certainly could not apply to the issue of our remaining in the customs union or the single market. I do not remember that issue being mentioned at all in the referendum, certainly on the customs union. As we all know, there was nothing on the ballot paper about it. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, intervened to say that he remembered some mention of it by certain people during the campaign. I would be very interested if he could put on record the particular dates, times and places where those comments were made, because I reckon I was pretty alert to what was being said during that campaign, in which I took an active part. I never heard the issue of our remaining in the customs union being dealt with at all, let alone seriously analysed and considered. I do not think that the British people had any chance on that occasion to express a preference one way or the other on that matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, that is a matter of practical fact. Parliament must be sovereign and must take what will be a very important decision.

We all know the potential damage that this country will suffer from Brexit. A lot of it will be from our leaving the single market. Admittedly, some of that damage can be mitigated by our signing a free trade agreement with the EU, but that will not cover financial services, which is such an important part of the country’s economy. There will be great damage from our leaving the EU, even if we are able to sign such a free trade agreement.

On the issue of the customs union, an enormous range of businesses, sectors and companies see this as an existential threat to their continued survival in this country. That goes across all kinds of people, from automotive to aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the nuclear industry and the airline industry. Noble Lords are familiar with the arguments and the very depressing projections made by people from those industries about the costs that they would incur if we leave the customs union.

What is extraordinary is that we have not really heard any of the benefits. It is extraordinary that you can make a proposal for something involving undoubted costs—we can all disagree about the costs and what their extent might be, but we cannot possibly disagree with what sign is on the variable in the equation: it is a negative. The idea that we should incur costs and risks without really knowing what the potential countervailing benefit is seems extraordinarily perverse. No business would manage itself on that basis.

When you press the Government they say, “We need to leave the customs union because that enables us to sign customs agreements or free trade agreements with other countries outside the EU and outside those countries which have themselves free trade agreements with the EU at the present time”. When you actually look at the prospect of doing that you see that it is a mirage; it does not exist at all. Let us take the United States, which spent eight or nine years failing to negotiate the TTIP with the European Union, as the Committee knows very well. Those negotiations broke down partly because of disagreement about the investment guarantees that the Americans were demanding and partly because of the demands being made by the Americans about access for their agricultural products to the single market. Anybody who knows anything about America knows perfectly well that it is inconceivable that an American Administration, let alone a Republican Administration backed by so many Senators and Congressmen from the prairie states and farm states, would ever ratify a free trade agreement with anybody that did not include agricultural products. If it includes agricultural products, of course it includes hormone-impregnated and antibiotic-impregnated beef and chlorinated chicken. Are the British people any more likely than their continental partners and neighbours to accept such products on the market? Would they accept the very appalling animal welfare standards which the Americans have? They have virtually zero grazing for well over 90%, if not very close to 100%, of their cattle at the present time. The idea that you can go through Texas and see lots of longhorn being herded by cowboys as you could 100 years ago is wrong: you will not see a single Texas Longhorn now out in the open air. Those problems will remain and in practice I believe they will be insuperable for us, just as they have been for the rest of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Noble Lords jeer but are they really going to say that a piece of paper with a statistic somehow analyses the problem? I put it to the noble Baroness that if you have a free trade agreement you have access to the market. What is the disadvantage? The disadvantage, which I will come to, is that you have to trade against that the inconvenience of rules of origin. That is what it comes down to: balancing the advantages of free trade against the costs of rules of origin.

Nobody has said that there are any advantages to leaving the customs union and I would like to make a few points. First, obviously, the customs union that we are members of—on certain goods, not all—has quite high tariffs on goods that particularly affect the lower paid, especially food, clothing and footwear. That is not an inconsiderable factor. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, being inside the customs union would make it impossible for us to sign free trade agreements with other countries. He was pooh-poohing that and thinks we will not be able to do it. But I put it to him if he looks at the record of quite small countries such as Singapore or Chile or a medium-sized country such as Korea, he will find that when you add up the GDP of the countries they have signed free trade agreements with, it is very much in excess of the added-up GDP of the countries that the EU has signed free trade agreements with. That is to say: these small countries, precisely because they negotiate on their own and do not have to take into account the arguments of 27 other partners, have been very effective at signing free trade agreements. Switzerland, for example, has a free trade agreement with China but the noble Lord thinks it will be impossible for us to have one with it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I assume this is not a point of order but a point of information.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and would like to give a point of information to him. We already have a free trade agreement with South Korea, as a result of our membership of the European Union. Our leaving the European Union would result in our losing our free trade agreement with South Korea.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I do not know whether the noble Lord misheard me, whether I misspoke or whether he misunderstood. I was not talking about having a free trade agreement with Korea but about the free trade agreements that Korea has signed with other countries across the globe.

Another point about a customs union is that it is not just a question of collecting tariffs. A lot of regulations go with it and there is a vast range of non-tariff controls on goods—you obviously have to have definitions. We would not be able to divert from these at all if we remain members of a customs union, or even to depart from them in our own domestic market. If we did that, the goods that were allowed in which had circulated in the other countries of the customs union would be in contravention of them. Again, I put it that there are some advantages which have to be put into the balance of the argument for leaving the customs union.

One mystery about this amendment is that if you are in the customs union, there is the collection of the tariff revenue where the individual countries are allowed to retain only 20% of the revenue. The rest of it goes to the EU, so would we be outside the EU and paying 80% of the revenue on the external tariff to the EU? That does not seem to make a lot of sense.

It is also possible to be outside the customs union and to have a free trade agreement with the EU. That is precisely what Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein do but of course, to come to the noble Baroness’s point, if that is regarded as a cost you have to offset against it the fact that you have rules of origin. People have pooh-poohed the technology argument but is that really going to be such an insurmountable thing to do? Switzerland exports per capita five times as much to the EU as we do, and it has to operate rules of origin on many sectors when it sells goods to the EU. That does not seem to have had any inhibiting effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, we have heard some excellent speeches on these amendments. I particularly commend the brilliant analysis of my noble friend Lord Hain and the very penetrating questions asked by him and my noble friend Lord Triesman. I hope that those questions receive a serious response from the Government at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, and that they receive the clear and authoritative answers which Parliament deserves.

I wish to speak briefly about the transition or implementation phase, however you want to describe it, which emerges very much from the issues addressed by these two amendments. I am deeply worried about the way these negotiations are going. The Government seem very muddled in their own mind and have a completely false appreciation of the situation they confront. I will explain why I think those two provisions apply in a moment. There are surely just three logical possibilities. One is that we do not have a transition phase at all and go straight from the present regime of full membership of the EU to some future but permanent post-Brexit arrangement. Another possibility is that we have a special so-called bespoke intermediate regime between full membership of the Union and whatever ensues on a long-term basis in our relations with the EU. The third possibility is what we have by way of a transition period—namely, that we continue with the present regime until after agreement has been reached on the future regime and continue with it for some time—I hope at least a year or two—to give businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt to what they will know at that point is the new regime that is coming.

The first of those possibilities—that we have no transition at all—is rightly regarded, I think on both sides of the House and certainly throughout commerce and industry, as a disastrous prospect which would involve immense risks and costs for our businesses, quite unnecessarily so if a suitable alternative is available. I think there is general agreement on that. I would hope there would be agreement that the sensible thing to do is to choose the third option and continue with the present regime for some years after full detailed agreement is reached on its successor, so there is time for adaptation by everybody concerned. That seems to me thoroughly sensible. Unfortunately, I am told that that has been vetoed by the Eurosceptics in the Tory party. We know that Mrs May is very much under the heel of Mr Johnson and Mr Gove and is terrified that someone is going to send 41, 47 or 48 letters to Sir Graham Brady, and does not know how many have already been written. In these circumstances, she cannot move on that. She cannot accept that because, apparently, the Eurosceptics think that is an extension of our membership of the EU and they do not like it on symbolic grounds. I may misunderstand the situation but I am told on good authority that that is the position, so what might seem the most rational and sensible answer to this problem, which would certainly get strong approval from both sides of this House, is excluded for party-political reasons.

Therefore, we confront what appears to be the Government’s preference at the moment, which is the second possibility: the bespoke regime. I say that the Government are in contradiction with themselves, which they certainly are, because while that arrangement is supposed to reduce risks for business and industry, it actually doubles them. It has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hain that under those circumstances there would be two future regimes for business to go through. There would be two thresholds into that new regime rather than one or two cliff edges in that context, to use that cliché which everybody seems to be so fond of at present. That is a serious matter: a Government who are in contradiction with themselves.

The second problem I have is that the Government clearly seem to have misunderstood the position of their counterparties in these negotiations and, once again, to have been quite excessively euphoric about the impact of any proposals that they would make on their negotiating partners. In short, they are overreaching themselves. That is of course again a worrying situation when you go into any kind of negotiation. I say that because it is inconceivable that our continental partners would agree to have some bespoke intermediate regime; it would be quite extraordinary if they did. It would mean that any member of the European Union could issue notice under Article 50 and immediately negotiate some special bespoke arrangement, maximising, presumably, its own benefits and minimising its own costs at the expense of other members of the Union, quite contrary to the whole purposes of the Union. Therefore I cannot believe that very intelligent and competent people, which the European Commission and leaders of our partner nations certainly are, would go down that road for a moment. That leaves a strong possibility that the Government will find that they have a rough time ahead of them.

I suppose that you can go into a negotiation with a self-contradictory proposal, although that is rather a handicap and not a good augury for the success of the outcome, and you can go into a negotiation making a fundamental misjudgment about the objective situation in which you find yourself. However, to do both is clearly to be at a considerable handicap. I fear that these negotiations will not result at all in a favourable outcome in this country and that there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth, shedding of tears and, no doubt, shouting and imprecations of all kinds. The Government will no doubt say that it is all very unfair, everyone is being beastly to them and that it is not their fault, and there will be a mixture of paranoid self-pity and nationalist demagoguery, which the Tory party seems, sadly, very often to fall victim to. That will be a sad day if it happens to this country. I hope that it can be avoided, that my analysis is wrong and that the Minister will explain to me exactly why it is wrong.

[Lord True]

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who just spoke constantly makes disparaging references to members of the Conservative Party. I suggest that he might have been better informed about what happens inside the Conservative Party if he had remained a member. I do not consider him a great authority on the subject.

I would also like to deal with a canard which I find offensive and which I hope will not colour the next 10 days of debate. This is this business about people who favour Brexit wanting to repudiate the Good Friday agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke with great passion on the subject, and I agreed with a great deal of what she said, certainly in the emotional content. She referred also to the cases she had taken which involved people in the Brighton case. Some of us were at Brighton on that day and many of us have lived with the consequences of the terrible events that took place and are passionately attached to the peace process and what happened in Northern Ireland. I am very proud that I served under a Prime Minister who had the courage to start the process that led to the peace agreement, Mr John Major. This false syllogism—it is the worst kind—which says, “Somebody who favours Brexit said that we might move away from the Good Friday agreement; therefore, every Conservative who favours Brexit is against the Good Friday agreement” is one that I find evil and offensive, and I hope it will be dropped. Those who express that view can answer for it, but I do not share it and I do not think that many on this side do.

Those are general points; the noble Lord, Lord Davies, took the debate a little wider, but I thought that, admirably, this debate had focused on a precise subject, which was raised clearly and forensically by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Triesman, which is how we deal with this question of a date. The problem of the date is that exit day for the purpose of the Bill—it is in the Bill, although I note that there are now amendments to these clauses—is mentioned in Clauses 2(1) and 3(2)(a), which define laws which are retained as those which are in effect “immediately before exit day”. If exit day were not on the same day as the Article 50 date, as my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom said, there would potentially be confusion. You would have a position where the UK had left the European Union but it was not clear what would happen with regard to retained law. This would create the very kind of uncertainty that noble Lords opposite say they wish to avoid. Therefore those two things have to march in parallel.

Here we come to the crux of the real argument behind these amendments and suggestions, which is that we should not leave so quickly as 29 March 2019; we should delay the matter; we should delay the implementation and extend the Article 50 period. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said in one of our recent debates, we might want to be members again and might come back to reapply. In the first place, as has been pointed out in this debate, those things would require unanimity on the other side, and in the second place it would require legislation in this House and an Act of Parliament, as the Gina Miller case suggested. The reality is that we would have an Act of Parliament if we were taking the thing further down; we are already having an Act of Parliament on the withdrawal agreement. The two things have to march in parallel. At the moment that date is set, accepted and understood in this Parliament and across Europe as 29 March 2019.

This is an Act of Parliament, so if Parliament wanted to define a date—we may not like the date of 29 March 2019, but it is the one in the process that has been set in motion—it would be legitimate. I do not particularly care for the amendment that was put in in the House of Commons—at the last minute in Committee, as someone pointed out—to give a power to the Secretary of State, but that is what the House of Commons has sent us. If that needs to be dealt with, deal with that question directly: ask the House of Lords. But do not decouple the date in the law from the date that is working in Article 50. That would create uncertainty and difficulty. It does not require a further Act of Parliament to set the exit day because this is an Act of Parliament; the Bill has already been approved by the other place and it is already there—we can just do it.

However, of course that is not the course that is being taken, because both these amendments seek to strike out the phrase “on exit day”. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has got out his dandelion clock—you used to blow on it when you wondered whether you would ever have a girlfriend, when you first came to be aware of those things. “This year, next year, sometime, never”, was it not? Many of the British people rather thought in 2016 that it might be this year. It has now been two years; many people in this House would agree that we have not got that far in two years, which is a bit disappointing, but it will not be this year. At least the Bill says that it will be next year: 29 March 2019. But along comes the noble Lord, Lord, Adonis, and—next year? No. It is now sometime. His amendment gives the impression that it will be on a date to be determined sometime, but we know that he means “never”. I know, the House knows, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, knows, that he would never vote for any exit day to be voted for by this Parliament.

Therefore we should not support a dandelion clock amendment. If we want to deal with the Secretary of State issue, that is a separate debate, but let us not create new and unnecessary uncertainty by removing the date and uncoupling the exit day and the Article 50 day.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, while I strongly support all that has been said about the continuation of the EHIC scheme, I want to speak to Amendment 353 in my name and thank my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for adding their names to it.

The amendment would require the UK Government to make arrangements for an independent evaluation of the impact of the European Union withdrawal legislation and of Brexit on the health and social care sectors across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is intended to be a simple, common-sense amendment. In the Brexit debate, a lot of attention is on trade and the economy, or, today, on the customs union, but our care services and our NHS will also be affected in a major way by our withdrawal from the EU. There will be many impacts on care and support for children and young people, for people with disabilities, for people with long-term conditions and for those with additional support needs. Not all these impacts are yet known or understood. It is clear, however, that many are likely to be negative. That is certainly the risk and it is why we must be vigilant and aware.

So the purpose of the amendment is to say, “Let’s be concerned about these issues; let’s give them a higher priority than at present, and let’s monitor the situation very closely, because if we get it wrong, NHS services and the care of thousands of vulnerable people could be badly affected”. The proposal is to review such issues not more than one year after Brexit takes place to see what has happened, to understand the impact and to allow the Government, local authorities and the NHS to take appropriate action. The intention is to involve in this independent process the devolved Governments, the staff of the NHS and our care services, charities, voluntary organisations and others.

The amendment was inspired by Camphill Scotland, which has many EU staff and volunteers living and working in its outstanding care communities. Camphill also operates in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and right across the EU, and now around the globe, but its very first community was on the Camphill estate in Milltimber, near Aberdeen in Scotland.

More than 50 charitable and voluntary organisations support the amendment. These organisations do not care about the politics of Brexit; they care about the vulnerable children, disadvantaged adults, older people and those with mental health problems or long-term illnesses to whom they give support.

I believe that the amendment will be strongly welcomed also by many people in the NHS, not all of whom were entirely convinced by the message on the side of the “Boris bus” during the campaign. Staff from right across the EU work in our NHS and in our care services. More than 10% of our doctors in the UK are from EU countries and, in total, more than 60,000 staff from the EU work in our British NHS, with many thousands more in the charitable and voluntary sectors. If Brexit means that we lose only some of these people, we could still have big problems. If it becomes more difficult to recruit new staff from EU countries, this could become a major crisis for our hospitals, our care homes, our special needs schools and many other vital services.

I ask the Government and the Minister to respond positively to the amendment. It is the sort of amendment that makes sense and can so easily be agreed to, with little to lose and a great deal to gain.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 205, which has already been very ably explained by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. First, I want to say a word or two in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a most impressive speech. I hope that, for once, the Government will listen to her; they certainly ought to because she has a very special position of respect in the medical world. The medical profession in this country has been, at least up to now, one of the leading professions in the world, and she has a great deal of experience behind her and behind the words she set forth just now.

On that matter, as the noble Baroness said, the decision to leave the EMA was completely gratuitous. There was no reason for it at all. It was going to be perfectly possible to carry on with full membership while we left the European Union. A lot of us did not want us to leave the European Union—your Lordships know that I am among them—but there is no point in throwing away the whole loaf if you can keep even 5% of the bread. In this case, there would have been no difficulty at all in our remaining part of the EMA. The Government have given no explanation for this extraordinary move, which is a threat, a potential threat at least, to the advance of medical science and a certain threat to the position of the British pharmaceutical industry and to the willingness of companies to set up pharmaceutical operations and research and development operations in this country in the future—indeed, to the willingness of British pharmaceutical majors to remain as committed to this country as they have been up to now. It has really quite devastating industrial as well as medical effects.

The only reason we have ever heard for doing this is that we could not stay in the EMA because it involves some contact with the CJEU. That is quite extraordinary when this is a matter involving the health of the nation and involving one of the major industries in this country, of which we are all very proud. We do not have all that much in the way of successful manufacturing these days, but we undoubtedly do extraordinarily well in the pharmaceutical area, or have done up to now, and this industry is now to be handicapped for no better reason than one of theological fanaticism. It is incomprehensible to most of the world, either inside or outside this country. I hope that the Government will weigh very carefully the words of the noble Baroness and the representations that I know they have received from many branches of the medical profession and of the pharmaceutical industry, and for once just take account, soberly, carefully, thoughtfully and calmly of the values involved that are being thrown away and threatened by this extraordinary decision. I give an undertaking that I shall not gloat in any way if the Government do a U-turn on this: I shall congratulate them, sincerely and openly and I hope that they can find the moral courage to do what is right in this case.

I turn to Amendment 205, which was very ably set out by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I shall not repeat what he said, but I want to talk about one section of the population that will be particularly affected by the abolition of the health insurance card in the European Union, and that is older people. Perhaps I should declare an interest here because I am certainly an older person, but I may be lucky because I have not so far been refused health insurance by anybody or charged exorbitant sums and probably, if I did have to pay a premium on my insurance policy to travel aboard, I would be able to afford to do so. A lot of people in this country, probably the majority, would not.

We all know that healthcare costs can be enormous, particularly in areas such as North America. One American friend of mine, who can actually afford to pay, was recently given a bill for more than $35,000 after a two-day stay in the Houston Medical Center. It involved a number of diagnostic tests, admittedly, as well as the board and lodging in the centre, but it gives an impression of the kind of costs that one can incur. There are countries in the world where you can get first-class medical care much cheaper than you can in Europe, let alone America, such as India, but not many. Countries tend to have medical care which is not up to the standards of North America, Japan or the European Union, or the costs are quite exorbitant, or in many cases both. Switzerland is another example, like the United States, where it is both.

For people who are older or have some particular medical record which makes them a bad insurance risk, underwriters will want to charge a very strong premium for insuring them at all. It is already quite difficult for them to travel outside the European Union. Many of us know people, friends of ours, who for that reason will not now travel outside the European Union. They will not even go and visit their family in the United States or Canada. They hope their family will come and visit them here, of course, but they simply cannot take the risk of falling seriously ill outside the European Union.

If the Government have their way and we go down this road that they have set out for us, the effect will not be just that people cannot go outside the European Union; they will not be able to go to Calais, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dublin, Copenhagen or Stockholm. That is the most terrible restriction of the horizons of a very large number of people. People may not have much time to travel when they are younger. They have business and professional commitments and a lot of strains on their budget because they are bringing up children and so forth. A lot of people look forward to being able to travel when they have retired, and the Government are saying to them, “When we have got this Bill through, you guys will not be able to travel at all—ha ha! You will be stuck here in this country”, which of course will be wonderful because we will have had Brexit and paradise on earth will result. That is a terrible—indeed, devastating—piece of news for a very large number of deserving people in this country. Once again, I hope the Government will have second thoughts.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 353 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. I thought I had appended my name to it but clearly it had not quite arrived. I also support the comments made on the other linked amendments. I particularly identify with the comments of the noble Baroness a moment ago about Great Ormond Street Hospital, whose brilliant services we as a family had to avail ourselves of some decades ago. I cannot speak too highly of it and I hope that the points that were so well made are noted.

This group of amendments touches on one of the most sensitive areas of public policy: health and social care. There is a widespread unease in Wales—as there is, no doubt, throughout the rest of the UK—about the potential impact of Brexit on these vital services. On one level, one might not expect changes in our trading relationships to impact this sector as severely as, say, manufacturing or agriculture, but in fact there are already discernible effects on that key component of healthcare: the availability of a skilled workforce with adequate resources. A totally unnecessary uncertainty has been created, both for the existing NHS workforce, many of whom have come to the UK from EU countries, and with regard to recruiting potential new staff from those countries.

First, I have heard from those involved in healthcare—in Wales and in England, as it happens—about skilled staff employed in the NHS now actively seeking similar posts in other EU countries, just in case they feel forced to leave at a later date, perhaps for professional or social reasons. They fear that others will do likewise and that the available jobs will then dry up and they will need to move quickly to look for them. Secondly, I heard from a very authoritative source that EU-based specialist staff are currently holding back from applying for jobs in the UK because of the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Incidentally, this is not impacting just hospital services but university medical research and manufacturing companies in the healthcare sector.

The potential reduction in the number of key workers available to the NHS needs to be very carefully monitored. If we are to go for a soft Brexit in which we will agree the free movement of those coming for specific jobs and guarantee no dilution of their employment rights, that is all well and good; we might not need the amendment. But at this stage we just do not know what sort of Brexit awaits us. If it is a hard Brexit, with no agreement, we most certainly do need the review mechanism contained in this group of amendments, and we need it for a purpose because in a no-deal scenario we may need to make alternative plans to import key workers from other parts of the world—if we can find them—and to do so quickly. For these reasons I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

The important progress was announced in the agreement reached in December in the first phase of the negotiations. Reciprocal healthcare benefits were guaranteed for existing UK residents in the EU and for existing EU residents here. The next phase is what happens in the future.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The points I raised related not to the important matter of residents, whether continental residents living here or British residents living on the continent, but to travellers—people who may want to travel for a short period for tourism, family reasons or what have you. Has any progress been made on that front? If not, are the Government proposing to make any progress and, if so, what progress?

[Lord Callanan]

That will be for the next phase of the negotiations. We have guaranteed the right of existing residents from the EU in the UK and for UK residents in the EU. The next phase of the negotiations is for people who will travel there in future.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

The Minister has just mentioned the matter of our withdrawing from the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and that our withdrawing from the European Union will mean that there will be only one EU permanent member. Will that not be a wonderful day for France, which will be able to speak in the councils of the United Nations as representing the EU as a whole, and will no doubt do so?

[Baroness Goldie]

I am sorry, I think that I may have been misunderstood. I did not talk about the United Kingdom withdrawing from being a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council. I said that when we withdraw from the EU, the EU will be left with only one member, which is France. The position of the UK in that respect is powerful and influential, and I am pointing out that Taskforce 50 thought that it could certainly merit a specific dialogue and consultation mechanism with the UK.

It is pretty clear, particularly when there are many in this Chamber much more knowledgeable than I am about these important and technical matters, that to underpin our future co-operation we will seek regular institutional engagements, including specific arrangements on secondments and information sharing—that would seem to be at the heart of constructing any relationship. The nature of the threats that we face mean that we should seek a framework that could be scaled up in times of crisis. One needs a relationship which can be tested against need if situations arise when the partnership, agreement or whatever it is to be has to swing into action.

The United Kingdom intelligence community already works closely with other members of the EU. The heads of the German BND, the French DGSE and the UK secret intelligence services issued a joint statement at the Munich security conference committing to close co-operation and stating that cross-border information sharing must be taken forward on themes such as international terrorism, illegal migration and proliferation of cyberattacks after the UK leaves the EU. We want to do all that. I am trying to explain to your Lordships that there is straw with which to make my bricks. I am not just clutching it out of the air; I am trying to indicate that there are substantive matters that can be the foundation for something very firm and enduring.

Perhaps I may try to deal with one or two particular points raised. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the important matter of sanctions. We have just passed a sanctions Bill which will provide the UK with the powers to implement our own independent sanctions regime, but we would delay these powers coming into force if we could agree arrangements with the EU concerning sanctions co-operation during the implementation period. On sanctions, as with co-operation on foreign and security policy more generally, we seek to consult and develop a co-ordinated approach before decisions are made. To enable such co-operation, we will need consultation mechanisms; for example, regular sanctions dialogues. I was very struck by the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who raised real and poignant issues. Nobody would disagree with that, which underlines why we need close co-operation on these vital issues.

On Amendments 164 and 166 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Political and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Council are of course bodies of the EU. They are attended by member states and are intended for the development of the EU’s policy.

We are leaving the European Union and are not seeking to participate in these meetings on the same basis as EU members. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, identified these problems. But, given our historic ties and shared values, we are likely to continue sharing the same goals and we will therefore want to co-operate closely on a common foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said very cogently that we are not talking about a zero-sum game. It was racy language for the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but I totally agree with him. We are not talking about a zero-sum game: well established and good relationships already exist which will not just evaporate. We will seek to bind these and tie them in to our new post-Brexit relationship. We want to establish an enhanced partnership with the EU that reflects the unique position of the UK. This will include close consultation in a variety of fora. Attending the Political and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Council, however, is not the only means by which we can achieve that.

Amendment 165 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This amendment seeks to bind the UK—“bind” is the important word—to follow the EU’s foreign policy objectives regardless of our own views. This would limit the UK’s ability to respond independently to developments in the world post Brexit, and such a restriction would be profoundly undesirable. Of course, on many foreign policy issues the UK and EU will continue to share the same goals and will want to co-operate closely, whether that is by continuing to support the Middle East peace process or by tackling the threat of piracy off the Horn of Africa—but, again, I do not think we need texts and primary legislation to underline what are already our shared values and beliefs.

Amendment 185 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and refers to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre. I reiterate the Government’s unconditional commitment to European security. In the exit negotiations we will work closely to ensure that the UK and EU continue to co-operate closely, including through the sharing of information, to safeguard our shared values and to combat common threats, including threats of terrorism, organised criminal groups and hostile state actors. The precise modalities and arrangements to enable this partnership will be decided in the negotiations. I do not expect this to satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but I hope that it will provide them with sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to continue close co-operation with the EU and its agencies and that, in these circumstances, they will see fit not to press their amendments.

I will say in conclusion—I reiterate it because the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the point—that the Government have been clear that the UK remains unconditionally committed to European security. In the exit negotiations we will work to ensure that the UK and EU continue to co-operate closely to safeguard our shared values and to combat common threats, including terrorism. A partnership where we can build on the existing structures and arrangements—because it is not a zero-sum game—to improve processes will enable us to go further to respond to the reality of these. I hope that this will provide your Lordships with sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to continue close co-operation with the EU and its agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I do not think I am going to give way to the noble Lord because I have been trying to speak. In the course of this debate, we are not actually going—I shall give way to the Chief Whip.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

It is the turn of my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am being persistent this evening because I want to point out the glaring contradiction in the views that have been put forward in support of the Government and of the Bill as it currently stands. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, says the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a pernicious and dangerous document—“dangerous” was her word—that would lead to courts in this country setting aside laws that they did not like, which would be scandalously contrary to British traditions of constitution and law. On the other side, we have had people, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is the latest example of this, saying the reason why we cannot have the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Bill and transferred into English law is that it is unnecessary and would be confusing because all the rights are there and some of the rights are already in the corpus of British law. Noble Lords must make up their minds: they cannot say something is a radical and pernicious measure with substantial negative consequences but at the same time say that it has no effect at all and is merely otiose. There is a fundamental contradiction there. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noticed the same thing but was not quite so explicit about it as I have been.

[Lord Pannick]

I did my best.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

There is a confusion in this country that comes up quite frequently. We like to think—we are brought up to think it—that we do not have a written constitution in this country and we do not have constitutional laws. That is totally untrue: the Bill of Rights is a constitutional law; in my view the Bill that we are now trying to repeal, the European Communities Act, is a constitutional law; and the Human Rights Act is certainly a constitutional law. By “a constitutional law”, I mean a law that is generally regarded as foundational and is prayed in aid before the courts and referred to in court judgments across a whole range of subjects. Because of that contradiction, we do not really recognise what is going on and we get ourselves into a frightful confusion.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I am not shocked and offended by the idea that a court could put aside a Bill that was contrary to existing law. The remedy, of course, is quite simple: Parliament can change either the existing law or the previous one. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, my Lincolnshire neighbour, came out with the right solution when he said that the check and the important constitutional protection against a Government with a parliamentary majority acting entirely irresponsibly or even tyrannically is that any Bills they put forward would have to go through both Houses. In that context, one hopes that the House of Lords would act as a guardian of the constitution and be prepared to stand up to the Government and wait for them, if necessary, to bring in the Parliament Act to override it. That would be a considerable check and balance, and it is a very important role of this House that we are there as a long-stop in such circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, came up with the right solution and I am sorry that I did not sign his amendment, but I certainly approve of it very much, and if he comes forward with something like it at Report, I shall be happy to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, as the tail-end Charlie in this debate, I too shall be brief. I believe that there is nothing fundamental about this so-called charter. It was a political wish list cobbled together by the EU in the year 2000, incorporated into the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and opposed by every Labour Government Minister. In fact, Gordon Brown would not even go to Lisbon on the first day to sign it. He wanted to distance himself from it. It includes such meaningless waffle as the right to “physical and mental integrity”, and such wonderful new rights as the right to marry and the right to freedom of thought. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, so cleverly exposed, my right to freedom of thought seems to apply only to the 20,000 EU laws. If I am thinking about any other UK laws, the charter does not seem to apply.

Of course, the charter contains the fundamental right to a fair trial. Well, 803 years ago, this noble House put the right to a fair trial in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta. That is the most important fundamental right of all, which we have had for more than 800 years. The Magna Carta was also known as the “Great Charter of Freedoms” and the late Lord Denning called it,

“the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

That is what our predecessors in this House did—not the King, not a foreign court but this noble House.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Does the noble Lord recall that the Magna Carta was in 1214, and that the first Parliaments began to sit in the 1270s?

[Lord Blencathra]

The Magna Carta was imposed on King John by the Barons, as I understand it—the Barons being Members of this noble House. The House did not exist in that form, but it was imposed by the Lords and the Barons. The House of Commons passed the Bill of Rights 350 years ago and imposed it on the sovereign, guaranteeing our rights to free elections, no taxes without parliamentary approval and free speech. The Bill of Rights passed 350 years ago by this Parliament formed the basis of the United States Bill of Rights and Bills of rights of other countries around the world.

Then just 70 years ago, we used our unique experience to write the European Convention on Human Rights—largely written by British lawyers. We wrote that for countries which had no history of our fundamental freedoms and had suffered the evils and degradations of National Socialism. What I am saying is that the worst indictment I make of the EU is that it seems to have destroyed the belief among parliamentarians, noble Lords and Members of Parliament that we are capable of governing ourselves and writing our own law.

There is nothing of any value in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is not already covered in UK law or the European convention. If we find some great new right in the future and decide that freedom of thought must become a law, are we incapable in this House, in the other place and as British parliamentarians of drafting that? Are we so enfeebled and incapable that we cannot do it? If the Barons could do it 800 years ago, Members of Parliament 350 years ago and the British Government and parliamentarians did it for Europe 70 years ago, are we so incapable that we cannot do it now?

The people of this country voted to bring back control of our laws because they believed that Parliament was capable of making better laws than the EU. They believed that we are better at deciding on our essential rights than an ECJ judge from Bulgaria who has a law degree in Marxist-Leninist law—I have checked on that, and he has got a degree from Sofia on Marxist-Leninist law.

I happen to agree with the British people. I see the incredible wealth of talent in this House, with noble and learned Lords and Law Lords, and I trust our courts. We do not need nor want this charter. Let us wear once gain the mantle of our predecessors in the Lords and Commons, who gave us every freedom that has been worth fighting and dying for for the last few hundred years. We need the courage of the electorate, who trusted us to make our own laws once again. We should not let them down.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

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

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

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

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

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

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I too support Amendments 21 and 22, which would restrict the powers of Ministers to modify retained EU law by secondary legislation in the contexts that have been mentioned: employment rights, equality rights, health and safety, consumer standards, environmental standards and human rights. All of those are vital areas. It is important in considering these amendments to recognise the breadth of the secondary legislation powers that are being conferred on Ministers under the Bill—and not just by Clause 7, to which we will come next week or the week after. The point is made by the organisation ClientEarth in a helpful opinion, which I commend to the Committee, written by Pushpinder Saini QC. He draws attention—and I draw the attention of the Committee—to some provisions that are tucked away in Schedule 8 to the Bill, on page 55. Paragraph 3(1) refers to existing powers in legislation to make subordinate legislation. It says:

“Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which was conferred before exit day is to be read, on or after exit day and so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify … any retained direct EU legislation”.


That is a remarkably broad power. On page 56, at paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 8, there is a similar power for any future power to make subordinate legislation. Of course, the word “modify” has a very broad meaning, because it is defined in Clause 14(1), on page 10, to include amending, repealing or revoking.

That gives context to the importance of these two amendments. Can the Minister confirm that this really is the Government’s intention? Schedule 8 does not have the two-year limitation period that Clause 7 has. Clause 7 applies only for two years, which is bad enough, but at least it is time-limited, whereas Schedule 8 is not. Is it really the Government’s intention to confer power on Ministers to repeal by secondary legislation—with all the difficulties that poses for adequate scrutiny by Parliament—any employment rights and any of the other important protections mentioned in Amendment 21 and 22 in so far as they are part of retained EU law, which as we have heard covers the Equality Act and many other Acts in so far as they derive from, or are linked to, EU law obligations?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for the amendment will be welcome. It reflects what I have always thought was a considerable cross-party consensus in this country in favour of a reasonable amount of regulation. Of course there are fanatics. Professor Minford is a very good example of an intelligent man who believes if we got rid of all regulation it would be a very good thing, and he has made calculations of the economic benefits to the country if literally all regulations—health and safety, environment, consumer protection and employment protection and so on—were simply abolished. However, he is rightly regarded as a fanatic in his own profession and indeed in politics. There are a number of people on the right wing of the Conservative Party who have always been very close to that way of thinking, and it would be quite terrifying if the Government, under the camouflage of taking powers apparently needed to bring about Brexit, found themselves in possession of instruments that meant that without any real let or hindrance they could simply take an axe to the protective regulation that has emerged in this country over the decades.

All civilised countries have to have a reasonable amount of regulation in these fields or they very rapidly cease to be civilised. One of my great worries about leaving the EU is that we will probably end up with more regulation that in many cases will be much less rational: it will be the result of a campaign by the Daily Mail and weak Ministers giving in, saying, “Oh goodness, let them have what they want”, and regulating on this or that. There is a much greater chance of that happening when we are no longer part of a body of 28 countries that are forced to look at these issues in realistic terms and come to some agreement on the subject. That is very worrying.

[Lord Liddle]

Would my noble friend give way? I want to be helpful to his argument. He refers to Professor Minford and the cost of EU regulation. It is only by making the extreme assumption that all these regulations will be abolished that the tiny number of economic studies that demonstrate some growth benefit from Brexit are able to get to that number. Those studies are quoted very frequently from the Front Bench opposite as examples of the fact that some economists differ from the consensus, but in fact that difference depends on the assumption that we would scrap every single piece of EU social protection.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that was an intervention. I gave way believing that it was.

[Lord Liddle]

It was to help my noble friend, yes.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I do not know whether or not to be pleased by that remark. It was very kind of my noble friend to want to help me but I do not know if I was in that much need of help at that moment. However, he has made a major contribution to the debate. He has pointed out something that all of us who were involved in the referendum campaign are well aware of: there were constant references by leave campaigners and the leaders of the leave campaign to the costs of the EU, but when you looked at the figures you found that they were based on the assumption that we would get rid of a whole raft of regulation—perhaps all regulation, as Professor Minford would like. However, very few people, if you put it to them, would want to live in a society in which there was no regulation in these areas. So there has been a great deal of dishonesty and obfuscation, not only in this area but in the whole European debate. In my view, that has not been a positive contribution to the ability of the British people to make an intelligent and well-informed decision. It is regrettable that some people have been prepared to be that cynical in this context.

To revert to the amendment and the clause before us, there is an extraordinary aspect to this: if the Government really do not have sinister intentions in this area—I cannot believe that they do; I do not actually think they intend to get rid of a whole raft of regulations, even in areas like employment protection, which we know the Conservatives particularly tend to dislike—why have they themselves not produced, in drafting the Bill or subsequent amendments, protections that would assure everyone that they had no such intentions? The amendment is a good one but it should not be necessary. It is most unfortunate that the Government have allowed the suspicion to be created that these regulations, which are fundamental to a civilised society, should be at risk. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that I am quite mistaken and the Government have no intention of using these powers in a deregulatory fashion but want only to use them functionally to assist in the transition to the post-Brexit era, and that they are prepared to accept the need to reassure the public that these powers cannot be misused and therefore will introduce some protections of their own, if they do not agree with this amendment, on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Of course, we hope that we are not talking about any of those things. We hope that we are not talking about radical changes and reductions in some of the essential regulation which we have all said is so necessary. However, we need a little bit more than hope. We need some evidence of the Government’s commitment to restrain themselves when it comes to using these powers.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That is why Clause 7 is drafted in the terms in which the noble Lord will find it in the Bill.

Reference was also made to the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 8. I am not sure how the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, interpreted that paragraph but let us be clear: it refers to existing powers, not to powers created under this Bill. Those powers already exist in respect of existing legislation. They are not being extended. If the Government truly intended to bring about wholesale change to these policy areas, and could do so on the basis of their existing powers, perhaps they might have done so already. The provision does not extend to these powers. Therefore, again, with respect, it appears to me that the matter is being taken out of context. However, I would be happy to look at the opinion on this from Pushpinder Saini referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

My noble friend must accept that this is no passing matter; it is not just a case of supporting animal welfare because it is so popular. I do not think that anyone has ever told me that I am sentimental about this. I take a very clear and hard line on it—but I also happen to be reasonably rational. What the Government are asking us to do is not something that the revising Chamber should dream of doing. We should insist on this being changed.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on introducing the amendment very clearly and effectively. I support it strongly. I also commend the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who spoke straight from the heart. However, there was nothing at all sentimental or false about what she said; it was said straight from experience and was very matter of fact.

I too have the benefit of living in the country—I see it as a benefit, anyway—and I see many animals. I have cattle grazing on my land and I have a dog; I should declare that interest. I have many times been able to verify how intelligent these animals are, how sensitive they are and what an extraordinary relationship they can have with human beings. All of this is orthodox science. It was demonstrated by Pavlov or Konrad Lorenz and has been demonstrated over and over again, so I do not think there is any doubt about it. It has always seemed to me that caring about sentient animals is one of the marks of a civilised society. There is terrible cruelty to animals in this world. The situation is obviously worse in many poorer countries, for reasons one understands. I think that the European Union has probably the highest standards of anywhere in this matter—certainly far higher than the United States. I hope that we can keep things that way if we have to leave the European Union and that we will at least not resile from those standards. That is why I want to comment on what has just been said.

I am not sure that I have ever said this before, but I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in his excellent speech. That being the case, I might normally be tempted simply to record my agreement and then sit down. However, I have some slight hope that if I make similar points to those he made—it was my intention to make exactly the points he pre-empted me in making—but from a rather different perspective, and the Government hear a similar message from different parts of the House, they might for once consider whether there might be something in those points—and it would be very desirable indeed if the Government thought again about the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a couple of very important points. I will not follow him on Northern Ireland as we shall have other opportunities to debate that in the course of our proceedings, and I look forward to taking part in those debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made it very clear that the Government clearly intend that there should be protection for sentient animals in our legislation, but not to the same high standard that applies at present. Over and over again—countless times—we have heard in these debates that the Government’s only intention in bringing forward this Bill is to transpose Union law into British law so that there is no legal vacuum or legal confusion if we leave the European Union. We understand that that is a perfectly reasonable and logical response to the situation and I think that most of us on this side of the House want desperately to take the Government’s words in good faith.

However, over and over again we find that that is not true, that there is a surreptitious agenda and that rights and protections which exist by virtue of our membership of the European Union are not being carried forward and that the Government appear to have no intention of carrying them forward into domestic law after Brexit. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made this absolutely plain and cited the Government’s proposed wording to replace the article in the Treaty of Lisbon on animal welfare. It is quite clear that the Government want to weaken that language. Why do they want to do that? I had always thought that there was a consensus among civilised, humane people on the protection of animals which went across this House and the other place and had nothing at all to do with political parties. Is that not the case? Why should the Government therefore decide in this case not to carry forward into British law the existing levels of protection in the Treaty of Lisbon but to deliberately reduce them and dilute them? Why is that? I cannot understand it.

Secondly, on another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, there should be no illusion about this matter as regards international trade. If we are serious about animal welfare, we must impose exactly the same standards that we impose on our own farmers in this matter on any imported animal products, otherwise we will make complete fools of ourselves without any gain to animal welfare at all. All that will happen is that the business will go to farms in other countries which apply appalling standards of animal protection or none at all and who therefore have an economic advantage and can undercut the British farmer with produce that is produced in barbaric fashion. I include in that the way the Americans produce their beef, which is absolutely revolting. They now have zero grazing for over 95% of their beef, which means that you have two animals in an area slightly smaller than the Table in front of me. They never see the air or a blade of grass in their life. That is appalling but it undoubtedly gives the Americans an economic advantage.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

The noble Lord is repeating a point he made last week about American agriculture. I let it pass then, but on that occasion he said that if you go to Texas, there are no cattle outdoors, and that you would not see a lot of Texas longhorn outdoors. I go to Texas quite regularly and see an awful lot of cattle being raised outdoors. The noble Lord should be careful not to exaggerate what is happening. I do not know what relevance this has to EU withdrawal, but it is important not to go too far in this respect.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I will come to the relevance to EU withdrawal in a moment. I will just say that I feel that I have not lived in vain, because the noble Viscount has listened to what I said and thought about it for several days. I was perhaps speaking figuratively; in this life you can never apply the word “infinity” or “zero” in a completely literal sense. He may have been to the wrong part of Texas, or to parts where there are expensive ranches and the oil billionaires who own them like to have some longhorn on display. Those ranches exist, and I have seen one or two of them. Perhaps the noble Viscount has some friends who invited him there. That is not the heart of the beef economy. If the noble Viscount knows anything about Texas—he obviously does—he will know that Fort Worth used to be the centre of the Texas meat industry. I used to go there very frequently because I had a lot of dealings with Lockheed Martin, which is based there. I went there at different times of the year and I got to know the countryside around Fort Worth and towards Dallas quite well. That would have been cattle country 100 years ago; there would have been cattle on every horizon. I have literally never seen a single live animal in the area around Fort Worth, which was the headquarters of that industry. That is not a part of the United States where wealthy people have ranches with animals on display, which is a very different matter.

The point I was making—I will not say before I was interrupted, because I was pleased to have the intervention from the noble Viscount, particularly if he has been listening to my speeches carefully—was that there is no point in having any kind of regard to animal welfare and persuading ourselves that we are being humane and civilised in doing so if we then let in, in our imports, meat or other agricultural products which derive from inhuman practices. All we are then doing is making sure that the business and the activity moves from this country abroad with not a single iota of gain to animal welfare or happiness, and causing the destruction of the British livestock industry in the process. That makes no sense.

If we are to do this, we have to do it properly. We should make it a matter of moral commitment that when we leave the European Union—if indeed we do—we stick to the high standards which the European Union has set in this matter and certainly do not dilute them, and secondly, that we ensure that we impose those standards if we have left the European Union and are in a position to sign free trade agreements with other countries. I have explained why I think it is unlikely that we will be in that position in practice with the United States, but supposing that we were, we should in that eventuality impose exactly the same standards on anybody who wants to sell us meat or other agricultural products in future.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will be brief. I put on record my support for Amendments 30 and 98, and for the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I cannot imagine what good reasons there can be for opposing this amendment. I appreciate that a number of directives and regulations will be incorporated into our law, but not this important treaty provision. As other noble Lords have already said, a hallmark of a civilised country is how one treats one’s animals, and recognition of animal sentience is key to that.

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments are important and we hope that the Minister has heard the strength of feeling from around the Chamber on these issues. By far the easiest thing to do is to adopt the amendments that we have proposed or some similar wording, on which we are happy to take advice. I hope the Minister sees the sense of this position and is able to support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Does my noble friend agree that the excuse that the Government cannot accept this amendment because another Bill may be coming along on the same subject cannot be accepted as genuine? If the Government do bring forward another Bill on this subject, there is absolutely nothing to stop them, if they so wished and if Parliament agreed, modifying the amendment as it is incorporated in the Act.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That is our position: we should have this amendment now but work on it in the longer term. I am sure we could all find ways of improving it. The easiest and most honourable thing is to transpose what was in the treaty and move that wording over, then move on to something better for the longer term. I agree with my noble friend.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I fear I must intervene at this point, having been restrained a little earlier. I did have some amendments down which I thought were rather germane to the transition period potentially, on which noble Lords could take different views, but in the interest of making progress I thought that those issues could be more intelligently addressed once we knew a bit more about the progress of negotiations.

I must point out that, prior to that, four groups of amendments had occupied your Lordships’ House for five and three-quarter hours. At that average rate of progress and with 85 groups still to consider on the Marshalled List, many of which have been tabled by noble Lords who are concerned about leaving the European Union, we will need 13 more days in Committee, sitting for nine hours until midnight every day, with no dinner break and without considering any other business. With all respect, I do not consider that that is a good way to make progress or that it is sufficient progress to make. I think that a number of your Lordships will probably agree privately with those reflections.

We have a 19-clause Bill here, to which already your Lordships’ have tabled 67 new clauses. Perhaps some of these statistics might be noted outside. The amendment to which I speak is such a new clause.

I feel that, with all respect—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord True]

The noble Lord has spoken a great deal in the past few days; I would like to continue my remarks, if I may.

The important issue that is raised here is a perfectly good issue on which to have a debate in the Moses Room or on an Unstarred Question. These are matters of great importance. I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness who said that we had not made progress in this country: we have made a great deal of progress in this country. The performance of this country on gender equality, work/life balance and carers has been transformed in my lifetime. It needs to go further, but I cannot accept—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I did not make that suggestion, and the record will show it. I was coming to make some suggestions about how we could address this as a House. We have had some outstanding debates in this House from committees of your Lordships’ House on broader policy questions that arise from this difficult exit process. This is an extremely important issue, as I acknowledged at the outset, which deserves to be considered and continually considered in your Lordships’ House. I am merely saying, with great respect, that perhaps the usual channels should give some consideration to ways in which some of the issues that have been raised on this quite narrow Bill could be discussed—but, since I have been invited to explain why, it is nothing to do with the matters concerned.

By the way, the noble Lord cannot argue that because progress has been made by one judicial process it would not have been made by other processes. After all, huge progress has been made in the United States of America, which does not accept the judicial authority of Luxembourg.

This worthy amendment seeks to raise and bring before your Lordships’ House an important subject that your Lordships should consider and hold dear. However, the amendment is absurd in what it asks the Government to do—and that would be true if it was applied to any other field of public policy. So far in Committee we have had a series of general public policy debates. We have had several today which have been cloned, as it were, on to the Bill. The amendment wants Ministers to be required by law to watch only EU law as it develops and give regular reports to your Lordships’ House whenever a proposal comes forward on what should happen. A new principle is being grafted on to the law for this one issue.

I could reverse the question: why for this worthy policy only? Will it be submitted in the rest of Committee as we proceed on different aspects of public policy on all these new clauses that we should have a process whereby Ministers are required to watch and report on this and that after we have left the European Union? That is not very sensible. Our Ministers and Government should watch the legislation brought forward in every advanced country of the world, not only among our European partners, but not have this specific process clogging up the statute book.

The remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—I am sorry, I can never remember his full title; I know it has got something to do with living in a leafy place with a wood nearby—on the previous group were absolutely correct. He made the point that we had discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights before.

So, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment for the reasons I have given. It is not a sensible process on any aspect of law to ask any future Government to specifically watch the development of debates on future policy within the European Union and bring reports to your Lordships’ House. That is simply not practical legislation.

I have the highest esteem for the noble Baroness, as she knows. I recognise that she is passionately committed to these issues, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. They are trying to bring issues they care about before the House, but they do not have to do so on this Bill—and certainly not in the context of an amendment that will not work in practical terms.

We have been sent a Bill by the other place that is to provide for withdrawal from the European Union—not to provide a basis for a series of lengthy Second Reading-like debates on different aspects of public policy. That is the way we are drifting. It is why we took five and three-quarter hours to debate the first four groups and why, if we continued at that rate, we would have another 13 days to get through. The amendment is not practical and will not work. It raises an important issue, but we should move on. I will give way to the noble Lord now.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has been implying—rather more than implying—that noble Lords in this debate have been wasting time; that they have not been getting to the bottom of the subject or have been talking about irrelevancies. Is that what the noble Lord means to say—in other words, that we have not been doing a good job on this Bill? It seems to me that we have fairly elucidated the quite complex details in this proposed legislation so far. It is an enormously important matter and we can scarcely be accused of spending too much time on it. Our debates are being followed carefully by the country as a whole—and rightly so. If the noble Lord has any evidence of someone who has been filibustering or wasting time, I hope that he will bring it forward.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I could well be tempted and I suppose that it depends on how quickly you can see paint dry. I leave it to people outside your Lordships’ House to judge the progress that we have made in the first four days, despite some of the undertakings and understandings of the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps I may say that I greatly value and respect the Bench whose behaviour has been absolutely admirable and exemplary. I do not think that we have made fast enough progress, which is not justified. There are important issues to raise and I have simply suggested that these are some things that, as with the reports of your Lordships’ committees, could be discussed in other forums—but surely not during consideration of this little 19-clause Bill with a rather narrowly defined purpose and given all the other legislation that we have coming forward.

I oppose this amendment. It suggests a new mechanism for the Government in relation to our future relations with the EU which is unnecessary. I look forward to seeing the progress that the noble Baroness wishes to see being made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

43: Schedule 1, page 16, line 27, leave out paragraph 4

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, it is not easy to generate a great deal of excitement at this time of night about an item of jurisprudence, but I rise to speak about the Francovich principle, which is extremely important both as a general principle—in fact, I do not think that there is any more important principle in our legal system—and as an instrument for driving ever-better standards of governance and of output by the public sector. Let me explain this briefly.

The Francovich case, as I think noble Lords will know, and certainly all noble and learned Lords will know very well, is a piece of jurisprudence dating originally from 1991 that has been with us for 25 years. It has become very much part of the scene, and I think that without exaggeration I can say that it is part of the political and legal culture that we have created in the European Union over that time. It has been extended by jurisprudence so that it covers states, public authorities and agencies as well as local government, and more recently it has also been extended to cover the private sector. What the principle says is that where an individual, a corporate body or a state body has been in breach of union law and corporate or private individuals have suffered thereby, they have the remedy that the courts concerned are able to impose damages proportionate to the losses incurred by those who have suffered as a result of the bad governance concerned.

When I say that it is a very important principle and a very important pragmatic instrument, let me explain that. Surely the very important principle here is that the state must be subject to the law. If I go out and break the law, I can be arrested, charged and eventually fined, or even sent to prison in certain cases—and I can certainly be sued for civil damages for negligence, breach of the law et cetera. If, however, state bodies are immune from the law, the relationship between the citizen and the state is very different from the one we like to think exists in a constitutional democracy. That principle is very important and it will cease to be enshrined in law if we do not amend the Bill as it currently stands.

The valuable, pragmatic instrument to which I referred is simply that the existence of the Francovich judgment, which—as the Library told me—has been cited by over 300 cases since and has played a major part in many decisions. If I had more time I would digress on the bad planning decisions that have been reversed and the beaches and rivers that have been cleaned up as a result of the working of this principle. The principle drives better government the whole time.

I dare say that the Government, in their contribution to the debate, will say, “It doesn’t matter because when we leave the Union we can fall back on judicial review”. Judicial review is a creation, of course, not of European jurisprudence but our own jurisprudence; it is a very valuable principle and a valuable achievement over the past 50 years. In my view, as I have already argued, it is not quite as important or valuable as the Francovich principle, but nevertheless it is a splendid thing. There is a big difference between judicial review and Francovich, because under judicial review, you cannot get any damages. You can spend £3 million or £5 million—I have no doubt that noble and learned Lords will tell me any amount of money you want—by running the case, but you will not get the damages that you would get under the Francovich case. All of us who have been involved in government know that there is nothing more terrifying for any Minister than the prospect of being exposed as responsible for the loss of money in their department. Indeed, the political life expectancy of any Minister who finds himself in that position is frankly a matter of hours rather than days. So the risk of having damages awarded against one is a very real threat to anybody in a position of responsibility—chief executive of the local council, chief executive of an agency, a Minister or whoever—and it makes everybody stop to think extremely carefully. That is what we are talking about in the amendment.

Going through the Bill, all of us face a great difficulty. We have a choice to make and I do not think that any one of us is completely clear on how we should make it. Hopefully, we will have taken a decision by the time the Bill emerges from Report, but it may take a little while yet. The choice is this: do we believe the Bill or the Government? If we believe the Bill, all these rights and remedies and protections are disappearing. That is what the wording of the Bill before us says—that Francovich has been abolished—quite unambiguously and clearly. In other parts of the Bill, as we have seen today and on other occasions in Committee, it is the same story. We were talking earlier about family rights and labour rights and so forth, and it looks as though some of those are not being protected—even animal rights are not being carried forward on the same terms, with the wording being changed and softened and so on. There are subtle ways in which rights and protections are being withdrawn. That is what you get from reading the Bill.

What is more, the Government continually tell us that all the Bill does is make sure that there is no legal uncertainty at the time of Brexit and that we will simply carry forward retained law into British law. In fact, there is an agenda in the Bill that is quite blatant to anybody who reads it. It is not a hidden agenda; it is quite obvious. It is a kind of power grab by the Executive at the expense of the citizen. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is going, which is clearly a loss to the citizen. Again, the Executive cannot have the charter prayed in aid against them.

The most concerning aspect is of course the Henry VIII clauses that we have not yet come to, which constitute an extraordinary power grab by the Executive at the expense of Parliament. We have it here again with the Francovich issue. Again, it is a power grab by the Executive, who want to abolish this because it is a trial and a problem for them and the state. They have to perform or else they have to pay up and get humiliated. That is what we see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, dealt with that point. In practice, damages are not usually available under judicial review. The general view of the public is that there is a very small chance of getting damages that way. That is the difference between that and Francovich, and it is very important.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, it is not. I have to say to the noble Lord that Francovich damages are a rare remedy, as I have already indicated. Damages in the context of judicial review are not so uncommon as the noble Lord was suggesting. They are available as a remedy, albeit in limited circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In response to the noble Lord’s observations, we are dealing in the context of Francovich with the court having to find that there has been a serious failure with regard to an EU obligation, and I suggest that that is not very far from the test of misfeasance in the context of judicial review.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this interesting debate. I think that anybody listening in from outside will be impressed that we are working hard on a very serious matter at quarter to one in the morning.

[Lord Goldsmith]

And not drinking cocoa.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Yes, not drinking cocoa, indeed—absolutely right.

First of all, I must say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has misunderstood a number of things. One is that I think he has got it wrong on the issue of damages. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is representative in what he said of the great majority of legal opinion on this subject and of the experience that any of us have had—via our constituents or otherwise—in this area of the law.

The second thing is that I think the noble and learned Lord has misunderstood that the major part of the importance of the Francovich system or jurisprudence is that it is a potential deterrent to those who might be inclined to misgovern us. People know that they are subject to this particular sanction if they do, and that has enormous effect. The fact that the power is used 25 times is not negligible—28 times I think it is in this country and 300 and something times over the Union as a whole. That does not mean to say that it is without effect, or that its effect is limited to those occasions. It would be very naive to say that; its effect is created by the presence of that particular sanction and means of redress for those who have been wronged in this way.

I also do not think that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the whole matter of Francovich is not very important because it applies only when there are serious issues. The principle of—to put it in language that I think he will understand—de minimis non curat lex—applies to everything really, in the Roman law tradition anyway. So it is not at all surprising that it applies in this case.

I want to leave the Committee with complete clarity about this, and there are three separate issues here. One is what we do about people who have a claim, or think they have a claim, under the Francovich principle—and I continue to call it that—and it is overtaken by events because they have not litigated before Brexit or they are half way through or they have not expressed their claim or put it in at all. What happens about them? That is important, because it may only be three or four people, and we should always be concerned about justice for anybody. I do not in any way denigrate people who have taken up a lot of time to talk about their particular subject; it is a perfectly respectable concern to have. But my concern is not really with that—mine is to my mind much more significant. Going forward, do we have the Francovich principle or something like it in our own legal system, both to enshrine that principle that the state is subject to the law like everybody else, which as I say is so important, and to make sure that we have that instrument of good government, which has a real deterrent effect on the behaviour of central and local government, public corporations and, indeed, the private sector? That is very important to me.

I disagree very strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, when he says that the Francovich system does not make any sense when we have left the European Union, because there will not be such a thing as European law here. He is quite wrong about that; there will be retained law for decades, no doubt, until it is changed by statute—if it is changed by statute over that time. It is called retained law; it is exactly the same law. The difference may be that, whereas you could litigate under it before Brexit, after Brexit you will not be able to litigate under it at all, which seems completely unreasonable. That means the loss of remedies and rights that we currently have in respect of exactly the same laws, because they are exactly the same provisions with exactly the same wording having exactly the same effect, whether they are today on 5 March, or on 1 April next year after we have left. That is what the whole principle of retained law is, as I understand it—and I think that the noble and learned Lord knows that.

It is my concern in this amendment to make sure that, when the citizens of this country have current rights and protections, they should enjoy all those after Brexit. I thought that the Government were in favour of that principle. We heard earlier from another Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, that he believes that that is the case and favours that principle—and I think that that principle is enormously important.

Then there is the third issue, which I raised—and it is probably not the last time that I shall raise it in this House. The experience of Francovich is such that I believe that it should be carried forward into the whole corpus of law in this country, Scots law and English law. We continue to have these rights and these remedies. I believe their jurisprudence in this case to be a considerable advance of civilisation in the European Union over the last 25 years; there have been many such advances and, if we are going to carry forward the assets that we take over rather than throwing them away on Brexit, we should make sure that we carry forward this one. That is not a matter for this Bill; what is a matter for this Bill is the second point that I make, which is to make sure that in respect of retained law the rights that currently exist will be carried through and not abolished.

I hope that the Government will think about that between now and Report. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with them before we decide how we can take this matter further. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I was intervened on and had not finished—in fact, I had barely started. The point is that many people feel that we have talked a lot, absolutely rightly, about the rights of EU citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom, and we have talked a bit about the rights of UK nationals who are resident in other European countries, but there has been very little discussion about those people who are not overtly exercising their rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. When we have considered UK nationals resident elsewhere, we have tended to think about people living—retired, working or studying—in other countries. Here I declare an interest: my day job is as a lecturer in European politics. On an almost daily basis I consider that I am exercising my rights as an EU citizen by being able to get on the Eurostar and go to Brussels without having to think about visas or visa waivers. There are all sorts of ways in which we are able to exercise our rights as citizens on a daily basis.

I suspect that the Minister will say, “This is absolutely not possible”, but will he at least say that the Government are thinking about the rights that British citizens might retain? So far, much of the debate on withdrawal has been about regulations and whether we retain laws, but do we also retain rights, and do the Government wish us to retain rights?

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, for the first time in these debates, I am, sadly, going to have to disagree with my greatly respected noble friend Lord Adonis. It is quite a serious matter to deprive people of one of their citizenships. I feel that quite strongly because I feel very European. I feel European, British and English, and even partially Welsh because my ancestors, I am proud to say, came from the Principality. I have never seen any contradiction at all in those different identities and loyalties, and I find it very insulting that someone should suggest that there is such a contradiction or that I have to give up one of those affiliations. That is the suggestion, although of course it will not affect my loyalty or my sense of identity or my sense of who I am.

These things are subjective, and the actions of third parties—even of Governments or parliaments—do not affect them. That is also the verdict of history. One thinks of Poland, which ceased to exist as a country between 1795 and 1918. That did not stop the Poles feeling very Polish. In the case of Ireland, the British tried for about 800 years to stamp out any sense of separate Irish identity and nationality but completely failed. At the end of 800 years I think that the Irish were more patriotic and conscious of their nationality than they were at the beginning. Therefore, I do not think that this will change the psychological or subjective notion of who I am and where I stand; nevertheless, it is offensive.

There is a quite separate matter in my mind, which is the loss of important benefits: the right to work, the right to vote and the right to take part in various programmes, such as educational exchange programmes. We have already debated these things in full. These are very important rights and liberties, which we will give up if we leave the Union. However, I do not see why, in addition, we should be told that we have to give up our sense of citizenship.

I recognise that the Brexiters in this Chamber and in the country as a whole see no virtue in the European Union or in having the rights that come with being in the EU, and they certainly see no virtue in European citizenship; indeed, they may wish positively to give it up for reasons of their own—perhaps the exact mirror image of my own position. However, I hope they will agree, as I hope all rational, liberal people will do, about the Pareto principle—that if you can do something in life that improves the happiness of a number of people without damaging the interests or happiness of anybody else, you should do it. On that basis, I hope that the Government will not want to stand in the way of those of us who want to keep our European citizenship. Of course, it is a matter for the European Union to decide whether to continue to give us European citizenship; it is not a matter for the British Government. However, I am asking the British Government not to impose obstacles but to positively help those of us who wish to achieve that purpose, which I think we can do without causing any damage to our fellow citizens who wish to go in a different direction.

Of course I agree totally with what my noble friend Lord Adonis said about leaving the European Union. That is a disaster. I have made it clear in these debates that that has been my view all along. Much the best solution in all these circumstances and to all the problems we have been airing in the last few weeks would be to stay in the European Union. I agree about that. But I do think that in life if there is going to be a complete disaster, if the ship is going to go down, it is better to get a place in a lifeboat than just going to the bottom. It is on that basis that I appeal to colleagues taking both points of view about the European Union to be generous and to try to help those of us who wish to preserve some physical manifestation and demonstration of our European citizenship, to which most of us—on our side, anyway—attach strong, personal importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not going to indulge in an issue regarding maternity at this stage. Let us try to keep focus on the amendment, shall we?

We are all aware of the issue and we are also aware of the agreement that has been entered into to protect the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK and of UK nationals living in the EU until the end of the implementation period, set at 31 December 2020. During the implementation period, individuals will still be fully covered by the EU acquis. UK nationals will be able to continue to move around the EU 27 member states and will have the freedom to move to another member state to live and work, as long as they do so before the end of the implementation period.

That reminds me of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about Article 32 of the withdrawal agreement. The position is this: what was proposed in Article 32 was removed as there was no actual agreement on that point. Therefore, there was no reason to have a legal text covering a point that was not the subject of agreement. The United Kingdom pushed strongly for the inclusion of ongoing movement rights during the first phase of the negotiations, but the European Union was not yet ready to include them. Of course, it remains an issue that we wish to pursue. We have already made that clear.

To come back to the amendment itself, it is simply not feasible for us to set upon a course of negotiation that is doomed to failure. We cannot secure EU citizenship for citizens of the United Kingdom after we leave the EU. That is the short point to be made. Therefore, the amendment would set the Government on a course of negotiation that would effectively prevent the present Bill—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I shall just finish the sentence, so will the noble Lord please sit down? It would effectively prevent the present Bill getting on to the statute book and achieving its intended purpose: to ensure legal certainty at the point at which we leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am perfectly content to look at the opinion.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I will take up a point that the noble and learned Lord was making before he took the very sensible and helpful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We all accept—I explicitly accepted it in my remarks—that EU citizenship is not within the Government’s gift. I accept, too, that there is no practical possibility of the Government negotiating it in foreseeable circumstances with the EU. What I am asking for and what I hope the noble and learned Lord can offer on behalf of the Government is that they will place no obstacle in the way and will do anything that appears possible to facilitate and support any move by any of us to try to achieve from the European Union some recognition of the fact that we are European citizens and we will continue to feel that way even after Brexit, if Brexit, unfortunately, takes place.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The reality is that if Brexit takes place we will not continue to be EU citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My name is to this amendment, but I have little to say because the case for the amendment has been brilliantly put forward by a lawyer, and I am no lawyer. It seems to be a common-sense amendment. If, as I think will be the case, the European Union side in the negotiation continues to insist that, if we want a standstill period in which we act as if we were members of the customs unions and the single market until January 2020, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice as the umpire of the single market must continue. It seems to me we have to accept that if, as I expect, the European Union insists on taking the position it is now taking. In that case, as explained by the noble and learned, Lord Goldsmith, Clause 6 would have to be struck out. Clause 6 is in flat contradiction to what is going to be agreed on the standstill agreement. Therefore, it seems sensible to avoid having to repeal part of the law that we would have passed for us instead to introduce this small amendment that simply says that Clause 6 does not come into effect until the end of the transition period.

The concept of a standstill transition is extremely unsatisfactory. It is necessary but it is insufficient to deal with the huge problems that British industry and business will face. It is inconceivable that by January 2020 we will have negotiated a full agreement with the European Union covering the full gamut of our future relationship, including trade. That is just not feasible. Even if we had done that—if we had achieved the impossible—we would have a mixed agreement which would require national ratification in all capitals. All the standstill agreement does is give us the position for 21 months that we will accept and operate under laws that we have not written, on which we have had no votes; with no judge in the court but the court having jurisdiction; with no Members in the European Parliament but the European Parliament writing our laws, with the Council; and with no one in the Commission. I find that ignominious and insufficient because all it has done is move the cliff edge out to 1 January 2021. We will not have the long-term, permanent successor relationship defined in treaty form in a ratified treaty at the end of this period.

Moreover, it is my judgment that for legal reasons it will not be possible to extend the period. It seems to me that one cannot use Article 50, which is about withdrawal, to produce an extended period of future relationship. There are other articles in the treaty which define association agreements and relationships with third countries. I do not think the lawyers will allow us to use the withdrawal agreement as a treaty base for an extended period of new relationship. Therefore, although it is absolutely necessary to have a standstill because otherwise the cliff edge is very close, it does not solve the problem of the cliff edge but merely postpones it for a bit. But the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, must surely be right. It does not make sense to have a lengthy Clause 6 explaining a relationship which will not actually be the relationship we follow during the standstill period.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am mystified as to why there is any controversy at all on this matter and why the Government have come forward with a Bill that includes Clause 6 in its present form. After all, it is us who have asked for some withdrawal or transitional arrangement, and very necessarily so—I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; the whole matter is extremely unsatisfactory from many points of view.

Although our position will change constitutionally in March next year if we go ahead with Brexit, and we will not have been involved in the legislative process and so forth, the whole purpose of the transitional arrangement as I and I think everybody has understood it—that is the way the European Union has understood it, because after all, it is our request—is that the regime affecting all economic agents, traders and so forth, will be completely unchanged. They will carry on after March next year until January 2021 in exactly the same way. The rules they operate under will be the same. Their contracts will be interpreted in the same way as before. Their obligations to the state and so forth will be interpreted in the same way and therefore they will know exactly where they stand. They will not need to have any new regime introduced during that period. If that is the case, surely the legal regime must not be subject to any change—quite obviously so —because if it is going to continue as it presently is, the judgments of the courts which oversee that must be the same as they otherwise would have been.

Therefore, I am completely mystified as to why the Government have proposed that Clause 6 should come into effect on Brexit rather than at the end of the transitional period. I just hope that we will have a satisfactory and credible explanation from the Government. They might even admit that they have made a slight slip on this occasion and accept the amendment which is now before them.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I rise in the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who has also put his name to this amendment. I want to raise a point that he has already raised with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and a couple of my own.

First, my noble and learned friend asked how EU law will take effect, given that under Clause 1, the European Communities Act 1972 will be repealed. It may be that ensuring Clause 6 has effect only after the transition period gets around that, but there is a real question about the United Kingdom implementing EU law from the day we leave—30 March next year—through to the end of December 2020. During that period, we will be subject to the European Court of Justice but, in principle, will have no representation—that is the point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in passing: we will not have a judge. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was asked whether the United Kingdom will still have a judge on the Monday. We assume it will not, but is that the case? Have the Government discussed it? In addition, will we have an Advocate-General? My understanding is that the current Advocate-General believes she is in an ad-hominem position.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Report: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

I would like to support the Government, but I need some reassurance before I can.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I agree with every statement that has been made in the course of this debate. A real consensus seems to be emerging from both Benches’ contributions. I just want to add briefly to that, because it is an important issue.

In my view, the treatment of secondary legislation in our country is one of the hidden scandals of our constitution. It is done better in this House than it is in the other place. I was in the other place for 23 years. When I was on the Front Bench, like everyone else, I was from time to time press-ganged by the Whips to sit on a secondary legislation committee. What I witnessed there was a travesty. I often commented on it by intervening in those debates to say how disgusted I was with the whole process. Nobody was given an opportunity to brief themselves on the subject—we would have actually been discouraged from doing so. Certainly, anyone who had an interest in the subject would have been disqualified from serving on the committee in the first place. Everyone brought in their constituency correspondence or read a book. Nothing was said and there was no investigation of the issues raised, which were sometimes important issues. This went on for weeks and months and years, and I am sure continues.

The great virtue of this debate is that Brexit has given us an opportunity—simply because of the vast volume of secondary legislation that will be generated—to look again at our procedures in both Houses of Parliament to deal with it. Some very interesting suggestions have been made this evening. I particularly support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. Ultimately, of course, we need to solve this problem in a different context from the one we have tonight, but I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, say that the solution must be to rely on Parliament to amend statutory instruments—secondary legislation. Only that will ensure that we have the opportunity for proper debate on the substance of these laws coming through Parliament, which is so severely lacking at present.