Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol: Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (European Affairs Committee Sub-Committee Report)
Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Scrutiny of EU legislative proposals within the scope of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (5th Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 177).
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, like others in this House, I spent many happy hours discussing the scrutiny of European Union documents as a member of the old European Union committees of the House before we left the European Union but, when we talk about the scrutiny of EU legislation applying now to Northern Ireland, we are talking about something very different. We are talking of the scrutiny by Parliament of EU legislative proposals which now or in the future will apply to Northern Ireland because, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland remains in the EU single market for goods; and we are talking about EU legislative proposals over which neither the UK nor the Northern Ireland Administration has had any proper say. There is a real democratic deficit here, and this concerns all members of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, which I have the honour to chair. Many members of that committee are speaking in today’s debate, no matter what their views on the protocol itself. I thank the staff of the committee, including the staff of the Committees Scrutiny Unit, for the invaluable help and advice that they have given us.
Under the protocol as it currently operates, more than 300 pieces of EU legislation set out in its annexes apply to Northern Ireland now and will continue to do so as they are amended or replaced. In the view of the committee, that legislation must be subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Why? It is because, without that, important areas of law applying to Northern Ireland would go unscrutinised and possibly even unnoticed by Parliament. Such scrutiny therefore is, and will continue to be, a key priority of the committee. The report before the House this morning sets out the committee’s approach to this scrutiny work and its key findings and observations so far.
The report notes that the volume of documents requiring scrutiny has been significantly higher than anticipated before the protocol came into force. During the first year of its operation up to March 2022, the committee wrote more than 90 letters to government Ministers on more than 40 EU legislative proposals applying to Northern Ireland under the protocol. In the current parliamentary Session, the committee has so far written a further 50 letters on 27 legislative proposals. As outlined at paragraph 21 of our report, these cover a wide range of policy areas and are of considerable technical complexity, engaging with many government departments.
In our report, we note that the Government in turn have an obligation to facilitate such scrutiny. We welcome their commitment to do so through the production of explanatory memoranda summarising EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland, including, when requested by the committee, on EU delegated and implementing Acts, and by providing prompt responses to follow-up correspondence from the committee.
However, the report stresses that the Government need to go further. We argue that any entirely new EU legislation within the scope of the protocol of which the EU has informed the UK should automatically be deposited in Parliament for scrutiny at that stage; that the Government should deposit draft EU proposals that are relevant to the provisions of Article 2 of the protocol on rights and individuals; that the Government must also ensure that any other EU legislative proposals with significant implications for Northern Ireland in the context of the protocol are promptly deposited in Parliament; and that the Government need to establish formal mechanisms for prompt communication to Parliament of information received from the UK in the UK-EU joint consultative working group on planned or adopted EU legislation falling within the scope of the protocol.
In their response to our report, which I welcome, the Government went part-way to meeting those points, but there is more work to be done to ensure that their facilitation of parliamentary scrutiny is properly comprehensive. That is the responsibility of all government departments, whose contributions so far have been—how shall I put it?—varied. Some are good, some less so, but, as I mentioned recently to the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, I commend Defra on the quality of its work.
What update can the Minister provide on efforts to enhance the Government’s facilitation of parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland under the protocol? In particular, what is his response to the committee’s calls for the Government to maintain and publish an audit or log of all EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland under the protocol that gives rise to issues of regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
I am of course conscious that the Government are in the midst of talks with the EU about the protocol, and conscious too that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill remains before the House. However, we stress that the Government continue to have an obligation to set out to Parliament the full implications of EU legislation applying now to Northern Ireland under the protocol, and that they must set out as a minimum the views on each proposal expressed by the Northern Ireland Executive, when they are functioning, as well as the other devolved Administrations; the Government’s assessment of the merits or otherwise of the proposal; whether the proposal will lead to regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the practical implications of that; what steps the Government are taking to address such regulatory divergence, including considering the case for introducing equivalent measures in England or Great Britain, according to the extent of the Government’s powers of competence in each case; the impact, if any, of the proposals for Northern Ireland’s participation in the UK’s free trade agreements; the relevance and impact of the proposals for Northern Ireland’s participation in UK common frameworks, and how common frameworks intersect with the protocol; whether and how EU legislation will be implemented in domestic law; and what consultation has taken place with business representatives and other key stakeholders on the impact of EU legislation, and whether a regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that this information, as a minimum, is set out in future in government Explanatory Memoranda?
As well as liaising with the Government in relation to this work, the committee attaches high priority to engagement with other committees of this House and of the House of Commons, with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, and with key stakeholders who stand to be affected by EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland. Given the Northern Ireland Assembly’s democratic mandate to represent the people of Northern Ireland, the committee’s engagement with it is particularly important, and I express the hope that difficulties over the protocol can be resolved so that the Assembly and the Executive are once more able to function and to offer their own unique perspectives on the implications of these issues for the people and communities of Northern Ireland that they represent.
A key aspect of that engagement is of course with the EU itself. As I mentioned earlier, the committee has previously drawn attention to the democratic deficit under the protocol as negotiated, agreed and ratified by the UK and the EU, in that significant aspects of EU law, with wide-ranging political and economic implications, apply to Northern Ireland subject to neither the UK Government’s participation in the EU institutions nor to consent from parliamentarians at either Westminster or Stormont. The EU needs to do more to enhance transparency around the application of EU law to Northern Ireland; to take account of the impact of EU law on Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances; and to engage with Northern Ireland stakeholders at an early stage, to give them a voice on the application and implications of such legislation.
In our report, we concluded that the EU should explicitly state whether a proposed EU legal Act engages the UK’s obligations under the protocol; the basis on which such legislation should apply to Northern Ireland; and how the EU has taken into account Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances in the application of the legislation in question. I conclude, as does our report, by stating:
“In the context of the ongoing discussions between the UK and the EU on the future of the Protocol, all sides have a continuing obligation to ensure that the operation of the Protocol … takes into account the delicate balance between North-South and East-West relations as provided for under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and to demonstrate how it is compliant with that Agreement in all its Strands.”
I beg to move.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply to the debate. I am also very grateful to all Members who have spoken from all sides of the House in what has been a very wide-ranging debate. In fact, the debate has ranged rather wider than the subject of the report. If I may, I will return for a moment to the report to say that I think the debate has also shown that, while scrutiny may seem dry and technical, it really matters. It matters to the businesses and the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the report to the House.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am conscious that admitting that I can remember the monarchy before Queen Elizabeth is to admit that I am well over the average age, even in this House. My first image of the monarchy was, indeed, of the Queen’s grandmother, Queen Mary, who used to come to listen to sermons in Westminster Abbey whenever a particularly radical canon, Canon Marriott, was preaching the social gospel—something which would now be considered far too left-wing for any current bishop to talk about. I learned a little more when, as a junior chorister, I sang when the coffin of George VI arrived at Westminster Hall for the lying-in-state, and rather more about the symbolic importance of the monarchy when, as a more senior chorister, I sang at the Coronation.
People have talked a lot about how much the country has changed since then. When I think back to that period, it is astonishing what sort of change we have been through. As I walked past the abbey this morning, I remembered that it was black in 1952, covered in soot. Outside, a gallery had been built for people to watch from over a bomb site, which is now the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. Inside, nearly a thousand Peers were in the north transept, in their full robes and with their coronets, and nearly a thousand Peeresses were in the south transept. In a few months’ time, when the ballot for perhaps 100 of us who wish to attend the next Coronation arrives, we should remember that social deference has ended and the social order in this country is different from what it was then.
The monarchy is about symbolism, holding the country together and reminding us of how much we are linked with the past and with the lives of others in this country. Symbolism, ritual and conventions are an essential part of holding this kingdom together. The Queen has done her best throughout her very long reign to act in a symbolic way that reminds us of that. Because I am associated with Westminster Abbey, I have seen quite a lot of the symbolic services in operation. It is astonishing how she has not only adapted but actively assisted adaptation over the years.
At the Coronation, the only minister of religion participating who was not a member of the Church of England was, of course, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. I have heard that the Cardinal Archbishop was invited but decided that he would prefer to sit in a gallery outside the abbey. On the 50th anniversary service of the Coronation, the Cardinal Archbishop read the first lesson. Representatives of our nonconformist churches sat at the side of the sanctuary. Under the lantern, in the first row, were representatives of Britain’s other faiths. That is real adaptation and a wonderful change.
For the 60th anniversary of the Coronation, the abbey and the Palace decided to symbolise the idea of the public service of all the nation and organised a procession that would walk from the west end to the sanctuary with an anointing flask, accompanied by a representation of the diversity of the nation. At the back were a Peer and a High Court judge in full robes. The head doorkeeper insisted that I put on my robes over here because he said that I could not possibly manage it when I got to the other side of the road. In front of us were Scout leaders, Guides, petty officers, NCOs and a lollipop lady in full school crossing uniform. That is good symbolism of the public service that everyone does. The Queen symbolised public duty, public service and public good. That is part of what we all need to remember and, I hope, to practise ourselves in our own contributions to this kingdom.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, one of the privileges of ambassadorial life was the relationship we had with the monarchy and with the Queen. We were proud to be members of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service. The Queen came to Paris when I was ambassador to unveil a statue to Sir Winston Churchill. Nothing could better have symbolised Britain or the relationship between Britain and France since the Second World War. The dignity with which the Queen performed her duties was a lesson to us all, British and French.
While the Queen was in Paris, I hosted a dinner for her in our embassy and, according to custom, proposed a rather pompous toast to the President of the French Republic and to Her Majesty the Queen. “What a nice couple,” she replied. It was that mixture of dignity and informality, at times almost irreverence, that was so captivating to millions in Britain and around the world.
In my last job at the Foreign Office, I had the extraordinary privilege to be at Her Majesty’s side when she received new ambassadors. The Queen had been doing this for about 50 years and loved it when things went slightly awry. I remember that a very distinguished ambassador arrived by carriage at Buckingham Palace and had forgotten his credentials. An ever-helpful equerry gave him a plain brown envelope and said, “Present this to Her Majesty and all will be well.” The rather nervous ambassador entered the room and presented the Queen with an empty plain brown envelope. The Queen was generously pleased to accept the empty plain brown envelope and said, with a dignified twinkle in her eye, “How very kind, ambassador”.
Yemen: Aid Funding
Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, in terms of announcements, the final settlement on ODA is still being finalised within the department. I will be able to answer with more detail once that has been agreed. As I have already alluded to, we stand by our commitments to Yemen from previous years, and famine alleviation remains a key priority. But it is a challenging announcement in terms of the reduction and the challenges that the country is facing at the moment. Notwithstanding that, we remain committed to supporting the people of Yemen in not just humanitarian aid but resolving the conflict.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
My Lords, cutting British aid, particularly to Yemen, in the middle of a humanitarian emergency looks less like global Britain than little England at its worst. Let us hope that it is not too late to reverse it. How will we use our chairmanship of the G7 group of rich nations this year to help the poorest and most vulnerable people in Yemen and elsewhere?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that global Britain means that we remain committed to helping the most vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the issue of cholera, and we should acknowledge the role that British aid and support has played in ensuring that cholera treatment is delivered. That is why we have given the commitment to both CEPI and Gavi, in addition to the COVAX facility, for the current crisis. Providing support to the most vulnerable is high up the priority list of the G7 agenda.
EU Ambassador to the UK: Diplomatic Status
Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As ever, I have listened to my noble friend very carefully and I take note of what he said.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
Does not the Minister agree that it is time now to put aside gesture politics and to focus instead on developing the relations necessary to make a success of, for example, the G7 summit in Cornwall and the climate change summit in Scotland? In both of those, the European Commission will, whether we like it or not, have a major and important role to play.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Let me assure the noble Lord, who speaks with great insight and experience, that we are doing exactly that. We want to focus on the G7 summit and on the other important priorities that lie in front of us, including dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and the rollout of the vaccines, and, equally importantly, our planning for the COP 26 in November in Glasgow.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Lord Jay of Ewelme Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Parliamentary committees are very much a much a matter for Parliament, but certainly my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s view is that they should reflect departments. The noble Lord mentioned ICAI and that will continue, although this provides an opportunity to review its governance and ensure that it is fully aligned with the new department.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
My Lords, there is a lot in the Statement about global Britain. Does the Minister agree that in the eyes of both the developed and the developing worlds, the success of global Britain will depend on the maintenance of a high-quality global aid programme? Will he once again scotch rumours of a raid on the 0.7% target by other departments?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, a former PUS to what was the Foreign Office, that I have already given a commitment to the 0.7% target. Yes, global Britain is about our development leadership and our diplomacy, and the FCDO brings the two together.