Baroness Hayter: Critics of the Lords should consider why the government was defeated 15 times on Brexit
4 min read
From borders and devolution to legal protections, Lords’ oversight will only lead to better legislation and improved government as we prepare for Brexit, says Dianne Hayter
After almost 180 hours of debate, the EU Withdrawal Bill has left the House of Lords, and will return to the Commons with some 200 amendments, of which just 15 are a result of voted defeats.
Throughout the Bill’s passage at our end of Parliament, attention has focused on five key areas.
First, on the UK’s future trading and other relations with the EU post-Brexit – whether in a Customs Union, with the EEA or alongside the various agencies to which we currently belong. Agencies from which we will be excluded from March, relating to everything from chemicals, medicine and nuclear research, to aviation and food safety.
Second, on the status of the EU laws being brought over onto our statute books, enabling current rules and regulations to continue after we leave. This involved legal debate on the treatment of such laws in courts; and also limiting the powers given to Ministers to change policy (whether the creation of new criminal offences or diluting environmental or employment protections).
Third, on the issue of parliamentary scrutiny over this swathe of new UK legislation – in particular, how our committees could triage the flood of statutory instruments, to give proper attention to the significant ones.
Fourth, the vital matter of Northern Ireland and ensuring Brexit does nothing to undermine the Good Friday Agreement.
Fifth, devolution – where the biggest set of changes were made to the Bill, as laws relating to non-reserved matters returned from Brussels to UK shores.
Both the first and fifth of these areas raise constitutional and parliamentary questions.
In recent years, our trade deals have been negotiated by the European Commission on the basis of a mandate by the European Council (on which the UK is represented) and the requirement for consent by the European Parliament (with British MEPs). Once outside the bloc, all our trade treaties will require not simply expertise in government but proper parliament oversight and approval.
The same could be true for devolution. There has anyway been a growing need for improved four-government coordination – the Joint Ministerial Committee being neither statutory nor effective. Once powers on areas such as agriculture, fishing and the environment flow to the Devolved Administrations, it will be vital to have a more structured and workable liaison with robust parliamentary oversight (perhaps jointly from the four parliaments/assemblies). This will be vital to ensure an internal market, consumer protection and business demands. Indeed, business will often want one set of regulations, while consumers need effective standards and enforcement.
These are major matters – and urgent too. They also cry out for a House of Lords role, given not just the expertise of our membership, but our greater independence from the UK government. On devolution in particular, this might offer confidence to the other three administrations. (Not that convincing the SNP about the Lords would be an easy sell.)
Some Conservative MPs are up in arms about the 15 defeats, with Iain Duncan Smith accusing peers of being “drunk with their own prejudices”. The Daily Mail tells us we are “traitors in ermine” for daring to gainsay the Prime Minister. It all feels rather inevitable – despite the fact that the House is merely sending issues back to the Commons rather than having the last word here.
Perhaps our critics should pause to consider the reason behind the 15 defeats, as well as many of the concessions. Experienced, expert grey heads, appointed to take a wider, perhaps more long term, view of government proposals (in the national interest) have done their statutory duty. So the critics might consider why Bishops and Crossbenchers contributed towards these amendments.
It looks likely that peers will have a major scrutiny role to play on the trade, agriculture, immigration and other Brexit Bills, secondary legislation, treaties and the devolved issues. As such, Ministers and the Commons alike should accept that being asked to explain, or think again, might lead to better legislation and improved government. Rather than sabre-rattling about a ‘constitutional crisis’.
My guess is that we have work to do. I also think the Lords, and Parliament more widely, will rise to the task.
Baroness Hayter is a Labour peer and Shadow Brexit Minister. She tweets @HayteratLords
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
