Coronavirus Bill
Lord Newby ExcerptsWednesday 25th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coronavirus Act 2020 View all Coronavirus Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I Marshalled list for Committee - (24 Mar 2020)
Lord Newby
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Bill introduces across a whole range of public policy areas significant powers, some of them quite draconian. The noble Lord just said that the proposal in respect of abortion was unacceptable because it would have made a fundamental change. The truth is that we are making fundamental changes across the board. The proposed changes on mental health are, in my view, at least as fundamental as that on abortion proposed by the noble Baroness. Although the Minister might have reasons for not wanting to make that change, he cannot pray in aid that it was a fundamental change. This is happening across the whole of what we are doing and, frankly, that was not his best moment.
Because the changes being made in the Bill are so powerful, we believe that they need to be in place for as short a period as possible and that they need regular and effective review and renewal. Therefore, the amendments in my name raise two related issues. The first is how often that review should happen. Obviously, we welcome the fact that the Government have moved from a position where there was to be no review for two years to one where there will be a review after six months. However, we believe that the period should be shorter. The Civil Contingencies Act has a renewal date of 30 days. Some of the measures in the Bill could probably have been exercised under that Act and they would have been subject to that 30 days. We are not going as far as that, but the end of September is simply too late for Parliament to have its first chance formally to decide whether this very wide-ranging legislation should continue.
As to the form, we have several concerns. As the Bill stands, there is no role whatever for your Lordships’ House in respect of the legislation’s continuation and renewal. That is certainly unprecedented and completely unacceptable. The normal way of dealing with legislation that is time-limited and needs renewal is via the statutory instrument route, which obviously applies to both Houses equally. That was the case with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Terrorism Act 2006. The House of Lords and the House of Commons had exactly the same powers and they worked perfectly well. Your Lordships’ House is an extremely responsible body.
An exception to the principle of the two Houses having the same powers in respect of legislation was the EU withdrawal Bill—subsequently the EU withdrawal Act. It was agreed that, although there would be a meaningful vote in the House of Commons, there would be a meaningless vote in the House of Lords. That was on the basis of the circumstances being exceptional, as we were following the democratic mandate of a referendum. I opposed it at the time on the basis that it set a doleful precedent, but that view did not prevail.
Now, a second set of exceptional circumstances is being brought before your Lordships’ House in a very short period. I believe that the more often we see exceptional circumstances occurring, the less acceptable it is, if your Lordships’ House is to perform the function that it has done until now in respect of the renewal of legislation. We therefore propose that the former precedent of renewing a Bill by statutory instrument should be followed in this case.
However, in Amendment 12 we also suggest an alternative method of achieving the same involvement of your Lordships’ House by proposing that it mirrors what is proposed in the Commons. Personally, I would prefer us to go back to the traditional SI route but, in a spirit of generosity, if the Government would prefer to do it the other way, we are, reluctantly, prepared to accept that.
The other amendments in this group have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. They have our full support, and no doubt they will be spoken to more eloquently than I could, so I will not attempt that.
I would like to ask the Minister about a practical point, which I hope he will be able to accept. At Second Reading yesterday, my noble friend Lady Barker suggested that the Government should produce a grid to explain which clauses of the Bill have been implemented, and exactly how. That is a very good idea and I hope the Government can accept it, but could they go slightly further by having, as part of that grid, a list of all the other provisions introduced to deal with the coronavirus, but not necessarily under this Bill? I cite, for example, the power to close restaurants and all other places where people congregate, which was introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That would be helpful not only for specialists, as it were, like us, but for those who want to find and then look at the legislative basis for decisions. For others, who just want to see where a particular provision that might affect them comes from, if the Government have a single source saying, “Here’s the whole raft of provisions that have been made and this is exactly where you can find them”, that would be extremely helpful for public information. Obviously, I hope the Government will agree to our more substantive amendments but, at the very least, I hope they can do this. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
.My Lords, I support Amendments 11 and 12, which I think means that I support the idea of six-monthly reviews with debates in both the Commons and in the Lords. However, I rise to speak in particular to Amendment 10, tabled in my name. Regardless of how often the reviews take place or precisely who conducts them, surely one needs a degree of information from the Government. Clause 97 provides for that, but in an absolutely minimalist form. As I read it, all that is required is that the Government should explain which provisions have been switched on or switched off in the previous two-month period and that they should certify that they are content with the switching on and the switching off.
I have two points to make. The first concerns effective review in Parliament. As I said yesterday, my experience of reviewing exceptional counterterrorism powers suggests that one really needs at least some basic information from government on how the powers are being applied and how effective they are judged to be. There is also a point for the Government in this. Reports of this kind will provide them with an excellent opportunity to communicate to Parliament and to the wider public what they have done, why they have done what they have done, whether they believe that the measures are having some effect on the disease and, if so, why. I was encouraged to hear the Minister say yesterday in introducing the Bill that the Government would update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK, but I suggest that that does not go far enough. In the Bill as written, things are not provided which go even that far.
My Amendment 10 is very modest, and deliberately so. I have sought not to invite the riposte that I am requiring some new power to collate or put forward statistics or that I would overburden an already burdened Civil Service. The Government will of course make their own assessments of whether these powers should be switched on or off and how effective they are. All I ask is that that assessment should be shared with Parliament in an appropriate way. It is a document that the Government will control, so it is very much up to them to decide in what form that communication should be made. If the amendment cannot be accepted, I ask the Minister at the very least to give an undertaking today that these reports will provide information about how the powers have been used across the United Kingdom, what measures may have been necessary to ensure compliance, and whether and why the various powers have been judged effective.
I have saved perhaps my best point until the end. Yesterday, the Minister raised by proxy the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who sits beside me in spirit, if not physically. He contacted me this morning and has authorised me to say that if he had disregarded his own advice not to attend today, he would have supported my amendment. If I have not persuaded the Minister, I hope that the spirit of my noble and learned friend will have done so.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurances about the website and the comprehensive information that it will contain. That is extremely helpful. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, let me say how grateful both he and I are for that half-assurance, which we think is more than half an assurance, on the justification that the Government are about to give on a two-monthly basis.
On the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I loved the Sir Humphrey argument that it could not be changed because everybody had agreed what was in it. Well, they agreed what was in it; no doubt the Scots and the Welsh did not, with the following breath, say, “But don’t you dare suggest that parts of it can be disapplied, or give the Commons such a vote.” It was an argument, but I am not sure that I found it completely convincing.
On the amendments that we put forward, the fact that there is an SI provision for the end of the two years only makes the case for having an SI provision after six months. The Minister did not seek at any point to explain why the Lords should be treated differently from the Commons. I see that the concern in the Commons was to get a better position from the Commons; our position is to make our arguments. I am afraid that I am not convinced by those arguments but, equally, I realise that this is not the point at which we should test the opinion of the House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Referendums
Lord Newby Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
That is true, but we have never gone down that road in any of the subsequent referenda. There would be serious challenges in doing so. First, Parliament would need to decide what level of participation confers legitimacy; I do not think that is a straightforward issue at all. If one had a threshold related to voter turnout, the inflexibility of such an arrangement could easily prove counterproductive and have the paradoxical effect of equating non-participation with no vote, because low levels of participation can void a given result. That could cause a great deal of disquiet among the public.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Prime Minister has released the report on Russian potential interference in our electoral process. Can he say whether it has been published or, if it has not, when it will be published? If it has been published, can he make sure that copies are available in the Printed Paper Office?
Global Britain
Lord Newby Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think there was some confusion before the start of the Statement today, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I were told that the Leader was available at 5 pm only and that the debate would be interrupted. We came in to be told that that was not the case and that the Statement would be repeated at the end of the debate, and it was then brought back on. I apologise to those who have been in and out of the Chamber waiting for the Statement, as it was not quite clear what was happening.
There have been three years of debate and discussion since the referendum and, as a country, we now have to adjust to the new political and economic reality outside the EU, for the first time in almost 50 years. For me, Friday marked a very long time in the dentist’s chair and, as the anaesthetic gradually started to wear off, the reality of the 11 pm Brexit marked a turning point for the UK.
When the Prime Minister said this morning that the UK has now embarked on a great voyage, his language finally showed the recognition that getting Brexit done is a process rather than a moment. Given the tight timescales involved in negotiating the future relationship, I welcome that both the Government and the European Commission have outlined objectives today. However, I am sure noble Lords can imagine my disappointment when I tuned in to the Sunday shows and heard Cabinet Ministers stress that any form of alignment with the EU would defeat the entire point of Brexit.
The Government publicly insist that there will be no lowering of standards. Indeed, in his speech this morning, the Prime Minister cited numerous examples of UK standards which already exceed EU ones. He specifically referenced animal welfare. I think the Leader will know of and understand the concerns of animal welfare groups and farmers who are concerned that the Government’s pursuit of a trade deal with the US threatens to erode standards here. It would be helpful if she could tell the House what categorical reassurances she can give to farmers and animal welfare groups.
Before reading the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, I had hoped for three things: first, that they would heed the long-standing calls from business to negotiate a deal maintaining frictionless trade; secondly, that the various commitments in the political declaration—a document signed off by this Prime Minister—would stand; and, thirdly, that the days of arbitrary red lines, rambling speeches and, shall we say, unconventional diplomacy were behind us, with the Government adopting a more grown-up approach. Those hopes were short-lived.
What we have seen today—I stress that it gives significantly less detail than the equivalent proposals in the European Commission’s document, so I hope there is more to come—is not dissimilar to the approach adopted by the previous Prime Minister. We have the desire for a Canada-style free trade agreement, with the veiled threat that the UK can and will pursue alternative arrangements if a deal cannot be reached with the EU 27. There is the usual red line on the CJEU, even if this could drastically reduce the scope for future co-operation in areas such as policing and security. Surely those should be at the forefront of all our minds given the weekend’s events in Streatham.
We are also told that, consistent with international best practice and the EU’s own trade agreements, we will not maintain regulatory alignment with the EU but instead seek regulatory equivalence in key fields. It would be helpful if the Leader could explain her understanding of the difference between the two.
We also have a commitment to negotiate on behalf of the whole UK family, despite the EU’s position on Gibraltar being very clear. Its position is that, unless the Government can secure the quick and explicit agreement of Spain, any new agreement would exclude Gibraltar. Can the Leader confirm when and how the Prime Minister intends to engage with counterparts in Madrid? Has that process started yet?
With the Prime Minister adopting his predecessor’s approach to the treatment of civil servants, it appears that nothing has changed. In his speech at Greenwich, the Prime Minister claimed that the UK has the economists and the trade policy experts needed to negotiate a deal but also warned that
“if we don’t have enough, or if they don’t perform, believe me we will hire some more.”
I am not sure that civil servants will appreciate comments such as that, especially at a time when those in the Brexit department are being redeployed. I am not sure that it is helpful either that our diplomats are being told not to sit alongside their EU member state counterparts, as if that is really going to help to smooth the negotiations and make them easier. It seems very petty.
Noble Lords might wonder why any of this matters when the Government have committed to make further details of the negotiations
“available to Parliament as the process develops.”
I ask the Leader: how? The measures relating to parliamentary oversight were stripped out of the WAB entirely, having been included in the previously agreed version of the Bill. We may receive, and certainly welcome, Statements from members of the Cabinet but they cannot replace a formal role for Parliament or effective and efficient engagement. If the Prime Minister has no prospect of negotiating a comprehensive deal before his self-imposed deadline of December, which in reality probably means October given the ratification required, we will fall back on either the withdrawal agreement or an Australian-style barebones deal. We appear to be back in the realm of the “managed no deal”, an idea which has already been comprehensively discredited.
Last week, the National Audit Office reported that the Government’s previous preparations for a no-deal outcome were far from successful. Despite the expense, the NAO judged that
“it is not clear that the campaign resulted in the public being significantly better prepared.”
It would be helpful if the Leader could share her views on why the NAO made that judgment, but it would be more helpful if she could tell this House who was instrumental in helping the Government draw up the plans for that engagement; clearly, they failed comprehensively. If she does not have the information, I am happy for her to write to me on that point. Can she also confirm whether the Government will initiate a new scheme—possibly Yellowhammer 2—should negotiations not progress as we hope they will? If so, when will the Government start those consultations with the organisations and groups affected? They will need to have information because we need to learn from the mistakes made this time.
I also hope that the Leader can offer some words of comfort to my noble friend Lord Dubs. Although he is not here this evening, many others who supported and voted for his amendment to the withdrawal agreement Bill are. Ministers repeated time and again that the policy relating to family reunification has not changed, and that the UK wishes to negotiate reciprocal arrangements at the earliest opportunity. So why does the Written Ministerial Statement from the Prime Minister claim only that:
“The UK is ready to discuss”
this co-operation? It is not the same as the claim we have heard from Ministers on previous occasions: that the UK has already sought talks on the issue and that it is a genuine priority. The Prime Minister says just that we are ready to discuss it, which seems a step back from what we have previously been told by Ministers.
As I said at the beginning of my response, Friday was a turning point. The debate about leaving or remaining is over and it is incumbent on all sides to work together to achieve the best possible deal for Britain. We are going to scrutinise the Government’s approach to the talks but we also stand ready, as we always have, to be constructive. I hope that Ministers will now be more open-minded, given that we have passed that 31 January deadline.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I am of course delighted that she has, because in doing so she has shown herself willing to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny where the Prime Minister has not, despite the fact that the meat of this Statement is his Written Statement to Parliament today on the UK’s approach to the Brexit negotiations. I hope that this will set a precedent, and one which she will commend to her leader in another place.
It is very instructive to compare the Prime Minister’s Statement to that issued by the EU, also today, on its approach to the negotiations. The EU document runs to some 30 pages; the Prime Minister’s to one and a half, albeit in small type. It is still pretty thin. In a number of respects, the two sets of proposals are complementary, and the tone is certainly conciliatory, which is to be welcomed. The Government are now perfectly explicit that they want a Canada-type trade agreement. In terms of the degree of closeness to the EU, that is the height of their ambitions and they accept that if they fail to get such a deal, they will revert to normal third-country arrangements. The latter option would clearly be extremely damaging, as this House has discussed many times, but so in my view would be a Canada-type agreement.
Such an agreement will require customs checks and controls, sanitary and phytosanitary controls, and much form-filling. It will not be the frictionless trade of which Mrs May was such a proponent; nor “unfettered” trade, which was the terminology of the Conservative election manifesto. For the sake of clarity, can the Leader of the House confirm that a Canada-type agreement would inevitably lead to such controls? In respect of trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, can she confirm that the permanent customs border will now be down the middle of the Irish Sea rather than on the UK-Irish land border? Can she also explain how a Canada-type deal would cover agricultural products given that the real Canada agreement involves tariffs and quotas on agricultural products such as poultry, eggs, beef, pork and wheat? What discussions have taken place between the Government and the NFU to ascertain how British farm production would be affected by the imposition of such Canada-type tariffs and quotas?
One area where there is clearly no current agreement between the UK and EU position is fishing. The EU document talks of aiming
“to avoid economic dislocation for Union fishermen”
and to
“build on existing reciprocal access conditions, quota shares and the traditional activity of the Union fleet”.
How do the Government square this with their aim of extending the scope of exclusive UK fishery rights? Can the Leader confirm that, when it comes to services, the Government stand by their assessment of two years ago that a Canada-style agreement would involve more than 550 restrictions in services trade?
On security, the EU document discusses co-operation between law enforcement and judicial authorities, which will be in line with arrangements for co-operation with third countries. This is a million miles short of the co-operation which now protects the UK through the Prüm and European arrest warrant systems. How do the Government, whose own document talks only about putting in place a “pragmatic agreement”, envisage replicating the benefits for the security of our citizens which the present arrangements provide?
Moving on to the section in the Statement headed “Global Britain”, I am afraid that we now enter a zone of almost entirely windy rhetoric, culminating in the hyperbolic statement that Global Britain will be
“an even stronger force for good in the world.”
To exemplify this new reality, the Statement refers to the COP 26 climate change summit that is to take place in Glasgow—our chairing of which, of course, has nothing to do with EU membership and long predates Brexit. The Government say that their approach to COP 26 is to lead by example, but the truth is that the only example they seem to be setting is of chaos and confusion. Following the sacking of Claire Perry O’Neill, can the Leader say who will now be in charge of preparing for this summit, when she expects the Cabinet sub-committee set up to manage it to have its first ever meeting, and when the Government will begin to publish their plans for the summit? The only thing that we know about it is that the costs have gone up from £250 million to £450 million, but we are no closer to knowing what the Government plan the summit to achieve.
For all the talk of global Britain, most of the rest of the globe thinks that, in pursuing Brexit, we have taken leave of our senses. Nothing in this Statement is likely to persuade them that they are wrong.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and noble Lord, Lord Newby, for their comments and questions. I apologise for the confusion around the timing of this Statement. I also heard “I was in, I was out, I was in”, so I apologise for that.
The noble Baroness asked about our commitment to environmental and animal welfare standards. I can only reiterate what we have made clear time and again—not only me at the Dispatch Box but all my Front-Bench team covering these areas: that we remain firmly committed to upholding our standards and that, without exception, imports to the UK will meet our stringent food safety standards.
The noble Baroness asked about the political declaration, which makes it clear that the future relationship will be based on a free trade agreement. It also describes the future EU-UK relationship as a core economic partnership based on a free trade agreement supported by other agreements where appropriate. As both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we are looking for a Canada-style deal.
The noble Lord asked about customs and friction at the border. Yes, we recognise that leaving the EU will result in change. We are leaving the customs union and single market and do not seek alignment with EU rules. That means that exporters and importers will have to comply with new processes, but we will do everything we can to mitigate any practical effects. We will seek to minimise friction through customs facilitation and co-operation between regulators, for example. A huge amount of work goes on around the world to minimise the cost of trade, including in the WTO, so there is plenty of work to build on. The noble Lord will also be aware that customs processes nowadays are electronic and done away from the border, so, again, we believe that we can mitigate many of the issues that may—I say only “may”—arise. Around the world, there are plenty of supply chains that do not depend on being part of a customs union, most obviously between the US, Canada and Mexico.
The noble Baroness asked about scrutiny and keeping Parliament informed. I reiterate our commitment to doing that. She also mentioned the length of the WMS that we published in comparison to the EU’s negotiating mandate. We anticipate that we will publish a further, detailed document towards the end of February in parallel to the EU’s finalisation of its own mandate. We will of course provide regular updates to the House and look forward to the continuing scrutiny of our excellent EU Committee and other committees as the work goes on. We will do all we can to make sure that this House remains informed. The latest situation is that discussions with the EU on the structure and frequency of negotiations have begun. We expect negotiations to begin in the first week of March, once the EU’s mandate process is complete, although we would be happy to begin them sooner if it so desired.
The noble Baroness asked about Gibraltar. I reiterate that we will be negotiating for the whole UK family, which includes Gibraltar. As with the withdrawal agreement, we will negotiate with the EU as a whole. There are clearly some circumstances which are specific to Gibraltar and we have discussed these with the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. We had constructive conversations in the course of the withdrawal agreement, and we will continue to do so.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the Department for International Trade. DIT now has a full complement of trade negotiators. We have scaled up to be roughly similar in size to the US trade representation. Since 2016, the number of trade policy officials has grown significantly, from around 45 to some 575. Trade policy groups are supported by around 70 lawyers and 90 analysts. A lot of work has gone in to upping the skill set in that department, which will be critical in the months ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about fisheries. I repeat that, when we leave the EU, we are committed to working closely with our partners, including the EU, Norway and Faroe Islands, to manage shared stocks in a sustainable way and to share fishing opportunities on a fair and scientific basis. The noble Lord also talked about internal security. As he knows, the political declaration provides the basis for our future security relationship, covering practical operational co-operation, data-driven law enforcement and multilateral co-operation through EU agencies. The detail of this will be a matter for further discussion. We are absolutely keen and open to discussing options for maintaining co-operation on the exchange of criminal records, DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data. The EU currently has agreements with third parties, including ones providing co-operation, through tools such as SIS II and Prüm. None of these agreements involves CJEU jurisdiction in those countries.
The noble Baroness asked about the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We made a manifesto commitment to continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution. The Government demonstrated their intentions by writing to the EU Commission on 22 October last year to commence negotiations on this issue. We are seeking a reciprocal post-exit agreement with the EU on this matter. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, touched on COP 26 and climate change. I assure him that this is a priority for the Government. We are delighted to be hosting this important global event. It looks like it will be bringing together over 30,000 delegates from around the world to tackle climate change. Our record on action on climate change is second to none. We are the first major economy to enshrine a commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. We are doubling our international climate finance to £11.6 billion. We are absolutely committed and determined to make COP 26 a resounding success; we are sure it will be.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Newby Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is of course a pleasure to congratulate the mover and seconder of the humble Address. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has been consistent and forthright in his support of Brexit, so I am sure that the election result will have been music to his ears. I wonder whether he broke into song in his bath on Friday morning. I think the nation should be told.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, made a polished and erudite speech. I hope we hear much more from her in the new Parliament—not least in respect of her support for the Swansea tidal lagoon. The noble Baroness gained a reputation during the coalition years as a reformer of the Civil Service and the processes of government. I therefore hope that she has volunteered her services to Mr Dominic Cummings as he seeks to revolutionise the processes of the Ministry of Defence.
It is an iron law of politics that most political parties are disappointed by most general election results. The Conservative Party today, however, is in the rare position of not only winning an election but, in doing so, I suspect, exceeding many of its private expectations. I must therefore acknowledge this spectacular election result for the Conservative Party and congratulate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on her reappointment. While some may argue that the Prime Minister was presented with a largely open goal, given the weakness of his principal opponent, politics, like football, is full of examples of such open goals being missed. But the Prime Minister did not miss, and his healthy majority is his reward.
Anybody who plays any sport or takes part in any competition must accept and play by the rules, but this does not always mean that the rules are right or defensible. In this election, it took 38,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 51,000 votes to elect a Labour MP, but 336,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat and 866,000 to elect a Green. My party gained 1.3 million votes compared to the 2017 general election. The Conservatives gained some 300,000 votes. We lost a seat; they gained 47. This is a rotten, rotten system. It makes a mockery of any claim that Britain is an exemplary democracy. It should be changed.
I was temporarily cheered to read in the Conservative Party manifesto that it wanted to ensure that
“every vote counts the same”.
Sadly, this was a reference to implementing the constituency boundary review and not to the more fundamental need for electoral reform.
The composition of the Commons has changed but the principal challenges facing the Government and the country have not. It seems to me that there are three overarching dilemmas with which the Government must now grapple. The first is how to get Brexit done in a way that does the least damage to our economy, security and influence. The key trade-off, which now can no longer be avoided, is between taking back control of our trading and other relationships, and keeping access to EU markets and security systems. One thing is clear: the aspiration of having your cake and eating it is about to be dashed.
The second challenge is how to increase expenditure on the NHS, infrastructure and other areas of public expenditure while keeping taxes down or even reducing them. Again, the Prime Minister’s preferred approach is to get the best of both worlds and do both, but that is simply impossible.
The third challenge is how to bring the country together. This is a particularly acute problem in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
So, how does the Queen’s Speech seek to address these three challenges? On Brexit, the Government are adopting a macho approach. There will be no extension of the transition period beyond the end of year, and while a commitment by this Prime Minister is sometimes only an aspiration that dissolves under pressure, let us take the Government at their word. If successful, they can negotiate a Canada-style trade agreement. This means that we will have reached a free trade deal on goods, where we have a deficit, but no equivalent deal on services, where we have a surplus. This makes no economic sense. It will require customs forms and checks. If these are somehow to be avoided on the island of Ireland, they will have to be imposed down the Irish Sea. No sector of the economy can possibly gain from these arrangements and any offsetting gains from trade agreements with the US and elsewhere are, at best, much less beneficial and many years away.
On the public finances, as a Yorkshireman, I am delighted that the Government have just discovered that the north and the Midlands are in desperate need of new public investment. We welcome government promises that the north is about to enter a new golden age in which government largesse pours forth in unparalleled volumes, and I very much look forward to seeing its beneficial effects in Ripon.
The Government also promise large additional expenditure on the NHS and education, which is indeed overdue. But we have read the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ conclusion that the Government’s plans for funding such expenditure are literally incredible. Either any pretence of fiscal responsibility must go, or taxes must rise. The Queen’s Speech is silent on which it will be.
On bringing the country together, greater regional investment would clearly be helpful and welcome, as would reversing the growing prosperity gap between London and the south-east on the one hand and the further-flung regions on the other. However, even if the Government were to redirect significant investment northwards, I fear that Brexit will make narrowing the prosperity gap much more difficult because the kind of deal envisaged by the Government is likely to hit large manufacturers with integrated supply chains—companies typically situated many miles from London—particularly hard. It is also likely to suppress, rather than encourage, the level of investment needed to bring greater prosperity, particularly in manufacturing regions.
Beyond England, it is possible that the election results have jolted the DUP and Sinn Féin into action to reinstate the Northern Ireland Executive, which would of course be most welcome. But again, the Brexit deal, which is going to place a customs border somewhere, will inevitably increase the attractiveness of a single state in Ireland and will increase demands, possibly in the near future, for a border poll on the issue. Moreover, relations with Scotland and its people look set to become more fraught, rather than less.
The Prime Minister might portray himself as a one-nation Conservative, but I fear that the one nation he has in mind is England, not the United Kingdom. In the face of these challenges and the Government’s response to them, how should we in the Lords react? We clearly must accept the result of the general election and not seek to thwart its outcome, but this does not mean that we should abandon our critical faculties or our constitutional responsibilities to hold the Government to account and to exercise our judgment in improving legislation where we think it is in the public good.
I wholly accept that with a large majority, the appetite in the Commons for accepting amendments that we pass may—initially, at least—be very limited. We will therefore have to choose our battles carefully, but in my view that does not mean that we should retreat entirely from the field. I suspect, for example, that your Lordships’ House will wish to give very close scrutiny to any constitutional changes the Government may bring forward—in particular, any proposals to tilt the balance of power towards the Executive and away from Parliament or the courts. The Conservative manifesto talks of the need to
“come up with constitutional proposals to restore trust in our institutions.”
But that trust will be restored only if those who run these institutions are seen by the public to be worthy of that trust. As we enter this new Parliament, we must re-dedicate ourselves to doing everything in our power to re-establishing that trust.