European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. When this whole matter originally came before the House, we had the firm assurance from the Front Bench opposite and the strong assurance from the Prime Minister that this was to be a top-priority issue in their considerations of our future. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said so powerfully, here we are, way down the road, and we have made no progress whatever.

The reason why I feel so strongly and passionately about this issue is that I fear that we are demeaning and undermining the whole concept of citizenship. Citizenship is something that people have fought for and struggled for centuries to establish. There are thousands and thousands of people from Britain in Europe. I declare an interest: in my extended family I have family members living in Europe and family members living in this country who are married to Poles, Czechs and so on, and it is a very rich experience. Such people have gone to Europe in the confidence of citizenship and all it has meant historically—to make new lives and build their future in the knowledge that they have citizenship of Europe.

Do we or do we not stand by the concept of citizenship? If we do, how can we contemplate any future in which we have not absolutely guaranteed that people have their rights of citizenship? My noble friend referred to anxiety being out there, and it certainly is. We are talking about men, women and children; about the futures of people who are working; about vulnerable people who have reached old age in the context of what they believed was European security—about real human situations. We need firm, unequivocal assurances from the Government that we believe not just in the right of citizenship, but in the whole concept of citizenship that has been established across Europe in our history. We want cast-iron guarantees that, in one way or another, that is going to be fulfilled.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 211, which is in my name and deals with our rights but in a slightly different way. It would ensure that after withdrawal, our rights and protections remain intact by maintaining the standards at home and at work that we have come to expect in our daily life as part of our normal existence, and that those standards would not be sacrificed or lowered in any future negotiations.

I tabled this amendment some weeks ago and was pleased to see it reflected in the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday and in her Statement on Monday, when she spoke of maintaining current standards in some sectors. My amendment calls for them to be maintained in all sectors, because we cannot pick and choose where our quality of life is concerned. Even Monsieur Barnier seems to agree, and in his recent draft document he speaks of equivalent standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I understand the point he is making about international standards and international bodies. However, the effect of his amendment is, surely, that the British Parliament would be tied, in future, to decisions made by the European Union and the European court. Why does he not trust this Parliament to set regulations that are appropriate for the standards for our own people?

[Lord Haskel]

I do trust Britain to set its own standards, I just do not want to see them lowered. I am concerned that they will be lowered because of trade negotiations and the give and take that will go on in negotiating withdrawal.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On that point, why does the noble Lord not think it possible that we might set higher standards, as for example we have done in respect of paternity rights and other matters?

[Lord Haskel]

I would very much welcome setting higher standards and am sure that all noble Lords would do so. My concern is that we should not lower them, because that is one of the rights we should not be giving away.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in her speech last week, the Prime Minister said that she wished us to retain an association with the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency, specifically to mirror 100% every standard that they set? The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says that we still have a choice. No—if we are associate members of those bodies, not only do we not have a choice but we agree that we are bound by the decisions of the European Court. The Prime Minister set out very clearly how damaging it would be were we not to be members of those bodies, and therefore why we should retain membership of them.

[Lord Haskel]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and in a later amendment, I will call on the Government to set up institutions which would not accept the European standard but enforce our standards—institutions that are independent of the Government. The importance of independence is illustrated by the fact that the main reason why Ministers are doing something about poor air quality in some of our cities is the risk of fines or legal action from the EU, possibly through the European Court of Justice.

As other noble Lords have observed, we are now being less doctrinaire about the European Court of Justice. Being doctrinaire is the reason why we do not want EU standards because of the possibilities of disputes being settled by the European Court of Justice. But many institutions which enforce these standards have their own systems of settling disputes, and these systems have stood the test of time. So whatever the outcome of our withdrawal negotiations, a major concern for Ministers must be the disruption to our way of life and to trade. This amendment would go some way towards helping Ministers to deal with this concern and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, if this Amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 72 or 73 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Tyler has added his name to Amendments 71, 116, 253 and 257. Unfortunately, he is unwell and unable to be in his place today. He has, however, advised me —extensively—to rely heavily in my remarks on the report of the DPRRC published on 1 February. As I am sure that Members will know, the report was highly critical of this Bill. It noted that:

“The Bill confers on Ministers wider Henry VIII powers than we have ever seen”,


and went on to discuss some of these powers in detail. The first it examined was the use in the Bill of “appropriate” instead of “necessary” as a test for action by secondary legislation. The committee pointed out that this gives the Minister much wider discretion than the Government’s White Paper commitment not to make major changes to policy beyond those necessary to ensure continued proper functioning of the law after we leave the EU. Instead of a test based on objective necessity, the Government have substituted the much wider and entirely subjective test of the Minister’s judgment about what he or she considers appropriate. The Government must explain why they have abandoned the White Paper commitment. It would help us to understand their reasoning if the Government could also provide the House with concrete and substantive examples of where a test of necessity may fail to produce continued proper functioning of the law.

I am sure that when he does this, the Minister will want to acknowledge and deal with paragraphs 8 to 10 of the DPRRC report, which concluded, via a worked example, that a proper test of necessity does not prevent his choosing between possible solutions when the “necessary” threshold is in fact met. I am sure that he will tell the House why he disagrees with the DPRRC’s recommendation in paragraph 12, which simply says:

“The subjective ‘appropriateness’ test in clause 7 should be circumscribed in favour of a test based on objective necessity”.


As the DPRRC remarked, the Bill is packed with Henry VIII clauses, and it might be worth remembering what actually happened when the Minister’s predecessors, Thomas Cromwell and Lord Audley, presented the original Henry VIII power, the Bill of Proclamations, to Parliament. Historians have disagreed about Cromwell’s motives but not about what the Bill sought to do—to make the King’s proclamations enforceable as law by the courts. Both Houses of Parliament saw the evident dangers in this and both resisted. The eventual outcome, the Act of Proclamations, was a heavily revised version of the original Bill. It showed Parliament’s strength of feeling on the issue and its skill in avoiding direct confrontation with the King. In those days, the penalty for defying the Executive was a little sharper-edged than a visit from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In the end, Parliament passed the Bill but amended it to ensure that the provisions for enforcement would be wholly unworkable—and so it proved.

I am not suggesting exactly the same approach, but I do suggest that we take the same view as our predecessors about giving wide, direct law-making powers to the Executive. We should do what Parliament did in 1539—we should resist.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am moving this amendment because it is an important amendment in an important group. I suspect that the noble Lord will want to make a more substantial speech than I will, but these amendments would essentially require the Government to have a strategy for how they build or retain engagement with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund post Brexit.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

Order. Could the noble Baroness tell the Committee to which amendment she is speaking?

[Baroness Kramer]

I am speaking to Amendments 183 and 187, which would require the Government to create a future strategy to retain engagement with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. On all sides of this House, Members have appreciated the value of both those bodies; their contribution to the UK has been substantial. In 2016, the European Investment Bank contributed support in excess of £5.5 billion to a very wide variety of projects, ranging from schools in Yorkshire to Crossrail. The European Investment Fund has played an absolutely key role in the development of new start-up companies in the UK, particularly in fintech—an area I am very close to—which received some £2 billion between 2011 and 2015. The Government have not yet made it clear to any of those in the business world, including those who rely on these sources, what the future framework will be either to continue a relationship with those two bodies or to replace them with an alternative source of funding.

From time to time the British Business Bank has been mentioned as a possible route to provide those mechanisms. However, I point out to the Government that businesses certainly need reassurance in that area if the Government intend to pursue that strategy. The British Business Bank is in no way geared up to make loans on the scale of the European Investment Bank, nor does it enter into the role that the European Investment Fund pursues, which has been very much to fund venture capital, which in turn flows into this range of start-ups.

I would like to hear from the Government how they see the future framework of the British Business Fund. Your Lordships will remember that in 2016, the Government were pursuing a strategy of essentially privatising that operation. It was widely understood that a number of companies—JPMorgan, Nunes, Deloitte and Norton Rose—were advising on the transfer of all the assets of the British Business Bank to an investment vehicle, to be called the “British Income and Lending Trust”, which would then be floated on the London Stock Exchange and its shares made available to investors. That would have been, in effect, the end of the British Business Bank, and the Government took that as a strong position. Its actions were ended somewhat abruptly because of legal complications surrounding the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank. I regret the Government’s decision, but the complications at that point led to the delay in the same strategy being applied to the British Investment Bank.

Can the Government give us clarity on the future of our relationship with the EIB and the EIF and, if they have decided that those roles will now be picked up by the British Business Bank, can they give us assurances about what the nature of this will be or say whether a delayed privatisation will take place? Can they also tell us where the British Business Bank will get funding from and on what scale, and whether it will get both the mandate and the resources to enable it to move into this field, which is far wider than the field it is currently engaged in? Without that, we will compromise not only our vast infrastructure projects, which are absolutely critical to any kind of economic growth, but also our start-ups, and particularly that very important area of tech and fintech which has been utterly dependent—you cannot find a single fintech in the UK which has not had funding through the EIF source.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am extremely anxious to speak to Amendment 174.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I fear that it was called and there was no response. I am now at Amendment 184.

[Lord Adonis]

I am still anxious to speak about roaming. The only reason why I was unable to move my amendment is that I was in a Division Lobby, not because of any lack of willingness to move it. Yet again, we see how these proceedings are not being well conducted, if noble Lords are unable to move amendments because of procedural matters.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

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

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of Amendment 93, because it strengthens the argument of some of the amendments which I moved in Committee about maintaining our standards through membership of many of these EU institutions. These institutions set the standards which give us a quality of life that we have come to accept as normal as members of the European Union—indeed, as Europeans. They not only set the standards but have mechanisms to enforce them and are independent of government. In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Bill will seek to retain in UK law all these rights and protections,

“so far as is practical”.—[Official Report, 19/3/18; col. 19.]

The law may well be transposed, but it is toothless unless we have these institutions which monitor, measure and enforce compliance, and which have the right to exact penalties for non-compliance.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said that to set up our own institutions would require a lot of time, expense and expertise, which we are short of. To accept these institutions would demonstrate that, by opening up our market, we are not entering a race to the bottom and we are not going to abandon the precautionary principle. There is a lot of uncertainty over withdrawal, but this amendment goes some way to ensuring that our quality of life as citizens will not suffer because of this uncertainty. That is why I support it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief and will make just one point. When I had the honour to serve on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House—something that was brought to an abrupt conclusion when I voted for those two amendments on the Article 50 Bill last year—I remember vividly one particular evidence session. Those giving evidence were led by a notable citizen of the United Kingdom, Mr Rob Wainwright, who was the head of Europol. Everything he said throughout his evidence to our committee made it abundantly plain that, if our security and our relations on the police front were to be maintained, we had to have a solution that as closely as possible replicated what we already enjoy. That is why I strongly support the amendment, which was admirably moved by the right reverend Prelate and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. They have made equally valid points, but at the end of the day what is fundamental to our country’s survival is adequate and proper security and the proper interchange of information throughout the 28 nations of the European Union as it is now. We are leaving, but in doing so we must not jeopardise in any way the security of our people. That is why I strongly support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to extend the scrutiny period of the statutory instruments committee from 10 days to 15 days. Like the noble Lord, I speak from experience as a long-standing member of the committee. Yes, where an instrument is fairly routine and uncontentious, 10 days with one meeting is manageable but tight. That is not possible where the committee has doubts or queries and needs to make inquiries; to get answers from Ministers, from other parliamentary committees and, most importantly, from stakeholders and experienced people outside Whitehall in response to its concerns; and to have their views and responses considered at a second meeting. After all, they are the people who are most affected. I could give examples but the time is late. Still, there are many occasions when these inquiries have materially changed the view of the statutory instruments committee.

In my time many statutory instruments have been reported to the House as having had insufficient consultation, so I am reporting this clause to the House for not allowing sufficient consultation time. I hope the Minister will take note and change it.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 70. If I am in order, I shall speak also to Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I declare an interest as serving as a trustee of the Hansard Society under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord.

Way back in what now seems like pre-Neolithic times at the time of the Queen’s Speech, when we raised some general issues about the potential passage of the Bill, I spent some time, I think rather to the House’s amazement and considerable boredom, trying to emphasise some of the points about the role that secondary legislation was likely to play in the passage of the Brexit legislation as we now see it coming before us. The estimates since we spoke about that have varied widely, but I have to say that the director of the Hansard Society, who I regard as one of the country’s leading experts on this whole area, has mentioned a figure of 2,000 statutory instruments coming before this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has competently and eloquently described, both today and in Committee, the importance of his Amendment 70. Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, myself and two other colleagues is what I see as a belt-and-braces addition to Amendment 70; as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has already said, it would be only a so-called nuclear option in particularly difficult circumstances. Given what has been described as the vastly uncharted waters in which we now embark on this, and remembering my time as the chairman of the Constitution Committee —on which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, whose name is also to this amendment, was one of my most helpful colleagues—we need at this stage to put some detailed amendments in the Bill that enable the principles that we have discussed so often during the passage of the Bill about the pre-eminence of parliamentary authority over secondary legislation to be put very firmly on the statute book. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is sufficient. With the addition of the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have put my name, we will have, as I say, belt-and-braces protection.