European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to start by saying that the image I cannot get out of my head from these two days of debate is that of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Lamont, sitting in the bath singing “Je ne regrette rien”, but then my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pinched my line—he will be hearing from my lawyers, although I cannot afford any of the quality in this House.

Like many noble Lords, we on the Lib Dem Benches hugely regret Brexit. We fully understand the lack of belief that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, expressed in the “sunny uplands”. My noble friend Lady Humphreys impressed on us forcefully the harm that pulling out of the single market and customs union would do to Wales, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. My noble friend Lord Razzall said the same about business across the UK. So far, so Brexit. Had you asked me last spring what was the topic of the inappropriately named great repeal Bill—which as my noble friend Lord Newby pointed out early in the debate was neither great nor repealing—I would have retorted, in a nod to Bill Clinton, “It’s about Brexit, stupid”. I am older and wiser now: the context of the Bill might be Brexit, but the content is about nothing less than the constitutional and legal integrity of this country. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that is what we must concentrate on.

I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, was wrong when she said in her speech last night that “no one ever said” that Brexit would be “easy”. I found a list of 11 such culprits, among them no lesser luminaries than Liam Fox, John Redwood and Michael Gove. Another favourite adjective is “simple”. Brexit Secretary David Davis breezily said:

“It’s very simple. At the moment we leave, Britain must be back in control. And that means EU law must cease to apply. To ensure continuity, we will take a simple approach”.


It is all going to be a piece of cake—maybe even a piece of Boris Johnson’s cake, the type you can have while also eating it. But as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, that gives you indigestion.

Besides ease and simplicity, the other assurances we were given about the nature of the Brexit process were of certainty and clarity. In her foreword to the White Paper last March, the Prime Minister said the Government’s first objective is to provide,

“as much certainty as possible as we move through the process”.

She referred to the Bill as an essential part of the plan for clarity and reassurance. That is not what the Government are delivering, and my noble friend Lady Kramer deplored the instability being created for businesses and individuals. The problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, is that they cannot even tell us where they want to go. This is, suggested the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because of too many back-seat drivers. For goodness’ sake, choose the destination, demanded the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, reproached those he feared were talking down our negotiating position—but I think he needs to find the mote in his own Government’s eye. Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, sagely observed, it is the side that is supposedly winning that is blowing a fuse. It says everything about our current, sorry situation that although the EU can secure consensus among 27 countries, the British Cabinet cannot achieve consensus among 27 Ministers.

The task of scrutinising and reforming the Bill is huge. We are fortunate to have had the pioneering contribution in debates in the other place, and since, of the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve. We must pick up the baton. We are aided in that task by superb briefings from experts from many organisations, and now by the hugely valuable report from the Constitution Committee, which warns us of “uncharted territory” and,

“a legal undertaking of a type and scale that is unique and unprecedented”.

It also says, as many have quoted, that the Bill is,

“fundamentally flawed from a constitutional perspective in multiple ways”,

and,

“as drafted is constitutionally unacceptable”.

It is certainly not a boring Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, feared.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, warned that there must be no attempt,

“to make a constitutional Horlicks of this Bill”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1395.]

Well, that is already the case. We will have to smooth out the lumps with some very rigorous stirring.

It is extraordinary, considering the rhetoric about regaining sovereignty, that the first defect we will have to deal with is that Ministers rather than Parliament are taking back control. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who as we all know is a little bit expert on these matters, said,

“if the Bill before us is enacted without significant amendment, it will represent the largest single peacetime transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1490.]

Apparently, these are not Henry VIII but Cromwellian powers—though whether Thomas or Oliver of that ilk, I will not adjudicate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, warned strongly in this debate, just as he did on the “Today” programme yesterday, when he even managed to subdue John Humphrys:

“We need to wake up to this”.


Perhaps this Bill can be the catalyst for a wholesale reform and improvement in the processing of secondary legislation, as several noble Lords proposed. After all, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey commented: “Sifting is not scrutiny”. The second challenge is to sort out how, in the words of the Constitution Committee,

“the Bill risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty in a number of ways”.

That is quite a contrast to the certainty that the Prime Minister promised. This is because of lack of clarity about the creation, status and interpretation of retained EU law and how it can be challenged.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge, highlighted the anomaly of preserving the supremacy of EU law post exit, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, warned about undermining the independence of judges. The committee’s suggestion, to give all retained law the status of primary legislation, is one we will no doubt want to examine very carefully.

Many noble Lords have rightly opposed the proposed exclusion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, as do we on these Benches. The charter is the key to unlocking the meaning of EU law and it makes no sense to exclude it when that law is itself being kept. Why, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked, is it,

“singled out as the exception to … continuity”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1410.]

The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, was similarly baffled by its exclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, recalled that the charter adds not only rights absent from the European Convention on Human Rights but also remedies. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition reminded us that David Davis had himself taken a case based on the charter to the ECJ, so it is rather hypocritical of him to deny this legal remedy to others.

The great worry articulated by many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and which we on these Benches share, is that the legal framework of rights and protections built up over the last 45 years will be at risk—including those relating to inequalities and human rights, employment, the environment and public health, and other fields. The noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Triesman, fear the risk of scapegoating and reminded us of the vow “never again”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, fears the loss of disability rights. Despite the Government’s assurances, the freelance comments from some Ministers looking forward to slashing red tape have not allayed those fears.

I am grateful for the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and will be perusing it with care. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said in respect of criminal measures like the European arrest warrant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said in respect of family law, it is impossible for the UK to unilaterally deliver reciprocal arrangements. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that the Metropolitan Police are very keen to stay in Europol and to have access to EU databases

Many noble Lords spoke of the threat to the devolution settlements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was astonished at the Government’s failure to respect them and said their changes were naive and very damaging. My noble friend Lord Purvis and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness raised similar fears, while my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford thought that the best thing to do would be to remove the devolution provisions from the Bill and start again.

In addition, there is particular concern about the effect of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland and the all-Ireland integrated economy that has flowed from the Good Friday agreement. Many noble Lords, among them former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, expressed this concern, which we fervently share.

In our consideration of this Bill, we will want to pay some attention to the lack of clarity about what happens next autumn. Parliament and the people need to keep control of the country’s future through a meaningful vote in Westminster and a final say for voters, in which they have the option to choose an exit from Brexit. A transitional agreement and a long-term agreement will mean a lot of rewriting of the Bill, but we cannot yet see how. Many noble Lords supported the option of a final say for citizens and that this should be an option after a meaningful vote in Parliament. Indeed, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg have in the past supported such a two-step process, with a confirmatory further referendum once the facts are known.

In conclusion, we on these Benches believe that Brexit would be a disaster for this country, not only economically but socially and environmentally. This Bill threatens to ravage the constitutional and legal fabric of the UK and its parts. We have our work cut out. We will need the input not only of the Brexit anoraks, among whose number I proudly count myself, but of every single legally and constitutionally informed brain, many of whom have spoken impressively in the last 36 hours.

The sniping directed at this House for daring to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny is far off the mark. Far from being seen as sabotage, I believe there will be some gratitude for our efforts in making this Bill fit for purpose in all but the most ideologically blinkered circles. As my noble friend Lord Beith said, we are just trying to fix the steering wheel and get the Bill through its MOT.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend, nor with all those other noble Lords who have responsibility for Northern Ireland, or have held it in the past, including the noble Lord, Lord Patten, my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, not least in his role as reviewer of terrorism legislation. Everyone who has been engaged in this sees the continuing value of the Northern Ireland agreement. It is a solemn undertaking on the part of the United Kingdom. It is an international treaty. Playing fast and loose with peace in Northern Ireland in the cause of Brexit is utterly reprehensible.

We are looking forward to the Minister’s reply. I know that he has a mountain of amendments to reply to, but I am afraid that is the fault of the people whose responsibility it is to group them, who seem to want to group almost everything in the Bill into one group. I hope that when he replies he will begin by saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement, that they wish to see the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and that the Government will use every endeavour to do that and to ensure, as the Prime Minister also said in solemn undertakings at the end of last year, that all of the commitments that the Government of the United Kingdom reach in respect of Brexit will fully honour the Good Friday agreement. I take the amendments that we will discuss later, which my noble friend Lord Hain and others have tabled, which would enshrine a commitment to abide by the Good Friday agreement in the text of the Bill, to be immensely important to our consideration of the Bill, particularly in the light of comments made in the last week.

My amendments focus on two particular areas where I seek the Minister’s guidance, because we have many long debates to come, and we need to establish a good evidence base as we do so. I take to heart the words of the Minister for Exiting the European Union, Mr Baker, when the House of Commons was considering the Bill—I was glad to see him at the Bar earlier—and he said:

“The Government have always been clear that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to ensure that the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/17; col. 206.]


We can have certainty, continuity and control only if we know what will happen as a consequence of enacting the Bill.

Therefore, there are two areas that I particularly wish to probe the Minister on. The first is the extremely important issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the status of the European Economic Area and our membership of it. There is a debate that will range far and wide across our consideration of this Bill and future Bills as to what is the right status for the United Kingdom if and when we leave the European Union: whether we should be in the EEA, or in the customs union but not the single market, or in the single market but not the customs union; whether we should have bespoke trade arrangements, or whether we should belong to a customs union but not the customs union. The Schleswig-Holstein question was positively simple in comparison with the options and complexity of the options on offer but for our role as legislators, it is crucial that we understand the consequences of decisions that we take in respect of the Bill when we enact it. In many crucial areas—having read, as many other noble Lords will have done, all the debates in the House of Commons on the Bill—it is still unclear what will be the legal position in key respects after the enactment of the Bill.

The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is of acute concern in this respect. The question that I hope the Minister will address himself to is: what is the procedure under which the United Kingdom will leave the European Economic Area if and when we leave the European Union? The noble Lord, Lord Owen, who I am sorry to say is not in his place this afternoon, has written, with help from serious lawyers—including, I think, one or two in this House—a very long and learned paper on precisely this issue. It says that there are two very different views as to what the position is, partly because the EEA agreement is itself ambiguous about the nature of the relationship between the European Union and the European Economic Area.

The European Union is itself a contracting party to the EEA agreement and on one reading—I am now going into areas where, seeing so many lawyers around me, I am waiting for them to leap in at any moment, but the definitive view from the Government is going to be important here—it is therefore not possible for those states which leave the European Union to remain a party to the EEA agreement. On another reading of the treaty, Her Majesty the Queen is the signatory to the treaty independently of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, and we would therefore continue to be members of the EEA when we leave the European Union. As a layman in these matters, this looks to me to be an issue of huge consequence. When and if we leave the European Union on 29 March next year, do we or do we not continue as a member of the EEA simply by virtue of leaving the European Union? If we do not leave the EEA, what is the procedure under which we do leave the EEA? Does it require a vote, does it require legislation, or are the Government proposing that it should be done by the royal prerogative? These are big issues and I hope the Minister can address himself to them, because they will have a significant bearing on amendments we raise later in Committee and on Report.

The second issue concerning withdrawal from the European Union, which is what the half of the Bill that we are substantially debating at the moment is about, is whether it is necessary to withdraw from the entirety of the European Communities Act 1972, or whether it is in fact legally possible—or what would be the consequences of deciding—to withdraw from some parts but not from others. This is an issue of such importance because of the customs arrangements enshrined in Part 2, Section 5 of the 1972 Act, which sets out all the arrangements under which the United Kingdom agrees to abide by customs rules set by the European Union. That is, as I read it, a large part but not the entirety of our membership of the customs union.

The question that was raised in the House of Commons but not properly debated, and that looks to me to be of significance to our debates going forward, is about not disapplying the customs clauses of the 1972 Act— Part 2, Section 5, and the appropriate schedules. If they remained in force and we repealed the rest of the Act but not those—by virtue of that fact, subject of course to an agreement with the European Union itself, we would remain in the customs union. Again, in terms of the legal means by which we might secure the objective which many noble Lords wish to see, continuing membership of the customs union and single market, that is a point of great significance.

Finally, in terms of the objectives we are seeking to achieve, in her Lancaster House speech, the second of the two significant speeches she has given on government policy in respect of Brexit, the Prime Minister, addressing our European partners, said:

“The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours … We do not want to turn the clock back to the days when Europe was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely”.


In my view it is impossible to see how we can have a Europe which maintains peace unless we start with peace within our own borders, which must mean peace guaranteed in Northern Ireland, hence the centrality of the Good Friday agreement to our consideration of the Bill. When it comes to,

“less able to trade freely”,

I take that to mean not entering into any trade arrangements which are less advantageous for this country and involve any more border controls than currently apply. I look forward to the Minister explaining to the Committee how leaving the customs union and the single market can make it easier for us to trade than the extremely advantageous arrangement we currently have as a member of the European Union.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot match the dazzling intellectual exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I completely endorse his remarks on the Good Friday agreement. We need to stay in the single market and the customs union and to preserve the integrated economy and the peace and political enjoyment of the Good Friday agreement is one of the best arguments for doing so. I shall speak to Amendment 203 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, who sadly feels that there is not time for her to speak. I shall also speak more generally on this group and second the remarks of noble friends who have spoken on it.

Amendment 203 requires a specific parliamentary vote on whether to leave the EEA. This would perhaps both remove any legal doubt about whether the Article 50 notification made that decision—I will slightly sidestep that issue—and be an explicit political decision in itself. Therefore I advocate the merits of Amendment 203.

We are in the dark about the future. The Cabinet is meeting again tomorrow at Chequers and we are all very hopeful that some white smoke will emerge from that meeting. As many noble Lords have said this afternoon, the implications of leaving the single market and the customs union are serious. Indeed, it has been described by my former noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew as a “suicide note”—hence the need to have a specific vote on whether to leave the EEA, which would be a safeguard, at least against sudden death.

We learn from the Financial Times, in advance of having anything explained to us in the open by the Government, that the buzzword for the trade relationship that the Government will be aiming for is “managed divergence”. Apparently:

“Under this approach, economic activity between the UK and the EU would be divided into three baskets: complete alignment, where the UK would follow EU rules”—


presumably to at least encompass the famous paragraph 49 of the phase 1 agreement—

“‘managed mutual recognition’, where both would agree to common objectives but each would choose its own rules; and a third basket where the UK can abandon EU regulations and do whatever it wants”.

That sounds incredibly complicated for citizens and business, as against the simplicity of full membership of the single market and the customs union. This commentator says:

“The beauty of this approach is that it unites the cabinet”.


This is possibly because it has three variations. However, it does not have one single theme.

Of course, we have heard all variants, not least this past week. We had the speech from the Foreign Secretary and the letter from the European Research Group—I am not sure that it does a lot of research but it writes a lot of letters. It wants “full regulatory autonomy”. I hope that I will not embarrass the Minister if I quote him when he was in the European Parliament. He said in 2012:

“Surely one of the best ways for the EU to speed up growth is to scrap the employment and social affairs directorate in the Commission, repatriate its responsibilities to national governments, then we could scrap the working time directive, the agency workers’ directive, the pregnant workers’ directive, and all of the other barriers to actually employing people if we really want to create jobs in Europe”.


We will discuss on other days the maintenance of employment and other rights, but it is illustrative of the problem that we have that there is such an array of opinion within the Government. The advantage of having a parliamentary vote in the context of the implementation of the withdrawal agreement would be that it would allow Parliament to have the backstop of saying, “Actually, we want to stay in the EEA”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

If we have another referendum on the question of whether we should leave the European Union, to me that talks like a second referendum, walks like a second referendum and will be a second referendum.

[Baroness Ludford]

As many of the noble Lord’s soulmates often say, it would actually be a third referendum—so you pays your money and takes your choice. But it would be quite different because it would be in the knowledge of the actual detail of what Brexit entails, which people did not have in 2016.

[Lord Robathan]

The noble Baroness talked about patronising the British people. I think that all politicians are capable of being patronising, but does she not think that we should accept that the British people are sensible and clever enough to work out what they voted for in 2016?

[Baroness Ludford]

Actually, there is growing support in the opinion polls for people taking control themselves. I think it was the noble Lord himself who talked about how it is the people who decide, not us—and especially not us in this unelected House. I totally agree with him that it is the people who are now showing through opinion polls that they want to take control of the decision on what should happen to this country and on whether to give a verdict on the Brexit deal.

This has been an extremely valuable debate on the crucial decisions about the single market and the customs union. My last remark will be to mention, as my noble friends did, that being in the EU has not stopped other EU countries, such as Germany, exporting many more times the value of British exports to countries such as India. In fact, Germany is India’s top trade partner in the EU and its sixth biggest overall, and the UK is only India’s 18th-biggest trade partner. Even Belgium has a trade surplus with India, unlike the UK. So being in the EU has certainly not prevented other EU countries making a greater success of trade with India than we have. It is the problem of visas that has prevented a deepening of the trade relationship with India.

I cannot resist mentioning that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who I understand is the Government’s trade envoy to the Commonwealth, was quoted recently as saying that it would be easy to do trade deals with Commonwealth countries such as Singapore, Malta and Cyprus. Malta and Cyprus of course are in the EU and are not free to do individual trade deals—so good luck with that.

To conclude, I give my full support to the amendments in this group which, one way or another, seek to keep us in the single market and the customs union, which is vital not only to the integrity of the United Kingdom, particularly on the intra-Irish border, but to the economic future of this country.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a valuable and, indeed, an enjoyable debate, but it is particularly important for two major reasons. The Bill is not about whether or not we leave but about how we leave, and there are two important aspects of why we have debated and heard these views today that we should not forget.

One is that Article 50—and its author is here, as always—by which we are leaving, requires that we have the framework for our future relationship with the European Union. That is what all these amendments are about. But the second reason we have to discuss that today is because the Government have absolutely failed to tell us what their vision for that framework is. That is why we are doing this now and why these amendments are key. Indeed, as has just been mentioned, it is only tomorrow that the Prime Minister will finally lock her little brood into Chequers for what the Financial Times today described as “Mission Impossible”, to thrash out some sort of consensus about the future of our country. Meanwhile, both in the UK and among our partners in the EU 27, there is a complete lack of clarity about the direction of travel. We need to know, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, what is going to happen as we go into the negotiations.

What I have found rather strange is that, instead of the Prime Minister bringing her brood together earlier after the referendum 20 months ago, as we have just been reminded, she sent out her little chicks, and, indeed, a Fox, to make speeches far and wide—in fact, almost everywhere other than in Parliament—on their competing visions of what that post-Brexit future will look like. They are mostly doing that without a proper dialogue with consumers, with trade unions, with industry or with farmers. I will not have been the only one listening to “Farming Today” this morning to hear the responses to Michael Gove in Birmingham yesterday, when NFU members—not, incidentally, members of the Labour Party—lined up to say: “Where’s the beef”? They had heard his speech; they still did not know what was going on and wanted to know where this Government are taking us. They do not know whether they can sell their meat tariff and quota free in 13 months’ time. The fishermen in Newlyn have also been given little detail about their future and are beginning to worry about that, too.

Critical to this is the big issue: do we want tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU? Do we want no customs posts, particularly but not solely in Northern Ireland, no checks at borders and smooth, duty-free transit? The ports of Dover, Holyhead and Fishguard would like to know the answer to that, but so indeed would Calais and Rotterdam. But checks and paperwork will be avoided only if we produce and sell according to the same regulations, and if our internal systems of checks on food and manufactured goods are recognised and respected by the importing countries. Frankly, that means regulatory alignment. If that is not what the Government envisage, they must decide pretty quickly so that the plans, buildings, documentation, computer systems and, yes, the personnel can be put in place.

The big political question facing us is one that the Prime Minister seems not to dare ask those chicks: “Do we want to maintain our current, pan-EU high standards?” The Fox seems to think not. Reliable sources in his department—and I mean reliable sources—suggest that they hope trade deals with third countries will become materially easier when there is “less pressure”, in their words, to stick to the high levels of regulations required by the customs union and the single market, and easier because the so-called political factors, which I gather is departmental code for having less respect for human rights, would be “less of a problem”. Furthermore, the secret documents in Room 100 that have been referred to—I also saw them on the first floor—were, incidentally, reported in the Independent, so I am not giving any secrets away. My quotes are from that paper, which describe areas being explored where “maximising regulatory opportunities” are possible. It cited particularly what, as we have heard, was said by the Minister in an earlier life about the opportunity of ending the working time directive.

However, that is not what we heard from the Chancellor at Davos, nor what we heard from Austria yesterday when the Brexit Secretary stressed his support for,

“the principle of fair competition”,

which I would argue implies no lowering of standards to gain competitive advantage. Mr Davis said that the UK and EU should be able,

“to trust each other’s regulations and the institutions that enforce them … Such mutual recognition will naturally require close, even-handed cooperation between these authorities and a common set of principles”.

So the Viennese version is that standards and regulations are the building blocks of free trade. This is of course in contrast to the Foreign Secretary, who asserted:

“The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU”.


There was not quite the same line coming out of Vienna.

We have also read—perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he comes to reply—that British and American conservative groups, including the Initiative for Free Trade founded by Daniel Hannan MEP, who I gather is his friend, are working on an “ideal trade agreement” that would allow the import of US meats such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-raised beef, along with drugs and chemicals currently banned in Britain. Is that the vision that they want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, this issue is linked to those under Clauses 9 and 14 about the withdrawal agreement and the exit day in that context. No doubt we will come back to some of these issues, because they are all interlinked and it is quite difficult to get a holistic view. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is quite right: one key issue is what we are going to be exiting to. Flexibility is one thing but an excess of uncertainty is another—particularly, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said, when it is coupled with ministerial discretion.

We have the exit date, we have the date when the treaties cease to apply, and we can add on the layer of what is going to be in the transition terms—I have not had time to read the Government’s proposal today. We also have the question about whether Article 50 might be extended, and the question of whether Parliament might want to put the deal to the citizens for a final say. There is also the question of the post-dated cheque. So, all in all, they went all round the houses in the other place—no fixed date, then an attempt to fix it, then a date movable by Ministers. In all this brew, the amendments raise a very reasonable point about Parliament being in the driving seat—something that has been the theme of so many of our debates in the last year and a half.

We have no idea exactly what being subject to EU law, or even respecting the remit of the ECJ, whatever that will turn out to mean, during transition and even in the longer term—because that was the implication of the Prime Minister’s speech on Saturday—means. That sits uncomfortably with the Bill as a whole, and especially with the specification of exit day. We are being asked to fall into a black hole and trust Ministers to get it right—which on current experience is not a very wise thing to do.

The amendments have been described as probing, but answers from the Government—I am sure that the Minister is about to give very precise answers—will be very helpful to our understanding of how the jigsaw will fit together. At the moment it all looks far too uncertain for anyone to be comfortable.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My first question to the Minister is: why did the Government slot in the calendar date at Committee stage, when that was never foreseen in the original Bill? Was it for some good legislative reason, or was it, as my noble friend Lord Hain suggested, to satisfy a certain hard Brexit group of MPs sitting on the Prime Minister’s shoulder, rather like the 60 who have been writing her helpful letters today? It certainly looks as if this was more to do with party management, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, than being in the national interest, which we have been advised should control everything we do.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to comment on the point discussed a few moments ago—the exact wording of Article 50. The Bill as it stands would allow the date specified to be extended in exceptional circumstances, but this probably deals only with the possibility of an extension to Article 50, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, provides:

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question”—


that is us—

“from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification … unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

The date could be amended in accordance with what is in the withdrawal agreement. We indeed might come to an agreement that, for some other reason, chooses an earlier or a later date. Or we might want to amend the date if the withdrawal agreement were not finalised. On the evidence of negotiations so far, it is quite unlikely that this divided Government, seeking to negotiate something which, I have to say in all fairness to them, has never been undertaken before, will keep to their timetable. They should therefore want the flexibility.

There is another issue. Even if we had a deal, what would happen if the European Parliament voted it down? I understand that that vote could be as late as one year from now; it could be as late as February 2019. And the European Parliament has the right to vote any deal down. Guy Verhofstadt told Andrew Marr at the weekend that a thumbs down from the European Parliament meant exit with no deal. So if in a year’s time the Parliament were to vote a deal down, I assume that we would be out a month later, on WTO terms with no transition deal, which would also mean no safeguards for EU citizens—either ours living in EU countries or theirs living here. I do not think that the European Parliament would do that, but my judgment is that if it did, the 27—or indeed the 28, with our Government as well—would speedily get themselves into a room and row back from that. I cannot imagine that we, or they, would want to be in that position. Again, that would mean a change in the date, so the flexibility needs to be there.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

13: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament procedures agreed with the EU for continued UK participation in measures to promote internal security, police cooperation and counter-terrorism and these procedures have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich 10 days ago, which was cited in the previous debate, was encouraging as far as it went. The Prime Minister spoke of wanting to participate in Europol, the Schengen Information System, the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order, which is a sort of European arrest warrant for evidence. But aspiration is not enough. Cross-border co-operation on law enforcement is premised on an assumption that all member states share similar standards of fundamental rights protection. Mutual recognition is rooted in mutual trust. I am afraid that successive British Governments have not really understood this sufficiently and have been more or less reluctant to sign up to the protective measures alongside the measures on police powers.

It is really strange that the UK has had such an ambivalent relationship with EU justice and home affairs over the past 20 years because it is possible to say, without being arrogant, that our record on the rule of law and the quality of our lawyers, judges and police stand comparison with any other in Europe and should have put us at the centre of EU developments in civil as well as criminal justice. But successive Governments have insisted on opt-outs and optional rather than full-hearted participation. That has not stopped the merits and value of our weight and experience and our personnel in justice and home affairs being recognised. We have the director of Europol—I think he has been there for the best part of 10 years—Rob Wainwright, who is on the brink of retiring. Of course, the European Commissioner for Security, Sir Julian King, is British. Two former presidents of Eurojust are British. That is the body of prosecutors which ensures that cross-border investigations and prosecutions are carried out smoothly. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was president of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary—the network of judges—which supports and encourages an independent and qualified judiciary.

You cannot do cross-border co-operation unilaterally. It has to be a reciprocal arrangement based on legal agreements which are enforceable in respecting individual rights as well as the rights of national authorities. There are two foundations of mutual trust within the EU: first, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure a level playing field in the application of EU law; and, secondly, the rights and principles in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to protection of personal data being of particular relevance in this context.

On the resolution of legal disagreements, in her Munich speech the Prime Minister proposed two principles: first, respect for the sovereignty of the UK’s legal order; and, secondly, respect for the remit of the European Court of Justice, at least when participating in EU agencies. I think there is a lot of head-scratching about how those two principles are going to be reconciled. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to explain to me precisely how that is going to work. Can he also flesh out what a security treaty would look like in incorporating what the Prime Minister called a mechanism for,

“independent dispute resolution … in which both sides can have the necessary confidence”?

How will the full exchange of data be secured under the auspices of such a treaty? About three years ago Denmark voted to leave Europol. Since then, it has negotiated very limited access to data in Europol—and it is a full member of the EU, the Schengen area, the European Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. What makes the Government think we will get better access to Europol than Denmark? We might well get observer status but we will have no vote on the work programme or the direction of Europol’s work.

We will discuss the Charter of Fundamental Rights fully later but it is highly relevant to the exchange of data so I must mention it now. The relevance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is why the trade body of the British tech industry, techUK, has urged the retention of the charter in domestic law. It is interested mainly in the commercial exchange of data for the digital economy but the same applies to the exchange of personal data for the purposes of law enforcement. The tech sector is very well aware of the long-running problems over transatlantic data transfers after the Snowden revelations in 2013, leading to years of political wrangling and litigation, including the ECJ blocking the so-called safe harbour agreement before the privacy shield was agreed—and there had to be changes in US data protection law to achieve that.

Whether or not the UK seeks a formal adequacy decision in the context of our future trade and security relationship, we can be sure that there will be a wide and deep assessment of data protection in this country, not least by the European Parliament, and the possible invalidation by the ECJ of any agreement which fails fully to adhere to EU standards. It seems ill judged for the Government to prejudice that trade and security relationship with the EU by jettisoning the charter. The fact that they insisted on weakening the privacy protection for immigration data in the Data Protection Bill may also turn out to be unwise.

The Prime Minister wanted continued participation in the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order. The extradition agreement with Norway and Iceland took 13 years to negotiate, is still not in force three years after agreement, and does not include surrender of own nationals. How do the Government propose to do better than Norway and Iceland? The 1957 Council of Europe convention would be a step backwards in extradition practice and in any case would require not only the UK but individual European countries to change their legislation. What prospect is there of them doing that?

On the European arrest warrant, the Government will of course be aware that the Irish courts have refused the extradition of a person to the UK and have referred the case to the Luxembourg court because they are afraid that if they return someone to the UK and they are in detention beyond March next year, they will not get the protection of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. So it is already affecting extradition co-operation. The European investigation order—the other measure the Prime Minister mentioned—has been implemented in UK law, as I have had cause to raise with the Government, by substituting reference to the charter with a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, which of course is not an EU measure. That seems a rather petty thing to do and, again, does not seem very sensible if it is a flagship measure mentioned by the Prime Minister but it has not been properly implemented in UK law.

To conclude, can the Government tell us, given their limited acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction and their rejection of the charter, exactly what terms—and under what structures, as was just mentioned—they expect to get in a security treaty, and will they submit a draft for our enlightenment before too long? I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment for two reasons. The second was that I was encouraged by what the Prime Minister said in Munich and I very much hope that we are going to have the closest possible co-operation for all our security. But the first reason that I put my name on the amendment was that I had the honour, until the unfortunate general election of last year, of serving on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of this House. After the general election I was summarily dismissed because I had not voted with the Government during our debates on the triggering Bill last spring. But there we are: it did not shut me up and certainly will not shut me up tonight because we took evidence from Rob Wainwright, the head of Interpol.

On that committee, I used to sit next to Lord Condon. I am very sorry that he has retired from your Lordships’ House because he made an extremely important contribution, based on vast knowledge. I was impressed by his pride in what Rob Wainwright had achieved as a Brit leading that extremely important organisation. I was impressed, too, by the searching questions that Lord Condon asked of not only Rob Wainwright but a number of other expert witnesses who came before us. The conclusion that one had to come to after those various evidence sessions was that the measure of success of our negotiations would be determined by how close we had come to replicating what already existed.

There is no point in rehearsing all my misgivings about where we are, because we are where we are. But I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can reassure the Committee that the Prime Minister, following her Munich speech, really is committed to coming to close arrangements with our European friends and neighbours to ensure that the measure of security which we enjoy—and which the people of this country enjoy—will not be damaged by an imperfect relationship with Interpol. I would like to see a proper membership of Interpol and, frankly, I am not persuaded that it could not happen. I hope it will because what matters more than anything else to the people of our country, almost a year away from the terrorist outrage which hit us here in Westminster last March, is that they feel secure. That feeling of security is encouraged if they know that there is the closest possible co-operation and exchange of information with our European friends and neighbours. One other thing that came out during our evidence sessions was the very real importance of the European arrest warrant. I hope that in building upon what the Prime Minister said in Munich, we can ensure that there is again a similar arrangement after we leave the European Union.

Those were the reasons why put I my name to the amendment and I am glad to support it. I do not want to sound offensive in any way because I have a high regard for my noble friend, who has a very difficult job to do, but I hope we will have a reply to this debate of real substance, in view of what the Prime Minister said in Munich a couple of weeks ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

I should briefly like to thank all speakers in this extremely valuable debate, especially the co-signatories to my amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham. It was evident that, almost without exception, there was very strong support for staying in these crucial law enforcement measures. I am not so sure we got what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked for, which was a reply of real substance. We certainly did not get the clarity that my noble friend Lord Paddick asked for on the ECJ. Quite honestly, that was an extraordinary response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there is no safety net in this area. The WTO is not much of one but it exists.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness talking of the European Court of Justice as though there would be no change in its constitution as a result of our leaving the European Union?

[Baroness Ludford]

There obviously will be a change, in that there will not be a British judge or British Advocate-General. What we want to know is how we will plug into what the Prime Minister asked for in Munich: to have respect for the sovereignty of the UK’s legal order—the Minister really emphasised only that—but also respect for the remit of the ECJ, at least when participating in agencies. That raises the question: will we also respect the remit of the ECJ when it rules on the individual rights of people who challenge, for instance, a European arrest warrant? We have no answer to that question but the people who are nationals of those countries will want to know exactly what the jurisdictional regime is. I am afraid we are no closer to knowing that. As my noble friend Lord Paddick said, however, we do have clear negotiating objectives in this area—this is perhaps unique in Brexit—as the Prime Minister has set them out and the Minister has just confirmed them. What we are utterly in the dark about is how the Government propose to secure the arrangements, structures and mechanisms for continuing effective and efficient cross-border law enforcement co-operation.

The Minister said that we will have a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, which is supposed to give us an opportunity to scrutinise at the end of the process, and hence that this amendment is not needed. But that is not enough; we want a purchase and input into those negotiating objectives. The Prime Minister makes a speech in Munich and tells us, “These are the objectives”, but the Government do not deign to tell us how on earth those objectives are to be secured. Like me, the Minister is a veteran of the European Parliament. We found there that the European Commission, the member states and the Council learned the hard way that unless you bring the European Parliament, in that case, into your confidence about your negotiating objectives and how you are going to secure them, the danger is that at the end of the process the deal will be rejected because it has not been kept informed along the way. The lesson in Brussels was to front-load the process by keeping the people who might be in a position to block the deal informed of how it was to be secured.

I am afraid the Minister did not convince me, at least, that we are any further forward than we were with the future partnership paper, because that paper did not set out how we are to achieve these objectives. It said what the Government wanted to achieve. That has been repeated by the Prime Minister and the Minister, but we are none the wiser about how these measures will be replicated when we no longer have the structures and mechanisms of the EU. I fear that we will have to come back to this in all seriousness at future stages but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Minister!

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

This side!

[Baroness Ludford]

There are several more speakers, I am afraid, including me.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in briefly supporting those amendments that seek to retain the charter, I owe your Lordships an apology. I ought to have declared that I am a member of the advisory board of the British Institute of Human Rights at Second Reading, but I forgot.

I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully submit that law is not primarily for lawyers, any more than water is for water engineers—it is for people to implement the central values of our democracy on their behalf, and the deprivation of rights and access to justice causes harm, unfair poverty, unfair unhappiness and, in some cases, unjustly shorter lives. That is the sort of thing we should be thinking of when we look at these amendments.

I shall just give three quick examples, much humbler than those of Mr David Davis. The general principles and the charter ensured that Mr John Walker could challenge and end pension inequality for same-sex couples. The charter and the general principles supported the recent case in the Supreme Court, which found employment tribunal fees implemented by the Government were unlawful. And the charter enabled the recognition of the importance of health as a fundamental right—not in our law—when tobacco companies challenged regulations to introduce plain packaging of cigarettes.

It seems extremely clear that dropping the charter will do away with protective rights and drop safeguards that have ensured justice in individual cases of injustice. It is individuals who we ought to be thinking about, and rights that would not otherwise exist that we ought to safeguard in the charter.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, the Benches opposite have been well filled to harry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about fundamental rights. Sadly, they were not here for the previous debate to speak up for achieving a fundamental right to safety and security.

I fear that parts of this debate have displayed a fundamental misunderstanding about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. There has been evidence of some quite muddled thinking. The charter is not a tool that extends the remit of EU law or promotes further integration; it protects citizens and businesses from abuse of the powers that EU laws confer on EU institutions and—I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—on national Governments when they are implementing EU laws. So it is not just about all the EU institutions that we might leave; it is about achieving legal certainty and continuity. Deleting the charter means discontinuity by making substantive changes to the EU law that is retained in domestic law.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

I accept that, but the Minister is assuming that legislation is always very neatly compartmentalised in a way which would allow that. My fear is that there will be enabling parts of legislation that could be caught up because some subsection could be EU related.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Could I just follow on from that by expressing a related concern? We know what the Government’s attitude is to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and we know that the Bill provides that there is no right of action on the basis of general principles of EU law. I am thinking aloud here, but the concern might be that even with only a strict and narrow interpretation of which bits of, say, the Equality Act are EU derived and therefore subject to all the consequences, including Clause 6, we might miss some of the context in which those narrow provisions should be interpreted if we were to remain in the EU and fully under the jurisdiction of the court.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not sure I agree with that proposition. But of course, at the end of the day, pursuant to Clause 7, it will be necessary to bring forward regulations which address amendments that are required in regards to retained EU law. At that point of course, those regulations will be the subject of scrutiny to ensure that they are limited to those aspects which are EU-derived law and therefore EU retained law. I do not believe that that is necessarily a problem, but I hear what the noble Baroness has said. We will of course take into consideration any difficulties that could arise in that context.

I wish to add one further point that I meant to make at the outset in response to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He referred to me as the Advocate-General. I am not appearing here as a law officer, and nothing I say should be construed as law officer advice. I am appearing here as a Minister in respect of the Bill. I would not want there to be any misunderstanding in the light of his reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

Does my noble and learned friend agree that my noble friend Lady McIntosh has raised an issue that probably should not be answered in this way, but provides a difficulty for the Government that would be overcome if they said, when they had agreed and supported a particular decision, that they would then carry it out in whatever way they thought was the most sensible? That means that we can go on discussing and not be left in some sort of oblivion.

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the noble and learned Lord answers that point, I add a further complication. Whether we agree to a directive or not, if it was adopted by qualified majority voting it would still be adopted with an obligation for the UK to implement it. That does not quite solve the issue. What is raised is surely a very valid issue. It may not strictly come within the definitions in the Bill, but there is still a legal obligation if a directive has been adopted at EU level, whether we agree to it or not.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The legal obligation would cease on Brexit day. That is the situation. Unless something has been implemented by that time it is not strictly part of our law. On deciding what is to happen in the future, as far as I am concerned, there is enough to decide at the moment, but nothing will harm the Government if they give some indication of what they would do with instruments that have been adopted but not yet implemented, although, at the date of Brexit, we were obliged to adopt them on some future date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to all sides of the Committee for their contributions to this part of the debate, which began with an amendment concerning directives. I was not initially taken with the use of the word “fuzzy” by my noble friend Lord Deben but the term has begun to gain traction as the debate has continued. Let us try to be clear about one or two issues. The Bill seeks, for very clear reasons, to take a snapshot of EU law as it applies immediately before exit day. That is the cut-off point. Regulations emerging from the EU have direct effect on the domestic law of member states, so regulations that have taken direct effect by the exit date will be part of retained EU law. There is really no difficulty about that whatever.

[Baroness Ludford]

Nobody, I think, has questioned that. We are talking about directives.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That is what we began talking about but the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for example, has referred to regulations. I will come on to address the point she made, but regulations have direct effect and if a regulation has direct effect by exit day it will form part of retained EU law. Directives have no direct effect in the domestic law of a member state. Directives have to be the subject of implementation and in that regard a transition period is given to member states for the implementation of a directive. There may be directives that have been adopted prior to the exit date which have a transitional period that will expire by the exit date specified in the Bill. In that event, the Government have indicated that they will seek to implement those directives that require implementation by a transitional date before the exit date. Therefore, they will become part of retained EU law because they will have been implemented in our domestic law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No, that would not be covered, because in those circumstances there would have been no crystallisation of the direct right prior to the exit date. That is our position with regard to that point—but I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his acknowledgment that we are answering questions as they are posed. I was rather hoping that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern might actually come forward to the Front Bench and allow me to retire to the second tier in order that this matter could be dealt with even more cogently than I am able to do.

I return for just a moment to the actual amendment. I have sought to emphasise—clearly, I hope—why the amendment is not appropriate in the present context. It would simply take away from one of the principal purposes of the Bill, which is to determine that there is an exit date—a cut-off point—when we will determine the scope of our own domestic law. I can quite understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about emerging provisions in the EU that have been worked on for many years and that would bring about appropriate and attractive standards for various aspects of our life in the United Kingdom—but, of course, it would be perfectly open to this Parliament to decide, in light of what has already been agreed in Europe, that it would be appropriate to have these standards in our domestic law, and we will have the means to do that. It is just that they will not form part of retained EU law for the purposes of this Bill.

On the noble Baroness’s amendment, I respectfully suggest that the mechanism that she has put forward—that you somehow retain the ECA for some purpose after it has been repealed—simply would not work. I appreciate that this is Committee, and we are actually looking at the underlying purpose of the proposed amendment and therefore have to consider whether we find that attractive and then look for a way to make it work. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to notice that the actual mechanism proposed in the amendment would not work.

I hope that I have addressed most of the points raised by noble Lords, but I agree with the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with regard to what this Bill is attempting to achieve. It is attempting to achieve certainty as to the scope of our domestic law at exit date. That is its purpose, and we must keep that in mind.

[Baroness Ludford]

Will the Minister take another look at Clause 4(2)(b), which is a double negative? It talks about rights that are,

“not of a kind recognised”,

by the European Court or any UK court. When he was talking earlier about a directive that had direct effect, I think I recall him saying that it would have had to be recognised by a court decision as having direct effect—but the wording of Clause 4(2)(b) suggests a direct effect if it is “of a kind” that has been recognised by the European Court or a UK court. He might not be able to reply immediately but perhaps, when we come to Clause 4, he could look back at what he said today on directives with direct effect and be sure that there is a logical fitting together with Clause 4(2)(b).

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In my submission, it fits entirely with what is said in Clause 4(2)(b) and is consistent with that. It points to the necessity of there having been a recognition by the European Court or a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom for those purposes. It may be that the noble Baroness will want to take issue in due course with the use of the word “kind”, and no doubt we will come to that when we consider amendments to Clause 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I invite her to agree with me that the fears that she raises are not fanciful. Indeed, the reason the Brexit Secretary had to make his speech was that we have on record numerous statements by Conservative politicians who are now Ministers expressing a desire to deregulate. I quoted one from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the other day. In 2012, Liam Fox said:

“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden. It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable”.


That is on the record, and I have lots of other quotes in a similar vein.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, three pretty clear themes are emerging around the House. First, you should be able to use the subordinate legislation to change EU retained law only where it is necessary to make EU retained law work. Secondly, it should affect only technical matters; and thirdly, it should not take away any individual’s rights. So there are three requirements: it must be necessary to make it work, affect only technical matters and not take away anybody’s rights. The argument for being allowed to go further has not been made anywhere, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister say why those three principles should not apply to every piece of subordinate legislation under the Act. If the Government want to go further, primary legislation should be used. Unless there is a case for going further, this Act should be appropriately limited.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Krebs]

The Minister has just said that it would be inappropriate to rectify omissions or incorrect translations. But if the overall aim of the Bill is to move what is currently governed by the EU into UK law and, as it happens, maybe by accident or some other reason, we have made a mistake in the past, surely it would be right within the overall aims of the Bill to rectify errors in the translation, rather than to say, “We made a mistake in the past so we will persist with the mistake”. I just do not understand the logic of not wanting to rectify mistakes.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I repeat something that I have raised in the Chamber before and about which I had correspondence with a Minister? The European Investigation Order, one of the directives cited by the Prime Minister in her Munich speech that she wants us to stay part of, was transposed at the end of last year into UK law, but incorrectly. It is like a European arrest warrant, but for evidence. Instead of saying that it could be opposed on the grounds that it breaches the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is what the directive says—I know, because I was one of the MEPs who battled to get that in—it says that it could be refused if it breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, which is not an EU measure. That has therefore not been transposed correctly. What is the status after exit day? Can someone challenge an EIO on the grounds that it breaches the charter, or only on the grounds that it breaches the convention?

[Baroness Goldie]

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we must go back to the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is that we have to have a cut-off point and beyond that point, law-making will revert to the United Kingdom. If there are corrections or incompletions or other matters that we are required to address, we can do that through domestic legislation. That is what any Government of any complexion would want to do. The matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, might take years to emerge. Therefore, it would be essential for Governments to pay attention to whatever was emerging, some of which might be de minimis. We do not know, but my argument is that this would confuse and cause difficulty about understanding what our law is and certainly where it is coming from.

I was going on to say in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that there is a lack of clarity regarding when exactly Ministers would have the duty to make such regulations under this amendment. Is it intended that all the instruments that currently give effect to EU directives should be reviewed so that such regulations could be repaired? Such a review would have considerable resource implications for both the Government and Parliament, and that should not be underestimated. Furthermore, it would be unnecessary: as I have already mentioned, while the UK has been a member of the EU, we have sought fully to meet our obligations and give effect to EU law in accordance with them. In the case of implementing directives, we have conscientiously discharged our obligations. To require potentially a proactive review exercise, as the noble Lord’s amendment could require, is, in my submission, pointless.

I have tried to address the concerns and issues raised; I believe the effect of these amendments would be profound, undermining the Government’s clear and coherent position on retained EU law. I hope I have explained in sufficient detail why the current design of Clause 4 is right and appropriate, and I would therefore ask both noble Lords not to press their amendments.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that this is the first time I have spoken during the passage of the Bill: I was unavoidably out of the country when it received its Second Reading. My contribution, if I had been able to make one then, would have touched on the vital area of the implications of Brexit for family law.

I understand that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, these are probing amendments, but I find myself in disagreement with the noble Baronesses who have tabled Amendments 29, 53 and 336. This is generally not the case: indeed, I and other noble Lords are aware of their very strong track record in championing families in general and family justice in particular. However, under their amendments the UK would either remain entirely subject to EU law in the family law context or enter into some bespoke arrangement—such an arrangement does not exist presently between the EU and any other non-EU member state—which would lead to the same outcome.

Reciprocal arrangements are possible only by being subject to EU laws. The UK government position in the withdrawal legislation is that EU laws on the day we leave the EU will become part of UK national law, but not that we will be bound to those laws on an ongoing reciprocal basis, whether in the short term or for eight years or more. As far as I am aware, this is not being proposed in any other area of UK law. I understand and share the concern for children and families that drives many of those tabling these amendments. However, if accepted, they would lead to a situation in which, in effect, the UK had not left the EU. I will look in turn at Amendments 29, 53 and 336.

Amendment 29 would bind the Government to publish a report on the maintenance of rights in family law within six months of the Act being passed. If that event takes place in June 2018, two years after the referendum, this proposed new clause would take us to late 2018 and a matter of months before we leave the EU. Obviously, the Government need not take the full time, but it is worth saying that there have already been many meetings and consultations: I am aware of an early round with international lawyers and the Ministry of Justice as early as October 2016, with responses requested by the MoJ by November 2016 so it could report to DExEU.

A major family law conference was held by Cambridge University in March 2017 with academics, practitioners and policy advisers from across the UK and some EU nations, again with civil servants in attendance to report back. A couple of other conferences were held last spring. Then over the autumn, I know there were direct meetings between practitioners and civil servants about these issues, including the proposal that we should remain part of EU family law after we leave the EU. These meetings continued throughout the latter part of 2017 and, no doubt, are still ongoing.

Noble Lords will be aware that just before Christmas there was a debate here on the European Union Justice Sub-Committee’s report on civil law matters. Allowing another six months would unnecessarily extend what has already been a long consultation process. Nothing has been said by any government department to hint that the UK Government will contemplate such a dramatic change to the withdrawal legislation that we will continue to be a direct party to EU legislation in one distinctive area of law.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way; I was anxious to ask him this before he sat down. I respect his professed commitment to the rights of families and children, but he appears to be saying that a rather ideological commitment to escape the jurisdiction of the European court and the other enforcement mechanisms should prevail above the needs of divorcing people and especially children who need maintenance obligation enforced and who may have been the subject of abduction. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said—as a judge, she has vast experience in this area—it was much easier once EU law provisions came into force than under the international conventions. Can the noble Lord honestly tell me that he could look children in the eye and say it is better to be outside the reciprocal EU arrangements?

[Lord Farmer]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I believe it will be better in the long run. We have mentioned the Hague convention. There are many experts; Professor Paul Beaumont, for instance, is a leading expert, who has said at international conferences that in his opinion the Hague alternatives will be perfectly adequate and satisfactory on our leaving the EU.

Moreover, the amendment anticipates a report on steps taken to negotiate continued reciprocal arrangements—that is, effectively, continued membership of EU family law. This position has not been adopted in any other area of law, as far as I am aware, and is not supported by organisations such as the Law Society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I cannot say that agreements are being reached at this time because we are only setting out on the process of negotiation with regard to the future partnership; I cannot take that any further at this stage. However, our position is that family law co-operation is critically important, and it is no different from our general position with regard to civil co-operation.

I would acknowledge that the development of Brussels IIa is an improvement on the Hague conventions, and indeed I believe that some would acknowledge that it is an improvement on the terms of the Lugano convention in this regard as well. The terms have been refined and developed, and it may be that there will be a further negotiation and conclusion over Brussels IIa—what might be termed as Brussels IIb, I suppose—which may well occur after Brexit. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that we have reasonable alignment and therefore the basis for reciprocity, we will want to take into consideration such developments in the law.

Let us be clear: generally speaking, these developments take place for all the best reasons. They are developments that reflect improvements, so why would we turn our face away from improvements in the law on the reciprocal enforcement of family law matters related to maintenance, divorce and child abduction? We have no cause or reason to do so and of course we are going to embrace these matters.

I appreciate that the amendments in this group are probing in nature, but I shall try to address some of the specific details. The report called for in the first amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would require the Government to publish details of how rights in EU family law operate in domestic law as well as key details of the negotiations within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. With great respect, that is an arbitrary deadline which makes no reference to the position of the negotiations at that stage or the other documents that the Government will be publishing on the subject. These documents include not only any final agreement reached in the negotiations regarding continuing judicial co-operation on family law, but also the explanatory material that Ministers will publish when they exercise their key Bill powers to amend retained EU law. That will include retained EU family law. So, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, any agreement between the UK and the EU will be detailed clearly within the withdrawal agreement and domestically legislated for in the upcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation period Bill, which Parliament will have a full opportunity to scrutinise. However, I have to say that it does not arise in the context of this Bill.

The next amendment concerns the jurisdiction of the CJEU. We will discuss that in more detail when we come to debate Clause 6, so I will not take up a great deal of time although I want to make a couple of points. First, it is not necessary for the UK to be subject, unilaterally, to CJEU jurisdiction to secure a reciprocal agreement in this field any more than it is a requirement of the signatories to the Lugano convention to secure agreement with Brussels regarding family law matters. There are a number of existing precedents: not just Lugano, but the Hague convention as well. As I have indicated, the jurisdiction of the CJEU is sometimes either exaggerated or misunderstood in this context. In the EU, it is of course the final arbiter of the construction and application of EU instruments, but that does not mean that we have to embrace the CJEU’s jurisdiction to have a suitable partnership agreement with the 27 members of the EU.

[Baroness Ludford]

In his lengthy reply, the Minister appears to perpetuate some of the misunderstanding that underlay the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, which is that somehow if you mirror the laws of the EU 27 and start from the same position, you do not need the rest of what Commission jargon calls the ecosystem—in other words, the common rules and the enforcement of institutional and supervisory mechanisms. Surely that is the difference between the EU context and the Hague and Lugano conventions, and accounts for the difference between having regard to and mutually recognising and enforcing judgments. It is part of a complex of arrangements. There is a qualitative difference between the international arrangements and the EU arrangements, which does not seem to come through in the Minister’s response.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, neither I nor the Prime Minister misunderstood any of that. With great respect, I want to correct the noble Baroness on one point: that ecosystem is simply not required for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments by two separate jurisdictions. That happens between the countries of the Lugano convention and countries in the EU in any event. I am talking about starting from the same point, with common rules regarding judicial recognition and enforcement, and moving from there to the negotiation of a new partnership. We do not foresee the sort of difficulty that the noble Baroness alludes to in that context.

At this stage, I want to come back to the point I was seeking to make. First, it is not necessary for the UK to subject itself unilaterally to the CJEU’s jurisdiction to secure a reciprocal agreement. Many other countries do that. Secondly, in any event, the Government have been clear throughout debate on the Bill that it is in no way designed to legislate for any future agreement between the UK and the EU. That is not the purpose of the Bill. We cannot unilaterally legislate for our future relationship with the EU simply by including in our domestic legislation certain provisions about recognition of family law, maintenance and other agreements—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, readily acknowledged at the outset of her opening remarks some considerable time ago.

I understand that the intention behind Amendment 120 is to make sure that there can be continued application of international agreements, such as the Hague 2007 maintenance convention, which the UK currently operates by virtue of its membership of the EU. Of course, we are intent on doing that; as I noted earlier, we understand that there is a potential three-month gap there, which we need to address. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are clearly intent on securing an agreement, albeit not as an EU member and not subject to the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU, which ensures that we can maintain the highest standards of family law and mutual recognition, whether it be jurisdiction, choice of law or enforcement. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have my name to Amendments 37 and 70, and declare my interest as a trustee of the charity, Coram. I remind the Minister that it is the hereditary oik from the Cross Benches here again for the second time—good evening.

There appears to be broad agreement that it would be disappointing and unfortunate if we inadvertently managed to let children’s rights slip as a result of our anything-but-straightforward and frictionless departure from the EU. The United Kingdom has often played a prominent role in developing global human rights frameworks, and I sincerely hope that the Government intend that we should continue to do so in the hereafter.

Many of us have taken on board the distaste which many on the pro-leave side feel for the charter. Indeed, I have watched online a video of the Minister lamenting the United Kingdom being told to make prisoners have the vote and to allow some individuals involved in terrorism to be given greater human rights than he thought was entirely appropriate. The European Scrutiny Committee of another place in 2014 described the charter as creating a state of confusion.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I think I heard the noble Lord refer to prisoners’ votes. That was the judgment of the Strasbourg court about the European Convention on Human Rights; it was nothing to do with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In any case, the way in which it has been demonised is wrong, because it said only, “Please have a scheme”, and not, “All prisoners must vote”.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. All I would say is that the discussion I heard was framed in the context of the European charter of human rights, probably incorrectly.

[Baroness Ludford]

Very incorrectly.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

That committee was chaired by Sir William Cash and included a certain Member for the 18th century, Mr Rees-Mogg, so I think that we can conclude that it was clearly completely impartial. We have got the message.

The question that we are posing to the Government, in response to a wide range of representations which many of us have had, is whether they will honour their commitment to defend the rights of children as we come through this process.

I mentioned at Second Reading that scrutinising and discussing this Bill in a non-partisan and apolitical way might be helpful, so I have a specific question for the Minister: does he have a twin brother or a doppelganger? Can he be same person who on 30 January was responsible for writing two articles? One of them appeared on the ConservativeHome website and said:

“From the beginning we have been clear that we need—and indeed want—to adopt a collaborative approach and listen to the views of Parliamentarians from all sides of the House. The necessity and sheer scope of this legislation means that thorough debate and examination is more important than ever. We took this approach in the House of Commons and we will continue to do so in the Lords … The House of Lords has a well-deserved reputation for its detailed and thorough scrutiny. This Bill should be no exception—it will benefit from the forensic examination the Lords can bring and we look forward to that razor-sharp review”.


On the same day, in the Sun newspaper, he wrote:

“We are seeing a co-ordinated push by the defeated elites; the Europhiles will use their majority in the Lords—a majority that rests heavily on quangocrats and busybodies, some of them in receipt of fat Brussels pensions”—


which possibly includes Members of the European Parliament—and:

“For the Lords to overturn a result supported by more British voters than anything else in history would be outrageous”.


He described some of your Lordships as scheming Peers who want an anti-democratic coup. So I have two more questions for the Minister; could he share with us what he had for breakfast the day he wrote those two reports, because I shall try to avoid eating the same? Secondly, did he ever consider a career in the Foreign Office?

Let us please forget the unending politics and focus on the children, whose voice and interests have hardly been top of mind as a rather unseemly procession of opinionated individuals compete for media airtime and attention. I recall noble Lords to the fact that I am speaking to Amendments 37 and 70. Amendment 37 aims to bring into domestic law the parts of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law that are necessary to protect children’s rights. I appreciate that we are not going to bring the charter overall into our law; however, it has some very important provisions: the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions, children’s views may be expressed and shall be taken into consideration, and children have a right to maintain a personal relationship with both their parents unless that is contrary to their interests. It contains other articles, as other noble Lords have mentioned, including on education and the prohibition of slave labour—the Minister will be aware that our Prime Minister has a particular interest in anything to do with child slavery.

Amendment 70 goes about achieving the same end in a different way. The UNCRC is viewed by most of us as the gold standard. The Government have stated that the source of the rights of the child set out in Article 24 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights stem from the UNCRC, but as others have mentioned, it is not incorporated into domestic law. We share the concerns outlined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report, Legislative Scrutiny: The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: A Right by Right Analysis. There are several examples of where the UNCRC and the charter have fundamentally helped where there are gaps in our own law. Among these are cross-border family breakdown; the right to be forgotten and data protection; and where 17 year-olds, who are still children under the law, are arrested and treated as if they are adults, which is against the law.

I believe that we must protect the hard-won protections of children and ensure that they are not inadvertently lost. I also support Amendments 68, 69 and 97, all of which are simply trying to probe the Government, to understand how they see the way forward. What all of us are saying is that, however we go forward, we must ensure that in no way, shape or form are the rights and protections of children in any way impaired.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I hope I can put the noble Lord’s mind at rest.

It is important that we recognise how these functional rights are developed and ongoing. The day after Brexit, our rulebook will be safe. The rights which we have will be incorporated and we will build on them as a foundation. They are not a ceiling. It is right and proper that both this Chamber and the other place are instrumental in taking forward the enhancement of these rights. We have to recognise that over the past 30 years our understanding of what is a necessary family right has entirely evolved. As the vice-chair of the LGBTI group in the European Parliament, I recognised how far we could push things within the European Parliament, but I was very clear about how far we could not push them within the European Parliament because of the inability of certain member states to move forward with us. In that regard, in terms of equalities, on not one occasion have we ranked lower than third in the whole of the EU—indeed, in the whole of the continent of Europe. We have pushed forward those rights far faster, deeper and more surely than many of the other member states, so we should not lightly shake them off. We will remain what we have been, I hope, all the way through: a deliverer of these rights, not just on paper, because that is not a functional right, but in functioning and working in the workplace and elsewhere. It is absolutely right that we do so.

In response to a number of the questions raised, I am conscious that there is unease and a certain regard that the Government today will take the first opportunity to cast these rights aside, to scrape the barnacles off the boat to allow the ship to move faster. I assure the Committee that they are integral parts of the engine of the ship and we shall not be discarding them. That is how important they shall remain.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

If that is the case, and we are all very impressed by this unexpected and thorough assurance from the Minister on behalf of the Government, why can he not accept some amendments in this area and some others to put that in the Bill?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Baroness makes an interesting point as to why people have not been able to hear these points, but I am iterating what the Prime Minister, and a number of other Ministers in the Government, have said as regards this, and am pleased if I have been able to cut through some of the hubbub that has surrounded it. We are and remain a Government committed to ensuring that on day one after Brexit there is no diminution whatever in the rights which are and have been enjoyed through our membership of the EU. It is important to stress that. I hope I have been able to give noble Lords some reassurances this evening and some confidence that they will be able to set aside these amendments on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith]

Leaving aside Article 191—we can argue about that and there is a decision that appears to demonstrate the point: the case of Artegodan, where the court appeared to be willing to extrapolate from the precautionary principle a general principle of EU law—does the Minister accept that, so far as the other general principles of EU law are concerned, to exclude them from the ability to found a cause of action and not just be an interpretative tool would be a diminution of the rights that people currently have and would include a diminution of many of the rights that the Government are saying are already protected under English law?

[Baroness Ludford]

So that the Minister does not have to bob up and down, may I also ask him a question? He talked about our approach in this Bill. That leads me to reflect on how far the approach in this Bill fits, for instance, the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, in which she envisaged not only strong commitments in the area of trading goods but binding commitments in competition law. The noble and learned Lord talked earlier about how there would be EU law and then retained EU law in this country, the interpretation of which could diverge. How will the Prime Minister’s commitment to binding commitments in some areas to stay fully aligned with EU law be reflected in this construction of the Bill? If we diverge, would we then have to have domestic legislation to bring us back on track with the EU?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[The Earl of Clancarty]

I am not sure that is the case at all. It is very likely that visas will be introduced.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

It may well be that we benefit from a visa waiver but it is also likely that we will have to apply for what is often called a “visa lite”, which similar to the United States’ ESTA. The EU is bringing in something called ETIAS and for most people it will not amount to a big difference: you have to go online, pay a fee and answer lots of questions about health, criminal background and so on. We may not require a visa but we will need a “visa lite”, so it will not be hassle-free.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

Absolutely. Whatever happens, we will be at a disadvantage to everyone else in Europe and that is really significant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 202, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, who is unfortunately unable to attend because of illness. It is also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Before going on, I fully agree with what has been said in this debate about the need to retain EU citizenship for us all, and about the hypocrisy of some of those who supported and continue to support leave, but who have somehow managed to acquire a passport of an EU member state, such as Malta. That enables them to continue enjoying the benefits which they are quite happy to deprive the rest of us of.

Amendment 202 calls on the Government,

“to maintain, preserve and protect the rights of”,

EU citizens in the UK. I therefore very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the fact that that has not been done. We are seeking a guarantee that existing rights will remain unchanged. The Government have had the opportunity in the last 21 months to give a unilateral guarantee that existing rights would be retained. They were invited to do so by the EU Select Committee, in a report produced under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—I had the pleasure to serve on that sub-committee—but have not done so. They also had the opportunity to try to ring-fence the discussion about citizens’ rights from all the other matters being discussed within the withdrawal agreements but, unfortunately, they have not done that.

EU citizens resident in this country and British citizens resident in the EU 27 have indeed been used as bargaining chips. That has led to great distress for many of the 5 million affected citizens, who live in a state of anxiety and limbo that was not helped by the words of the Prime Minister in her speech to the Conservative Party in October 2016 about “citizens of nowhere”. She has now resiled from that kind of terminology, but unfortunately the damage has been done in that the tone is somehow one of, “You do not belong here if you have multiple allegiances. It is not good enough to be a contributing and responsible person in this country”. The Government still have a chance to offer unilateral guarantees and I invite the Minister to tell us today that he is going to ignore the mire into which all of this has become embroiled and just give a straightforward guarantee.

Many ambiguities and gaps still exist in the current state of play over the discussions about settled status. Some of the issues are being taken up in correspondence with Home Office Ministers on the part of the EU Select Committee. The problem is that settled status is not the retention of the same rights and protections that EU law currently confers on people; it is based on UK immigration law and has all the features of that law, including the hostile environment that is currently being created. People will have to apply for settled status. It will not just be a question of carryover or cut and paste—they will have to apply. Apparently, the Home Office expects the vast majority of cases to be granted, although that begs the question of which ones will not be granted to people who are currently resident here.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Will the noble Baroness explain how we could possibly deal with several million people unless we invite them to apply?

[Baroness Ludford]

There could be a simple declaratory process. If any parliamentarians in this Chamber have ever had to deal with the Home Office on behalf of one of their constituents, as I did when I was an MEP, they will know what a happy—or otherwise—process that is. Something simple and declaratory such as going to the local town hall could be worked out. It should be light touch: a declaration of existing residence. That is quite different from having to apply to the Home Office.

The fear has been expressed on behalf of the group, the 3 million, that perhaps around 10% of people might fall through the cracks because their application is rejected or because they do not apply. Some people are not very aware of what is going on in the law or they do not have access to computers and so on. There is no legal presumption in favour of granting settled status to all residents who are legally living here before exit day, which begs another question. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us what exactly is going to happen to those people who arrive during the transition period. That, of course, is something the Prime Minister has conceded, in that they will have a status, but it is slightly unclear how it is going to work.

There has also been no clarification of the continuation of all the individual economic rights and recognition of qualifications that EU citizens currently enjoy and, as I have said, no guarantee that the registration will be simple and light touch. There is supposed to be a digital application system. Can the Minister tell us exactly where we are in the construction of that system? We all know that IT projects, in particular Home Office IT projects, have a habit of becoming problematic. Moreover, the backstop to all this is that the European Parliament will have to approve the withdrawal agreement, including the conditions for EU citizens. I note that Mr Verhofstadt tweeted yesterday,

“the European Parliament expects a cost free and burden free registration process”.

It wants to ensure that there is no discrimination between EU citizens and British citizens, which of course raises the question: are the Government planning to introduce ID cards by the back door in order to say that we are all being treated the same?

There are many holes and gaps that the Home Office is still unable to answer questions on. I do not have time to cover them all but I would like to ask about comprehensive sickness insurance—the requirement that people have private medical insurance—because very mixed messages are being given about it. The position of the European Commission has always been that if people are allowed to use the NHS, that amounts to comprehensive sickness insurance under the directive. It started legal action but that has apparently not progressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I am very puzzled as to how any of this is relevant to the Bill we are discussing. Does the noble Baroness not understand that this kind of stuff, which is being repeated time and again, is actually doing more harm than good? It is raising issues for people who do not face them. It is quite clear that the maximum is being done to help people qualify for residence in the UK. We could not do more than we have done. Frankly, this is just making trouble.

[Baroness Ludford]

It is highly relevant to whether people are being guaranteed their existing rights to legally reside in this country. I am quite surprised that the noble Lord thinks it is not relevant to an amendment that is about maintaining and guaranteeing the existing rights of EU citizens. The confusion is caused by the Home Office’s lack of clarity, not by me.

I end on that note. I would like some answers from the Minister to these detailed questions and many others.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make two short points. The first is that the precedent of giving rights in other countries when there is a separation is set up very well by the arrangements between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland in relation to Irish citizens and their rights in our country, which are guaranteed by statute in a number of cases.

Secondly, on the idea that we have to refer all these matters to the European court, anyone who reads the judgments of our courts from day to day will realise that the fairness they exhibit towards foreign citizens is of the highest possible standard. I know of no country in the world and no court in the world that succeeds in getting a higher standard; there are others that have an equally high standard, but I know of none that has a higher one. It would be a most retrograde step for this House to do anything that suggested to people in Europe that they could not get justice from the courts of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My noble and learned friend is talking in the context of this being an international treaty that has to be transposed into UK law, but surely the amendment addresses the issue of the supremacy of European Union law, which citizens of the EU currently rely on when they live in this country. I thought that the purpose of the amendment was to make sure that those rights continued to exist and would be clarified. That is all that we asking in the Committee today.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords—

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With great respect to the noble Baroness, I think that I must respond to my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

Again, that argument rather misses the point, because what we have at the moment is a belief on the basis of the joint report that rights of EU citizens in the UK may be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union after Brexit, but that is not finalised; it is not yet contained in an international treaty agreement.

[Baroness Ludford]

We have always understood that we cannot unilaterally guarantee in the context of what is now happening an agreement of two parties. What was said from the very beginning, immediately after the referendum, was, “Give a unilateral guarantee and then we can with almost 100% certainty expect full reciprocity”. That was always what was suggested.

[A noble Lord]

Ha!

[Baroness Ludford]

Yes, I would say to the sedentary noble Lord.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Baroness—who I think invited me to drop all the mire; I am not sure what I am supposed to do about that—the expectation of reciprocity is something that we hope to achieve during the negotiation, and that is ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for making that point. I would add only that I spoke as a Minister of this Government in expressing that view, because I spoke from the Dispatch Box when I made it clear. I can refer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to Hansard in regard to that point. Of course, the origins of the remark may not have had quite the impact that it could otherwise have had if coming from another source—I do not seek to elaborate on that point.

Sometimes it comes ill to counsel to listen rather than to speak, but this is an occasion when it is entirely appropriate for me and for the Government to listen to what has been said. I am extremely grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords with regard to the formulation of Clause 6(2). I refer to the formulation of the clause because I believe we have a common desire to ensure that we give appropriate, effective and clear guidance, in so far as it is required, to the judiciary regarding what is a relatively complex issue. Of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out that in the normal way one might delete Clause 6(2) and allow the courts to deal with this as they deal with other matters of comparative law, but he went on to point out—quite correctly, I submit—that here we are dealing with a very particular situation where guidance may be needed. I am conscious of the way in which the various amendments have evolved.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, also referred to Clause 6(4) and the issue of whether and when the Supreme Court might decide whether to adhere to precedents in this context. I bow to the far greater experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope, who sat in the UK Supreme Court. My limited experience is that, where I attempted to persuade them to adhere or not to adhere to a particular precedent, they had no difficulty in making their own minds up.

Be that as it may, I recognise the force of the points that have been made. They have come from beyond this House as well because, as noble Lords will be aware, the Constitution Committee also made some recommendations about this. Indeed, its early recommendation in March 2017 was,

“the Government may wish to consider whether the Bill should provide that, as a general rule, UK courts ‘may have regard to’ the case law of the Court of Justice (and we stress that it should be optional)”.

Indeed, we were having regard to that as we looked at Clause 6(2).

A point was made about the distinction between “may” and “must” in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It occurs to me that, where he uses “must”, he goes on in his amendment at (2C) to qualify the context in which that word is used, and there may not be a vast gulf between “may” and “must” in the context of the two amendments that have been tabled. Of course, that which was recommended by the Law Society of Scotland has the merit of some simplicity and embraces the same point.

At this stage I would add only that the Bingham Centre looked at the current recommendations of the Constitution Committee that lie behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and raised concerns about a number of aspects of the formulation put forward by the committee. However, I make it clear that we greatly appreciate the contributions that have been made to this part of the Committee’s debate. We will go away and consider the various formulations, and I believe it would be sensible for the Government to engage with various interested parties once we have come to a view about how we can properly express what we all understand is necessary policy guidance in the context of this exceptional step. Against that background, I invite noble Lords to consider not pressing their amendments at this stage.

[Baroness Ludford]

I know I will not be popular by holding things up, but the Minister was specifically asked if he could explain the reference to,

“another EU entity or the EU”,

in Clause 6(2). I do not know whether he feels he could do that. Does it have any reference to the European Commission? The Prime Minister said we would have a binding commitment to follow EU state aid and competition law, and I wondered if it had any relevance in that context.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not going to elaborate at this stage because, as I say, the Government are going to go away and consider the proposals for an amendment to Clause 6(2).

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 82, which itself is amended—or, in truth, corrected—by Amendment 82A.

Amendment 80 is pretty simple and is very much in line with the amendments we have debated today, which aim to restrict the very wide powers that Ministers—be they Minister number 1 or number 109 —have dreamed up for themselves in this Bill. The amendment would remove from Ministers the discretion to extend the definition of what constitutes a deficiency in retained law. That is important, given that Ministers have taken considerable powers to correct what they consider to be deficiencies. So it would be a two-way gain for Ministers: first, they could extend what they define as a deficiency and then they could use their powers to correct it.

The main thrust of Amendment 82 is to prevent secondary legislation under Clause 7 from being able to change the Equality Act 2010 or subordinate legislation made under that Act, or, indeed, later legislation, as in Amendment 82A. Again, it is about not reducing the rights and remedies that are available under EU retained law. While we were drafting Amendment 82 we also put in wording to restrict the ability under Clause 7 to impose taxes, fees, charges and to create quangos or introduce new criminal offences under secondary legislation. However, as I have alerted the Minister, we will not deal with that at this point because three separate groups are coming up and we will discuss the issue of criminal offences and fees later. The important thing for now is not allowing Ministers to extend the definition of deficiency or to use the regulations under Clause 7 to change the Equality Act and the subordinate legislation that flows from it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I cannot speak for her, but my remarks will also encompass Amendment 80A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles who, as the Committee will appreciate, is not in a fit state to speak to her amendment, although it relates to Clause 7(3).

Clause 7(3) is rather strange. It was inserted by the Government on Report in the other place. I am trying to resist the word “sneaky”, but the Government gave with one hand and took with another. On 16 January, David Lidington said in the other place:

“The Government remain of the view that the power in clause 7(1) is crucial. We do not take delegated powers lightly, and we want them to be tailored as tightly to their purpose as possible. We have therefore listened to hon. Members’ concerns about the scope of the power in clause 7(1), and in bringing forward Government amendments 14 and 15, we have built on the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/18; col. 838.]


Amendment 14 was the one that led to the change in Clause 7(1) to put in “are” instead of “consist of but are not limited to”. So it was more specific on what ministerial powers could cover.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, responds, forgive me, but I am not sure I have entirely grasped this. Are the Government going to have another look at Clause 7(3)? In the other place, the Government changed Clause 7(2) so that instead of saying that deficiencies “included” but were “not limited to” those in a list, it now says “the deficiencies are” the list. However, Clause 7(3) adds, “Oh, but by the way, we can do things ‘similar’ to those in the list”. The Minister has not explained why the Government cannot lengthen the list to obviate the need for a provision that says Ministers can do “similar” things. That is why I say the Government are giving with one hand, in Clause 7(2), but then coming back with Clause 7(3) and saying, “Oh well, we’ve limited ourselves there, but we’re going to expand our powers here”.

The noble Baroness referred to these changes being passed without a Division, but a bloc of five or six government amendments was voted on in one Division. I am not aware that in the other place they really distinguished between the amendments, because the one tightening this up was lumped in with the one expanding it. I do not know whether I am being overly cynical here, but it seems to me that a fairly clever government operation in the other place gave with one hand and took with another. I would like an assurance that the Government will have another look at this.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, several noble Lords who are much more expert on this have already mentioned that aspect. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I do not think I need to say anything more. I think this amendment is the remedy. I hope that the Government will respond positively to it. The case is unanswerable.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, when she replies, will the Minister comment on the remarks of her noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie on 28 February, when we discussed this issue in the context of directives whose implementation date was beyond exit day? The noble and learned Lord addressed this issue, partly because the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned regulations. In his reply, he said something rather interesting: namely:

“There are examples of regulations … where we accept that the regulation has come into domestic law but its actual operation is deferred, perhaps until 2020”.


I think that date was given just as an example. The noble and learned Lord continued:

“That regulation … will form part of our domestic law at the exit date, even though the operative provisions come into force only after the exit date”.—[Official Report, 28/2/18; col. 690.]


Will the Minister clarify whether she believes that the clinical trials regulation falls into the category envisaged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie? If not, why not?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for raising this extremely important issue, and to all your Lordships who have contributed so authoritatively to the discussion on this amendment. It provides me with the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the regulation of clinical trials and the introduction of the new EU clinical trials regulation.

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the MHRA is working towards the implementation of the new clinical trials regulation. The new regulation, agreed in 2014, is a major step forward as it will enable a streamlined application process, harmonised assessment procedure, single portal for all EU clinical trials and simplified reporting procedures, including for multi-member state trials. This has been widely welcomed by the industry.

A key priority for the Government throughout the negotiations is to ensure that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for science and innovation. Noble Lords will be aware that the life sciences sector in the UK is world-leading, a point emphasised by my noble friend Lord Ridley. It generates turnover of over £63.5 billion per annum and the UK ranks top in major European economies for life sciences foreign direct investment. There are over 5,000 life sciences companies in the UK, with nearly 235,000 employees, and the Government are determined to build on this success as we leave the EU.

But it is not just UK industry that benefits from a thriving life sciences sector. More importantly, UK patients benefit from having access to the most innovative and cost-effective treatment available. That is why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care committed to a post-exit regulatory system underpinned by three key principles: first, patients would not be disadvantaged; secondly, innovators should be able to get their products to market in the UK as quickly and simply as possible; and, thirdly, the UK should continue to play a leading role in promoting public health.

The UK has a strong history of collaborating with European partners through EU, pan-European and other multilateral and bilateral initiatives. I entirely agree with your Lordships that it is in the interest of patients and the life sciences industry across Europe for the UK and the EU to find a way to continue co-operation in the field of clinical trials, and for continued sharing of data and information, even if our precise relationship with the EU will by necessity change.

As the Prime Minister outlined in her Mansion House speech on 2 March, the UK is keen to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as the European Medicines Agency. Membership of the European Medicines Agency would mean investment in new, innovative medicines continuing in the UK, and it would mean these medicines getting to patients faster as firms prioritise larger markets when they start the lengthy process of seeking authorisations. But it would also be good for the EU, because the UK regulator assesses more new medicines than any other member state. These matters are all key components of the negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I was about to say that the existing UK legislation based on the current clinical trials directive will be corrected using the powers in this Bill so that that regime continues to function properly when the UK is no longer a member of the EU. This will mean that there is no interruption in UK clinical trials approval. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

[Baroness Ludford]

I thank the Minister for letting me ask her a question. First, how will that operate if we continue to apply the directive and the other member states apply the updated regulation? There is a rather peculiar situation in justice and home affairs where that is envisaged, although I have never been sure how it is supposed to operate. Perhaps she can tell us how it will operate for clinical trials and how we will avoid a bumpy playing field. Secondly, can she explain what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, meant? What category of regulations was he talking about if he was not talking about the clinical trials regulation?

[Baroness Goldie]

Taking the last point first, I will need to check that out in Hansard because I do not recall in detail the point to which the noble Baroness is referring. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the practical difficulty we have is that we have something that we all agree is very good but is not yet functioning EU law. Of course, this Bill is concerned with a snapshot—making sure that we do not go down a large legislative hole with gaps in our body of law. The Bill means that we have to bring over what is there at the point that we leave. One consequence of being in charge of our own legislative functions after Brexit is that we are free to make such changes as we wish. Perhaps I may try to deal with the point—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. This is not a unique regulation. There is a class of regulations and directives, some of which have now been agreed but not implemented and others that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others have observed, are currently moving through the policy-making process and may or may not have been agreed by March 2019. The Government must have a list of all of these and must have a clear idea of which ones they think we automatically ought to accept, others that we would prefer not to accept and those about which they are not entirely decided. Since we are all concerned about giving business as much certainty as far ahead as possible, will the Government commit to publishing that list so that we can see where we are and come back on a more informed basis to discuss which of these directives and regulations that have been passed but not yet implemented automatically ought to go into British law and which of those going through are or are not thought to be in the national interest?

[Baroness Ludford]

Perhaps I may draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 3(3)(a):

“For the purposes of this Act, any direct EU legislation is operative immediately before exit day if—


(a) in the case of anything which comes into force at a particular time”.

The regulation came into force in June 2014, 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal and is stated to apply from a later date—that is, 2020 when the EMA certifies that the portal and the database are ready,

“it is in force and applies immediately before exit day”.

This regulation is not only in force, but it applies before exit day according to the Government’s own proposed legislation. Have I misread Clause 3(3)(a)?

[Baroness Goldie]

I am looking at the provision and my understanding is that technically, the character of the regulation that we are discussing is that it is not currently in force.

[Baroness Ludford]

Forgive me, but according to Article 90-something of the regulation, it came into force 20 days after it was published in the Official Journal. That was in May 2014. Therefore, it was in force some time in June. It applies from a date to be specified once the EMA has done its homework.

[Baroness Goldie]

I am certainly interested in the point that the noble Baroness raises. I suspect that we have probably exhausted all possible aspects of this discussion, but I undertake to look at that point. As I said, I do not have technical information available, but I will certainly have that point clarified.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Callanan]

The Prime Minister did indeed refer to these important level playing field issues and said that we do not want to see a significant diminution of standards in these areas.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

If I recall, the Prime Minister promised binding commitments in the area of state aid and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for reminding me of that element of the speech. The Minister tells us that he does not want to be constrained in the negotiations, but has not the Prime Minister already constrained the negotiations by accepting binding commitments in the area of competition law and by using the phrase “strong commitments”—apparently she was banned from saying “binding commitments”—with regard to regulatory alignment?

[Lord Callanan]

I will allow the Prime Minister’s words to speak for themselves.

It is in the interests of consumers and industry in both the UK and the EU to maintain the freest and most frictionless trade possible in vehicles and automotive products after exit.

I apologise that have I spoken at length about issues of constitutional significance, but—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Does the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, share the surprise I feel that the Prime Minister should have said that we would not be part of the digital single market? I am at a loss to think what domestic regulatory flexibility she could be alluding to. After all, the very point of the Data Protection Act is ostensibly to implement European standards on cross-border transfers of data, which is crucial for the tech industry as well as many other industries. If we are not part of the digital single market, how are British consumers to continue to enjoy the absence—the abolition—of roaming mobile charges? The mobile operators are saying, “We hope we won’t have to put up roaming charges, but it rather depends if we are in the digital single market so that we can get access to European-level wholesale rates”. So first, a British policy not to be in the digital single market does not make any sense. Secondly, British consumers are going to take a hit when they go on the continent for business or holidays. Who is going to explain that to British consumers?

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said. When we were given the instruction by the British people two years ago to commence negotiations on leaving the European Union, I did not meet anybody who said that the reason they wanted to leave it was so that they could pay higher mobile phone charges and restart paying roaming charges for travelling on the continent. It is a complete absurdity.

Since in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister showed movement in many areas, which we have welcomed in earlier debates, on engagement in key areas of the single market and customs arrangements, I find it utterly mystifying that she should specifically have excluded the digital single market. This is one area in which Britain has done more than any other to forge its rules, which have been so advantageous to major British companies that would not exist if it were not for the development of the single market. Vodafone, one of the biggest and most successful companies in the country, would not exist as a serious international company if it were not for the success of successive British Governments in negotiating what has become the digital single market during the last 20 years.

I invite the Minister, with the new-found and emollient flexibility that he has been demonstrating, to say that he is prepared to take away and consider—I think that is the phrase he now uses—Britain’s continued engagement in the digital single market. Specifically, is it the view of the Government that we should start to reintroduce roaming charges for British mobile phone users from the end of March next year?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and echo very much the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I say that as a former Minister who was responsible for regulating pharmaceuticals and medical devices. In those days, we were a rule-maker; now, we become a rule-taker—and in an area where we have already lost the European Medicines Agency, which is disappearing out of the country. So our position on the regulation of medicines has been worsened, as has the investment in this country as a result.

We are now going down the same path with medical devices, which are one of the unglamorous bits of our healthcare system but they are very important. We are rather good at inventing medical devices in this country. We produce quite a lot of inventions and have been the rule-maker through the BSI. Most of Europe has been happy to take that rule-making from the BSI, which has moved abroad, because it has a reputation as an effective regulator in this area. We are ending up with medicines and medical devices coming ever closer together but we have lost the regulatory system for them both. That is no mean achievement for the Government.

If we do not secure some kind of reciprocal agreement, as this amendment suggests, we will be in an even worse state than the noble Lord, Lord Deben, thinks we might. I am with him all the way. This is another industry which we are neglecting. In many cases, the companies making these devices are quite small and we are putting them into a very difficult position. They cannot hang around when they make their business decisions in the hope that David Davis will come up with a deal that resolves some of the uncertainties in their business. They will have to take decisions quite quickly if they want to survive.

The Government’s approach to negotiation is to be untransparent and incoherent, while trying to reassure everybody that it will all be all right on the night. But that is not a position that businessmen and businesswomen can accept in running their businesses and keeping them solvent. This is another example of a sector where we are going to diminish our capacity to innovate and to open up new markets within Europe for our inventions. Much more to the point, we will lose the kind of control over regulation that we had in the past.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I just remind the noble Lord of the debate we had last week on the clinical trials regulation and the uncertainty there? We have had contradictory statements from two Ministers about whether the clinical trials regulation will be retained EU law, in domestic law, on exit day. As I think the noble Lord is aware, I have written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, to try and clarify exactly what the Government’s position is.

[Lord Warner]

I did not want to remind the Government Front Bench of the slaughter of the innocents over clinical trials last week, but I have no doubt the Minister will read that debate in Hansard and form his own judgment. I am pleased the noble Baroness has written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about this. It opens up the possibility of securing more protection in the Bill for some British industries, and we should not be afraid to take that opportunity in this House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, we are extremely fortunate to have in this House the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has such intimate knowledge going back over 30 years and more, and my noble friend Lord Luce—I must call him that as we sat together in the other place—who was such a distinguished Governor of Gibraltar and who still maintains his interest as Chancellor of its new university.

I do not want to be at all critical of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who made a very generous speech, but we have to be careful about the epistle that we who are reckoned to be friends of Gibraltar all received. It was, effectively, a written sigh of relief that at least the UK Government had stepped up to the mark and said that that they were committing themselves to Gibraltar. That commitment is clearly crucial and it is equally very welcome, but it does not solve the problem about which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Luce have spoken so eloquently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, it is in effect a Northern Ireland situation in miniature, because this is the other border between UK territory and the European Union. People have talked about 350 years, but it is not 350 years, as it is since the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, just over 300 years ago, that we have had this commitment to and legal possession of Gibraltar, which has been continually—or perhaps I should say intermittently—challenged by successive Governments of Spain.

In his speech a few minutes ago, my noble friend Lord Luce made graphically plain what is at stake for the people of Gibraltar. Obviously, I hope that when he replies my noble friend the Minister will reiterate the agreements referred to in the letter we all received, but I hope he will go further and indicate that the UK Government will not sign up to any final agreement that leaves unprotected the people of Gibraltar: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed—the mantra that is repeated again and again. A country should be judged by how it treats its weakest citizens, and by how it treats those parts of its territory which are wholly dependent upon it. The people of Gibraltar are wholly dependent upon the Government of the United Kingdom. There must be no agreement with our European friends and partners—I hope and pray that there will be an agreement—that puts Gibraltar in a precarious, indeed dangerous, position after the end of the transition period.

We talk fairly glibly about the transition period. Of course it is necessary, and we all welcome the progress that was signalled last week and about which we will hear a little more when the Statement is made to your Lordships’ House later this evening; but we are not there yet, and we are a long way from being there over Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. Let us, of course, support the withdrawal of the amendment tonight. I am very glad that there have been no votes in Committee during the long hours we have been debating this Bill, but we may well have to consider another amendment on Report, unless we are utterly confident that there is no question at any time of a sell-out over Gibraltar.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the debate this afternoon has amply demonstrated why in today’s Statement the Prime Minister refers to the particular challenges that Brexit poses for Gibraltar. Staying in the single market would mitigate some of those challenges, particularly the economic ones, but there would still be the risk of political problems from Brexit itself.

There has been much talk from Brexiteers about global Britain and even Empire 2.0, which is pretty gruesome, but the damage to Ireland and Gibraltar—I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others who have drawn an analogy there—from Brexit belies the claim that Brexit is not focused on a rather little-England perspective and instead has a broad and internationalist one. It would be a terrible betrayal of Gibraltar as well as Ireland if the Government do not have those territories in the forefront of their mind.

The Government of Gibraltar told the House of Lords European Committee that Brexit presented,

“few opportunities worthy of mention”,

and that losing access to the single market in services would be a “severe blow” to Gibraltar’s economy—reflecting the fact that it has been a fundamental tool in Gibraltar’s economic development. It is therefore no wonder that, as others have said, 96% of Gibraltarians voted remain.

The point has been strongly made that Gibraltar depends on the free movement of workers. I was very interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Luce, is chancellor of the University of Gibraltar, because it gave evidence to the EU Select Committee inquiry and said how valuable the free movement of staff and students across the border with Spain is to it. It also said that the social welfare system is significantly dependent on the income tax paid by cross-border workers in Gibraltar—and a related point is that Gibraltarians will potentially lose access to healthcare facilities in Spain. So there are so many areas of damage to Gibraltar and the residents of the Gibraltar.

Tourism is another element in its economy that would be profoundly harmed by any border problems. The European arrest warrant was described by the Government of Gibraltar as,

“a blessed relief because it took the sovereignty dispute out of the equation of extradition”.

As it involves mutual recognition between judges, it does not depend on Government-to-Government agreement.

The Government of Gibraltar are particularly worried about the possibility of no deal and a cliff-edge scenario. I believe that the Brexiteers have been cavalier in envisaging this possibility. I have to reproach the Minister in this respect, because he mentioned it again last week to the committee—as did his colleague in the other place Robin Walker. Reviving the “no deal” prospect is breathtaking in its irresponsibility to a territory such as Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar suggested that it could result in their frontier being severely disrupted or even closed, which would be “potentially disastrous”. It might mean the UK Government having to step in to support Gibraltar’s economy, as they did in the Franco era. I wonder whether British voters have been told about such a possibility, given that they know, or at least have been told, that Britain’s economy is set to deteriorate if we leave the single market—the Prime Minister has said that—and their incomes might well be squeezed. So there could be quite interesting political problems for a Government defending subsidies to Gibraltar.

Lastly, as has been pointed out, Brexit means that Gibraltar will depend on the good will of Spain. It will no longer have EU law there. That law has not been perfect and there are still some issues, but Gibraltar has looked, with justice, to the EU to arbitrate and defend it in disputes with Spain. But it will not have that protection if we Brexit, and the onus will be on the UK to take action. So, like other noble Lords, I think this is a very important issue and I look forward to the Minister telling us exactly how the Government are going to look after Gibraltar, in the same way that there is huge feeling in this House about the maintenance of no internal border in Ireland. I think that the Government have a lot of explaining to do.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I appreciate the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Luce. He has initiated debates in this Chamber about Gibraltar, separate from Brexit, and although I did not speak at Second Reading of this Bill I have spoken in a number of those debates. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is absolutely right about the process, and the history lesson that has been given is quite important for understanding the way forward. I did not act as governor-general in Gibraltar like the noble Lord, Lord Luce, but I was a union official there representing workers in a period when the border was closed. In fact there were 6,000 Moroccan workers operating in Gibraltar. They were housed in the old naval dockyard barracks in conditions that we would not find particularly acceptable, but it certainly gave them gainful employment in a way that helped their families in Morocco.

In Spain’s accession process we were able to reach a practical accommodation that served the economic interests of Gibraltar and the people who lived around it, particularly in the Andalusia region of Spain. I have to declare an interest or two here: my husband is Spanish and from Andalusia. The fact is that the people of Andalusia know very well that Madrid does not have them very high up on its agenda either, so these are really important issues to understand. The reason why 96% of the people voted in favour of remaining in the EU is that they know full well that the political and economic conditions that prevailed with membership of the EU are vital to their continuation as a viable society.

The Opposition support the amendment and understand the need for it. Several noble Lords have spoken today, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who posed very specific questions. We believe that at the end of the day the question that will determine the survival of Gibraltar will be the UK Government’s efforts to ensure that it is able to continue to have a relationship with the rest of the EU. That is the question that we want answered but we know full well that we are not going to get one today.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 337 and 341 are in my name. They have a simple aim: to ensure that if there is a breakdown in the negotiations leading to a no-deal Brexit, the position should be fully and properly considered by Parliament before any final decision is taken.

I am encouraged by all that the Government have said about their intention to ensure that there should not be a breakdown in the negotiations. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has just reiterated that position to us this evening and I noted in particular that David Davis said, over the weekend, that it was “incredibly probable” that a deal would be reached—an odd formulation, but we get the general drift. As I say, I have absolutely no doubt about the Government’s intention to seek a deal which is in the interests of the United Kingdom. But a breakdown of the negotiations cannot be excluded, whether because the Government toughen their position to the stage where the European Union breaks off the negotiations or the European Union toughens its stance to the point where the Government break them off, or because both sides simply run out of time.

The implications of no deal are potentially extremely serious, as the EU Committee of your Lordships’ House recognised in its recent report, Brexit: Deal or No Deal. Much attention has rightly been given to the implications of no deal for our trading relations, for the impact on cross-border supply chains and on specific sectors, including financial services, agri-foods and aviation. Just as serious would be the impact of a breakdown in negotiations and a no-deal scenario on UK-EU co-operation on issues which are vital to our national interest and national security: counterterrorism, police, justice and security matters; nuclear safeguards; and aviation. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has set out clearly this evening the potential implications of no deal for Gibraltar. Even more immediate and perhaps more serious would be the effect on British citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK. With no deal, the agreements reached so far, which are so enormously important to British citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in Britain, would, as I understand it, fall away.

The implications of no deal, however slight such a prospect is, would therefore be extremely serious. It is surely inconceivable that an outcome of such gravity would not be put to Parliament before it becomes a reality. This is not least because when reality begins to dawn on people, one of the first questions they will surely ask is: “What was Parliament’s view and to what extent has Parliament taken responsibility?” Taking back responsibility seems to me to be as important, and more difficult, than taking back control. I simply cannot see that the argument that the electorate had, or should have had, all this in mind when the referendum took place would carry any weight at all when the consequences of no deal became apparent. These amendments therefore seem essential and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept them. I beg to move Amendment 337.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name. I fully agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. Perhaps being a mere politician, I am a little more cynical than he is. The February 2017 White Paper on leaving the EU contained statements that gave considerable comfort, including an assurance of the Government’s strong intentions to get a deal. They said, for instance:

“Our fundamental responsibility to the people of the UK is to ensure that we secure the very best deal possible from the negotiations … The Government will then put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament”.


When the Government gave their assurance in the other place in February last year, at about the same time as the White Paper, the Minister of State for Exiting the EU said,

“the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union’.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]

As we know, there is an issue about what that actually means. It will not be any more than a political declaration.

All this sounded quite reassuring. The trouble is that in the year since then, we have heard too many threats of no deal—not that, as the Brexit Secretary David Davis said over the weekend, it is like an insurance policy, in that you have to be aware that it could happen, but the overwhelming likelihood is a deal. That sounded quite benign, but I am afraid that we have had a rather more celebratory approach to the prospect of no deal from other personalities in the Government. They think that threatening it is a good negotiating tactic. Many of us think that that is not the expression of a committed partner. I do not recall that when the United States was negotiating a possible TTIP agreement with the EU, it kept stressing that it might instead have no deal. It might have made all kinds of comments about the adequacy or otherwise of the EU offer, but we did not hear that sort of rhetoric, and we are not used to it in a trade or political negotiation. These statements have come too often. They are perhaps fewer now, but they still come sometimes and with too great a frequency for there to be total trust in the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said earlier in another context, there is a fundamental issue of trust as to what the Government’s intentions might be. Therefore, it is necessary to try to dot the “I”s and cross the “T”s on this matter.

The first amendment in this group might have been inspired by my noticing that in one context, the phrase used was “final terms of withdrawal” but in another it was “withdrawal agreement”, which raises the question of whether the Government mean exactly the same thing with those two phrases. That accounts for Amendment 337, in which we say yes, they mean the same thing.

Amendment 341 says that “withdrawal agreement” also means the absence of a withdrawal agreement. It is necessary to spell that out because I am afraid the Government have not always given full grounds for total confidence and trust in their intentions. We need to close off any nefarious options that might still be floating around and make absolutely sure that we pin down the Government on what Parliament will supervise, and that there are no nooks and crannies through which they can duck and weave. That is what the amendments are about: total clarity in order to ensure that the Government act with total trust and in good faith.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to these amendments because I believe it is essential that Parliament should have a chance to consider a “no deal” scenario. As others have said, that is not the likely outcome; there is every reason to believe that the Government are doing their best to pursue a deal. However, we have to be prepared for all eventualities. We have heard that no deal is better than a bad deal and that no deal has to be considered, so it is important that we avoid any ambiguities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just spelled out, there are sufficient vagaries about the terminology for it to be important that we now try to clarify that Parliament should have a role in considering a “no deal” scenario. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, it is time for Parliament to reclaim its responsibilities, and looking after the country is surely the responsibility of Parliament.

The noble Lord referred to the problems that will be faced by those companies with cross-EU supply chains. Privately those companies are voicing their fears, but it is not surprising that publicly they are loath to speak out about the horrors that lie before them should there be no deal. Their supply chains will be in tatters, but they are not going to go public right now shouting that it may be the case in a year’s time that their supply chains will break down and they will not be able to fulfil orders,. That would not really do wonders for their business at the moment; the orders would just not be put. So at the moment they are making their fears known privately, and I hope the Government are listening to them. For them, it is essential that a good trade deal is established, and quickly. That is why I support the amendments. I do not think there is anything more to be said, but I wish them well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

We are giving notice of our withdrawal. The title was in the Bill that we passed to trigger it. Keir Starmer also said:

“Having asked the electorate for a view by way of the referendum, we have to respect the result”.


I agree with him.

I say again only to remind noble Lords so that they can understand my point of view that there has been a legitimate process, marked at intervals by the consent of both Parliament and the electorate. As I said in an earlier debate, amendments that could be perceived as a means to delay or disregard the referendum result carry with them their own risks—people’s faith in their democracy and its institutions. With that in mind, I do not think that it would be right to add an express mechanism within this Bill which might prevent the referendum result being acted upon.

The Prime Minister has been very clear: we are leaving the EU at the end of March 2019. That is not a question of domestic legislation; it is now a question of the EU treaties. While the detail of our future relationship with the EU has yet to be negotiated, I believe that remaining in the EU is the only outcome which cannot be reconciled with the decision taken in the referendum. I do not think that it would be in the interests of either the EU or the UK to open the door to an ever-continuing negotiation process with no certainty that the UK will ever reach a new, settled relationship with the EU. I was going to finish there but I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is itching to ask a question.

[Baroness Ludford]

I thank the noble Lord for anticipating my question. He referred to there being a problem with Clause 7(1), which says:

“A Minister … may by regulations make such provision as … appropriate … arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.


If it is “may”, it could also mean “may not”. If there are no regulations to be made because there is no deal, and therefore there are no deficiencies in retained EU law to remedy, and that is the Government’s position, that subsection does not need to be invoked.

That is surely different from Clause 9. I do not see the parallel. Clause 9(1) refers to the parliamentary enactment of whatever the final terms are. We are talking about a scenario where there is no deal. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, if you are maintaining that it is unworkable in this situation, the Government need to come up with something that they consider a workable formula. The Minister must surely understand that the point is to make sure there is not wriggle room over where parliamentary responsibility and rights reside, and not to be able to dodge Clause 9(1) by saying, “Well, it’s not really final terms of withdrawal because we are crashing out without a deal”.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is indeed striking that directives are not included in Schedule 5, part 1, paragraph 1(2). The reason may be that directives are given a very odd status under Clause 4(2)(b), which we debated on a previous day. Under Clause 4(2)(b), retained EU law does not include rights which arise under an EU directive when they are,

“not of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal”,

in this country,

“in a case decided before exit day”.

We debated the complexities, the uncertainties and, as I see it, the unsatisfactory nature, of the clause. Is that the reason why directives are not included in Schedule 5, part 1? If not, what is the reason?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s valuable amendment. I wonder whether the Government are being as transparent as they ought to be. After all, there have sometimes been well-founded suspicions of gold-plating of directives and, in contrast, of not entirely full or accurate transposition of directives. I am sorry to repeat myself, but I gave the recent example of the European investigation order, which was not transposed in regulations last December with exactly the wording in the directive. The European Convention on Human Rights has been substituted for the charter, which is in my opinion a breach of the accurate transposition of the directive.

Not only during the transition but well into the future, businesses and all citizens will be obeying a lot of the acquis of EU law, if the Prime Minister’s emerging strategy of staying plugged into many EU policies and agencies one way or another comes to fruition. Therefore it is right for businesses and individuals to be able to see how EU law in directives, which unlike regulations, does not have direct effect, has been translated, transposed into UK law, so that they can track its accuracy. This is a long-running theme in the European Parliament, as my noble friend will know. Indeed, the Minister will know that there was an attempt to campaign in the European Parliament to have what was known in the jargon as “correlation tables”. It was possible to see exactly how EU law had been translated into national law in all EU states.

Funnily enough, the member states never wanted that to happen. They got away with a bit of smoke and mirrors of people not understanding where law had come from at the European level, or where it had not. Where something had been added at national level that was sitting in some dusty drawer in Whitehall and this convenient vehicle of an EU directive came along, they said, “Right, we’ll just slap into that things we’ve long thought about and no one will realise that it didn’t come from Brussels”. Well, people need to know whether it came from Brussels or not. The kind of transparency that my noble friend is seeking would be extremely useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment. If something is present in the National Archives, I wonder whether that means that it can then automatically be relied on in court without there being any necessity for certification or other requirements. If that was the case, it would fulfil the point that I was trying to make—there are other points that noble Lords have referenced. I did not want it to be that, in order in a court proceeding to reference a directive or draw the judge’s attention to it, one had to remember to go through the certification process, especially if there were a lot of them.

[Baroness Ludford]

My noble friend is much more an expert than I am on these technicalities, but other noble Lords as well as I have talked about more general accessibility for citizens and businesses. Someone like me knows that I can just put the number of the directive in Google and, hey presto, I get the Official Journal. However, it being in the National Archives is not as good as it being in whatever series is published under Schedule 5. If this is to be done in some voluntary capacity, why is that good enough? Why cannot it be in the Bill? It seems a very British solution: “Oh, well, it’ll be in the National Archives”. No one will be able to find it because they do not know that it is there. It might or might not be okay for the technical purposes that my noble friend is talking about, but it will not be squarely there in a series that can be made known. I cannot understand the Government’s logic.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. She also made some important points earlier about what has come into our law allegedly from directives. I must say that, since I have been looking at this withdrawal Bill, I have become astonished by what has been done under the European Communities Act, which I do not think I would have wanted if I had gone back and made the European Communities Act again—but that is a digression.

There are two outstanding points: whether you need to do anything to get it into court for technical purposes; and what the visibility is for citizens. I must say that anybody who thinks that our legislation is at all visible should go on to the government website and wander around it. If they are hoping to find out what the current law is, the first thing they will see is that the site is not up to date. I find it a far sight easier to find up-to-date European law, but again, I digress.

With the proviso that it may be necessary to return to this—possibly the Government will bring forward an amendment or provide further explanation—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, we come to the next stage of the slow journey of this Bill through the House. I shall look at Clause 9 again and address the issue of what the Act of proclamations provided, but just as a footnote I remind the House that the statute provided in categoric terms that a proclamation could not overrule a statute. One tends to overlook that. Everyone is absolutely riveted, are they not? Schedule 5—what an exciting topic to come to first thing in the morning. The problem, though, is that tucked away in this schedule, as frequently happens, is an issue of principle. That issue is, simply, and I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, says, that we are giving an unnecessary, or inappropriate—I do not mind which word we use for these purposes—surrender of power to the Executive. We really must break that habit.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, to go slightly beyond the terms of the amendment, as foreshadowed in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the issue of principle appears to extend to giving the Government the power not only to decide whether something is to be published but to decide whether they are satisfied that it is retained direct EU legislation. Following the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about clinical trials regulation, there have been exchanges and meetings.

Apparently, I am wrong about that. I am told that at some point I will get a blow-by-blow explanation. The Minister sighs, but no one has actually explained. There is a contradiction between the drafting in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. The Minister is looking at me as if I am stupid. I am sorry about that, but we need to know the criteria by which the Government will precisely decide whether an EU measure is retained EU law and, preferably, have a list of those measures. That would be transparent. We need both the criteria and the list. We cannot just leave it to the Government to decide not only whether they publish but whether an instrument is retained EU law. This has massive consequences in the real world, as does the clinical trials regulation. Researchers are leaving the country because they do not know whether we are going to continue to apply EU law. This is not nothing; it is an important matter.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, this is very important and the noble Baroness is entirely justified in getting a little worked up about it. I spent 40 years, almost to the day, in the other place. I never had a ministerial office and I was always deeply suspicious of Ministers exercising arbitrary power and of any measure that extended the opportunity for Ministers to exercise such powers. My noble friend Lord Hailsham intervened in the debate earlier this week to remind me—not that I needed reminding—of the importance of the Back-Bencher. The Government must always be answerable to Parliament. Giving a Minister an extra arbitrary power, be it in ever such a small degree, enables them to evade answerability to the elected House.

We are fortunate to have committees—the Constitution Committee and the committee of which the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Tyler, are members—that act as watchdogs on behalf of this House and Parliament. As this Bill leaves our House, which it will do in a month or two, and goes back to the Commons, it must have been tightened up in as many particulars as possible so as to guarantee as much power as possible to the elected House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is not a question of difficulty; it is a question of how we have decided to approach dealing with this in a legislative manner. The intention is that the present Bill will legislate for legal certainty whether there is or is not a withdrawal agreement. In the event of a withdrawal agreement, we will legislate to ensure that in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill the terms of the present Bill will be brought into line with the terms of the withdrawal agreement in order that we can discharge our international legal obligations. We have consistently pointed out that that is the approach being taken to legislation in this context. It is really quite inconceivable to suppose that the Government are going to enter into a withdrawal agreement and then not implement that international legal obligation in our domestic law. That is the intention. It is simply a question of the order in which these things are being done, and it has always been maintained, and will be maintained, that it is not for this Bill to deal with the eventuality or the prospect of the implementation period.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Does the Minister not appreciate the absurdity some of us feel? As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we are being marched to the top of a hill that the Government have already abandoned. We are being asked to legislate in terms that are contrary to government policy and strategy in the Brexit negotiations, which leaves one feeling in a somewhat surreal position.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I sympathise with the idea of being left in a somewhat surreal position. As I said at the outset of my remarks, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so while we have the anticipation and desire to secure an implementation period, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altman (Con)]

My Lords, the 2011 Act was introduced by the elected Chamber for the express purpose of safeguarding major constitutional changes in respect of our relationship with the EU and I support the amendment, to which I have added my name.

The Act, among other matters, provides for a referendum throughout the United Kingdom on any proposed EU treaty or treaty change which would transfer powers from the UK to the EU. Parliament voted for this power in order to protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and it is this aspect of our constitutional framework that it is important for the Committee to be mindful of as we negotiate our future relationship with the EU. Surely the proper time for the 2011 Act to be repealed is when we conclude our relationship with the EU. However, the Bill as it stands allows a Minister to repeal it at any time after Royal Assent.

The Conservative Party manifesto in 2010 led to this Act. It is worded not in terms of transfers of power but in terms of the extension of the competence or objectives of the European Union and decrease in the voting power of the United Kingdom. If we go into a transition period, there will be a new form of treaty relationship with the EU, one in which the UK has surrendered powers to the EU. The transition or implementation phase is a subordination of power to the EU 27 and binds us to them with fetters in a new international treaty. I contend that even if one believes wholeheartedly in leaving the EU there are strong grounds not to repeal this Act before we have actually and finally departed. Parliament does not yet have the terms of any deal for Brexit, nor will it have before Royal Assent. I therefore believe that it is vital that the 2011 Act is not repealed in this Bill as that would remove a safeguard which currently exists to protect the United Kingdom and our constitutional position. Parliament enacted that legislation for a specific purpose and Ministers should not be allowed to repeal it at will without proper debate and discussion unless we have already concluded our exit terms.

The other place did not have an opportunity to debate this amendment and it seems to have been missed, or perhaps honourable Members might have assumed that the repeal of the Act would apply only on the date of exit, but it turns out that it could be before that date by ministerial diktat. Given the uncertainty that still surrounds this Bill and the entire Brexit process, as well as the lack of clarity on our future relationship, I urge my noble friend the Minister to agree to this amendment. It safeguards the constitutional position enacted by Parliament in 2011 and maintains the sovereignty of Parliament over the Executive to protect the UK from deleterious treaty change that has not received prior approval from Parliament or the people.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this the last debate of the Committee stage, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for providing the opportunity for it. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, took us down memory lane. I am sorry to say that I was deprived of the delights of participation in the debates on the 2011 Bill, as I was exiled to the European Parliament at the time. Obviously, I was denied a most enjoyable opportunity.

There is an arguable case that the 2011 EU Act referendum requirement could apply on the grounds that the standstill transition and/or the future relationship removes powers from the UK relative to the EU. There is much legal argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, noted, about whether it could apply, and indeed litigation is taking place on that very question. It would therefore be premature to abolish the Act either while the litigation is progressing or before it is clear whether the relationship between the UK and the EU during the standstill transition and beyond that into the future entails a loss of sovereignty such as to trigger the need for a referendum under the Act. The standstill transition most certainly does entail a loss of sovereignty, as we discussed earlier today. We will be mere rule takers who are obliged to obey with no say; that is already clear. It is a clear transfer of power to the EU.

The Government’s emerging Brexit policy, as articulated in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, suggests that their plan is for us to take our instructions on the facts from Brussels for many years to come and indeed into the long-term future, so the Act ought to be retained in the tool-box and abolished by Parliament only as and when it is genuinely no longer needed. Certainly it should not be repealed before exit day or subject only to ministerial regulations.

Members on these Benches make no bones about the fact that a further vote for British citizens on the Brexit deal is justified in its own right. That is our major argument for a further opportunity for the citizens of this country to have their say on Brexit. It would be a wholly different exercise from the 2016 referendum because citizens would be able actually to evaluate what kind of Brexit we are going to get. Is it the kind of Brexit that some have advocated, or is it Brexit in name only? There have been no lesser advocates than Jacob Rees-Mogg for having a two-stage process. In 2011, he said in the context of one or other of the plans to renegotiate our membership:

“Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed”.—[Official Report¸ Commons, 24/10/11; col. 108.]


For that, one can substitute the Brexit negotiations.

I recall my noble friend Lord Newby quoting recently that a majority of Conservative voters want to have a referendum on the final Brexit deal. In London, that figure reaches 61% to 25% opposed, and the support for people to have the chance of a vote on the deal is growing all the time. So the major case for that to happen rests, as I say, on substantive rather than procedural grounds.

Until things are clear, it seems to Members on these Benches that there is validity in retaining the possible use of the EU Act, which is about the loss of sovereignty and the transfer of powers to the EU. That is precisely what we are going to be faced with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, we might not leave the European Union next year. We have not enacted the legislation to do so. At the moment there is no treaty. The 2011 Act would be repealed under the terms of the Bill. The two are clearly not consequential.

[Baroness Ludford]

Does the noble Lord agree that there is no relationship between exit day and the repeal of the European Communities Act? Clause 19 says that the repeal, inter alia, of the 2011 Act, is a provision of the Bill that will,

“come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.

It has absolutely nothing to do with exit day or the ECA.

[Lord Adonis]

That is the precise point. The big question that the Minister would not answer—I do not think he wanted to give me the answer—is why the repeal of the 2011 Act is being accelerated ahead of Brexit day and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The Minister has not given an answer, nor has he given the Committee any indication of when that repeal would take place. My understanding is that the Government would seek to repeal the 2011 Act as soon as they can after the enactment of the Bill, which will mean that its terms would not apply for the period between that repeal and Brexit day, but it is of course perfectly possible. Who knows what will happen in the next 52 weeks? As Harold Wilson famously said, a week is a long time in politics, so goodness knows what will happen in the next 52. The Act would not apply. It may well be that my noble and learned friend is right that there is not a substantial legal argument here, but that is precisely the issue the courts are there to determine. They will not have the opportunity to do so because the Act will have been repealed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment and would like to speak to it. The Government’s paper of last August on future customs arrangements proposed two customs schemes as the alternative to being in the customs union, one based on technology, described as “innovative”, the other with the UK acting as an agent for the EU for EU-bound goods, described as “unprecedented” and “challenging”. Those are words that, if in Jim Hacker’s vocabulary, would have attracted congratulations from Sir Humphrey for the Minister’s bravery.

The issues for manufacturing industries such as cars and aerospace have been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Patten. They are to do with supply chains, border checks and rules of origin. That all sounds like very dry stuff but it boils down to costs, delays and red tape affecting investment decisions and jobs. Staying in the customs union is an economic and industrial issue. The Freight Transport Association estimates that an even an extra two minutes checking every truck during peak hours could result in queues of almost 30 miles at border points.

The chief executive officer of Airbus, Tom Enders, has summed up the problems for his company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that Tom Enders sees leaving the customs union, not staying in it, as very damaging. He points out that during production parts of his company’s wings move between the UK and the EU multiple times before final assembly. This is typical for all our UK-assembled products and why the lack of clarity around the customs union and trade is hugely worrying. We think that across our operations and supply chains Brexit will affect 672 sites. Hard borders and regulatory divergence risk blocking trade, creating supply-chain logjams and causing our business to grind to a halt. This is not some esoteric question. Of course, being in the customs union does not solve all the problems; for example, it would be great to have participation in regulatory convergence as well. However, staying in the customs union is a necessary part of preserving the simplicity and streamlined nature of the manufacturing industry. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is right that remain is the gold standard, but let us at least go for silver.

As for the argument that being in a customs union would constrain our freedom to conclude third-party trade deals, the ones that we have by virtue of EU membership are far more valuable. Our food, animal welfare and environmental standards could be compromised by third-party agreements. Many potential partners will want immigration concessions, which has proved difficult. As has been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, you do not need a trade agreement to export, hence Germany exports four times as much to China as we do. That country has not been inhibited so why have we? That is something that we can do inside the customs union. As reported yesterday, China’s top diplomat in Brussels, its head of mission to the EU, has said that a UK deal with the EU is a precondition for trade talks with China. The Chinese need us to have a decent arrangement with the EU before they want to talk about it. If there is not a Brexit deal, they say, there will not be things to talk about. They need to know exactly how we are going to operate with the EU. I add that no member of the Commonwealth has wanted us to leave the EU, so praying that in aid is totally inappropriate.

Not only did people not vote in 2016 to leave the customs union—that was not on the ballot paper—they did not vote to lose their jobs, either. We should protect those jobs by pressing for Britain to stay in a customs union.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, in absentia for her Amendment 12 and to my noble friend Lord Deben for speaking to it on her behalf. I note that this amendment is very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which the noble Baroness was a signatory. As was the case with that amendment, Amendment 12 seeks to amend what EU law is retained through Clause 4.

As this House is aware, and has been said earlier within the debate, one part of EU law that the Bill does not convert into our domestic law is EU directives. The reason for this is clear. As EU directives as such are not a part of our domestic law now, it is the Government’s view that they should not be part of our domestic law after we leave the EU. Instead, the Bill, under Clause 2, is saving the domestic measures that implement the directives, so it is not necessary to convert the directives themselves. This is not only a pragmatic approach but one that reflects the reality of our departure from the EU. As an EU member state, we were obligated to implement those directives. When we leave the EU, those obligations will cease.

However, the Bill recognises one exception to this approach. Where, in a case decided or commenced before exit day, a domestic court or the European Court of Justice has recognised a particular right, power, liability, obligation, restriction, remedy or procedure provided for in a directive as having direct effect in domestic law, Clause 4 will retain the effect of that right, power, et cetera within UK law.

That seems to the Government to provide a clarity which it is important for this Bill to achieve, and it is why we believe that Clause 4 as currently worded strikes the right balance—ensuring in respect of directives that individuals and businesses will still be able to rely on directly effective rights that are available to them in UK law before exit day, while also providing clarity and certainty within our statute book about what will be retained in UK law at the point of exit.

I shall explain to my noble friend Lord Deben what we see as a difficulty. This certainty would be undermined by the amendment, placing both businesses and individuals in the difficult position where they are uncertain about whether the rights they rely on will change. It could also create practical difficulties for our courts following our exit. There could be new litigation about whether implementing legislation correctly or completely gave effect to a pre-exit directive, and whether Ministers had fulfilled the duty in the amendment’s proposed new subsection (3) to make implementing regulations. This could continue for years after our exit from the EU, effectively sustaining an ongoing, latent duty to implement aspects of EU legislation long after the UK had left the European Union.

I think it would be acknowledged that it would be strange for Ministers to be obligated to make regulations to comply with former international obligations which the UK is no longer bound by. Although Ministers might find that they were obliged to make regulations under the amendment, it would presumably still be open to Parliament to reject the instrument and either require it to be revoked or decline to approve it, depending on the procedure involved, yet the Minister would, under the terms of the amendment, remain under a legal obligation to make regulations. I think that this gets to the heart of the problem: how is that tension to be resolved?

Therefore, I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that, although I understand that the genuine intention behind the amendment is to give confidence and certainty, in practice I do not think that it would necessarily achieve this, and I respectfully suggest that the real consequence would be confusion.

Furthermore, the amendment specifically implies that the Government would have to undertake a thorough investigation, as soon as possible, of all the EU directives that have been domestically implemented over the course of this country’s 40-plus years of EU membership to ensure that they have correctly and completely implemented them all.

[Baroness Ludford]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister and thank her for allowing me to do so. Would it be so terrible if there were to be an audit of whether the UK had correctly implemented EU directives? The Government are marking their own homework if they say, “We’re not implementing the directives; we’re only going to freeze the domestic implementation”. However, if there is something wrong in the way that we have implemented a directive, then the Government are judge and jury of what will be retained.

At the risk of boring everybody—I will probably mention it again on Monday—I have cited before the directive on the European investigation order, which is about summoning evidence or maybe a witness to give a statement. It is the parallel to the European arrest warrant. The directive says that someone could challenge this in, say, a British court on the grounds of a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government have substituted for the charter the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as we know—we will be discussing it on Monday—is a bit narrower than the charter. Therefore, they have wrongly transposed the directive. Whether the European Commission is going to do anything about it, I do not know, but I remind myself that I want to find out. What happens if the Government have wrongly implemented the directive? What happens to people’s rights?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd April 2018 Lords Chamber

And what a failure the charter has been in protecting human rights in Europe. On Poland’s interference with the judiciary, Hungary’s interference with higher education, the imprisonment of Catalonian independence leaders, the diminished freedom of the press in Slovakia and Bulgaria, the rise of extremist right-wing parties and the treatment of Roma and migrants, the charter is impotent. For these reasons, a vote for the amendments to keep the charter is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the ability of our judges and this Parliament to make and interpret the law.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The noble Baroness just gave a number of instances where she said the charter was of no use. That is for the very good reason that the charter applies only to EU institutions or member states’ implementation of EU law. If she is arguing that the charter should have gone further and deeper into national law that has nothing to do with EU law, that is a very debatable point, but it does not.

[Baroness Deech]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point as to why the retention of the charter would not be of any use once we have left Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, with whose arguments on Amendment 15 I entirely agree, for his long-standing championing and reaffirming of disability rights both in this House and in the other place.

However, I have a question that I am struggling with and it relates to the brilliance of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of which we have just heard. I might be disheartened by the noble Lord’s arguments but his genius fills me with confidence that Parliament is well able to assert itself and to advance and protect rights after Brexit. Do we not believe in ourselves and in our proud history of championing rights? I believe that we have much to be proud of, and I personally have much to be grateful to our Parliament for, and your Lordships’ House in particular, due to the invaluable help it has given me and the charities I had the privilege of working with for almost 20 years spent in the voluntary sector.

I recall the crucial support that your Lordships’ House gave the Royal British Legion’s Honour the Covenant campaign when I was its head of public affairs. As a result, David Cameron, to his lasting credit, enshrined the principles of the Armed Forces covenant in law. I remember vividly the pivotal role that your Lordships’ House played in saving the crucial position of the chief coroner during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill, thereby securing long-overdue reforms to the coroners service to the great benefit of bereaved Armed Forces families and, indeed, bereaved families in general. However, I do not recall that those campaigns and changes to the law took place at the behest of the EU, the ECJ or the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Indeed, the EU, as I recall, barely got a mention.

As a child, my condition meant that I was for ever breaking my legs. I lost count of how many times I had to learn to walk again. You would think that you would remember something so basic, but you do not—not after months in bed with your leg in traction and not when you are afraid to put one foot in front of the other for fear of a fracture. You forget how to walk. I fear that we too have forgotten how to walk, and we need urgently to remember. We need to remember how to walk tall.

We need to reflect the simple fact that the people have spoken and they have chosen, by a clear majority, to leave the EU and to take back control of our laws. The UK is their country, not ours; the UK Parliament is theirs, not ours. We may have been their masters once; we are not now. We are their servants. They are the masters, and they have spoken in a once-in-a-generation referendum.

We do not need this charter. We in this great British Parliament set the benchmark for human rights. That was not done by the EU and certainly not by the ECJ, whose judgments, as we have already heard, are informed by the centrifugal force of everything that emanates from the rejected EU political project of ever closer union.

I conclude by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that a vote in support of Amendment 15 would be a vote of no confidence in Parliament and in your Lordships’ House. It would be a vote of disdain for the clear majority of the British people, who voted to leave the EU. I urge noble Lords not to support the amendment.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I must have explained myself poorly in my intervention on the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, or else the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has misunderstood me. I think I said that the charter did apply when national law implemented EU law, not just when it is EU institutions, and this Bill is meant to freeze EU law. I do not think there has been a response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: why, uniquely, should the charter be the only element that is left out? As one commentator, Professor Steve Peers, has said, taking the charter out of the case law is like trying to take the egg out of the omelette.

The charter is the key to the rest of retained EU law and its exclusion runs counter to the claim of continuity and certainty that this Bill is meant to deliver. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that:

“As a general rule, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”,


and that one of the four main functions of the Bill is that it,

“converts EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into domestic law before the UK leaves the EU”.

It will then be for Parliament, and where appropriate the devolved legislatures, to make any future changes. Why should the charter be different from the rest of EU law which is retained under this Bill?

It is perfectly possible to retain the charter and deal with any redundant sections after exit, just like for every other part of retained EU law. If the charter genuinely adds nothing useful, then that can be sorted out in the same way as for other EU law provisions. The arguments can take place later. Yet the only exception to the Government’s general approach is Clause 5(4), which provides that the charter will no longer apply in UK domestic law after exit day. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said in Committee and now, that position is simply unsustainable.

The Government’s rationale that it is not necessary to retain the charter because the rights it contains can all be found elsewhere in domestic law, and consequently that there will be no loss of rights, is disagreed with in advice from Jason Coppel QC for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. He highlights that there will be gaps in protection—for instance, in relation to children’s rights, data protection and non-discrimination.

Various articles of the charter have been referred to in the debate so far. Article 1, providing that “Human dignity is inviolable”, was objected to, but it has been used by the European Court of Justice to help protect LGBT asylum seekers from inappropriate psychological tests and in cases concerning the extradition of individuals to countries where they would face unacceptable detention conditions. That is not some airy-fairy right that we should not care about.

Mention has been made of Article 8:

“the right to the protection of personal data”.

I find it a bit rich that this was relied upon until the Secretary of State pulled out of what was originally the David Watson case, in his successful challenge to DRIPA. Article 8 will not be fully and clearly replicated after withdrawal, even with the retention of the general data protection regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I think that we are probably reaching the end of the debate.

[Baroness Ludford]

I am just concluding my remarks. I want simply to support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the importance of the Northern Ireland issue. You cannot have differing rights on each side of the border. The European Commission has said that the Good Friday agreement requires equivalent standards of protection of rights on both sides of the border. I simply remind noble Lords that Jacob Rees-Mogg has opined that EU sanctions for breach of the withdrawal agreement would go against the EU’s own charter of fundamental rights. The irony and hypocrisy of that statement require no elaboration from me.

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

30: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Internal security, justice and police co-operation and counter-terrorism
The Secretary of State must ensure that before exit day all necessary action has been taken to continue the United Kingdom’s participation in EU measures to promote internal security, justice and police co-operation and counter-terrorism to the extent that—(a) the United Kingdom has opted in to those measures,(b) they will be incorporated into UK law as retained EU law, and(c) they will not remove or diminish any rights of the individual in the criminal justice process.”

[Baroness Ludford]

I find myself in a similar position, in moving this amendment on behalf of myself, my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to my noble friend Lord Wallace in moving his amendment on foreign and defence policy and external security. This is about internal security, where, in theory, we are rather further forward in designing the wiring diagrams that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about.

In her speech at the Munich Security Conference, the Prime Minister said a fair amount about these issues of extradition, Europol and data access and exchange. But there are a few little problems on the way. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister some concrete answers about how a UK-EU security treaty will be taken forward and how it will address some of the problems identified so far. One concerns extradition. The Minister will be aware that in article 168 of the draft withdrawal agreement there is a facility allowing that the EU,

“in respect of any of its Member States which have raised reasons related to its fundamental structures, may declare that, during the transition period, that Member State will not surrender its nationals pursuant to”,

the European arrest warrant framework decision, and then the UK could declare similarly that it will not surrender its nationals.

I have to say that when Ministers from the Ministry of Justice and DExEU came to the EU Justice Sub-Committee four weeks ago, they did not appear to know what this article meant. It meant that some countries would not be able to extradite or surrender their nationals to the UK because they would have to change their constitutions. The one we all know about is Germany, which changed its constitution to be able to extradite its nationals to a fellow EU state under the European arrest warrant, but that did not apply to non-EU states. One reason why the surrender agreement with Norway is still not in force 17 years after negotiations began is that I understand there are 88 pages of declarations and notifications surrounding it, a lot of which will be to do with non-extradition of nationals. That would be a very serious omission from an extradition agreement.

Do the Government know which member states have already indicated that, for constitutional reasons, they would refuse to extradite their nationals to us or would find it impossible or politically difficult to change their constitutions, which in some cases might mean a referendum—perhaps no Governments like referenda—either during the transition or as part of the future relationship? What is the extent of that problem? If we are not going to be able to rely on the European arrest warrant, what is the situation in terms of falling back on bilateral agreements or the 1957 Council of Europe convention? How many member states have maintained in their national law the provisions for extradition outside the European arrest warrant and would they be willing to bring things back in just for us?

On Europol, are we looking at something like the Denmark model? Denmark has an opt out from all justice and home affairs measures, even though it is an EU member state and has no option to opt in on a case-by-case basis, so it is a third country for the purposes of Europol, with no decision-making powers and no access to the Europol database. Do the Government seriously expect to do better than Denmark on participation in Europol?

On enforcement and dispute resolution, is it conceivable that it would not be a requirement of a future UK-EU extradition arrangement for the UK to take account of CJEU case law and charter rights post Brexit? For instance, what is the Government’s analysis of the Irish court’s refusal to extradite to the UK and make a reference to the CJEU because of concerns about lower protections here post Brexit? These difficulties are not just going to arise after next March: they are arising already because of fears that our safeguards and protections are not high enough. I am sure that the Government are extremely grateful that they are being pushed to take these matters into account by this Chamber as well as by the European Council guidelines. Three months ago, the European Commission made a presentation of the main issues affecting police and judicial co-operation with the UK after Brexit. Two very pertinent factors were, first:

“Respect for fundamental rights, essentially equivalent data protection standards”,


and, secondly:

“Strength of enforcement & dispute settlement mechanisms”.


Those similar factors were stressed in the European Council guidelines of 23 March.

Norway, Switzerland and Iceland must not only make contributions to the EU budget to participate in Schengen laws and policies but also accept the supremacy of the CJEU over their national courts in Schengen matters. How do the Government intend to maintain access to one of the most important databases, the Schengen Information System—at the moment, we have access for the policing side though not for immigration—if they neither contribute to the budget nor accept the supremacy of the CJEU? There is no precedent for a non-EU, non-Schengen country having access to the SIS. Do the Government believe that they can, none the less, manage to gain such access? In her Munich speech, the Prime Minister said that,

“when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”.

However, in the very next sentence, she said that,

“a principled but pragmatic solution to close legal co-operation will be needed to respect our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order”.

That rather seemed to undermine respecting the remit of the ECJ. So which is it? Are we going to respect the remit of the ECJ or insist on our own sovereign legal order? I assume it cannot be both.

On the exchange of data, the Government have not, to my knowledge, confirmed that they will seek an adequacy decision from the Commission under the GDPR. They talked in the partnership paper last August about,

“building on the existing adequacy model”,

as if we could do better, and then the Prime Minister referred in the Munich speech to a “bespoke arrangement”—a term we have become quite familiar with. Would the Government not find it helpful to accept the retention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we have tried to assist in today, when they try to demonstrate that they are upholding high data protection standards?

One of the issues, to which we have referred several times in this Chamber, is that our data processing for national security purposes will come under the spotlight in a way that does not happen while we are an EU member state, because national security is outside the competence of the EU. However, once we are outside the purview of the EU, our Investigatory Powers Act and other provisions—including quite possibly our co-operation with the United States on intelligence data matters—will be scrutinised as to whether they sufficiently safeguard privacy. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is sitting next to the Minister who will reply, will know as much as I do from our experience from 2013 how difficult those issues can be. The Court of Justice struck down the safe harbour agreement because of worries about data transfers and data access by security agencies in the United States.

I hope I have given the noble Baroness the Minister a few small questions—or rather the noble Lord; I am sorry, it is difficult to keep up—which deserve quite meaty answers. There was no beef in the response on security and defence policy, but the Prime Minister herself has been much more explicit about the possible arrangements on internal security. I draw attention to the wording of the amendment, which includes showing how the measures,

“will not remove or diminish any rights of the individual in the criminal justice process”.

We participate in some procedural rights—not as many as some of us would like—but we need to uphold the rights of defendants and victims in the criminal justice process as well as to enable the police to catch criminals. I therefore look forward to learning from the Minister some quite explicit and specific details about how the UK-EU security treaty is advancing. I beg to move.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, in warmly supporting this amendment, I will make only two points. First, crime is now global and international; trafficking, drugs and terrorism know no frontiers. When I was serving on the Home Affairs Committee and we looked into these matters, I was impressed by the way in which one person after another who had front-line operational responsibility said how important the European dimension was to them, how any diminution in the effectiveness of co-operation with Europe would not be in the interests of the protection of the British people, and that we needed our colleagues in Europe. When asked, “But what about those elements of Europe which might not be as well equipped professionally and in other ways to undertake the tasks as we regard ourselves as being?”, the answer was, on the whole, very firm. They said, “We had better help them to become as effective and not walk away from them because we shall need them”. This amendment is therefore very important and I commend it to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

It is certainly our intention but, as I have said, these are bilateral relationships and the discussions are continuing. That is one part of the withdrawal agreement that was not quite finalised and so, literally, discussions are continuing on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also asked me about databases and the use of EU data on UK databases and vice versa. This is also a matter for negotiations. Our aim is to ensure that we and our EU partners continue to share and use personal data where there are clear benefits to public safety, subject of course to the appropriate safeguards.

For all of those reasons, and given the Government’s clear intentions to continue and strengthen our close collaboration on security, law enforcement and criminal justice after we leave, and given that the new clauses exceed the purpose of this Bill, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. For the sake of clarity, I should say that the Government will not reflect further on this amendment and so, if the noble Baroness wishes, she should take the opportunity to test the opinion of the House this evening.

[Baroness Ludford]

I am quite cross, really. With all respect to the Minister, that is a disrespectful response. Twenty-one months after the referendum, there was not even as much detail in the Minister’s reply as there was in the Prime Minister’s Munich speech. For instance, the Minister said that a new treaty will require respect for legal sovereignty. As I mentioned to him, the Prime Minister said:

“when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”.

What does that mean? The Minister has enlightened me not a jot on that, nor on the follow-up phrase about,

“our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order”,

which was the only one he talked about.

It is farcical that the Prime Minister can make a speech containing more detail than the Minister is prepared to give in response to an amendment in this House. We are being treated as of no account whatever. The way in which Ministers are responding on this is disrespectful. It is obvious that there are major challenges in getting a UK-EU security treaty. Many commentators are writing about it, with various opinions and insights, but the Government are not among them, at least when it comes to telling us in Parliament. Even though we are the unelected House—I am not aware that they are telling the elected House in any more detail either—it seems poor that this is what we have become and have been reduced to when we seek knowledge about how Parliament will take back control of our future relationship with the EU post Brexit.

We will have to reflect on another way in which to take this issue forward. I hope the Minister will understand that his reply was not worth the paper it was written on. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily, as we have already discussed this, but it is worth emphasising the importance of the European protection order that grants victims of violence protection against the perpetrator across the EU. Because we are leaving, this will no longer be available to UK citizens. The ability to share data on perpetrators, as well as a whole host of other measures aimed at tackling human trafficking and FGM, enforcing child maintenance orders and preventing the sexual exploitation of children is also at risk. It is disappointing, therefore, that violence against women and girls has not appeared in any of the Government’s Brexit-related policy papers.

It is in all our interests to ensure that the tremendous work and collaboration that we have enjoyed until now with our EU partners should not be lost. Vulnerable women and children must never be used as a bargaining chip in anyone’s negotiation— and of course, funding this work is hugely important. We stand to lose really important funding streams such as the Daphne fund, the rights, equality and citizenship fund and the European Social Fund, which supports a wide range of research and other services dedicated to tackling violence against women and girls in the UK.

We are not asking the Government to commit to anything specifically, just to report on how they intend to replace the lost EU funding that supports tackling the fight against violence against women and girls. Nobody wants to see the most vulnerable, most persecuted members of our society lose out as a result of our leaving the European Union. I look forward to hearing what words of comfort the Minister can supply to assure the House that under no circumstances will the Government allow that to happen.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I have just a few brief words to back up those who tabled the amendments. I was in the European Parliament when the European protection order directive was passed, a mere seven years ago, under co-decision with the European Parliament, when MEPs considered it a very important measure. I believe that the first European protection order in the UK was passed just over two years ago, so it has not had the chance fully to show its value, but it is about ensuring that a restraining order, for example, follows the victim wherever they move in the European Union—rather like a European arrest warrant follows the criminal, although I would not otherwise draw an analogy between the EPO and the EAW. These measures are hugely important.

Of course, the development of mutual recognition in both civil and criminal law in the EU has been a counterpart to the free movement of people, but we will not see an end to considerable free movement of people after Brexit. We have learned enough about the Government’s post-Brexit EU movement plans to know that a large volume of people will still be moving between the UK and member states of the European Union and the EEA, for all kinds of economic and social reasons—although the Government keep kicking the can down the road in terms of telling us exactly what their plans are. To say that we will be ending automatic free movement rights to live, work and study in another EU state is not a good argument that we do not need to continue with these cross-border mechanisms.

A good answer from the Government on how funding from EU programmes that support vulnerable women and girls and victims of domestic abuse will be replaced is extremely important, but so is how they intend to continue co-operation to replace those mechanisms, such as the European protection order and, I add, the victims’ directive, which has supported people and enabled them to enjoy a similar level of protection wherever they move around Europe. The need for those mechanisms, as well as the funding, will not go away. I hope that the Government will offer a substantive and substantial response on these matters.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy for tabling the amendments. Yesterday, not only were female Members of this House having our photograph taken to commemorate 100 years of women being Peers—being able to be Members of your Lordships’ House—many of us also went to see the unveiling of the statue of Millicent Garrett Fawcett, at which the Prime Minister spoke eloquently about the rights of women and how important they are, and we commemorated and celebrated the work of Millicent Garrett Fawcett. Would it not be a tragedy, therefore, if an unintended consequence—I think it would be an unintended consequence—of Brexit were that somehow we reduced the protection available to women and girls from violence in any way? The points made by my noble friends and noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches in support of the amendments are valid.

The Minister may recall that on Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Sherlock illustrated the complexities that could come for child protection and family law when we leave the EU. Her experience and understanding of that is reflected in the comments of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws today. From experience, she can say how the European protection order, which guarantees mutual recognition of legislation across the whole of the EU, adds to the protection that we all wish to see for women and young girls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we hope for a substantive response from the Minister on this issue today.

The ability to share data on perpetrators, as well as a host of other measures that tackle human trafficking, FGM, the enforcement of child maintenance orders—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Sherlock previously—and the sexual exploitation of children could all be put at risk. I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Gale, who has a huge reputation on these issues, that the Minister referred in Committee to the Istanbul convention, which should offer much-needed protection. Can she tell us when it will be ratified?

Will there be a gap between exit day, when we lose the EPO, and when the new Act will be on the statute book? What cover will allow us to ensure that all aspects of what we have now under the EPO will be enshrined in our legal system?

Another issue raised by my noble friends is funding. Although the Government’s previous commitment of £100 million is needed to keep the sector going, it will not plug the gap left by the loss of EU funds. The loss of those funding streams threatens to push small, specialist providers, which receive a significant amount of their funding from the EU, into a position where they can no longer operate to ensure the protection that women and girls need.

All that is being asked for is a report and information so that we can identify where the problems are and understand the Government’s response. I was disappointed to hear from my noble friend Lady Lister that she still has not had a response from the Minister to the issues that she raised. The whole point of the gap between Committee and Report is to ensure that the Minister has time to respond to questions from noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will say today why she did not respond at the time and what can be done to rectify that, because it is not satisfactory to raise issues in Committee and have to raise them again on Report because answers have not been received.

I am sure that the Government’s intentions in this are honourable, but we need to know in practice how these commitments will be met to ensure that we do not put women and young girls at risk of violence in a more difficult and precarious position than they are at present. I hope that the Minister will give a substantive response today on how the Government will address this.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, in responding to this debate, I begin by reiterating how important the issues we have discussed in the debate are. We have had today a clear, and, I suggest, impressive reflection of that importance, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and other noble Lords for their contributions.

I start by addressing Amendment 37, about continued recognition of European protection orders made after we leave the EU. The European protection order regime, established by the EU directive of the same name, is essentially a reciprocal regime. It requires the relevant designated authorities in the different member states involved to act and communicate with each other in the making of an order and in its recognition and enforcement. It is not possible for us to regulate from here to require the relevant authorities of remaining member states to act in any particular way. As such, if we are not in a reciprocal regime, we will no longer issue European protection orders to remaining member states, as it would be pointless to do so; and nor will the authorities in those member states issue them to the UK for the same reason.

In short, absent our continued participation in the European protection order regime or some proximate reciprocal agreement in its place, the regulations will be redundant—they do not work unilaterally. The amendment therefore pre-empts the outcome of the negotiations. I am happy to be clear, however, that if the ongoing negotiations produce an agreement to continue the UK’s access to the regime established under the directive, or something like it, appropriate steps in legislation will be brought forward to implement it at the time.

[Baroness Ludford]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I think she said something like, “absent a proximate system”. She is being asked to say whether the Government will seek to find a solution to the present reciprocal mechanism. After all, we know that the Government will be seeking a UK-EU security treaty. When I moved an amendment on Monday about internal security, justice and home affairs, I was not very happy that there was no substantive response from the Government. Surely the Minister can tell us what the Government plan to try to secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, speaking as a former chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place, I think that we should all thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for raising this issue. I hope that we will have a sensitive response from my noble friend the Minister. Knowing his track record, I am fairly confident that we will. But if ever we needed reminding how important it is that we handle these matters with sensitivity, we only have to say the words “Windrush generation” and remember the deeply shaming facts of the last few weeks. In an empty Chamber last night, we had a Statement on that, but although the Chamber was virtually empty, every single Member of your Lordships’ House who spoke said, effectively, the same thing.

We are dealing with the movement of people and, particularly, we are dealing with people who have for many years—in some cases, 30 or 40 years or more—had all the rights and privileges of the British citizen. As we know, there is real concern in the rest of the European Union among those who are sad about what happened with your Lordships’ verdict last year that we should give an unconditional guarantee from the word go. They are now apprehensive and, although I believe that it is entirely unnecessary for them to worry about the Windrush effect, nevertheless they are worried. So I hope that, when responding to this debate, which I trust will be brief, my noble friend will be able to give comfort not only to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, but to Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House, in all parties and on the Cross Benches, who share her concern at these important matters.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, from these Benches, very briefly, I just say that we share the concerns expressed in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. There are just two points that I would ask the Minister to respond on. First, what is the meaning of “routine” in the Northern Ireland position paper of last August? There was a pledge that:

“The development of our future immigration system will not impact on the ability to enter the UK from within the CTA free from routine border controls”.


A lot hangs on that adjective; can the Minister please elaborate on what that means and on what border controls will be allowable?

Secondly, the draft withdrawal agreement requires the UK to ensure that the CTA,

“can continue to operate without affecting the obligations of Ireland under Union law, in particular with respect to free movement for Union citizens and their family members”.

How will it be ensured that the free movement rights of EU citizens that Ireland is obliged to secure will be respected post Brexit?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think it should go unremarked in this short debate, where there is a Northern Ireland connection, that in neither House of this Parliament are there any representatives of the nationalist community and yet, in this House, we have members of the DUP who never, ever give a view. They claim to represent the majority in Northern Ireland—the leader today has threatened the Prime Minister, if she deviates, with deselection—but, at the same time, there is something wrong with the debate, because we are not fully representative. Why do we have these people in this House who never give a view, and yet their views are important? I just think it is worth putting this on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Amendment 43 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It would add to the prohibitions in Clause 8(3) a prohibition on increasing or imposing taxation by regulation. There are already similar prohibitions in Clauses 7 and 9 that you cannot impose or increase taxation by regulation made under these clauses.

Noble Lords might have noticed that my fox is ever so slightly shot by the admirable Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which proposes the dropping of Clause 8. I welcome it and many of the government amendments in the group. It is clear that the noble Lord has been listening hard and I am very grateful for the changes he proposes. However, I want to say a word about Amendment 104, which is lurking in this thicket of government amendments and is also in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It would insert the same prohibition against making new taxes or increasing taxes by regulation in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4. Schedule 4 is about fees and charges, not taxation. The idea of the amendment is to add a prohibition on eliding from fees and charges into taxes.

When I was young, irresponsible and committing multiple misdemeanours I was sentenced to five years in Her Majesty’s Treasury—a sort of borstal or juvenile detention centre. Now that I am old, irresponsible and committing multiple misdemeanours I have very few memories of the Treasury, but one that stands out clearly is of being in the Box behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was a private secretary—at the time of the Budget speech. At the end of the Budget speech there is an interesting ritual that takes place in silence in the House of Commons, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leader of the Opposition stand up and sit down three times. They are passing the Motions that permit the instant changes of taxes that might be pre-empted. The Chancellor can say something like, “So the price of petrol at the pumps will go up by 5p at 5 pm”. When you go home and look, by God, they did go up. It is an astonishing thing. That is because since 1913, I think, it has been clear that it is not possible to increase taxes or to create a new tax other than by legislation in the House of Commons. That is what happens in that ritual immediately after the Budget: they are passing new taxes for a limited period of three to five months maximum while the Finance Bill goes through the House. The Finance Bill contains these changes and in due course becomes law.

I worry about Schedule 4, which creates the power for Ministers to create public authorities and confer on them the power to impose or create taxes. It seems a fairly fundamental breach of the principle that only Parliament may create or change tax. I am reinforced in this view by the excellent reports from our Delegated Powers Committee, which takes serious exception to the powers in Schedule 4. It points out in its 12th report of this Session, published on 31 January, that the powers are “very wide” and notes that the delegated powers memorandum submitted by the Government spells out that they would enable,

“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service … including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body”.

The committee comments:

“A ‘tax-like charge’ means a tax. Although regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation, regulations under Schedule 4 may do so. Not only can Ministers tax, Ministers can confer powers on public authorities to tax. Indeed, they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever”.


The committee concludes:

“Taxation, including ‘tax-like charges’, should not be possible in fees and charges regulations made under Schedule 4. Fees and charges for services or functions should operate on no more than a full cost-recovery basis. Taxation should be a matter for Parliament, a principle enshrined in Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688”—


a powerful case, which persuades me.

The Delegated Powers Committee has reported again this week, in its 23rd report, having looked at the government amendments, which I have just welcomed. It remains of the view that,

“taxation, including ‘tax-like’ charges, should not be possible in regulations made under Schedule 4”,

and spells out three or four reasons for that, including the fact that it would offer,

“little consolation to be told that one is being taxed under Schedule 4 rather than under clause 7 or clause 9”.

The prohibitions are clear in the Bill in Clauses 7 and 9, although there was a prohibition that we would have added in Clause 8, had Clause 8 been there, by way of Amendment 43.

However, Amendment 104 seems to make a very valid point which I think the House should hear more about, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on it. Why do the Government feel it is right to confer on themselves and whatever public authority they wish the power to levy taxes or increase taxes, against what is usually thought to be a fairly fundamental principle of parliamentary control? I beg to move Amendment 43.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is arguing for consistency throughout the Bill that taxation or “tax-like charges” should be imposed only by primary legislation. That is all I need to say at this stage.

[Lord Cormack]

As my name is on the amendment, I merely endorse what my friend the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness have said. We want consistency. We are glad that Clause 8 is to be taken out of the Bill, but the point that he made about Schedule 4 is very important indeed. I know we cannot vote on that amendment tonight but I hope that my noble friend Lady Goldie, who I am delighted to see will reply to this debate, will be able to give us an assurance that this matter has been taken on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

Or offer up a prayer, one or the other. My noble friend Lord Callanan says we are seeking to continue these international agreements, and I presume that is forming part of the negotiations.

I turn to Amendment 47 specifically because my noble friend Lady McIntosh deserves a response. Initially it was in a group of its own and my noble friend Lord Callanan was going to respond in detail, but I shall try to deal with the substance of the amendment. I must begin by repeating that the Government’s intention is to end our membership of the single market because remaining in it would fail the first test for the future economic partnership that the Prime Minister set out at Mansion House: it would fail in delivering control of our borders, law and money and would mean the UK accepting the four freedoms, including freedom of movement. That simply would not deliver the result of the referendum. As the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech, the Government are instead seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. Given those objectives, I cannot support the amendments that seek to keep the UK in the single market.

My noble friend seeks in particular to include any obligations or legal requirements arising from continued membership of the EEA or of EFTA, should agreement be reached on remaining part of the EEA or rejoining EFTA, in a definition of “international obligations” for the purposes of Clause 8. As I have said, the Government have tabled an amendment to remove Clause 8 from the Bill and, as has been made clear, we are not seeking to remain in the single market through the EEA agreement.

For clarification, the Government have no plans to rejoin EFTA because leaving the EU offers us an opportunity to forge a new role for ourselves in the world, to negotiate our own trade agreements and to be a positive and powerful force for free trade. It is also worth mentioning that membership of EFTA would not necessarily be a quick and easy solution, as some have argued; all the EFTA states would have to agree to us rejoining and, even if they welcomed us back, we would not have immediate or automatic access to their free trade agreements. Our entry into each one would need to be negotiated individually with the third countries involved. Similarly, if we were to seek longer-term participation in the EEA agreement, we would have to first join EFTA.

It is not proper for Governments to legislate contrary to their policy intention. We cannot bind future Parliaments and therefore do not need to purport to legislate to leave the door open. Future Governments can of course bring forward whatever legislation they choose to. In any event, joining the EEA or EFTA would give rise to new obligations and the implementation of such new requirements would not be possible under the Clause 8 power, which covers only existing obligations. I hope I have satisfied my noble friend as to why the Government cannot accept her amendment, and in the circumstances I ask her to withdraw it.

[Baroness Ludford]

I apologise if this is not quite the right moment to ask the Minister to clarify something; I do not know if she has finished on the EEA. In case she has, will she write with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: how can it be possible that we stay in the EEA in transition if the Government’s legal case is that the Article 50 notification covered both the EU and the EEA? When we leave the EU next March we must also leave the EEA, so it cannot be possible that we stay in the EEA during transition. It cannot be both; it is one or the other.

[Baroness Goldie]

We are seeking to remain part of the international treaties to which we are party, through negotiation. I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, because I have no more information beyond what I have been given and I would be straying into very uncertain territory if I tried to be more specific.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as has just been said, the price of the Government’s failure to accept the advice of this House and its EU Committee to offer a unilateral guarantee to the 5 million affected citizens is being paid by those citizens in anxiety, distress and distrust. As a result of taking the bargaining chip approach mentioned by several noble Lords, rather than a simple, light-touch, declaratory procedure, there are mounting concerns about the process, not least in the light of the Windrush scandal. There may be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in that group, but there are 3.5 million EU and EEA citizens here and 1.5 million UK citizens in the EU 27, so altogether that is 5 million people. What assurances can the Government give about the staffing and capacity of the relevant section of the Home Office that will deal with the settled status application process and about the testing plans? Those of us affected by the TSB fiasco are very conscious of the need for good testing and communication plans for customers.

My noble friend mentioned what is apparently the current plan, which means that people will not be able to apply online from Apple devices, such as iPhones, only from Android devices. Apparently Home Office officials told MEPs last week that people could borrow their friends’ Android devices to complete the process. That seems a little bizarre. Will an offline process be available for people without digital skills or access to computers? What are the plans for communications, appeal and redress? We know that the draft withdrawal agreement requires independent oversight of the process, but can the Government give us more of an idea of the practicalities and of how they plan to make sure that vulnerable people are not excluded? A report last week from the Migration Observatory expressed concern about people potentially being excluded. The Government have been ruled to be acting illegally in trying to deport rough sleepers, who are not necessarily in breach of EU free movement law. Is everybody to be included? Have the Government set a cost? Today’s letter from the representative of the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, to the incoming Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, says that the European Parliament expects there to be a cost-free process for applicants and raises other systems issues. He also raises the crucial issue of the need for full rights under the new EU data protection law—the GDPR—to apply, not the Government’s planned exemption. Without these rights, if something goes wrong, people will not be able to find out and get their data corrected. That is a cause that these Benches have championed, and we look forward to others coming on board with that demand.

Can the Government clear up something that has been bothering me? What exactly are they saying about comprehensive sickness insurance? We have had evidence, and this has been said by Ministers in public, that there will be no need to demonstrate the holding of comprehensive sickness insurance as part of the application process for settled status, but the draft withdrawal agreement seems to imply that there will still be a requirement to hold it. So is there a difference between having to hold comprehensive sickness insurance and having to demonstrate it as an evidential requirement? Could the Government clarify exactly what will happen to people who in the past were told they needed CSI? What happens in the application process?

Could the Government clarify the omission from the draft withdrawal agreement of free-movement rights among the EU 27 for Brits who are settled in one of the member states? There is huge concern, particularly among people whose job requires them to move around. I see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his place. He and I have depended in the past, as Members of the European Parliament, on the skills of freelance interpreters and translators. Not only do they move around between Brussels and Strasbourg but they might work for other international organisations or businesses, so they live in one member state but travel all over the EU. They need the right to work across borders within the EU 27. What exactly accounts for the gap in the withdrawal agreement?

We do not know what will happen about post-Brexit immigration but it looks as though it will be very similar to EU free movement, except with a lot more red tape, bureaucracy and cost, and less freedom. That is not a terribly good bargain. We are suffering a lot in the process of the Government’s Brexit demands on citizens, and I ask for some answers.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I would have hoped that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady D’Souza, and my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Judd would not have needed to table this amendment. It should have been self-evident that those living here who arrived with the reasonable expectation of their right to remain on the same terms would have had that guaranteed by the Government.

Sadly, though, it has proved essential that the movers table the amendment since EU residents retain a level of anxiety born not just of the referendum result but of the Government’s subsequent actions. First, at the time of the Article 50 Bill, the Government refused to guarantee their existing rights and chose instead to use them as bargaining chips, as we have heard, using their majority in the Commons to overturn your Lordships’ amendment. Secondly, more than a year later, there is still no cast-iron guarantee, despite Ministers promising early agreement on this. Indeed, the Government have failed to implement what the Prime Minister said in December would be on offer to EU citizens, and we therefore need to put it into law. That is a priority for the Bill. We cannot wait until December to give these people certainty. They have decisions to make—on schooling, jobs and homes, and perhaps on marriages and children—and need to know where they stand.

Thirdly, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who is not in his place now, insisted that,

“you can only have the domestic law once you have the international treaty, because it is from the international treaty rights and obligations that you allow the domestic rights and obligations to be brought into our domestic law”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; cols. 1078-79.]

I do not know if he was deliberately misunderstanding what we were asking but, in effect, he was saying that the withdrawal agreement must come first and that without it the Government would refuse to guarantee existing residents their existing rights. That is not necessary in the treaty. It may be a decision by the Government but it is certainly not the case in law. We are not asking that the Government wait until we hear from the EU 27 how they will react to our citizens living there. We are asking the Government to affirm now something it is in the UK Parliament’s gift to decide: what rights we will give to EU citizens currently living here legally.

Lastly, we need this because of the disastrous mishandling, which has just been mentioned, of another group of people also living here quite lawfully: the Windrush generation. Given their overwhelming right to be here, the length of time of their residency and the contribution they have made to the economy, is it any wonder that more recent—albeit equally legal—residents, EU citizens, question whether vague promises of concern will harden into legal guarantees?

The amendment is necessary, morally right and legally justified, so I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will accept it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Adonis]

The House may be aware by now that I am in favour of our staying in the European Union. I have great respect for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds; it is great for bishops to spend a long time in the wilderness, but not for people doing trade and leading the economic life of the country. While the right reverend Prelate is in the wilderness, perhaps he can conduct our negotiations with whoever we are conducting them with in the wilderness on our behalf.

My reading of the amendment is that it has zero impact. I cannot see anything in the Bill that prevents our having any relationship with European agencies. Our issue with the Government is that they do not want relationships with many of them. I do not intervene, however, just to make the point that the amendment is useless. I am concerned by what is becoming a pattern in our debates on the Bill: thinking that changes with no substance whatever amount to great advances in our campaign to reverse Brexit. We should concentrate on things of real substance: the customs union, the single market and the referendum. Those are real changes.

As far as I can see, the Minister will not accept gestures of this kind because he does not accept anything from this House on principle, even from Bishops. Perhaps the Almighty can sway his mind in a way that we mere mortals cannot. He could accept the amendment but he will not. Even if we go to a vote, it is not worth wasting the time of the House on trivial matters of this kind; they may give us the impression of having some impact, but we are in fact having zero impact.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. One of the most important matters is security. In Barcelona the other day, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives—Jamie Acourt—was arrested in a joint operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Spanish police, possibly assisted by Europol. The NCA head of international operations said:

“Our ability to share information and work at speed with our international partners ensures there is no safe haven for fugitives. We will never stop pursuing these individuals”.


That is no doubt true, but Acourt will be returned under the European arrest warrant. If we do not stay part of the warrant and have to fall back on the long-winded extradition arrangements that predate it—without any participation in Europol to facilitate cross-border police operations—our security will be endangered. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, accepts that security is one of our most important interests. I hear what noble Lords said about the effect of the amendment but, politically, it is important that this House presses on the Government the importance of staying in agencies and institutions.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of the key Amendment 93, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith added his name and which was moved so biblically and effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. Of course, at that time, I had not only a brilliant legal adviser on my right, but a theological one—my noble friend Lord Griffiths—who has now left the Chamber. I said, “I have to have a biblical quote”, but I am afraid he has a sense of humour and said, “The people who were wandering aimlessly in the pre-Brexit wilderness were soon squabbling among themselves, ignoring the advice of their leader”, and so on. But I will leave my noble friend’s helpful comments for another time.

I say this particularly in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Adonis. This is an important and meaningful amendment because it would restrict the pretty wide powers given to Ministers in the Bill. That is why we need to pass it. We have on a number of occasions, on this Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, expressed our surprise that nowhere in the referendum process—in the immediate aftermath, nor in this legislation or any other—did the Government ever spell out that the Article 50 process automatically triggered our exit from Euratom. I will not repeat the costs and dangers of that eventuality given earlier debates on it, particularly the input at that point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

However, equally unremarked on and unmentioned by the Government, or by the Brexiteers during the campaign, was the similar removal of the UK from a swathe of agencies, many of which, as we have heard, we helped to construct and all of which have served this country well. Colleagues will already know, from medical researchers who have been in touch, patient groups, health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry, of the risks of being outside the European Medicines Agency, quite apart from the loss of jobs and specialisms that are now moving to Holland. But the same could be said about the European Food Safety Agency, often referred to, but not today, by my noble friend Lord Rooker; the environment agency, emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Whitty; the railways and aviation agencies, often referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley; the European Chemicals Agency, which has been mentioned; and, of course, Eurojust, suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and Europol, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

The commonality is that any mention of those agencies in this House and beyond has included a plea for us to remain members, associates or partners with whichever such agency is in the frame. Sometimes this means following the same rules—as the Government have now accepted for clinical trials—to assist in monitoring; for safety; for easy and rapid transport, as for medical isotopes; to facilitate trade and exchange; to enable skilled persons to undertake checks or repairs; or, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said, to guarantee safe products for users and consumers.

For some of the agencies it might mean paying money in, as the Prime Minister acknowledged. For some it might mean harmonising assurance, governance or penalties for rule-breaking. But for all it will mean a willingness to adapt and respond to requirements, usually simply to maintain our existing rules and practice. What is clear is that, given the wide powers in the Bill for Ministers, we must ensure that none of those powers is used to frustrate our continued involvement with such agencies, whether because, for example, we set different sanctions for breaches, raise fees or charges in a different way that makes it difficult to move along in their way of working, or apply variant rules or any other similar change. That is why it is critical to circumscribe the powers in the Bill so that they cannot be used to prevent us having necessary EU rules or ways of working that would frustrate our participation in any of these agencies. We do not want the powers to be used for that reason, hence the very simple amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, had it right: the Bill should not be used to frustrate the intention, should that be the Government’s wish, to stay in these agencies for the good of the whole country. It is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said in his introduction, entirely in line with what the Prime Minister said in Mansion House and it would allow this country to continue such relationships where that continuation is in the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, notwithstanding the very reasonable sentiments just expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I think that I would be among others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the way in which he has taken the initiative on this subject. It is becoming increasingly complicated with the approach of the so-called exit day—whatever date that may be in legislation and so on—and, therefore, we need to think very carefully about this. Although this was a long time ago, I recall that the Maastricht treaty bestowed on citizens of each member state individual citizenship as EU citizens, too. It was a solemn and profound moment when that was announced many years ago in 1992, and it was made much of, mostly in the other member states but also in Britain as well. A lot of British citizens who were working abroad were delighted at the idea of being citizens of the European Union as well, which added to their obvious practical freedom of movement, although that was not essential to it.

We have now got to be very careful to make sure that the Government respond to the civilised and reasonable request for them to expand their minds a little bit into thinking about this matter, because it will be quite complicated. There is the question of the Irish Republic’s offer, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the special status that may emerge in Northern Ireland, not deliberately, according to the DUP, but accidentally. It is not much to their liking that a special status would be accorded to people there and they would remain individuals citizens of the EU. Is this a matter of collective bestowal of citizenship because of the Maastricht treaty in 1992, or is it now a matter of it being an individual proclivity if the right was there, given that there are exceptions to the idea that you have to be within only one member state to be a citizen and you can apply for citizenship from outside? It therefore may be that the very act of applying for citizenship and continuing to have the protection of the ECJ as individuals because of the bestowal of European citizenship would need to be included in this wide examination. It is a very complicated matter and should not be excluded from people’s mind and, mostly, the Government’s mind. They may be very unwilling to consider these matters, but they need to do so and we are grateful for this amendment and this debate.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for continuing to champion this important cause, which is dear to the hearts of these Benches. There are several invidious features of this matter. First, it creates a division among United Kingdom citizens. Not only do people in Northern Ireland have the right to acquire Irish citizenship and thus EU citizenship, but many other British citizens have the right to, or are already pursuing, dual citizenship in order to get the passport of another country. I believe that I have the right to an Irish passport because my mother and my grandmother were born in Dublin. That creates two sets of British citizens: those with the additional political expression and practical advantages of EU citizenship and those who are unable to continue to enjoy them.

Another feature of this matter is hypocrisy. Do the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the Minister agree that the following is deeply hypocritical of the leading voices in Legatum? It is reported that the co-founder, who is of New Zealand extraction, and the chief executive have managed to acquire Maltese passports. How they have done so, I have no idea. That will give them EU citizenship, including the right of free movement. As advocates of the hardest of hard Brexits, they have had the ear, we believe, of many leading members of the Government. They have been pushing hard for Brexit so as to deprive the rest of us of EU citizenship, but they have made sure that they are feathering their own nest by obtaining citizenship of another EU member state and thus EU citizenship and free movement.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, she is absolutely right, but is she aware that one of the DUP Peers who spoke at length in the debate last week has an Irish passport?

[Baroness Ludford]

I take the noble Lord’s word for it. I have no reason to doubt that. I have a feeling that there may be many people in similar positions who are saying one thing and doing another. I find that pretty reprehensible.

We strongly advocate that all UK citizens should continue to have the opportunity of EU citizenship. Many of us feel particularly for young people. Those of us who are getting long in the tooth have for 45 years had the advantage of the freedom to move to and work in another EU country. It is extremely sad that the young people of this country are going to be deprived of that opportunity.