European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Baroness Hamwee

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to this amendment, as I did at the previous stage. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is in danger of becoming a noun. I have been wondering whether and actually hoping that Clause 37 might be the result of the attentions of—if I can put it this way—an overly diligent draftsman who has failed to see the wider picture of how this looks; in modern parlance one would say the optics. We were told that a statutory negotiating objective is neither necessary nor the constitutional norm. It might not be necessary but it is not unnecessary either, and is the constitutional norm such a straitjacket of a convention that we cannot say what we mean in legislation?

As ever, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put the constitutional point very clearly at the previous stage. He said that Clause 17 of the 2018 Act is

“an instruction to the Executive to open negotiations in a certain way”,—[Official Report, 15/1/20; col. 760.]

and that it is not up to Parliament to give instructions; I hope I have represented him properly. But as noble Lords will recognise, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, Section 17 is only about opening the negotiations and seeking to negotiate. Without even getting into the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, where is the harm? Even if it is not how it is normally done and even if it is not terribly elegant, it makes Parliament’s view clear and it was accepted by the Executive in 2018.

I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I am puzzled and a bit suspicious, because when there is a rather technical point or amendment—we are being told that this is a technical point—on a sensitive issue, my antennae naturally twitch. The more the Government tell us that they are not making any real changes, although they have changed the words, the more my antennae wave around, trying to catch hold of what this is all about. I am not surprised that the phrase in the Minister’s letter about carrying out negotiations

“with full flexibility and in an appropriate manner across all policy areas”

was much referred to. Section 17 does not restrict that, although it does not mention reciprocity, as the Government did—but I do not think that that is material.

I raised a point last week about the differences in the wording for the child’s “best interests.” Under the existing provision, the child’s best interests are referred to in the context of coming to the UK. Clause 37 applies the best interests to joining a relative. I think that both of those are important. The Government assured us that there was no significance in that, but I do not want to let something that might be important go unchallenged. The Minister referred me to the term “equivalent circumstances”—she is nodding at that—but it is not in the same part of the clause. It is in subsection 1(b) rather than 1(a), so I do not think that that answers my “best interests” question. I also asked the Minister last week if she could make available a copy of the letter sent last October to the Commission which she said should reassure noble Lords, but she was not sure whether she could. As she has not been able to pursue that, I assume that it is not available, but perhaps she could confirm that.

I come back to the proposed change. It must mean something. It does not make the very modest objective of Section 17 any more achievable—certainly not to most noble Lords who have spoken. Noble Lords will understand that given the subject matter of the clause and the relatively few individuals subject to it, there is a strong feeling that Parliament should not reduce our commitment to these children to safe and legal routes or–this was a point made by the right reverend Prelate—to be thought to be doing so.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made clear in his opening remarks, this is a question of trust. He seemed to suggest that he trusted my noble friend the Minister but did not trust the Government. I am not sure how happy my noble friend is about being described as a sort of semi-detached member of the Government—but let us ignore that. Actions speak louder than words. The Government have a very credible record in allowing child refugees into this country. I think we run third among EU countries that have allowed in child refugees. Given that, the only basis on which this amendment can be supported is the belief that, if it is defeated, the Government will then stop taking in any further child refugees. I think that that defies all credibility; I do not think that there is any possible basis to support that thesis and I take the view that we have done very well on the question of child refugees and that if it’s not broke, don’t mend it.