Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)

My Lords, I need to respond to the rather surprising compliment from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I can do so because I agree with a number of things that he said, in particular on the case for parliamentary scrutiny during negotiation and before a deal is struck. I am sure that we all agreed with his strictures on the negotiating stance of his noble friend Lord Frost. I join in the tribute to the committee and its outgoing chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, under whom I served, and let us not forget the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who stood in so well for him when he had to step aside. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who was by far the most sympathetic Minister with whom we did business, and to the incoming chairman, who maintained the Grimstone tradition. There is an accountability gap; the report proves it very satisfactorily and clearly by comparing our procedures with those of comparable countries, including those with dualist systems. They have more say than we do. However, there is also a gap relative to the past. We have much less say now than we did when we were in the EU. With our Ministers taking part in Council decisions on opening, handling and concluding negotiations, Parliament’s scrutiny reserve meant that Ministers could be and were summoned to answer our questions before casting their votes. I served on our EU committee and four of its sub-committees, and I can confirm that their scrutiny, unlike today’s, was real. Moreover, once the Lisbon treaty came into force in 2009, our Members of the European Parliament enjoyed the right to be kept immediately and fully informed at all stages of every treaty negotiation led by the Commission—on trade, investment, agriculture, fisheries; any subject where full EU competence applied. Of course, they also had the right to vote on the outcome—