European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I think that most noble Lords, perhaps not all of us, have agreed that this debate has raised extremely valid and interesting issues which we have debated often and will certainly return to again. I am only slightly sorry—and I apologise if this sounds a shade partisan—that not a single government Back-Bench Member has attended this debate. I know that these matters are not important to them on a Friday afternoon, but actually they are important, even on a Friday afternoon. I had to get that crack in before I move on to more neutral and non-partisan observations. As for the Bill and the promotion of it by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I doubt whether these issues, important as they are, can be encased in a legislative instrument or, heaven preserve us, yet another committee. That is reflected rather well in the obvious problems in Clause 1(3), in which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, makes heroic efforts to define how on Earth one would construct an independent committee on a subject of such vast extent and where there are such strong and polarised opinions, which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, bravely tried to modify. Frankly, I cannot for a moment see that part of the exercise succeeding but I suspect that that was not the Bill’s main purpose anyway. I am left wondering whether I would fit into any of the categories. I do not fit into the wonderful, old-style view of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, of left and right and that sort of thing in the Tory party; we do not live in that world any more. I am not at all sure whether I am left or right. Nor am I at all sure where I fit into the categories of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I personally believe that Britain should play a leading part in Europe in a union—not the Union that we have today but a revised one. I do not know where that puts me on his committee; it probably keeps me off it altogether. If one is calm and sensible, one will see that the issues are vastly important—they are vital—and are much too pervasive and complex to be locked away in any committee. My noble friend Lady Noakes rightly said that we must give the most profound attention to them. The Government’s handling of them is far from satisfactory; we need a much better approach all round. The debate has raised four key areas for attention: the UK economy and the EU; our national security and defence; our law and constitution; and our budgetary and public spending policies. Let me go through those. On the economy, almost everyone—maybe not one or two who have participated in this debate—accepts that our economy is now hopelessly overloaded with regulations; very much so for our smaller businesses. The costs of compliance with regulations are rocketing; the estimate is that since 1997, the costs to British business have risen by£55 billion, of which three-quarters or more are of EU origin. I am told that the EU working time regulations alone cost £1.8 billion every year; that sum is probably rising. The whole process of incorporating EU regulations and other burdens into our lives is sloppy, full of holes and should long since have been tightened up. Whether one can blame one Government or another, we have allowed a wholly inadequate and almost insultingly casual process to develop. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, pointed out, we are governed increasingly not merely by secondary legislation and statutory instruments that slip through but by instruments and legislative devices that do not even pass through Parliament or which do so without touching the walls either side. I am personally coming to the view—I first put it forward with my colleagues in another place more than10 years ago—that we must follow the Swedish and Danish example. We must ensure that our Ministers are controlled by mandatory concession, by mandatory agreement, by our two Houses of Parliament before they agree to things in the Council of Ministers. I know that that sounds like a big step forward but if we—the Government or my own party—seriously believe that we will have more open, effective and democratic government in our own country, we may have to go the way of the Danes and the Swedes in that regard.