Grand Committee

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 8 June 2011.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)]

My Lords, it has been agreed that should any of the Questions for short debate not run for their allotted hour this afternoon, the Committee will adjourn during pleasure until the end of the hour. Therefore, each of the Questions for short debate will start at a quarter to the relevant hour. In the likely event that there are Divisions in the Chamber, this Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes. If any noble Lord is in full flood at the time, they will of course be given injury time after the 10 minutes are up.

War Widows’ Association of Great Britain

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:46

Asked by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain as it reaches its 40th anniversary.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this morning I attended a most moving and uplifting service in the Guards Chapel to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows' Association. Quite understandably, and quite rightly, much time is given in this country, in the way we do best, to remembering all those who we have served in the forces, those who have died and those who have been wounded—some very seriously. The service on this memorable day allowed time to reflect on a group no less important: those who are left bereft and devastated by the loss of loved ones serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force—the widows and widowers, of whom there are over 30,000 in the UK. It is therefore a great privilege for me to open this debate this afternoon on the association, which by happy coincidence—or by design, I am not sure which—falls on the same day as the service. It is the first debate in the House of Lords on this important subject, and it provides a good opportunity for me and for all speakers to help to raise the profile of the association, to assess its achievements and to set the stage for its future, looking forward to the next 40 years.

The term “war widows” is an evocative catchphrase and is a broad description, carrying considerable meaning, for an association that represents not just those women who have lost husbands in conflict but husbands who have lost wives. A loss can be the result not just of war in the Armed Forces but of general service, whether by accident, illness, of wounds suffered many years ago or indeed of friendly fire.

The War Widows' Association, which gained charitable status in 1991 and has a strong regional network supported by a dedicated team of volunteers, has come to be recognised as the arms of embrace in waiting, after the immediate family, for comfort, support, understanding and camaraderie. The main event of the year is the AGM, staged over four days, when there are excursions, a dinner and some entertainment.

The War Widows' Association was formally recognised in 1972 under the formidable leadership of Mrs Jill Gee from Liverpool. This followed a high profile stand-off between another lady, a Mrs Laura Connolly, and the tax authorities, over her refusal to pay tax on her widows’ pension. She had arrived from Australia, where there is 100 per cent exemption. Prison was threatened, but she succeeded in receiving important media coverage for the widows’ cause. However, it was not until 1976 that the Labour Government cut the tax on widows’ pensions by 50 per cent, and Mrs Thatcher in 1979 abolished the tax altogether.

In 1982, war widows were included for the first time in the remembrance service march past at the Cenotaph. This tradition is now a proud and important annual event for the association, and 2010 was no exception when the march was led by the president, my noble friend Lady Fookes. In 1989, another milestone was reached when the war widows were represented for the first time at the Royal British Legion remembrance service in the Royal Albert Hall. Further achievements included equal rights afforded to war widowers in 2003. Such national recognition has been hard fought. Most people would argue that the care, understanding and provision, material and financially, for war widows should be top of any national list and should be unconditional and total. This is surely true, but the reality is that improvements for war widows have often been halting over the years.

I welcome the work undertaken by this Government. On 16 May, the Armed Forces covenant was announced, and the sentiments are encouraging. I quote:

“The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it”.

The Statement said that the,

“families and those who have lost a loved one in service, all deserve our support and respect”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/11; col. 25.]

The covenant is a result of ideas drawn up by Professor Strachan, who reported last December and highlighted the need, inter alia, to introduce a community covenant for forging new links with and between the Armed Forces, local authorities and communities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said:

“The armed forces covenant is not just about words; it is about actions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/11; col. 26.]

An external reference group has been established to monitor progress. We should expect such progress and actions to include the needs of those represented by the War Widows’ Association. References in the paper are not obvious, but I welcome the introduction of scholarships for children of the bereaved service families. I ask my noble friend the Minister what specific plans there are for supporting war widows in the covenant.

There are several further issues to raise. Following a bereavement, a widow is likely to experience extreme emotion from a broad range—shock, trauma, grief, denial, anger, loneliness and depression, to name a few. The Ministry of Defence and the three services handle with great sensitivity the immediate aftermath of loss. However, it can take much more time—if they wish it at all—for the bereaved to accept an invitation to join the War Widows’ Association. Not least, many do not wish to be labelled a widow. Many do not even wish to venture out.

It is partly this challenge of engagement and a technical firewall created by the Data Protection Act that may explain why only 3,000 members are registered with the association out of a total of 30,600. It is therefore a circuitous process to transfer contact details of those recently widowed to the War Widows’ Association, despite the fact that it represents a vital link in offering help from those who are best placed to help. Surely data protection laws can be bypassed to allow a near-seamless link to be made from the bereaved, via the Ministry of Defence bereavement services, to the association.

The opportunity for a widow to visit the grave of a spouse—a so-called pilgrimage—is vital. The Government have provided a one-off subsidy for those who wish to visit a grave. I ask my noble friend if it is the Government’s intention to continue or to extend this provision.

The Government’s announcement last year that pensions and benefits would in future be pegged to the consumer prices index, not to the retail prices index, has had a negative impact on vulnerable groups. To what extent are the Government considering exempting certain groups in the UK from this change, including widows of policemen, firemen and Armed Forces servicemen?

However, the overriding issue for war widows remains the receipt of a fair pension. This is as relevant now as it has been in the past in the light of the number of young widows arising from the prolonged and challenging war in Iraq and, of course, now in Afghanistan. There are two specific issues to address. From 2005, war widows whose bereavements occurred prior to April 1973 are eligible to continue to receive a pension if they remarry or cohabit. It was in 2005 that the Armed Forces compensation scheme was set up, with widows receiving a pension for life. However, payments are not retrospective. Thus, there is a group of widows, currently numbering 4,100, whose bereavements fall post-1973 and pre-2005 and who still lose their pension if they remarry or cohabit.

Finally, a government consultation paper proposes changes to the pension age-related increments awarded to war widows. This would include abolishing the increment at age 65, retaining those at age 70 and 80, but providing a final lump sum of £1,000 at age 90. The War Widows’ Association rejects this proposal on the grounds that the award at age 90—more than 8,000 widows are nearing this milestone—is minimal and is more likely to be given away to grandchildren than to be used for necessity, such as funding future care needs. I trust that under the auspices of the covenant these specific issues will be given due attention and acted upon.

The War Widows’ Association has worked tirelessly to develop a strong national voice. It is clearly heard. Its objectives now should include recognition within the covenant, ensuring ease of contact with new widows and increasing membership from the current 10 per cent of total. This will help create more impact in seeking further government help for this determined, proud and resilient group. I wish the association every success.

15:55

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for bringing this important issue forward for debate today, the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows’ Association. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the War Widows’ Association, about which I feel extremely privileged and humble.

Debates are the bread and butter of what we are about in this House. Having been a Member for just under 20 years, I could never feel as privileged as I do today to be standing up and taking part in this debate. This morning, we had a very moving service at the Guards Chapel. It brought home to everyone there what amazing women are part of the War Widows’ Association and how they have stuck together like glue. The saying “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” really applies to those ladies and, as the chaplain said, they know how to enjoy themselves as well. One of their great assets is that they have never portrayed themselves as victims—the majority were widowed during the Second World War—but they include among their ranks many younger widows because of recent operations. They portray themselves and act as proud individuals—proud of their spouses and what they did for their nation, and indeed for their paying the ultimate price. They are prepared to stand up and be counted and do what they can do to help each other. They have done that for many years, which is an enormous credit to them.

The widows have many ways of expressing that support for one another. This morning was one of them; the annual remembrance activities in London are another. They also have their annual get-together. I have been privileged to go to one or two—it is not just a day but several days. They all meet up, look after each other and catch up on news, too—that is very important. And then on the Saturday evening, when the hair comes down, the frocks go on and the band starts up, you really start to ask, “Are they really that old?”. There is also the arboretum. The previous Government strongly supported the role of the War Widows’ Association, and I am delighted to say that the current Government are building on that. We are privileged to have with us today the noble Lord, Lord Astor—without sparing his blushes. Along with his fellow Minister in the MoD who is responsible for veterans’ issues, he is very committed to supporting what the war widows are doing.

The magazine Courage—a great title; it has been going for years—provides another way for them to keep in touch with each other. I was reading earlier today a newsletter dating back to 1987. It talked about how you could win a Marks & Spencer’s voucher for the ladies. Last year, the association was able to give one to each of its members.

The War Widows’ Association is also a democratic organisation, having office and committee elections. It does that because it wants to try to make sure that it makes progress on behalf of the people whom it represents. That includes lobbying Parliament. This House has always given good support to the work that the War Widows’ Association has done. We all remember Baroness Strange, who was a wonderful advocate of the association. In fact, it was through her that I got involved with speaking in the Chamber on issues affecting war widows. She was ably followed by the current president, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who was at the service this morning and who is present everywhere whenever there is an event. She gives marvellous representation for, and support to, this amazing organisation.

However, the work goes on and there is still a lot to achieve. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, mentioned the covenant. The legislation will be coming to the House of Lords in the coming months and I can assure the Minister—he would be disappointed if I did not—that we will be on our feet talking about issues affecting the war widows and making sure that they get their fair share of both representation and adjustments in the covenant where needed.

There is one area—the noble Viscount touched on it—that I would ask the Minister to address, if he can. It is a difficult area because of the legislation. The Data Protection Act is a barrier to reaching the newly widowed wives and husbands of serving personnel. We have to find a way around that because the law is being an ass in this case and bureaucracy is preventing us from giving the comfort and support that those women and men may well need.

As has been mentioned, the organisation started in 1971 and came out of the case of a war widow, Laura Connelly, who came back from Australia. At the service this morning the association prayer was sung—I do not intend to sing it, your Lordships will be relieved to know. It was written by a war widow, Mrs Kay Todd, and even today, 40 years later, it encompasses what the organisation is all about. It goes like this:

“We will recall

Our yearly tribute placing

The hopes and dreams that slowly had to fade

We will go on

The lonely future facing

Knowing too well the sacrifice you made.

We will forget

The loneliness and worry

The pain of parting and the tears we shed

Forget as well

The aching and the longing

Keeping our memories of the times we shared.

We will remember

Head held high with pride

We will keep vigil

With our men who died”.

The war widows have kept faith with that commitment.

16:02

[Baroness Thomas of Walliswood]

My Lords, in introducing the debate, the noble Viscount has given us an opportunity to learn more about the development of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain since its inception in 1971 and to make some comments on the current situation.

Of course, 1971 was the year Laura Connelly returned from Australia, where the war widows’ pension was tax free, only to find that her war widows’ pension was taxed in the UK. She refused to pay the tax on her pension and was supported by 14 women who battled successfully to remove the burden of paying taxes on their pensions. A letter from Joyce Maxwell, one of the founder members of the association, allows us to see more of the story. She tells us of her anger at the removal of tax from her pension, which she characterises as,

“never enough to support a family, except in the meagrest of fashions”—

which I think is a wonderful phrase.

Campaigning by the association has resulted in significant improvements in the situation: the removal of income tax from the war widows’ pension; reinstatement of the pension to war widows on cessation of second or subsequent marriage; and retention of the MoD occupational pension on remarriage. However, it took many years of sustained campaigning to achieve this position. I do not think that the results that were achieved in those days reflected very well on society’s attitude to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. We hear a great deal about sacrifice at this and other times of the year—and it is a true sacrifice—but to make a kind of flowerpot out of it does not suit me very well.

Today, however, there are still financial problems to be faced by wives and families when husbands are killed or disabled—and, of course, large numbers of heavily disabled young men are now being returned from Afghanistan and other places. The widow may see a marked loss of income—this is quite common for women pensioners. SAGA evidence clearly demonstrates unfairness between men and women in general. In particular, SAGA has highlighted the fact that pensions are to be uplifted more rapidly for male than for female pensioners. This is despite the fact that women rely more heavily on the basic state pension as a result of having to do most of the childcare in the family.

Meanwhile, the armed services are being warned that they cannot be spared from government cuts leading to changes in military expenditure that could cost families thousands of pounds. Lobby groups and MPs are working to achieve a rethink. The Royal British Legion and the Forces Pension Society have given evidence to the effect that some forces families should be exempt from the payment of pensions. The expected change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index will hit the military pensions hardest. That is especially true for widows and invalids.

Despite the splendid efforts of the War Widows’ Association, we may still need to press for improved pensions for members of the armed services and their wives and partners. Therefore, while I pay tribute to the tenacity of the association, it seems to me that this did not reflect well on society’s attitudes to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Many people—the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke about them—have put tremendous effort into supporting armed services personnel and their wives in trying to achieve the appropriate recompense for tragic circumstances, which they so thoroughly deserve.

16:07

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on obtaining this debate. I was going to congratulate him on happily achieving it on the day of the service, but he modestly told me this morning that that was not necessarily so. However, I am extremely glad that we have this opportunity to pay tribute to the War Widows’ Association on the very day that it held the moving service I was fortunate enough to attend.

I want to mention two things about that service. First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the indefatigable president of the association, that she read Sir William Tyndall’s timeless translation of “Corinthians” about charity quite beautifully. It is something that I shall never forget. Secondly, I was sitting alongside a window whose inauguration I shall also never forget. It is in commemoration of a young grenadier who was killed in Belfast in 1980 when he was commanding my SAS troop. I remember its unveiling and the dignity of his young wife widowed in the first year of marriage. It was moving to be sitting alongside that particular window.

Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces have come across colleagues and friends who early in their career have left widows. I am extremely grateful that the noble Viscount mentioned the problems of those who risk losing their pension because of marrying and cohabiting. I remember two colleagues in particular. One was killed in Aden three weeks after leaving the staff college, where for a year we had lived opposite each other. He left a wife and two young children, who had the most terrible problems trying to look after them. Another was the widow of a colleague who died on Bloody Sunday, after being shot in Londonderry six months before. In order to be able to bring up her children, she could not afford to give up her widow’s pension. It is timely to bring these things out.

I also warmly support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. It seems quite wrong that the charities and others which are trying to help people are having difficulty obtaining information that will enable them to contact the people who need help. Something is wrong here and it needs to be put right.

I want to say a few words about the context of the Armed Forces covenant, which is totally new to me, because in all my service it did not exist; there was no such thing. Indeed, “Armed Forces covenant” is a very new phrase. A military covenant has been talked about in the Army for the past three or four years, but is unknown to and unrecognised by the Navy and the Royal Air Force. I do not wish to appear to carp, but I must admit that one word makes me slightly cross when I read the introduction to the thing. It talks about rebuilding the Armed Forces covenant, but we are not rebuilding anything; it has never been there before. “Rebuilding” defines something that has been bust and requires repair. What we actually require is a covenant to be built—to be made. It would be much more dignified if we dropped the word “rebuilding” and set about trying to develop the covenant as it ought to be.

I draw attention to one aspect of each of the three parts that illustrates what I mean. The Armed Forces covenant itself describes the levels of support on page 5. The greatest level of support is due to those who are “bereaved due to Service”. That implies that the most should happen for them. However, the second document, The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, far from listing all the support to bereaved families has two pages that are very largely given over to discussing what help they might need from the inquest advice service when they go to an inquest. I suggest that there is a disconnect here. I seriously believe that any support that needs to be given to bereaved families, who are listed right at the heart of the covenant, needs to be spelled out much more clearly.

Recommendation 4.3.2.d in the third document, The Government’s Response to the Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant, refers to,

“a ‘shopping list’ of areas of greatest need”.

I ask the Government whether, in close contact with the War Widows’ Association, they could draw up a shopping list of what the association recognises to be the areas of greatest need, insert them into the covenant and then set out in the covenant that the Secretary of State should be required to report every year to Parliament on how that shopping list is being met. It seems to me that that would be the best way in which to repay the debt that we owe to these remarkable people, whose bravery and fortitude, frankly, I admire and am humbled by every day.

16:13

[Baroness Fookes]

My Lords, my first duty is to declare an interest as the president of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain. However, it is not only my duty but my pleasure so to do, because I have found this one of the most rewarding tasks I have ever undertaken, and my admiration for these ladies and a few gentlemen knows no bounds.

Indeed, I am amazed when I look at the strength of the association now and remember the humble beginnings 40 years ago which other speakers today have already touched on. Sadly, most of those pioneering ladies have now gone, but I am delighted to name one, Mrs Kathy Woodside, who is alive and very much aware of the work of the association. She is a real pleasure. I spoke to her only today; she was at the service, at the reception and at the luncheon afterwards.

It has been a very hard road that they have had to travel. We have had some indications of their achievements so I will not rehearse them in a short speech. I stress that none of those various achievements over the years was brought about without a great deal of effort, work, disappointment or various authorities’ obstinate refusal to listen. None of this has come easily—it has come very hard indeed. I hope that in more enlightened times it will be easier to get done the things that need to be done. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in principle I very much welcome the building of the covenant, of which he reminded us, but I am also aware of that old phrase, “Fine words butter no parsnips”, and we shall want to see whether the fine words and aspirations actually come to anything in terms of deeds. I shall therefore look to my noble friend the Minister to see whether these fine words are actually translated into action. The War Widows’ Association will be anxious to help in this regard and I hope it will be consulted.

The association operates at two distinct levels. One level that is important to this debate is what I call the campaigning arm, which tries to make things better and redress wrongs. In the course of doing so, it has also been very wise in making sure they have representation on all the various bodies that advise Governments or make their points. That is very important, and I hope that if ever a new body is created or some consultation has to take place, the War Widows’ Association will always be at the forefront of those who are consulted. I make that as a general point since we do not quite know what the future may hold.

The other arm, which was already touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is the highly valuable social networking that goes on, including at the AGM which over the years has developed into a mini-holiday, which is absolutely splendid. I go each year for the full four days and I join in with everything. It is extremely worthwhile and enables anyone on the outside, as it were, to really get to know people, hear their stories—some of them almost unbearably moving—and to see how they can enjoy themselves. To see them dancing is quite something, and those who cannot dance sit there and tap their feet. It is a remarkable way of bringing people together who have suffered such losses.

I want to deal now with several issues of concern that have been touched upon this afternoon, and one that has not. One of these, of course, is the Data Protection Act. I make no apology for saying again that if ever the law of unintended consequences were working with an Act, it is this one. It is ludicrous beyond belief that the Act should stand in the way of the War Widows’ Association making contact with women—or in some cases men—who have just had the most appalling experience of their lives and everything they hold dear being turned upside-down, or offering the comfort of those who have gone through exactly the same process. None of us who has not been through such a trauma and come out the other side is ever able to do that as well as someone who has. I am not sure what the way around this is, but I do believe that if there is a will there is a way. I strongly urge my noble friend the Minister to look at this again and to overcome any objections from those who think it is more important to have data protection than it is to help people.

I also want to touch upon the issue of the chief coroner. My noble friend the Minister will recall that in the dying days of the previous Administration we asked, and got it put into a Bill, that there should be a chief coroner with a responsibility and a duty to make sure that those coroners looking at military inquests were fully prepared and trained, so that they understood the ethos and the particular circumstances in which people die in war and conflict. That office has been put on ice—that is probably the right expression—but I want to see that those duties are not forgotten while the office is not in existence. I end with that plea to my noble friend.

Finally, we are very fortunate in the association in having such an enthusiastic patron as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who was present at the service today and took an immense amount of time to meet, I think, practically every war widow at the reception. We are indeed fortunate in that royal patronage. Who would have thought it when it started, 40 years ago?

16:21

[Lord Loomba]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Leckie, for securing this debate. The issue of widows is very close to my heart. Before I start, let me declare my interest: I grew up as a widow’s son. I set up a widows’ charity in 1997 in this country in honour of my mother. It has now become a global charity, which was accredited by the United Nations in 2008. The issue of widows is global and the war widows are suffering so much that we should pay attention to their problems. My mother was not a war widow, as my father actually died of disease, but no matter how a woman loses her husband—through poverty, disease or conflict—her plight is exactly the same. She has to deal with the bereavement and financial insecurity in her life.

The emotional turmoil faced by widows after the loss of a spouse is not a sentiment which can be altered. However, financial provision for those widows and widowers who have lost spouses in the Armed Forces is a step towards helping them rebuild their lives and provide a positive future for their children. Members of the Armed Forces past and present placed their trust in the Government as they previously declared a commitment to preserve the military covenant, as we have heard earlier. Yet to state now that members of the Armed Forces need to understand they cannot be exempt from the big picture is degrading to those risking their lives every day, serving our country in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is understandable that temporary cuts need to be made in relation to the deficit. However, the long-term effect of losing hundreds of thousands of pounds will be felt by many widows for generations to come. It is unfair to make a decision hastily, especially in the case of widows. Treating people who work in the Armed Forces in the same way as those who work in the public sector is simply unacceptable and quite frankly it is an unfair proposal—not to mention the impact this decision will have upon the credibility of the Government.

The other issue is whether widows’ pensions should be linked to the retail prices index or the consumer prices index. The Government are well within their rights to use either the CPI or RPI. However, we are all aware that CPI inflation is significantly lower in comparison with that of the RPI; and that will result in hundreds of thousands of pounds being taken away from deserving widows. Furthermore, the proposal to discontinue a widow’s pension if her partner died before 2005 and she wishes to remarry or cohabit with a new partner also cannot be dismissed. It is unjust to force a widow to choose between living alone with a pension or cohabiting with or marrying a new partner without the financial aid that they are accustomed to receive.

My charity, the Loomba Foundation, which works to raise awareness of the plight of widows around the world, gained support from the United Nations which, about six months ago, declared 23 June as International Widows Day. Perhaps I may add that on 23 June this year, the United Nations is hosting a conference at the UN to raise awareness of the plight of widows all around the world. There are war widows in every country. The number of widows who have lost their husbands through conflict is incredible. Recent research has shown that there are 245 million widows in the world. That is why the UN is taking up their case, and the British Government should also do so seriously.

We are aware that financial aid is not something that can erase the emotional and internal turmoil faced by widows, yet it permits widows to regain some independence and allows them to live out their lives with the dignity and respect they deserve. The War Widows’ Association is supporting the unfortunate women whose husbands have fallen while fighting for our country. The association not only helps the bereaved to overcome loss and to resume a normal life, but works with the Government to ensure that the war widows receive the benefits and pensions to which they are entitled.

Widows suffer their own sorrows. We must do everything not to add to their suffering.

16:28

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount for securing this timely debate. It was a real honour to attend the service at the Guards Chapel this morning to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain. This remarkable association, now under the chairmanship of Mrs Rosalind Campbell, has achieved much since it was established and it is right that it now has proper recognition and a voice in all of the appropriate fora.

The aim of the association, to improve conditions for all war widows, is a noble aim and, sadly for a civilised nation in the 21st century, still they have to do battle. However, the members of the association are passionate and resilient; they inspire and give hope to one another and to tomorrow’s war widows. When their brave and patriotic husbands were alive, before they had given their precious lives for our country, life was already challenging for these women. I used the term “husbands”, but I am aware and delighted that in 2002, war widowers were officially recognised by the Government and are entitled to be full members of the association. The widows and widowers were the ones who had to care for the children as single parents for great stretches of time. They had to manage the household and juggle finances and commitments—all the time worried about the safety of their loved one. The death of a partner is always painful, but the death of a partner on active service must increase the pain. We, as individuals and as a society, owe these widows and widowers a great deal. Their partners paid the ultimate sacrifice.

While saluting the work of the association and the courage and tenacity of the widows, I, too, have some questions to put to the Minister. First, I associate myself with the concerns already expressed about the retention of pensions for those war widows or widowers who remarry. It is wonderful that some whose spouses have died find a new loving relationship and, as someone who values the institution of marriage, I can understand why they would wish to remarry. It is wrong if this decision is coloured by the consideration of the loss of a pension.

Secondly, while acknowledging the need for restraint in public as well as private sector pay and pensions, I simply do not understand why the decision was taken to reduce the value of pensions for soldiers and war widows. By linking forces’ pension rises to CPI rather than RPI, members of the Armed Forces and their loved ones will see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives. It cannot be right that the men and women who give their limbs and their lives for our country, and the families that they leave behind, should suffer in such a way. We are told that these measures are necessary in order to reduce the deficit, but the deficit is temporary while the impact on war widows will be felt for the rest of their lives.

Finally, I come to the issue of the Government’s plans to abolish the post of the chief coroner, already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. As noble Lords will be aware, we had major debates on this issue during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. With the strong support of the Royal British Legion, we secured an amendment to the Bill which reversed the decision of the Government. This was an important step for many in our society who had made the argument for years in favour of a chief coroner’s office and who were devastated to learn of the Government’s plan to abolish it. It was especially important for bereaved Armed Forces families who have first-hand knowledge of the difficulties currently faced through the Independent Inquest Advice Service. The Government's arguments in favour of abolition were based on cost and accountability, but these were comprehensively rebutted in the House of Lords by many noble Lords who are in this Room today.

I have heard from various sources that during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill in the Commons the Government intend to introduce an amendment securing the abolition of the office of the chief coroner, precisely overturning what was decided in the Lords. This would not only fly in the face of the very substantial vote in this House, where the amendment was agreed by 277 votes to 165, to preserve the office of the chief coroner, but also be a huge disservice to the Royal British Legion and to the War Widows’ Association, which rightly believe that the role of chief coroner is vital to ensuring that bereaved service families receive the help they deserve when the deaths of their loved ones are investigated. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not seek to counter their wishes. I also warmly support the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in respect of the covenant and reports to Parliament.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting the partners of many who are bravely serving our country. It is possible that some of them will now be widows or widowers. I owe it to them, to my Aunt Jean who has been a war widow for many years and to the thousands of others whom I have not met to do everything possible to support the association. It is a privilege and an honour to do so, and I wish it continued success.

16:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already offered to my noble friend on securing this debate on the very important work of the War Widows’ Association. It is clear that the whole House recognises the importance which we as a nation must continue to attach to supporting grieving families. The pain of losing a loved one is lifelong, and many take great comfort from others who have had similar experiences. I pay tribute to them all, and I am very honoured to take part in this debate today.

Like the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I and my fellow Ministers will do all we can to support the very important work of the War Widows’ Association. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Fookes, who spoke with the authority that one would expect of a president of the War Widows’ Association. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, as a vice-president, spoke in an equally informed manner. With their combined knowledge and support, the association is very well represented in this House.

Like many organisations, the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain was founded out of conflict. When Laura Connelly read an article in a newspaper in 1971 highlighting the plight of Britain’s war widows and decided that action must be taken, she could not have foreseen the impact that her stand would have on the future policies of all Governments of this country. Her endeavours have been carried on by the association’s 13 chairmen. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all for their tireless work on behalf of their members, and to welcome Mrs Rosalind Campbell as the association’s newest chairman. I am sure that she will continue the great work of her predecessors.

Only those who have suffered the sudden loss of a loved one can truly appreciate the hole that this leaves and the unexpected problems that can arise as they try to rebuild their lives. Today’s war widows are no longer the stereotypes that we remember from the war—though their numbers are still significant—but are much younger and often with young children. Of course, this is extended to include widowers and civil partners who must not be forgotten. They have very specific needs of their own, and we have an obligation to do all we can to meet them.

Our Armed Forces are currently deployed to the most demanding areas of conflict in Afghanistan. They are performing magnificently. Together with our allies, they are reversing the momentum of the Taleban. But, sadly, tragedy does occur. We will do all we can to support a family and help them through these difficult times. But we recognise that we cannot do everything, which is why we partner with charities and other organisations to deliver a full range of support. For example, the willingness of the War Widows’ Association to adapt to the different challenges facing our war widows must be applauded. I know that its role in shaping recent Ministry of Defence policy, its work with the previous Government on the Service Personnel and Command Paper, and its input into the review of the Armed Forces compensation scheme by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, was valued and appreciated. It can be rightly proud of its achievements. Its contribution to the review has ensured that the partners and dependants of those tragically killed received payments of hundreds of thousands of pounds over their lifetime in the shape of the survivors guaranteed income payment. While we understand that this will never replace a loved one, it does help to ensure that life can be made more comfortable and the future more secure.

This Government are rightly proud of the work we are doing to build the Armed Forces covenant, mentioned by several noble Lords. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about “rebuild”. On 16 May, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the publication of a covenant and outlined how, with the passing of the Armed Forces Bill—due to be debated in your Lordships' House soon—he will be required to report annually on how the Government are performing against the measures we are committed to put in place. In doing so, he will be able to call on members of the external reference group, on which the War Widows’ Association is represented. I am particularly pleased that it is at the heart of holding the Government to account. I will take back to my department the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the association’s shopping list as it is an excellent suggestion.

I know that an area in which the War Widows’ Association shows great interest is coroners’ inquests and ensuring that improvements to the system continue to be made. That was raised by several noble Lords.

A Ministry of Defence familiarisation event was held last May to provide coroners with awareness of the equipment and procedures used in theatre. We intend to repeat this event annually. Induction and continuation training for coroners and their deputies—this relates to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Fookes—will also continue and the Ministry of Justice Coroners Training Group is planning training for the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked whether the chief coroner’s position would be abolished. I have no brief on this today but I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and to put a copy in the Library.

Support is made available to bereaved families before, during and after an inquest, and families are kept fully informed of preparations through dedicated single service teams. We also make funding available for the attendance by three family members at inquests into deaths deemed attributable to service. We have produced a DVD to try to improve the understanding of what to expect from and at an inquest and to make the whole process less daunting and stressful. I would like to assure all service widows that the interests of bereaved families will remain at the heart of any legislative changes.

The Government are aware of the need to ensure that families receive appropriate support, especially during the most difficult times. Each of the services offers ongoing practical support for the next of kin of the deceased. However, while each service provides its own support networks, sometimes the best and most valuable support can come from those who have endured a similar situation and a tragic loss. That is why the Government and the House recognise and appreciate the invaluable support of the War Widows’ Association over the past 40 years and the vital role it will play for many years to come.

I have answered one or two noble Lords’ questions and I shall do my best to answer the others. If I do not, I undertake to write.

My noble friends Lord Younger and Lord Loomba asked what we were going to do about the widows who lose their pension because they fall into the gap between 1973 and 2005. I know that the area of pension provision for widows is one of the association’s top priorities. However, it must be remembered that it is a general principle of public service pension policy—one that has been upheld by successive Governments—that improvements to pension schemes should not be made retrospective. The issues raised by service widows are not limited only to the Armed Forces but are common to other public service schemes which have similar provisions.

Resolving legacy issues across the wider public sector would be extremely costly, with estimates running into hundreds of millions of pounds. However, in some specific circumstances—often at the behest of the War Widows’ Association—we have been able to make changes, and where it is possible we will of course continue to do so.

My noble friends Lord Younger and Lady Fookes, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised issues about data protection. I can confirm that my department would welcome any suggestions on this issue from the War Widows’ Association. On the data protection issue, a dedicated visiting officer will work very closely with the bereaved family and will assist in making pension and compensation claims. As part of that process, a widow will be invited to give her permission for her details to be released to the War Widows’ Association. In addition, the association is brought to the attention of a bereaved family through a variety of means. We believe that these steps give the association visibility to those who most require its help.

I have run out of time. My noble friend asked about visits to graves and I can confirm that visits to graves will be continued.

Migrant Domestic Workers

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:45

Asked by

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to address the exploitation of migrant domestic workers, including those employed within diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords speaking in this debate today on a subject that demands our attention both for the heart-rending predicament of many domestic migrant workers and for the urgent need for action to remedy the situation, which renders them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. In addition to those who will be speaking, there are colleagues who cannot be here but who share our concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, has especially asked me to say that she much regrets not being able to participate in the debate.

My first awareness of this very disturbing situation came from meeting Mende, a young girl from Sudan who had escaped from the Sudanese embassy. She had been abducted into slavery from her home village in the Nuba mountains in Sudan in a raid typical of many that I encountered there during the war that raged until the peace agreement was signed in 2005. Tens of thousands of women and girls have been captured and sold into slavery there; we had the opportunity to rescue many hundreds, and their stories were heart-breaking in the details of the cruelty inflicted on them.

Mende's story was no exception. After being captured, she was forced to work as a slave in a diplomat's house in Khartoum and then brought to London to continue her servitude here. She managed to escape, and it was my privilege to do a little to support her as she tried to find freedom in this country. Her story is recorded in the very moving book entitled Slave: The True Story of a Girl's Lost Childhood and Her Fight for Survival.

In preparing for today's debate, I have been grateful for excellent briefings, including those from Anti-Slavery International and from Kalayaan—justice for migrant domestic workers. The debate is particularly timely, because this month the International Labour Organisation is celebrating its 100th anniversary. As we meet here today the ILO is meeting in Geneva, working on standard-setting in relation to decent work for domestic workers, with the intention of adopting a new international convention on domestic work by the end of the month. This represents an historic opportunity to provide greater international protection for domestic workers and highlights the ILO's recognition of the critical need to do so.

Domestic work is generally poorly regulated and undervalued. Many domestic workers are subject to serious abuses, which often include forced labour and slavery. They frequently work excessively long hours, without breaks, days off or holidays. The pay is often very low, and wages are frequently delayed. Some are not paid at all, or only receive payment in kind, such as food or accommodation. Many also suffer verbal abuse such as insults and threats, as well as physical and even sexual abuse. Some experience a lack of food and poor living conditions, such as having to sleep on the floor in a utility room.

Many migrant domestic workers often make great sacrifices to live away from their families to earn money for their dependants back home. Their exploitation by unscrupulous employers renders their sacrifice doubly painful; the sadness of poignant separation is exacerbated by denial of appropriate remuneration to send home. In the UK in 2009, 14,898 migrant domestic work visas were granted. Also, in the UK in 2009, the group Justice for Domestic Workers interviewed 111 of its members and found that over 50 per cent of them were expected to work over 55 hours a week and 95 per cent of them were not paid even the minimum wage. Almost half had not had a paid holiday in a year.

Domestic workers are exploited behind closed doors in private households and therefore fall outside the normal regulatory and inspection framework applicable to other places of work. They are especially vulnerable when working in residences of foreign diplomats, who can use diplomatic immunity to prevent scrutiny. While welcoming the fact that UK migrant domestic workers have access to visas in their own right, I must say that some employers keep control of their passports, denying them access to the papers needed to seek alternative employment without fear of deportation.

Real-life stories illustrate the suffering behind the statistics. I have time for only two, but they are sadly typical of countless others. The first is about the plight of a sub-Saharan African woman trafficked by a diplomat from her own country. In the UK he withheld her passport. Whenever she asked about it he became angry. Twice she was severely beaten. She was refused medical care. The employer told her that in the UK he was extremely powerful in their community. He also refused to allow her to call home on the grounds of expense. She was not paid any salary. She believed the diplomat was claiming an allowance for her work because she was told what to say if the office ever telephoned and asked her about her work there. She worked for 15 hours a day, sometimes more. At one point she became so disillusioned at how bad her life was here that she asked to go home. The diplomat said she could not leave until his family did. He told her if she tried to go home without his permission he would cause serious trouble for her family. She had been too scared to approach the authorities and had been living in fear.

The second story is in the words of the domestic worker herself:

“At first I was really excited to move to London and work for an African diplomat and his wife. The plan was that I would live with the family and be a nanny to their young son. I hoped to learn English and I thought I could earn enough money so that when I go home I could study. I moved to London with the diplomat a couple of weeks before his wife and child arrived. I quickly realised I had made a terrible mistake. From the very first day I was treated like a slave. It immediately became clear he wanted more from me than just to look after his son. He sexually molested me and would become angry when I refused his advances. Life became even worse when the diplomat’s wife arrived. I was forced to work 17 hours a day, doing all the cooking, cleaning, nanny work, never allowed a day off. The wife would get violent and throw things at me as well as shouting at me. I was completely trapped like this for six months. One day the diplomat was drunk and furious. He became really violent, threw me against a wall and started bashing my head against the front door. I was so scared I knew I had to escape. I ran into the street. I didn’t know anybody, didn’t have any identity documents, no money. I was crying uncontrollably and bleeding from my head. I was lucky that a man who spoke my language spotted me. He took me to the police to report what had happened. They sent me to the hospital and Kalayaan agreed to help me seek justice … Seeking justice comes at a price. The diplomat and his wife are connected and I knew after making the allegations against them my life would be in danger back in my home country, so I applied for asylum in the United Kingdom”.

What should be done to remedy such problems? In 2010 the ILO voted by a comfortable majority to adopt a binding convention, supplemented by a recommendation, recognising the urgent need to protect this vulnerable category of workers. Although the UK did not vote in favour of having only a recommendation, it has maintained its initial reservations about the need for a convention. In the latest round of tripartite consultation, the UK found itself quite isolated on the international scene in its official response. Despite recognising that domestic workers are undoubtedly a vulnerable class of worker who require particular attention, it did not express its support for a strong convention and invoked legal exemptions in relation to the labour rights of domestic workers.

The Government are objecting, inter alia, to the regulation of domestic workers’ rights to working time and occupational safety and health. The Government stated that the working time regulations do not apply to domestic workers, making it clear that they want to exclude them from the protection they need and which the overwhelming majority of other workers enjoy. Anti-Slavery International is concerned that the UK is considering maintaining its position by invoking a number of possible exemptions to the EU working time directive. The regulation of working hours of domestic workers, especially those living in with their employer, is at the core of what this international standard has set to achieve: that is, to redress the legal gap that leads to so many abuses of domestic workers’ rights. May I ask the Minister if Her Majesty’s Government is reconsidering their position so as to enable working hours for domestic workers to be regulated in ways comparable to those of other workers?

The UK Government have also raised their opposition to Article 13 of the draft convention, invoking the exemption allowed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to domestic workers. Domestic workers often incur burns, cuts and exposure to hazards from handling toxic and boiling liquids and lifting heavy loads. Surely they should benefit from the same protection in their workplace as other workers do. Will Her Majesty’s Government discontinue their policy of applying exemptions regarding core labour rights for domestic workers to ensure that they work under health and safety circumstances in the home?

I have two more specific questions for the Minister. Are Her Majesty’s Government considering extending the right to change employers to domestic workers in diplomatic households, and is the Minister aware of the recent report, Ending the Abuse: Policies that Work to Protect Migrant Domestic Workers, by the charity Kalayaan? It gives support services to these workers, including victims of trafficking. Will the department be considering its recommendations?

I conclude by asking whether Her Majesty’s Government will take a leadership role during these weeks in Geneva and join the wider international community, employers and trade unionists to demonstrate that we will no longer turn a blind eye to the maltreatment of vulnerable domestic workers. Many of them are paying a high price for a better future for their children. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships that we will support and protect them in their endeavours.

16:56

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for securing this debate. She works tirelessly to secure the rights and liberties of disadvantaged people in many parts of the world, and I am delighted that this time she has drawn attention to the plight of domestic migrant workers. This debate is timely; the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations agency that concentrates on labour rights, draws its strength from having national Governments, workers and employers participate in its decision-making process and, as part of its international conventions on slavery, a new international convention on domestic workers worldwide is likely to be adopted shortly. We want to ensure that our Government are a signatory to this and, more importantly, that they have policies and procedures in place to ensure that we give real meaning to such a convention.

I thank Anti-Slavery International and Kalayaan, as the noble Baroness has done, for the briefing material that they have supplied. I urge the Minister to study their publications, which identify policies that work to protect migrant domestic workers. Their research was undertaken to inform the current Government in their review on the domestic workers’ visa. Kalayaan submitted a research report in March 2011 to the government team conducting the review. The UK Border Agency has said that the review will not be a public consultation, but I hope that it takes a serious look at it and at today's debate. In the mean time, I ask the Minister for the exact timescale of this review and whether she will publish the ultimate article when it is completed.

We in this country have been pioneers in promoting legislation on human rights and equality, which has served us well. It is no surprise that other countries have followed our example. Those of us who have read cases highlighted in the media and taken up cases with the Government can vouch for the fact that domestic work is poorly regulated and that inadequate legal protection is afforded to workers. Some basic human rights are denied. The predominant groups are women and girls, who are most vulnerable to abuse. Poverty compels vulnerable people to accept jobs where basic rights are denied. In many cases, the circumstances and conditions of their employment amount to forced labour. I have come across cases in which women have been forbidden to leave the home where they are working. Violent threats have become an everyday reality and their passports are withheld by their employers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said. Add to that the other ingredients that make their lives a living hell.

The job offer often bears no reality to the actual tasks they have to perform. Often, transportation and living costs are deducted from their wages, making it almost impossible to sustain a normal lifestyle. The worst cases are those in some diplomatic households. Domestic workers are not afforded adequate protection from exploitation and do not have the right to change employers. They are most vulnerable when fleeing from abusive employers.

Of course we can and should take action when such practices are exposed. Should we not seriously consider a domestic worker’s right to change employment in a diplomatic household? When visa applications have been made, should we not supply applicants with information about their rights and responsibilities? We should also mention who to approach when employment conditions are breached. I know that we are treading on sensitivity when dealing with overseas missions enjoying diplomatic immunity, but surely if the ILO convention on decent work for domestic workers is ratified, it will put such missions to shame, and rightly so.

We also need to pay special attention to our own immigration rules. Migrant domestic workers are dependent on their employers for their work and accommodation. There is no oversight of what happens in the private household, which is almost always invisible. A comparison with forced marriage is appropriate. None of us was aware of the size of the problem until recently, and now we have adequate machinery to ensure that victims receive all the help both here and at British high commissions abroad. I was a member of the first working party established by the Home Office, and I am glad to say that good practices have followed.

Surely it is possible to monitor visa conditions on a small sample of domestic workers without the presence of their employers. The number of migrant domestic workers entering the UK is estimated at nearly 15,000. This is not a small number, and I accept that in many cases the relationship between the worker and their employer is sound, but it is rogue employers that we are after. We need to pay particular attention to child labour. Children are the most vulnerable to slavery.

There is evidence at an international level that many who are separated from their families are inherently easier to coerce and control. An ugly feature here is that some are trafficked, while others are bonded labour forced to work to pay off debts that their parents have accrued.

I started by saying that a new international convention on domestic workers is likely to be adopted shortly. This will set out the employment rights of this category of people. As the Minister knows, all countries that ratify the convention will have a legal obligation to ensure that these rights are granted. I want our Government not only to support the convention but to take a lead in its implementation. We must move away from the notion that it is only informal labour and not proper work. We must ensure that domestic migrant workers have the rights and liberties that other workers enjoy. We must strengthen our existing legislation, including the Race Relations Act, to ensure that no exceptions are made in the employment of such workers. We must not underestimate the role that trade unions can play. In the final analysis, let us work towards a society where individuals’ human rights are upheld. In many cases, domestic migrant workers have lost almost everything. They are right at the bottom of the ladder. Let us not strip them of their dignity as well.

17:03

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister to our debate on immigration, which again includes some of the usual suspects. Thanks are also due to my noble friend for introducing this debate with her characteristic and well-known enthusiasm for human rights and justice. I also thank my noble friend Lady Young, who takes a lot of interest in this subject but who was unable to be here today. She initiated the longer series of discussions that led to this short debate. Some of us have benefited from the advice given by at least two specialised voluntary agencies working in London and alongside the ILO in Geneva.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the principal purpose of today’s debate is to encourage Her Majesty’s Government, and the noble Baroness in particular, to support and ratify the new ILO convention on decent work for migrant domestic workers. The term “decent” work for domestic workers was unfamiliar to me, but its purpose seems clear. It is spelt out in Article 5 as being fair terms of employment, decent working conditions and decent living conditions.

The convention recognises that many domestic workers are migrants or members of historically disadvantaged communities and are therefore especially vulnerable. As a former Anti-Slavery International council member I have spoken more than once in the past on behalf of these workers, and I have had to inform the House of some almost desperate cases reported by them or by Kalayaan, the campaigning agency that works most closely with them. We heard about some of these cases from the noble Baroness.

I have worked with a number of voluntary organisations, but I especially admire the style, focus and balance displayed by Kalayaan in its commitment over many years to this important element of our workforce. Kalayaan’s research shows that nearly two-thirds of migrant domestic workers surveyed over the three years to last December had to work seven days a week without a significant break. That testimony in itself shows the degree of unseen exploitation of these workers. Then you learn from the survey that about the same number had their passports withheld, and nearly as many were psychologically abused and were paid only £50 a week or less. These are scandalous figures, which have not improved since we last debated this subject.

It might be assumed, in the present climate of reducing the rate of immigration, that these migrants are seeking asylum. In fact, only a very small number—less than 5 per cent—are able or willing to settle in the UK. The vast majority wish to return home. Yet they could be targeted under new immigration rules so that even this number may not be awarded an ODW visa in the future. This visa, apart from giving them the temporary permission to stay, also protects the worker’s right to change employer in the case of exploitation or abuse. The removal of this right could only add to their sense of insecurity.

The visa has been described by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on human trafficking as,

“the single most important issue in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers”.

It provides them with a recognised immigration status and ensures that they are recognised as workers and protected by UK employment law. Can the noble Baroness assure us that there will be no reduction in the numbers currently protected by the ODW visa?

I have read through the detailed comments of Anti-Slavery International on the draft convention. One of these deals with the old dilemma of international development specialists: child protection and the right to work. Provided that young people are not working in exploitative or hazardous conditions, they should be allowed to earn money as domestic workers provided they are below the minimum age for compulsory education. In other words, education is not automatically the best place for a child unless the state has made it compulsory. This seems to be the argument of Anti-Slavery International in amending Article 4.2 of the draft convention, and I support it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned, another concern to ASI has been Article 10 on working time. The UK apparently wants to exclude domestic workers from this protection because it believes that the nature of domestic work makes it impossible to regulate and it has enshrined its objection in the EU directive on working time.

As has been mentioned, discussions about the convention are going on in Geneva. I understand that two days ago the United Kingdom, along with other EU member states, sought to weaken the protection offered by Article 10 and the result has been new wording that states,

“shall take measures towards ensuring equal treatment”,

instead of simply “to ensure equal treatment”.

I understand that this is not the only example of the UK watering down some of the wording in the convention. It seems, for example, that we were the only country to express our opposition to Article 13 on occupational health and safety. Do the Government, who ostensibly support the convention, really want to be seen as the only one unwilling to ensure that domestic workers are protected against hazards and accidents at work? It would seem so.

This coalition Government have already taken the lead in many initiatives in international development in this first year, both in Europe and elsewhere, and have been able to change their mind, most notably on the recent opt-in to the trafficking directive, which will be greatly welcomed. However, it is a major concern to the rest of the world that the EU as a bloc has put on the brakes and subscribed to more than 100 amendments to the text of this convention alone. I therefore very much hope that the Minister, having heard the various comments today, will confirm that from now on she will at least speak to the UK team in Geneva and persuade it to take a more positive direction.

17:10

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I join in the congratulations that have been expressed by others to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who not for the first time has raised the issue of rights for migrant domestic workers, as have my noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in previous debates. This problem goes back a long way, as noble Lords can see from the fact that Kalayaan, which has been quoted by everybody who has spoken so far, goes back for more than 20 years. In fact, its briefing quotes from a debate we had on the subject in 1990, by no means the first of its kind, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to whose determination and persistence we should pay tribute.

Throughout the whole of the two decades, the abuse of foreign workers has followed a similar pattern to the description by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton: there are no written contracts of employment or contracts are arbitrarily changed, and wages are often withheld or paid in kind. Then there is compulsion to work excessive hours; inadequate food; denial of privacy; denial of access to friends or often to the outside world; and, in extreme cases, physical attacks, sexual abuse, and credible threats of violence. These things are still with us.

It is true that Kalayaan statistics comparing 1,000 MDWs in a survey done in 1996 with the workers registered with the organisation in 2010 shows some improvement, but from a totally unacceptable baseline. In the earlier year, 100 per cent were being made to work for 17 hours a day, while last year nearly half had to work 16 hours or more. In 1996, 38 per cent were not given enough to eat, compared with 26 per cent in 2010. The only statistic that got worse in those two years was that employers are now withholding the passports of nearly two-thirds of MDWs, compared with 62 per cent in 1996. The ability of the MDW to change employers and in 2008, the extension to MDWs of official status as workers under the points-based system, for which Kalayaan must be given a lot of the credit, should make a big difference in the longer term, but we need to know why a substantial proportion of employers are still ignoring their obligations.

Should not there be a provision in the rules that when an employer is found to have committed serious abuse of an MDW by the employment tribunal, his right to employ MDWs should be suspended for a period to be decided by the tribunal? The Kalayaan statistics on tribunal cases demonstrate that all too many employers are unfit to be given the power over the lives of domestic workers that allows them to break the law with impunity. While two-thirds of those registered with Kalayaan were made to work seven days a week with no time off, for instance, only 14 such cases were reported to the tribunal, so there is still a huge penumbra of abuse which the oppressors successfully conceal. The threat of not being allowed to have domestic servants might be an effective deterrent to the widespread defiance of the law that is continuing.

Another possible way of improving compliance would be to produce an explanatory leaflet in the principal languages of MDWs, and hand it to employers and MDWs at the port of entry. It is all there on the UKBA website, but I doubt whether many of the workers have access to the internet or have adequate knowledge of English to understand that advice.

The treatment of some MDWs equates to trafficking for domestic servitude, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, demonstrated, and these cases are brought to the attention of the national referral mechanism, established in 2009 following the Council of Europe's Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Up to the end of last year there were 175 adult referrals under the domestic servitude heading, of which 55 were from Kalayaan. Could the Minister give us a breakdown of the agencies that reported the other 120 cases?

What is revealed in the statistics is that 246 of the NRM referrals were of children, of which 104 led to conclusive grounds decisions—a really shocking picture, particularly when you consider the difficulty and danger for a person making the initial complaint while still under the roof of the oppressor. What happens when it is first established that the referral is of a child, bearing in mind that the average time taken to reach a conclusive decision is 190 days, compared with the 45 days reflection period? One would expect that the child would be removed from the employer and fostered pending the NRM decision, but suppose the employer claims to be a close relative, as in the case of Victoria Climbié, for instance. Do we ever allow children to enter the UK now with a person who claims to be a relative but not a parent? Does the NRM refer all the cases reported to it of children to the UKBA with a view to checking on their immigration status? The children obviously did not qualify for admission under the overseas domestic worker regime, first introduced in 1998 and now part of the immigration rules. But one reason given by abused workers for not agreeing to be referred to the NRM is that it would lead to excessive focus on their immigration status. This means that the NRM statistics are the tip of the iceberg, because only those who entered legally as ODWs are likely to register. With an ODW visa, the migrant is free to change employer and frequently does so with minimum support. For the undocumented, Kalayaan recommends the issue of a three-month bridging visa to enable the exploited MDW to find new employment and to apply for an ODW visa, paying tax and national insurance, and eliminating the expense of treating the victim as an illegal entrant.

Finally, I turn to the knotty question of MDWs brought here by diplomats, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. These workers are not allowed to switch to another employer without losing their immigration status, and the employer's immunity means that although the levels of abuse and exploitation in diplomatic households are similar to those in private households, the FCO does not ask to be informed of trafficking cases identified by the NRM, which itself is a woefully incomplete record. The Austrian Government interview diplomatic MDWs annually, and it would be useful to know how many cases of abuse are thereby uncovered. Does my noble friend think we should have a similar procedure, or better still, that it should be made part of European law?

The annual interview could be an important tool for uncovering abuse throughout the whole of the MDW population. To minimise the bureaucracy involved, the employer could be obliged to complete a form detailing the hours of work and hourly pay; the additional hours the worker is expected to be on standby and the hourly rate for those hours; the details of rest breaks, days off and annual holidays; and the details of tax deducted and national insurance contributions paid. This form should be countersigned by the worker as correct, and it should be available for rechecking at the annual interview. When the worker is said to be treated as part of the family, and to be covered by the family worker exemption, this should be clearly specified, but Kalayaan recommends that the statutory minimum wage should apply to these workers as to all others. Seeing that half of all MDWs are paid less than the minimum wage, it seems likely that the exemption has been widely abused.

The Kalayaan report is a competent and thorough piece of work, and its recommendations demand well considered replies from the Government. In the quarter of a century since the abuse of domestic workers from overseas first became a subject of concern to your Lordships, there have been several attempts at reform, but the extent and nature of the problem has remained the same. It is intolerable and unthinkable that we should fail to act against the criminal employers who treat vulnerable domestic workers, many of them children, like slaves, and I hope that this debate will enable us to signal the determination to stamp out abuse and bring criminal employers to justice.

16:33

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and, like other noble Lords, thank her for the important work that she undertakes in this area. This has been an interesting debate and we all look forward to the Minister’s response.

Exploitation is clearly a serious problem for thousands of people living in our country. I was struck particularly by the introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, when she talked about the heart-rending circumstances of some migrant domestic workers and the need for action. She started by quoting a number of examples of people forced to work here, as she described, as slaves. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, some of the abuses suffered by people working in this country at the hands unscrupulous employers; for example, seven-days-a-week working without a sufficient break, passports being withheld—which gives those employers huge leverage over the people concerned—gross underpayment or no payment at all and physical and mental abuse.

The thorny issue of diplomatic employers’ abuse of their diplomatic status was raised again. It is a particularly difficult and serious problem. The noble Baroness spoke also of workers who sought justice both here and in their country of origin. Members of their families may be put under threat by people who, after all, are likely to be very powerful there as well as enjoying diplomatic status while they are here. There will be great interest in the Minister’s response.

I, too, have some questions for her. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a very important issue about employment tribunals and cases that have been brought before them. He asked whether tribunals would be allowed to rule that persons who exploited migrant workers were not suitable to employ workers in the future. I do not know whether it is possible to extend the remit of employment tribunals, but it is well worth looking at. To be of any real use, that would have to encompass diplomatic families. It is clear that diplomatic immunity will need to be looked at; we cannot escape that. It might be argued that those people are not fit to be diplomatic representatives in this country. I would have thought that there was a strong case for encouraging the FCO to consider whether those diplomats ought to remain in this country.

Point-of-entry advice was also raised. What about children? The case of Victoria Climbié was mentioned. I well recall the report on the tragic circumstances leading to her death. It showed that about eight or nine agencies were involved in dealing with her. If just one person in one of those agencies had taken the necessary action, she would probably still be alive today. The role of officers at the point of entry needs to be looked at very carefully.

A few months ago, Mr Bob Russell asked some questions in the other place, one of which was whether there was a mechanism at the point of entry to ensure that those entering the UK were not destined to work in domestic service which was either unpaid or paid less than the national minimum wage. He also asked whether the Home Office has been able to estimate the number of foreign nationals working in domestic service who are unpaid or paid less than the national minimum wage. I know that the Home Office has considered and answered this issue, and I know that it has stated that border officers are trained in identifying signs of trafficking, of which domestic servitude is a part. However, I wonder, in the light of this debate, whether this is a matter that the Minister will ask her officials to look at again.

I should also mention a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, some months ago, about the Life in the UK Test. He asked whether migrant domestic workers will be able to undertake volunteering or study to pass the Life in the UK Test, in the light of their possible working conditions. I know that before an employer is able to employ an overseas domestic worker they are required to provide a statement of the terms and conditions of employment, and that as part of that statement the employer is required to confirm the level of annual leave and free time that the domestic worker will be entitled to. Therefore, there should be sufficient time in order to prepare for and undertake the Life in the UK Test. However, the problem is that this does not stand up to the reality of the situation if such workers are employed under the conditions mentioned by other noble Lords.

In May 2009, the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place published an interesting report entitled, The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK. One of the issues raised by the committee was the difficulty experienced by migrant domestic workers because the police do not always understand their special status, and the immigration authorities frequently fail to follow the correct procedures for issuing visa procedures that would help to identify abuse. I realise that the report was produced when my party was in government, and I fully accept that there are issues here that will cover the periods of both the previous Government and this Government. It was interesting that the report noted that migrant domestic workers frequently experience difficulties in securing the return of their passports from former abusive employers and in obtaining assistance from the police. The committee said that there was,

“a need for greater awareness training in police forces”.

Has the Home Office looked into these matters as a result?

Finally, as to the EU directive, I understand that the Home Office’s position is that the directive would make very little improvement in the way that the UK tackles this problem. However, even if that view were absolutely correct, there are arguments to be made in terms of the UK contributing to European-wide policy. I should be interested in the noble Baroness’s views on that.

Overall, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made a persuasive case for action, and all noble Lords will be interested in the Minister’s response.

17:29

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject, which invokes passionate and sincerely held views. I will respond to as many points as possible.

I start by answering the noble Baroness’s question on whether I am aware of Kalayaan’s recent report and considering its recommendations. I am aware of it, I have it here, and we will consider its recommendations, particularly in the context of a forthcoming consultation, to which I shall return later. Perhaps I may at this point pay tribute to the work of Kalayaan. I am new to its work, and when I saw the report it was the first time I had any reference to what it does. Clearly, its contribution is invaluable in this field.

I begin by summarising the relevant immigration provisions. There are two routes of entry to the United Kingdom for overseas domestic workers. One is for those accompanying their employer to work here in that employer’s private household. Most such domestic workers arrive for short visits of up to six months. The second route is for those coming to work in the private household of a diplomat posted here.

Before I continue, let me make one observation. The Question in this debate refers to “migrant domestic workers”. The term used for the private route in the Immigration Rules is “overseas domestic workers”. Forgive me if this seems mere pedantry but my reason goes beyond strict adherence to the formality of the language in statutory rules. I accept that “migrant domestic workers” may be convenient shorthand. It may also be an appropriate description for people who, by and large, come and go. However, “migrant domestic worker” can also be used intentionally to convey the impression of an independent right of entry and stay in the United Kingdom. The point that gets lost, though, is that the route is called “overseas domestic workers” in the Immigration Rules for a reason. The worker is from overseas. Their usual residence and employment is overseas. They are here because the employer whom they work for overseas is here, and for no other reason. They do not have an independent right of entry into the United Kingdom.

The Question asked in this debate is how the Government intend to address the exploitation of this group of people. Let me respond in terms of the immigration provisions and UK employment law, and conclude briefly by mentioning the forthcoming consultation that will invite views on the overseas domestic worker routes and on wider proposals, including reform of employment-related settlement in the United Kingdom. We realise that there are serious issues around this whole subject, many of which have been raised by noble Lords this afternoon.

In the private household route, the potential for exploitation is addressed through a specific condition of entry that has to be satisfied: that there is evidence of an employment relationship of 12 months’ duration. This is intended to be a safeguard, prior to entry to the United Kingdom, by demonstrating that the relationship is genuine. It establishes a degree of longevity. Sadly and worryingly, given what is sometimes reported once people have arrived here, it is plainly not an adequate or foolproof form of prevention. Once here, protection is available under employment law. Foreign workers, provided they are working legally, have exactly the same basic employment rights as anyone else working in the United Kingdom.

I qualify that by adding that there are some exemptions to the payment of the national minimum wage, which have been mentioned, one of which relates to people living and working within the family. The exemption is a limited one and turns on how a person is treated rather than any label put on them. If they are not treated as a member of the family, they will of course be eligible for the minimum wage. Perhaps I might mention, because it has been raised in the debate, that there is a pay and work rights helpline, which has rapid access to helpline operators through the language line, which provides accurate, live first-person interpretation. We have continued that route and have worked with the helpline staff to ensure that they provide as accurate a service as possible to overseas domestic workers.

Returning to immigration provisions, both routes currently permit extensions of stay and have a route to settlement in the United Kingdom. Also, all domestic workers may change their employer for whatever reason, although in the case of those in diplomatic households, working only for another diplomat in the same mission as the original employer is permitted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether we are considering allowing a change to employment outside the mission. As I have said, a consultation inviting views on the overseas domestic worker routes is imminent. I cannot pre-empt the detail, but suffice to say that it will include a reassessment of the current provisions. In response to other points made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it will be a full three-month consultation and the results will be published.

I should add that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 entitles foreign diplomats accredited in the UK to employ domestic workers, foreign or British. Under that convention, diplomats have a duty,

“to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”.

This applies to the terms and conditions of employment for all domestic staff. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly reminds all foreign missions based in the UK of their obligations.

The question has been raised as to what happens if a diplomat is accused of abusing those working for them. The police investigate any allegation that the law has been broken by persons entitled to immunity. Given the number of people entitled to immunity in the United Kingdom, around 22,500, the number of serious offences allegedly committed by diplomats has remained proportionately low in recent years. Just two cases that were reported by the police in 2010 to the FCO involved a domestic worker. The FCO treats very seriously any allegation of mistreatment of domestic workers in diplomatic households. When an allegation of mistreatment is brought to the FCO’s attention by the police, it will write to the diplomatic mission in question about the matter. If the police decide that an allegation warrants further investigation, the FCO will request from the diplomatic mission a waiver of the diplomat’s immunity. Failure to provide a waiver will usually result in a request to the mission for withdrawal of the diplomat from the United Kingdom.

All domestic workers, whether private or diplomatic, have access to the national referral mechanism for victims of trafficking. The NRM is a multi-agency framework involving the police, the UK Border Agency, local authorities and designated NGOs to help in the identification and support process of victims of trafficking. It was introduced in April 2009, and since then more than 1,250 victims have been referred for confirmation of trafficking-victim status and provision of care and support. Serious abuse by an employer of a domestic worker is assessed through the NRM to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for someone to be regarded as a victim of trafficking. Victims receive a minimum 45-day recovery and reflection period and support such as accommodation or access to legal assistance. If there are reasonable grounds for a person to be regarded as a victim of trafficking, NRM decision-makers go on to decide conclusively whether the individual is a victim of trafficking under the Council of Europe convention. If so, the victim may, in certain individual circumstances, receive a period of 12 months’ discretionary leave, such as to assist with a police investigation or prosecution, or in compelling compassionate circumstances.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked three questions about the Government’s position on the ongoing International Labour Organisation’s discussions on a new international convention on domestic work. This matter was also raised by other noble Lords. I shall be brief. We support the principle of a new convention and accompanying recommendation. As ever, the detail of the new instruments will be crucial. In the negotiations and in developing our position on the final texts, we will take into account a number of factors, including whether the convention will provide suitable protection and whether it is formulated in a way that helps it to be widely ratified.

In respect of working hours and working in healthy and safe circumstances in the home, we take the view that domestic workers should be afforded appropriate protection, in common with other workers. However, the position is complex and negotiations on any international agreement need to have regard to practical implementation and effective enforcement.

We also recognise that some workers may be more vulnerable generally, not because they lack protection but rather because there are unscrupulous employers who have denied employees rights or information about their employment rights and how to assert them. We are doing more to provide literature at the point at which visas are issued to make sure that workers are aware of those rights. The remedy lies not with new legislative requirements but with improved awareness of rights, and confidence in how to assert them. Therefore, no changes to existing provisions are foreseen. To include in the provisions domestic workers who live in private households would require the application of criminal sanctions to such private households, which is considered inappropriate.

This has been a valuable debate. In closing, I should confirm that tomorrow the Government intend to publish a consultation document on their next phase of immigration system reform. I hope that the Committee understands that I cannot pre-empt the detail, but I can say that the context is around breaking the link between temporary migration and settlement. The consultation will reassess employment-related settlement, including other overseas domestic worker routes, and take into account our recognition of the problems associated with the treatment of individuals who are brought here to work for others. That will be a three-month consultation. I would be very happy within that period to meet noble Lords who have an interest in the matter or who wish to make representations so that their views can be discussed in more detail.

17:41

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Disabled People: User-led Organisations

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:45

Asked by

[Baroness Wheeler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the continued support of user-led organisations that support disabled people and the personalisation agenda.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate. As one who is still very much a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I am proud that this subject marks my first success in obtaining a QSD and realise that patience really does pay off. I am also pleased to have supporting the debate noble Lords who have done so much to campaign and support disabled people. I particularly want to thank my noble friend Lady Wilkins, my office mate and a great inspiration, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, whose work and contribution to championing the right of disabled people to take control of their own lives is fully recognised by the House. I pay tribute to her formidable record and achievement, but also for personal reasons. In 2007 I became the carer of my partner, who is now disabled. I was fortunate enough to have a very good friend who put me in immediate touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and her help and support was invaluable. She introduced me to the work and role of user-led organisations. The subsequent support that I have had from advisers in local ULO groups in Surrey, where I live, has been so important, helping me navigate the minefield of information and pathways to health and social care provision for users and carers. What really helped was that I was talking to advisers who were themselves users of the care and health systems that they were advising on or signposting to. This is one of the key strengths of user-led organisation, and what led the Labour Government to make a major investment in their continued development and to ensure that they had a key role in the transformation of social care and personalisation agenda.

The Social Care Institute for Excellence emphasised that personalisation starts with seeing the person as an individual with strengths, preferences and aspirations and puts them at the centre of indentifying their needs and making choices about how and when they are supported. ULOs for disabled people are organisations where service users determine their own needs and planning support and themselves have expertise which they utilise in the advice and services they provide. SCIE underlines the importance of ULOs having a rightful place in the social care and community marketplace, promoting equality and reaching out to people who need social care support, especially supporting marginalised people.

Personalisation goes beyond giving personal budgets or direct payments to individuals, and ULOs help to ensure access to the right information, advice and advocacy. This is why the Labour Government invested heavily in promoting the setting up and development of ULOs for disabled people, and provided substantial support funding for local authorities to invest and work with them. Under the transformation of social care agenda, ULOs have developed a particular role and expertise in supporting people using direct payments or personal budgets, assisting with the self-assessment process and in the recruitment and employment of personal assistants for disabled people. This is a key role for a number of ULOs, and there are many excellent examples of ULOs working with local employment advice organisations and trade unions to ensure fair pay rates and good employment practice, standards and conditions for personal assistants.

There is no national data collection on the number of ULOs, although I understand the National Council for Independent Living, the umbrella organisation for ULOs, is currently undertaking a sector audit, which will give a much needed clearer picture. ULOs by their very nature are developed locally to reflect community needs. The strong support for ULOs by a number of local authorities has been in the form of direct grants and contracts to provide services, including information provision, advocacy and supporting self-directed care programmes. My own area in Surrey has a strong ULO organisation in the excellent Surrey Independent Living Council, the Surrey Disabled People's Partnership and the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People. These groups are typical of ULO organisation, in that they are active groups in themselves as well as the umbrella supporting groups for local hubs representing a range of specific health or disability interests, such as Surrey's Vision Action group, or the Surrey Deaf Forum or the Surrey Autism Partnership Board.

This is just one local authority area where strong ULO organisation has had a major impact on the development and shape of services, and there are many similar local examples of the work and impact of ULOs of disabled people which I am sure noble Lords will highlight in this debate. However, direct government funding to ULOs ceased at the end of 2010, when the 2008-10 programme ran out, although some funding is still provided to the NCIL under Section 64 powers and through the Office for Disability under the Right to Control trailblazers work. In the current climate, for ULOs to survive, to continue to undertake their vital role and for their operation to extend into other localities, there needs to be continued and active support at a national level.

There is increasing concern at the impact of cutting the current local authority grants and contracts with the ULOs. The Disability Rights Partnership has highlighted, for example, the recent closure of DPAN Northamptonshire after two other non user-led organisations won contracts for work it was previously involved with. This came shortly after the demise of another user-led organisation, Ability Northamptonshire. Cutting grants and shrinking contracts will only shrink the potential pool of providers at a time when it needs expanding.

I would like to ask the Minister how the Government will ensure that commissioning requirements create a level playing field between small user-led mutuals and organisations and their larger either voluntary or profit-making counterparts. Existing commissioning services favour large providers and often overlook the added value of ULOs. This inhibits user-led entry. Commissioning requirements should provide a level playing field for ULOs, including accessibility in bids and tenders. ULOs face entry costs due to disability-related expenditure and other barriers for which they need to be supported to overcome. Service agreements, payment by results and preferred provider lists need to be reviewed and sub-contracting to micro-providers needs to be incentivised. We need to ensure that ULOs have the requisite capacity and support to enable them to bid for key public service contracts.

I welcome the Government's recent announcement of the ULO fund of £3 million for disabled people's organisations and would like to ask the Minister how it will be administered and how disabled people will be involved in its design and implementation. Also, what other measures will the Government be taking to encourage innovative social enterprise by ULOs? The ULO fund, while welcome, amounts to little more than £5,000 per year per local authority in England for the next three years.

Also, within the Government’s plans for localism, the big society, the right of independent living—and within their oft-repeated mantra that local authorities must make their own decisions on local priorities in the light of local needs and resources—I ask the Minister what steps they will take to encourage local authorities to co-produce innovative services with ULOs and to support service provision by way of user-led social enterprise.

Can the Minister advise how the services relating to the personalisation of social care, which the Government continue to support and is currently provided by ULOs, will be provided where ULO funding has been cut or stopped? These services include essential advice and administrative support for people using direct payments and personal budgets and for users employing personal assistants.

I close by paying tribute to one of the pioneers of the independent living movement and of user-led organisations who died recently, Nasa Begum. I did not know her personally but I do know about her enormous contribution and inspirational work. Nasa was a professional social worker and she brought her professional skills and personal charisma and energy to the first National Centre for Independent Living. As a disabled woman from a BME community and also a mental health services user and “survivor”, Nasa particularly championed the greater involvement of BME communities in the creation of more inclusive communities. She was a prolific author of many books and papers and her book, Towards Managing User-led Services, had a major impact in providing the framework for a new partnership approach which encouraged all sections of the community as active partners in designing services and support that are personalised and culturally appropriate. I am sure noble Lords will join with me in paying tribute to Nasa and expressing our sorrow at her untimely death.

17:53

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, when I saw on the Order Paper the subject we are debating today and put my name down for it, I immediately thought of one thing: that it is sensible that user groups,—the people who suffer from disabilities—should be heard first. This is for selfish reasons for everyone else because, if you get a good idea of what the problems are, you stand a chance of taking the right action to address them quickly and concisely and thus save the costs involved in getting it wrong. Mistakes can, in certain cases, result in legal activity and often mean that the benefits and medical services have to pick up the pieces further down the line. Wear and tear on carers is another consideration. It is trying to get an understanding of where most mistakes in the system tend to be made. It is safe to say that there is good will from everyone involved, but people often make decisions and try to implement them but do not quite understand how to do so. They then find themselves in a corner and without the right amount of communication to be able to back off when they have made mistakes.

This is a Treasury Bench problem, no matter who is in government. The previous Government did their best to try on occasions. Sometimes they got it wrong, sometimes they got it right. I do not think at any point they were looking to get it wrong. We who have been giving advice in Parliament, through the contact we have with outside groups, have been able to reassess what is going on. Occasionally fashions in ideas may change but mainly it is based on practicality. That way we avoid those “does he take sugar?” mistakes. That way we try to get the correct information to those who are in power and making those decisions. User-led organisations are often a very good way of addressing these problems. They are not a magic bullet—in my own world of dyslexia, I have often met people who say, “We will do everything”. I am afraid dyslexics do not make terribly good secretaries of groups or good managers of diaries. People must make sure that they learn to ask for help; there have been occasions when they have failed by not being prepared to ask for enough help. If you experience problems, you will know when to ask for outside help and when to do something. We are talking about people with disabilities and once again—I have said it dozens of times and I will say it again—if any dyslexic says to me, “I am differently abled, not disabled”, I hand him an insurance form to fill out quickly and under pressure. When he has failed at that I say, “This is why we have legislation, this is why we have a framework, this is why we do the stuff we do. You are going to have to try to access support and help”. If we are going to fulfil our agenda of getting people into jobs, we must make sure people know how to give the correct assistance at the right time. We must talk to those who understand the problems to find out the correct way to make a change.

Having said all that—and here endeth the sermon—I say to the Government, “What are we doing to make sure you drag in this pool of expertise to make the job of Government easier?”. That is the big question. If we are not to continue with the previous model, how else do we do it? The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, spoke about sub-contracting and feeding into smaller groups as one way forward. Making sure that people who apply for these support jobs actually have contact with disabled people, and that it is seen as a benefit, would be a very sensible way forward. Thus, you may be able to combine the best of both worlds. Cats and skinning come to mind here, but it is making sure we get the correct information in. Those groups with outside experience will always have at least a very useful perspective on how to do this. We should also study how this will get through to the interface.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has had experience of this and I would be interested to hear what his take is from his own experience in office, when we had to deal with similar problems. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will not think me presumptuous by saying this is one occasion when you should listen to your political opponent because he has experienced it for quite a long time and indeed I bored him for a quite a long time on these and similar subjects. How can we encourage that interface? How will we make sure that we work properly to drag in the information? If we do not, we will make costly mistakes that will sometimes end in litigation and will always end in on-costs further down the line. How can we encourage people—and this is the big challenge to operators—to say, “I do not know the answer, can I go and get somebody who does?”. I find this is one of the most difficult parts of dealing with any government official, encouraging them to say, “I do not know, I will find out, let us figure out something else”. This is something that is very difficult to do by diktat. It is almost counterintuitive but it is vital to make sure it works properly. If the Minister can say something on this subject I will be eternally grateful.

18:00

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for giving us this opportunity to debate the future of ULOs. I shall try not to get confused and talk about UFOs, because there is a practical joke in the disability movement about this. I shall talk particularly about ULOs and their relationship to the personalisation agenda. I also thank the noble Baroness for her very kind words.

I should start by declaring an interest as a trustee and co-founder of the National Centre for Independent Living. NCIL is one of the largest user-led umbrella organisations in the UK. It pioneered the personalisation agenda long before it was adopted by social care professionals and civil servants—and long before politicians did so. One of the first user-led organisations in the UK was the British Deaf Association, which dates all the way back to the 1890s. User-led organisations have one central principle, which is summed up in the slogan, “Nothing about us without us”. This phrase does not belong in the NHS and did not come from a politician but originated in the early 1980s at an eastern European conference of disabled people. They were fed up with others making wrong decisions about their lives by not involving them, very simply. From then on disabled people's influence over their situation escalated, becoming a social movement touching on all issues that affected their lives, such as transport, access to the built environment, social service support, healthcare, housing and so on. I was very privileged to be a child of that liberating time.

There are now a whole range of ULOs led by all sorts of people who use services, including mental health service users, young and older people, people who have been in care, carers, people with long-term illnesses—not, as many would think, just physically disabled people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, or me. That is, not just wheelchair users.

ULOs represent an ongoing challenge to stigma, as they demonstrate not only what service users are capable of doing for themselves but, more significantly, what they can do for society. For example, Hampshire Centre for Independent Living pioneered the blueprint for direct payments, again long before it became part of an Act of Parliament and long before any politician had even heard of the words.

Shaping Our Lives is a notable example of a national ULO. It has been funded by government and NGOs, such as the Rowntree Foundation, to conduct research and evaluation, led by service users. The high quality of its evidence has informed public policy and practice for over a decade. In 2009 alone, it carried out studies and developed practice guidance for the Crown Prosecution policy on witnesses and victims with mental health and learning disabilities, on user-led involvement in social work, and on future housing services for older people. Most of the work is overseen by Professor Peter Beresford. Here is the big society at work.

At this point, Baroness Wilkins continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.

The ULO ethos has been particularly important in the development of personalisation, so much so that it became a key objective in the 2005 Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People strategy, which said that there should be a user-led organisation in every area with social service responsibilities by December 2010. There have been some notable advances, but the funding and policy push came almost entirely from the Department of Health. That funding is now coming to an end, but there are over 60 areas still waiting for a ULO.

Lack of funding, of course, is only one part of the problem. Another has been linking ULOs so strongly with social care services and the Department of Health. ULOs are not solely about social care, and neither is personalisation. The majority of ULOs were established to further the broader goal of supporting disabled people to live independently, working across a range of life areas other than social care: transport, housing, health and leisure. So, if the Government want to deliver the personalisation agenda, ULOs have to be understood, resourced and supported from across national and local government.

The Essex Coalition of Disabled People recently conducted a study, resulting in the report on key issues facing ULOs. Interestingly, it identified the narrow social care approach as one of the major reasons why ULOs have struggled to succeed. I know that the Minister for Disabled People in the other place has been particularly impressed by this ULO as a role model for the future. It and others rightly say that personalisation can be delivered efficiently and effectively only with joined-up thinking and resourcing responsibility.

At this point Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed.

I was privileged to chair the Government's Independent Living Scrutiny Group for two years. It looks across government for evidence of this kind of delivery. I know how difficult this is to achieve, but we really need to crank up the mechanisms to do this. Can the Minister tell me what plans he has for this?

ULO personalisation services require an enabling framework that helps them to be more self-sufficient. Small pushes can help—for instance, with the use of the EC Article 19 procurement directive, which allows for public contracts to give preference to businesses with a workforce that is over 50 per cent disabled. If local authorities were encouraged to do this, it would help ULOs enormously in the bidding market. The Essex study and previous research conducted by Leeds University clearly shows that when an organisation involves disabled people throughout, the support costs are higher than for those that do not. The commissioning culture has never really factored that realism into its procurement processes, so ULOs have lost out. Will the Minister assure us he will liaise with the Minister responsible for local government on how this enabling power could be incentivised within local authorities? This will enable ULOs to survive better in the marketplace.

We have heard a great deal about the Government's £3 million over the next four years to help build capacity and support ambassadors. This is welcome, but as I think I have shown, disabled people have demonstrated their ability to provide the solutions to their own problems, against the odds, since as far back as the 1890s. What we need more than ever is money to pay the rent on accessible offices, computers and wages for staff—yes, that old chestnut—infrastructure funding that cannot be found from service contracts alone.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s imaginative plans to help disabled people continue to help themselves and others through the dynamic network of ULOs. Personalisation will never happen without them.

18:09

[Baroness Wilkins]

I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for her kind words, and for securing this debate on a subject that, at its heart, is one reason why I became a Member of your Lordships' House. I declare an interest as vice-chair of my local borough disability user-led association—Hammersmith and Fulham Action for Disability, or HAFAD. I would like to say how delighted we are that, following the debate on 5 May, the Minister accepted our invitation to visit.

I became disabled the year the Disablement Income Group, known as DIG, was formed by two women who had developed MS and found that they, and thousands of others, had no right to any income support. That was 1966. That user-led organisation is seen by many as the start of the disability movement in Britain, a movement that has led millions of disabled people to recognise that our position in society is politically driven and that society could be changed to accommodate our needs.

Unless you have experienced disability, you cannot understand its daily living reality, and I came to it with the same ignorance as most non-disabled people. DIG, a mass movement of people over the whole range of impairments, was fighting for the extra costs of living with a disability to be recognised and for an income benefit to be given regardless of the cause of impairment. There were rallies in Trafalgar Square, petitions to Parliament and lobbying of Ministers. DIG introduced me to political campaigning, but, most importantly, it welcomed me to a world of people who had faced and were living with the same experiences as me. It was to those people whom I turned for help and information about housing, about how to get around, about places that were accessible and about how to find equipment that I could use, whether it was an accessible car or a manageable ironing board. My fellow disabled people had been there before, knew the real barriers to be overcome and had found solutions.

It is this shared lived experience that is the unique value of user-led organisations. It is a value to which policy-makers pay lip service but which is far too easily overlooked and jettisoned when it comes to the crunch, especially funding. It is very hard to convey how important this is, but it provides a quality of help and support that no one else can give. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has eloquently expressed how important it was to her. The Government need to understand and constantly reinforce its value if services are truly to meet people's needs.

This is the unique value of the small user-led local organisations for disabled people such as HAFAD, many of them centres for independent living. As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, its importance was recognised by the previous Government's Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, which recommended that there should be a user-led organisation, modelled on existing CILs, in every social services area by 2010. Does the Minister still see the value of that recommendation, and would he support it?

I shall concentrate on the experience of these small local organisations and on what the Government can do to support them. The local disability organisations have been the drivers in developing the independent living services throughout the country. The take-up of direct payments succeeded because user-led organisations understood what was needed in order for them to succeed. They provided the necessary assistance in recruiting and employing personal assistants, payroll services, information, advice and advocacy, but, crucially, they provided the confidence through peer support and local networks.

Since direct local authority grants dried up, HAFAD, like many borough organisations, has derived the majority of its funding from providing these services to the council through service level agreements. However, the larger profit-making providers see the market in this work and constitute a major threat to our existence. With their lower overheads, they can undercut small user-led organisations such as HAFAD.

Now, to save money, local authorities are increasingly banding together to award contracts. Currently, HAFAD's direct payment support service is faced with the prospect of tendering for a new contract to be spread over four boroughs—Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Brent, and Hillingdon. It would be impossible for us to cover that area or for anyone to provide the essential local support.

One of the most important things that the Government can do is to ensure that the importance of local user-led support is given its proper value in competition for contracts. Perhaps I may echo my noble friend Lady Wheeler in asking the Minister what the Government will do to ensure a level playing field between the small user-led organisations and their larger, profit-making counterparts when it comes to commissioning.

HAFAD’s excellent employment project, which was succeeding in getting disabled people who had never had any prospect of work into work after long periods of unemployment, has already been lost to the big contractors that won all the Work Choice and Work Programme contracts. As a result, we had to lay off all the staff except the manager, and we are using the organisation’s reserves to fund his search for subcontracts. In west London, the Work Choice contract went to Seetec, which has subcontracted to Leonard Cheshire, among others. Leonard Cheshire has now approached HAFAD for help with its delivery in west London and has asked for training in our access-to-work expertise, as it does not have specialist knowledge. So the user-led organisation is bled dry of funds and staff, while supporting others to provide a service, when it could have been given the security of a contract in the first place. User-led organisations can provide this expertise only if it is properly recognised and valued, and the Government could have helped by making it a requirement on the winning contractor to work with specialist organisations at a local level.

The problem is that the small user-led organisations survive only by a jigsaw of funding of these projects. If one project goes to the wall, it undermines the framework of the whole organisation because it is almost impossible to get funding for the running costs of an organisation either from trusts or local authorities, so a charge has to be made on each project to cover those costs. If a major project is lost, the whole organisation becomes vulnerable. Yet the organisation has to have a director and finance officer if it is to be competently managed and have proper financial control. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to address this problem?

Like many organisations, HAFAD has been trying to become self-sufficient through social enterprise schemes and partnerships. Not only is there the problem of the extremely stretched management framework of the organisation, which leaves little time to develop social enterprise, but small user-led organisations have no assets to provide collateral for bank loans. Major fundraising requires a massive investment of time, and these organisations can turn only to government to provide the seed money required. I hope that the Government are listening.

I add my tribute to Nasa Begum for her wonderful contribution to spreading understanding of the value of user control, and most especially for being the only wheelchair user I have known who went bungee-jumping in a wheelchair in Australia.

18:17

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for obtaining this debate. I shall be brief. I declare an interest as a former adviser and now vice-president to the former Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health—now the Centre for Mental Health—because I wish to comment particularly on the mentally disabled. I want to concentrate on an area in which the treatment of the mentally disabled is not good, has not been good, but—it has been announced—is going to be better. My concern is that what appears to be happening in the user-led agency is likely to deny a way of putting that right. I refer to the well of psychiatric morbidity in Her Majesty’s prisons, where it is reckoned that at least 70 per cent suffer from some form of identifiable personality disorder—and some a great deal worse.

For the past four years, the centre has been concentrating on two aspects of work—the treatment of those who are mentally disordered in prisons, and the problems faced by those with mental disorders in obtaining employment. The employment issue is linked with prisons, but the centre has more generally been looking closely at the employment of people with mental health problems in the community. It has become abundantly clear that the key area for achieving independent living for the mentally disabled is employment, and that the best way of achieving that is through individualised support based on their sort of sustainable lifestyle and what they can actually do. That requires careful identification and then placement. The Centre for Mental Health is currently supporting nine centres of excellence, which are using an individual placement and support model across the country. That model is based carefully on this business of finding out what each individual needs. What also applies to it is having people trained as individual placement and support workers who have been attached to user-led and other organisations because they can advise those organisations on how best to look after people who come and work with them.

One problem in prisons at the moment is that no structured mental health treatment is available for this vast number. I was much heartened by the Government's paper, Breaking the Cycle, in which the Justice Secretary said that they were at last going to tackle this problem. Indeed, I have had discussions with the Department of Health as to how this might be done. However, having heard what the centre had come across, particularly about the user-led organisations, one idea that struck me was: what better thing to do than to localise this by employing local user-led organisations to go into prisons and help people who, after all, will come out of prison and whose employment will be out of prison. I was therefore very concerned when I heard that there were threats to the user-led organisations, which looked like being one of the key tools in resolving a problem.

I was encouraged to speak because one of the great messages that I got from the Sainsbury centre was that my noble friend Lady Campbell was challenging the Government on the cuts that were being imposed and asking them to spell out the impact that they might have on user-led organisations. Always being happy to support my noble friend, I felt that I would add this other area, which I would be most grateful if the Minister could look into—not least to alert the Ministry of Justice that there is a potential problem here, which could be solved before causing more problems than it deserves.

18:22

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for securing this debate today. I did write out a bit of a script, but having just listened to some powerful contributions I think I will discard most of it. My noble friend says that this is her first Question for Short Debate; I feel sure and hope that it will not be the last. I was particularly pleased when she referred to Nasa Begum and the work that she has done, because when we talk about social workers it is all too often when there is a problem and somebody is being challenged. There are many people in that field who do fantastic work, day in day out. They are unsung heroes and it is nice to have an opportunity, even given the circumstances, to be able to join in the praise for somebody who has achieved a great deal.

When I saw that the list of speakers contained the usual suspects, I knew it was going to be a powerful debate. If there is any benefit in not being a Minister, it is that I am not responsible for answering such questions these days. Picking up on a couple of points in the contributions so far, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is generally not about lack of good will. Government policymakers and local government do not set about their task to get it wrong or to damage and hurt people. It is about understanding. The noble Lord talked about the need to encourage an interface. If he was looking to me for pearls of wisdom on that, I may disappoint him but there is no overall prescription for how you deal with it. You have to work at it hard and recognise the need for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has an effective way of chiding politicians to remind us that we came in at the end of this process and that people had been engaged many years before we even woke up to the issue. I accept that, while the mantra of “nothing without us” carries through from the 1980s until today. The issue about ULOs challenging stigma is particularly pertinent. We all agree that ULOs need to be properly understood, resourced and supported.

There are issues about infrastructure funding and I turn now to the £3 million fund that has been announced recently. The noble Baroness referred to the Localism Bill and the opportunities it presents.

18:25

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:37

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I was going on to localism but, before I do so, perhaps I may recap. I walked out to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I think that what he was seeking for me to say earlier was not to report some success I had had with working with colleagues from dyslexia groups but to report the failure; that however much one had tried, it had not succeeded. So perhaps I can clarify that.

Before I get to localism perhaps I should refer to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which I found fascinating. I went to a seminar at the Centre for Mental Health earlier in the week. The seminar was about getting people into employment, although not necessarily through user-led organisations. It emphasised the key importance of having a mentor who stays with a person and how the one-to-one relationship makes an important difference. One can see the added benefit if that person comes from a user-led organisation as well.

My noble friend Lady Wilkins made the incredibly telling point that if you are not disabled you cannot understand the daily living reality of being disabled. That is why it is so important that we have user-led organisations. She expanded on some of the difficulties of getting funding and winning contracts. I have seen that locally in Luton in relation to a case where, although the process is not yet complete, small organisations have already missed out because they are competing against big organisations which are used, on a national basis, to getting the process right; they know exactly what is required and smaller organisations are therefore missing out.

This actually ties in with issues around localism because if localism is about empowering individuals, local communities and local groups to have a greater say over their lives, the rights in legislation have to be real for people and not just nominal rights. Some are fettered by quite a few powers held at the centre by the Secretary of State, but that is for another debate. People must be supported in being able to take up and make real use of those rights and funding should be attached to doing that.

Briefly, and to reiterate points other noble Lords have made, questions were put about the commitment that the previous Government made. The Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People report said that,

“by 2010 each locality (defined as an area covered by a council with social services responsibilities) should have a user-led organisation modelled on existing CILs [centres for independent living]. This recommendation has been taken forward as part of the cross-government Independent Living Strategy”.

I am right to ask the Minister whether that is still part of this Government’s approach to these matters—is that still a commitment they would wish to take forward? Putting People First talked about the transformation of adult social care and stated that,

“councils should have an enabling framework to ensure that people can exercise choice and control and have access to advocacy, peer support and brokerage systems with strong links to ULOs. Where ULOs do not exist, a strategy to foster, stimulate and develop ULOs locally should be developed”.

Is the noble Lord, Lord Freud, able to say anything further on that matter? Reference has been made to the £3 million-worth of funding that has been made available. I join others in supporting and congratulating the Government on doing that. But that funding is spread over four years and it has to cover things such as a new national head and somebody to be seconded to the Office for Disability Issues from a ULO, and the document talks about ambassadors and experts to provide skills and training support. It also refers to there being a facilitation fund for ULOs. Does all of that have to come out of the £3 million over that four-year period? Specifically, is that fund part of the £3 million? The press release that accompanied the announcement said that the facilitation fund would be,

“available for ULOs to bid for small to moderate amounts of money for specific projects”.

Might the noble Lord, Lord Freud, let us have his interpretation of what “small and moderate” might mean in these circumstances? I conclude on localism by referring to the community right to challenge. There is an opportunity there for ULOs but it must be a real opportunity. They must have the capacity to be able to do that, and perhaps the noble Lord might be able to say something further about that.

18:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for the opportunity to discuss disabled people’s user-led organisations and the broader personalisation agenda. I would also like to thank those who have contributed to this short debate this afternoon. It is a crucial area of work and I know that for many noble Lords—many more than are here—it is an area of utmost importance. I also join in the tributes that have been paid to Nasa Begum.

Let me begin by agreeing with everyone who has spoken in support of disabled people’s user-led organisations and of their importance. I will use “the organisations” as shorthand, otherwise I shall use up much more time than I have available. These organisations have a unique insight and are a powerful voice for disabled people, and the Government recognise their important role in shaping future service provision. We want to secure their continued involvement by developing their skills and building on their experience. With the current need to reduce the deficit and rein in public spending, budgets everywhere are tight.

We know that many local authorities have decided to reduce grant funding for these organisations, leaving them to rely on other means of generating income, such as the supply of services. However, with a new emphasis on personalisation and localised delivery of services, there are opportunities for these organisations to develop alternative sources of income and continue to be involved on the ground in support of disabled people.

This Government have to spend wisely. We are not in a position to throw money at these organisations, and the investment we are making in cash and time must be targeted so that a little will go a long way. Working closely with these organisations, we have devised a package of support designed to get the most out of the money we have put in. I will outline the details of the package in a moment, but let me just put this approach into a wider context.

The work that organisations such as these have been doing—bringing people together, volunteering their expertise and influencing policy—is exactly the kind of thing that the Prime Minister means when he talks about the big society, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. For groups such as these, the big society is already a reality. We want to use the limited funding available to build on this good work and develop an even bigger society, acting professionally, delivering services and working alongside local and national government to deliver more for disabled people.

The advantages of working with organisations such as these are clear. They are the experts in their own disabilities; they are organised, knowledgeable and in many cases already provide support and services alongside those provided by the public sector. Often those services are more innovative, work better for their users and cost less to provide than the public sector alternative. Essentially, these organisations already know what works and they have clear ideas about what does not. The Government want to tap into that knowledge.

However, our experience of working with these organisations has also demonstrated that some groups are lacking the professional, business and leadership skills they need to drive their organisations forward and to weather the current economic climate. That is why we have devised a package, working closely with representative organisations, to deliver £3 million of support designed to build capability, communicate best practice and bring in voluntary expertise. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the £3 million encompasses the full support package. It is doing what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, called for—making sure that we have a way of dragging in the expertise of these organisations to help disabled people.

The money will fund a national lead role shared by a civil servant and a disabled people’s representative, and link government and disabled people’s organisations at a high level. This will create a central, national focus for these organisations and cement their national presence. Beneath the national lead there will be a network of around 12 ambassadors, broadly spread out geographically. This will be complemented by a range of expert volunteers matched to organisations in their area that need their skills. All too often these organisations have told us that they lack the specific skills needed to run a successful organisation—skills ranging from accountancy and financial management to human resources support and business planning.

Finally, there will be a facilitation fund providing small grants for these organisations to address specific needs. This cash-limited fund will be managed by the national lead and a group of ambassadors, and be used to pay for things that support the sustainability of these organisations. Recruitment for these posts closed last week and we have received a great deal of interest, with around 10 applications for the lead role and 81 applications for the ambassador positions. The package will formally be launched next month, when we will announce who has been appointed. It will help these organisations to develop their skills and expertise.

Let me pick up on some of the points raised. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Wilkins, both asked how we will encourage local authorities to commission through these organisations. We are looking to the ambassadors to work with local authorities and to help local authority commissioners understand the added value that can be gained from working with these organisations. That support will allow the organisations to compete more effectively. We will emphasise through the ambassador network the added value that they can bring above and beyond what more commercial entities can offer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, asked what plans the Government had to crank up the delivery of the personalisation agenda. Our figures show that in September last year 248,000 people were receiving a personal budget. That is a good increase of 100,000 on the previous April, but it is still pretty patchy and we are determined to boost what is happening on that front.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, I can confirm that we want disabled people to have access to a good, strong organisation in their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, asked what local authorities might do to compensate for the extra costs. I shall write to the Minister at the department with that question.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made an interesting point about mental health. This is an enormous and very complicated area. I am extremely conscious that we have not got this right, particularly in prisons. We are talking to the MoJ. I take very seriously mental health issues in this area, but I find it very hard to find a coherent set of solutions. However, I am conscious that this is something that we need to get on with in the months and years to come. I take the noble Lord’s point.

I know that many noble Lords are champions of disabled people’s user-led organisations. I leave the Committee with the simple message that so are this Government. This is an area that we want to champion. We will continue to support and encourage those organisations’ involvement and help them develop into the professional operations that we know they can be.

Anti-Semitism

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

18:55

Asked By

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to tackle anti-Semitism and what assessment they have made of the success of the cross-government working group on anti-Semitism.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, some noble Lords may be aware that in another place I participated in the all-party inquiry on anti-Semitism which sat in 2005 and reported in 2006. I should make it clear that I did so neither as a member of the Jewish faith nor as a Member of Parliament who had then taken much interest in, or at least shown overt commitment to, the political affairs of the Middle East. It would be fair to say that that degree of detachment was not confined to me; among the 14 members of the committee there was that general pattern. It informed the nature—I hope dispassionate nature—of the conclusions of our work.

I should begin with a confession to the Committee. After waiting six months for this debate, I booked the date when offered it without realising that it fell on the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which has precluded a number of noble Lords who are religiously observant, including the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, from participation. All I can say in mitigation is that I still felt that it was right in the circumstances to proceed because these issues needed airing. I also realised that if I could be so careless in my respect for others when I trusted my motivation was impeccable, how easy it is for us to neglect cross-cultural issues and the sensitivities that there are; and how easy also it is, for example, for a university academic, who might be less benignly disposed, to overlook the legitimate claims of Jewish or other students in the setting of exam dates and somehow finding that they coincided with a religious festival and created difficulties for the students. We all need to sharpen our act, and I shall be one of those. My overwhelming message to the Committee is that we need to be alert in these issues.

Beyond the strict remit of my Question, I do not feel that any views that Members may have on the Middle East situation or on the position of the Israeli Government—and I do have some of my own—should in any sense condone issues around anti-Semitism, although they are often used as a proxy.

Our concern here should primarily be with our domestic situation within the United Kingdom. This is rightly the concern of Members across the House. It is also important, and perhaps a useful piece of symbolism, that I speak as a Christian. My noble friend the Minister happens to be a Muslim and there will be others who participate who may have no act of faith at the moment. And so it should be. We should all engage on issues of intolerance involving our Jewish population because such acts and attitudes tarnish and diminish our society as a whole—and, of course, they are easily transferrable, in one nexus of intolerance, from one community to another, and that is intolerable too.

I am a member of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I should early on in the debate draw the Committee’s attention to a worrying upward trend in anti-Semitism internationally. As with our own British situation, this may from time to time burst out overtly into the public gaze. I remember going past synagogues in Vienna and seeing the police guard and so on and finding it depressing.

I am concerned equally by the Holocaust deniers, who tend to be rather noisy, and by what I might call the anti-Semitism deniers, who tend to be less open about it. We in Britain, at least in our Committee’s work, were honest enough to confess to our problems, but I become concerned when I hear other countries deny that contemporary problems exist or perhaps define them as merely extensive with those who happen to hold views that are critical of the Israeli political system or policies. With perhaps the exception of Germany because of its own ghastly history, accepted by nearly all those in responsible positions in Germany, too many other European countries turned a blind eye to pressure on their resident Jewish populations. This is perhaps partly because those populations—sadly, but it needs saying—have been reduced by the Holocaust, and they are now often by no means the largest faith minority. Nor in many cases do they have direct political clout.

I turn now to the specific issues raised in our 2006 inquiry and the government response. I have to say that there is much to celebrate and commend here. Under both the previous Government and the current coalition Government there has been a determined and positive response at both ministerial and official level. This has spanned a wide range of government departments, through the cross-government working group, and has drawn in partners from the agencies of the Jewish community. This dialogue has already led to three successive government responses, reporting to parliamentarians of all kinds in the light of that inquiry. One benefit of the occasion is to be seen when you revisit the latest White Paper that came out last December; for a government document it is, dare I say, quite a meaty response, with a lot of facts in it as to what has been achieved and what still needs to be achieved. Parliamentarians across the House and in the other place have maintained focus on that area and, in certain cases—and I include myself in relation to Holland—have taken the example of our work to a number of other Parliaments. This culminated in the first international conference on the subject in London, in February 2009.

I shall now comment briefly on a number of outstanding issues. First, hate crime itself—and these are crimes, whether they are attacks on individuals, buildings or cemeteries—continues in Britain at historically high levels. However, there is now better public articulation of the policing and other issues around them, and there is valuable co-operation with the community support trusts. Having as part of our inquiry visited a Jewish school in a Paris suburb which had been burnt out before we were there—and which, I found to my distress, was burnt out again after we visited—I welcome the money that the present Government have been able to find for school security. I hope that that will continue. It is appropriate at this point to mention, in difficult times, the money that the Government have recently made available to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation—a good international lead.

Secondly, we know that there is an outstanding issue in higher education. I am sure that others will want to comment on this. As a former Minister in that field myself, I cannot remain silent. Universities are one of our glories, and they flourish through the pursuit of light and liberty. We can never be content for them to act as agents for academic boycotts or the denial of free speech on any reasonable or sensible arrangements, let alone the fostering or condoning of violent attacks. Of course, I know that most academics would take exactly the same view as I do. Very valuable work is being actioned through the Equality Challenge Unit and the vice-chancellors themselves, but there are still cases where individual Jewish academics are targeted, and Jewish students may feel chilled or deterred from attending particular institutions. Universities have a public sector equality duty, and they should follow it.

At a more demotic level, I welcome the work of community leaders such as Gary Lineker and what is being done in sport. There is identification of some clubs with the Jewish population, not just in Britain, and we need role models. Political parties also have a job to discharge at election time, and to criticise those who do not.

To summarise, I hope that, as a result of our work, parliamentarians and the Government are now engaged in an integrated approach to pushing intolerance in this country to the margins where it deserves to be. There cannot be any complacency or let-up in the process of reviewing this and there is no amnesia for the lessons of the Holocaust. Old hatreds may be buried but they have not gone forever. Our task is to create opportunities to tackle specific abuses while setting a moral tone which is wholly intolerant to extremism. We need to express respect for individuals and to meet their problems but, above all, we need to be ready at any time to take a stand on this.

19:06

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, as a fellow Christian I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I can call the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, my noble friend as he has a proud record in the other place and here—and, I may say, in the Council of Europe, which takes hate crime very seriously. I follow him and I congratulate him. Indeed, in terms of the Council of Europe it may well be that one of the priorities of this Government when we assume the presidency later this year will be to raise the issue of hate crime to a high profile. I hope that the Minister will note that.

I confess from the beginning that I had been somewhat complacent on this issue. From my background, which I perhaps romanticise, during my schooldays in my native south Wales, not one of a number of Jewish friends mentioned having in any way suffered forms of anti-Semitism. That complacency was punctured when I noted a few years ago that the synagogue in my home city of Swansea was damaged. Indeed, last December I noted that among the cities where groups had been arrested because of their targeting of rabbis and synagogues was Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, so that complacency is no longer.

It is obviously easy to target or mention the BNP but we delude ourselves if we do not recognise the role of Muslim extremists, certainly in my part of south Wales, who have been responsible for the change in atmosphere. It is surprising in a way, given that hate crimes affect mainly ordinary Muslims and Jews. Rationally, one would hope that there would be some form of co-operation between the victims. Much of the hatred is directed at Jews indirectly because of Israel. The Community Security Trust shows a correlation between, for example, the Gaza incident last year and the incidence of attacks on the Jewish population, where attacks on Israel are often a proxy for attacks on Jews.

It is interesting to read the valedictory article by Ron Prosor, the outgoing Israeli ambassador, in the Daily Telegraph last weekend. He stated that as an Israeli ambassador—and indirectly, no doubt, as a Jew—he was barred from many campuses, which is wholly contrary to the tolerant traditions of our universities. That must be in part because of the weakness or unwillingness of vice-chancellors to confront this problem. What is clear when university academics and trade unions criticise Israel is that they fail to notice that the Israeli universities are by far the freest in their region and that the Israeli trade unionists are by far the most vocal and free in that whole region. It is absurd that Israel should be singled out in that way.

Returning to the UK, obviously the problems include hatred on the internet, which is extremely difficult to regulate. It is not the time today to go into the Prevent strategy, published yesterday, but I am sure that there will be another debate on that.

We end on good news. The all-party report of 2006, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made a good contribution, received a positive response from both the Labour and coalition Governments. All its recommendations have been taken seriously, including the cross-government working group which has built up expertise and has ensured that there is a joined-up government response. Both Governments have given an important lead. I noticed when we prayed this afternoon that one of the phrases that we often use is “the tranquillity of the realm”, which is highly relevant to the attacks on hate crime. I hope that the Government’s work on hate crime will continue in the Council of Europe, and that we can try to promote greater understanding between Jews and Muslims. The law and central government can only go so far. The battle must be fought in hearts and minds; it must be fought among churches working at a local level and among community groups. We must be ready as individuals to confront examples of anti-Semitism in particular and hate crimes in general. I applaud the initiative, I applaud the response of the Government and I look forward to hearing an update on the current position when the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, speaks.

19:11

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Boswell on obtaining this debate and so helping us in this House to keep to the forefront of our minds the scourge of anti-Semitism. It is very important that we do not let it be pushed to the side when there are many other pressures on our time and thoughts.

Growing up, I was, like many others, very aware of the question of anti-Semitism. I learned as a schoolboy about the Holocaust but also read about the Dreyfus case in France and other such events. I came from a community that always felt an instinctive sympathy with Jewish people. Irish Presbyterians, particularly in the north, always felt quite an identification with Jewish people and felt a little bit beleaguered at times, as often they do. Then I started my work in psychoanalysis and very many of my friends were of course from Jewish backgrounds. I became aware of the difficulties of their experiences—indeed the founder of psychoanalysis, Freud himself, wrote about his difficult experiences at the hands of Christians. That was one of the distressing things: the recognition that throughout the millennia, not just the centuries, much anti-Semitism actually came from the Christian community. More recently we have tended to associate it with other communities but we must not forget that historically that is where much of the anti-Semitism has come from. All sorts of rationalisations were given for it but it was just prejudice and bigotry.

What became clear when I talked to my colleagues was the range of views, not about faith so much—of course, that was the case as it is in every faith community—but the attitudes to the state of Israel. There were some who were not actually very supportive of it. Freud himself, when he was asked to give support, refused and said it would be a very troublesome business. He was not supportive of the idea of a state of Israel at all. The vast majority are supportive of the notion of a state of Israel, a place where Jewish people can feel at home and comfortable, safe in their own culture and community. Then there are those within that community who support the state of Israel but have from time to time very serious questions about the particular policies of particular Governments.

My old friend Amartya Sen has pointed out that when the pressure comes on, the important differences between people tend to be squeezed out and we see them all as a single bloc. It seems to me that under the pressure of prejudice and bigotry—or of economic crisis, which is always a bad time for tolerance—there has been a tendency to see all Jewish people as falling into one group. That is unfair and inappropriate and justifies, in the minds of some people at least, a critique against Jewish people as a whole, when it is quite clear there is a very healthy diversity within that community, not only within Israel but within Jewish communities right across the world.

It is extremely important that we do not allow people inside or outside the Israeli community to portray it as inappropriate that Jewish people should have a range of views. It is also extremely important to keep being clear that Jewish people have a range of views on every subject under the sun, not only because those views are often eloquently written about and enrich our culture, understanding and science but because politically it is the best detoxification of the notion that if you do not agree with the current policies of the Israeli Government, that in some way justifies an anti-Semitic attitude. Whatever the Government do, we must continually point out that not agreeing with the current policies of the Israeli Government is not a justification for anti-Semitism and does not go along in any way with the notion of it being justified. It is a very important distinction that we must keep hammering away at, because in times of crisis these differences tend to be squeezed out.

That is one of my anxieties at present. In the past few years, we have seen a rightward shift in the politics of Europe. You can see it in almost every election in almost every country. When you see that shift, you see more intolerance, a lack of pluralism and, almost inevitably, a resurgence in anti-Semitism. I say resurgence because it has always hovered there under the surface. I even noticed that there were nasty phrases and words during the financial crisis—“It’s all about money and the banks and you know who is at the back of that”. Sometimes it was even said, “It’s the Jews, you know”. You got that horrible, sinking feeling that we were experiencing a serious and dreadful rise of anti-Semitism. We must be clear that this is completely unacceptable and I welcome the fact that our Government are coming back, as have previous Governments, to remind us of that problem.

Apart from pointing out that anti-Semitism is wrong in principle and does not recognise the extraordinary richness that the Jewish community in this country has brought to us all, in almost every field of human endeavour—culture, science, medicine, the law, Parliament, and everywhere—I wish to make one other remark on this subject. My wife and I love to get away for as much time as we can down in the south of Burgundy. We love it very much there, and we love the vineyards. Some of you will know that every so often at the end of a row of vines a rose is planted. I was a little puzzled about this in my ignorance, in the early days when I started going down there many years ago. Then I discovered what it was. The rose is much more susceptible to mildew than the vines, so if the mildew starts to appear on the rose the vigneron knows that he must get out and spray the vines. The rose is the canary in the mine, as it were. The Jewish community is the rose in the vineyard because you can be sure that when you see the rise of anti-Semitism, it is merely the first sign of a dreadful prejudice and intolerance in our community. Never forget that the Jews are the rose in our vineyard and that when we see anti-Semitism arising, it will call for all our minorities and damage our country.

19:18

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have used this technology, so it had better work.

I have never been described as a rose before and I quite like it, actually.

The inclusion of this debate today is very timely, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for introducing it this evening. I have the privilege of being the chair of the Coexistence Trust, whose principal remit is to engage with Jewish and Muslim students on UK campuses, with a view to lessening the undoubted tensions that exist between the two student communities.

I thank my noble friend Lord Janner, who founded the trust and whom I succeeded three years ago. He is our co-president; the other co-president is His Royal Highness Prince Hassan of Jordan, whom I must also thank.

Right from the beginning, it has been important to our trust that we strike a balance between Jewish and Muslim participants. Our employees are both Jewish and Muslim and so too are our donors and trustees. In particular, I am pleased to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who will speak later, is one of our trustees. I must also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who has been hugely supportive of everything that we have done since our early days.

There can be little doubt that our university campuses have allowed many forms of extremism to take hold. This week’s announcement by the Home Secretary on the successor to the Prevent agenda bears witness to the seriousness that this Government attach to the problem. The fact that international terrorists with murderous intent have been students at our own British universities is chilling. At the Coexistence Trust, we seek to bring Jewish and Muslim students together. Social engagement is the best way to dispel preconceived views. In January, we launched our campus ambassadors programme. These are students, one Muslim and the other Jewish, from both communities who operate at each of 12 pilot campuses. Their job is to engage students from both communities and encourage them to begin dialogues and work on joint programmes. For example, we look at issues that are common to both communities, including mutual threats. We discuss the BNP, which sees Jews and Muslims in much the same light as does the English Defence League. Most of all, we seek to encourage students to realise that we are none of us all that different from one another and have much to learn from each other. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism exist on campus; they emanate from certain students and certain faculties which are neither Jewish nor Muslim. But, sadly, they come, respectively, from Jews towards Muslims and Muslims towards Jews.

Fortunately, during the three years that I have been chair of the Coexistence Trust, I have noticed an improvement on campuses. For example, in the immediate Gaza aftermath, we were encouraged not to be present at the universities of Manchester and Nottingham. It was judged that the situation was too inflammatory and that we would only worsen it. Today, I am pleased to say, we are welcomed and work closely with them. Manchester in particular has issued a powerful code of conduct instructing administrators and faculty how to deal with the conflict. The issue is clear: universities are places to learn and experience new thoughts and ideas. Free speech is an integral part of our national life, and students must expect to hear views and opinions that may make them uncomfortable. Equally, universities have a duty of care to their students and they, too, must abide by the laws that this Parliament has passed to protect everyone from hate, speech and racism.

I should like to quote from the all-party report:

“The Government expects universities to have measures in place to ensure that their students are not subject to threatening or abusive behaviour”.

Recently, two Jewish protesters went to SOAS to protest against Israeli Apartheid Week, where they were set upon. One of them was bitten on the cheek and was told that the best thing that the Jews had ever done was to go into the gas chambers. This behaviour is simply unacceptable and the universities need to be much more robust in preventing its repetition.

Why cannot universities take a look at the calendar of religious holidays for some of the minority religions and try to avoid having exams on those days? As has been said, this very day is the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. It is a prime example. Here we are, smack in the middle of the school and university exam period, and there are students who are precluded from taking their exams or have to take them on different days.

One of the rules that we have at the Coexistence Trust is to avoid discussing the Middle East. The reasoning is simple: we cannot change the conflicts, but we can change how we interrelate in this country. But I must address one aspect of this conflict that does affect us in this country. What gets to many Jews is the way in which Israel is singled out in the media and by those in power. Clearly, it is both wrong and illegal to attack Jews for being Jews, but somehow it seems perfectly acceptable to attack the only Jewish state simply because it is Jewish. I must confess that I am no great lover of the current Israeli Government and am highly critical of their behaviour. Criticising them is totally legitimate, but how about some of Israel’s neighbours? Let us take Syria as an example of how double standards apply. Even as we speak, a massacre is in the making. A thousand Syrians have already been murdered by Assad and his henchmen. Very shortly and very sadly, more will be slaughtered in cold blood. It is simply awful. Where are the demonstrations in London? Where are the protests outside the Syrian embassy? Where are the Socialist Workers Party and all the other protestors who turned out in such force against Israel at the time of Gaza? There is a not a word on Syria, on Libya or Iran, but when Israel overstretches the mark, everyone goes nuts. Many Jews think, and with good reason, that anti-Israeli invective is often anti-Semitism masquerading under a different name. The fact is that to criticise Israel is not anti-Semitic, but to single out Israel simply because it is a Jewish state surely is.

19:25

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I appreciate this opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has given us to discuss this situation.

If we each look back at our history, there were massive turning points or milestones. I was a boy of nine at the end of the war in 1945 when I went to the local cinema that was showing a newsreel of Belsen, Mauthausen, Treblinka and Auschwitz. I saw the mounds of skeletons, and those who still existed were shuffling their way to a dream of freedom. I am sure that I was not the only lad who said that this must not happen again; this horror must not be allowed to repeat itself. That is one reason why it is so important that what happened then is not allowed to be forgotten by the current generation in our schools and colleges—the horror of 6 million Jews, as well as many of other ethnic origins, executed in Hitler’s Europe.

Fairly recently, I was in the Parliament in Warsaw looking at the plaques for those parliamentarians who had died in 1939 and 1940. You could see, one after the other, how they had died in those concentration camps and death camps. I was glad that those plaques were there to keep reminding us of the horror of what had happened. Those sorts of events make me what I am. They guide you in your political direction and your religious conviction—to build a world in which every person is honoured and respected, whatever they are and whatever their background. We have to work together, which is one reason why I am such a strong supporter of Europe. The more that nations are bound together and work together, the less likely we are to experience the hurt and destruction of past generations. That is the most valid reason, among others, for my support for the European project.

Karl Lueger was mayor of Vienna and chair of the Christian Social Union and Anti-Semitic Union of the Diet of Lower Austria. As has already been mentioned, he represented a Christian anti-Semitic element. He saw anti-Semitism as a way of channelling public discontent to his political advantage. Goebbels spoke of the,

“parasites of the Jewish race”.

On the other side, there was Judah Leib Pinsker, who in 1882 said he believed that anti-Semitism was hereditary and, as a disease transmitted for 2,000 years, was incurable and an,

“inherited aberration of the human mind”.

We need time to think that through for ourselves.

We should have learnt the lesson of the Holocaust. I am sorry that the Chief Rabbi is not with us today. He said in 2006 that a “tsunami of anti-Semitism” was spreading globally. The Boston Review in 2009 stated that 25 per cent of non-Jewish Americans blamed Jews for the financial crisis of 2008-09. According to a study in 2004, Germany, France, Britain and Russia have the highest rate of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe.

There were victims, of course, even before Hitler. I believe that the survivors of the camps and those who came out of the pogroms have a fear, a deep-rooted suspicion, “What might happen because I am Jewish? What might happen in the future?” Pogroms have taken place over more than one generation and the parents and grandparents who have survived bear the scars and tattoos of that persecution.

I am a Welshman and a Christian, I hope, and when I see the film footage of those little kids being loaded onto the transport wagons and taken away to the death camps, I think of my own seven grandchildren and I say to my family, “This could have been us”. I was looking at television coverage of it only a couple of days ago, where Jewish toddlers in the camps were lifting their sleeves to show their tattoo numbers.

This is an important debate but I must not go over my time. Ours is an awesome responsibility; we must act and legislate so that no future generation suffers in this way. Our own attitudes and conversation can undermine not only the Jewish people but other vulnerable people in our communities such as asylum seekers and refugees. I wish the newspapers would stop demonising people who come to this country. Their headlines create suspicion and hostility and I hope that, without legislation, we will see an end to this demonising.

So much more could be said. For instance, the curriculums in our schools could cover the history of what has happened so that children can learn. I am grateful to the Holocaust Educational Trust for giving youngsters and others the opportunity to go to Auschwitz and other places. Much has been and must be done. In doing it, I hope that we will create for Jewish and other people a generation the like of which they would never have known in past centuries.

19:32

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I never thought that in my lifetime in this country, to which my family has reason to be so grateful, I would have to say that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that there is a need to speak out. I welcome the Government’s actions in response to the inquiry, in particular the excellent appointment of Sir Andrew Burns as the envoy for post-Holocaust issues. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has been a brave exponent of the truth and a defender of minorities, and I thank him.

The Government have not been able to influence the way in which anti-Semitism is taking hold in higher education and the way in which anti-Zionist rhetoric is being used to cloak anti-Semitism. The old language of prejudice is once again manifested, for example, in West Dunbartonshire Council banning books from Israel.

One should be rational about these issues but I cannot help but be passionate about what I see around me—in particular the way in which the minds of young people are being infected. The National Union of Students recently issued an interim report on hate crime. It surveyed 9,000 students and reported that 31 per cent of Jewish students had experienced a hate incident—more than any other religious group.

The unhappy plight of many Jewish students was first exposed nationally by the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group in 2006, with accounts of harassment and attacks, often in the name of Israel. There was a dramatic rise in national anti-Semitic incidents to nearly 1,000 a year in the period of the Gaza operation. Students paid the price too. Universities are in denial about extremism and radicalisation and have not addressed the very real problems of anti-Semitism that exists on campus. Only yesterday the Government issued their Prevent strategy, highlighting the dangers of extremism in universities.

There is a considerable overlap there with the topic of tonight’s debate because where there is Muslim extremism there is usually extreme dislike of Jews. Our priority task should be to save young minds from being indoctrinated with this ancient hatred, whether it is by the preaching of inferiority at some faith schools for the young or the doctrine of exclusivity at universities. I am pleased to be a trustee of the Coexistence Trust, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, which is doing pioneering work.

19:35

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

19:47

[Baroness Deech]

Since 1986, universities have been required to issue a code of practice on freedom of speech within the law, enabling control of speakers where a breach of the law is likely. Universities are subject to the law of the land, including the Equality Act and the Protection from Harassment Act, which should be sufficient to protect students. But most universities have failed to operate their codes, and they emphasise freedom of speech at the expense of ignoring its limits.

There is no legal freedom of speech that involves hatred of minorities, racial and religious abuse. There are egregious examples of universities failing to protect Jewish students. Ironically, one of them was the LSE, which was content to make financially rewarding links with Libya. It hosted a speaker late last year called Abdel Bari Atwan, who was already on record as having glorified the killing of Israelis and rejoicing over the assassination of Jewish students. The university could have used the code to ban this, having been forewarned, but did not, with sad consequences. Given the increasing dependence of universities on raising funds, one hopes not to find links between those universities that have received funds from extremist regimes and their unwillingness to control such speakers.

Students may feel reluctant to report anti-Semitic incidents to their lecturers, whose union, the University and College Union, has officially decided that anti-Semitism cannot occur in the context of Israel-related activity and is obsessed with Israel. The European working definition of anti-Semitism states that the singling out of the state of Israel for criticism not levelled at other countries, the denial of Jewish self-determination and comparison with Nazi policies may be anti-Semitic. In its recent motion 70, the UCU resolved not to use this understanding of anti-Semitism in its own internal complaints procedures, so that it can cry Israel in order to stop Jews talking about the racism that they have experienced. Many Jewish members have resigned from the UCU, but the union has rejected a motion to investigate that as well. In its actions, the UCU is denying the Macpherson definition of racism, reached in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, as,

“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim”.

UCU's actions, including this latest motion, show it to be an organisation which is institutionally racist against Jews.

This is the union that has spent years trying to establish an illegal boycott of Israeli academia. This is the union that hosted a South African called Bongani Masuku as a speaker, despite the fact that the South African Human Rights Commission had found him guilty of hate speech against Jews. This is the union that would now deny Jews the ability to complain about racism by denying their perceptions of victimhood if the topic of Israel is in the frame.

Universities should now consider breaking off recognition of UCU. Universities have a statutory duty to promote good race relations on campus and a public sector duty of equality. The Government should insist that they carry out their legal responsibilities and apply their codes of practice on freedom of speech; and I call on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the UCU.

19:51

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on securing this debate. The date is perhaps a little unfortunate, but at least we are in the right Room, because the picture on the wall is actually of the event that the festival celebrates.

Anti-Semitism has variously been described as the oldest hatred based on religious differences and as the socialism of fools, with its appeal to the far right and to the far left. Now, as has been said, it is often linked to anti-Zionism. Martin Luther King said:

“When people criticise Zionists they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism”.

Actually, that is too broad a generalisation, although certainly the two can overlap and, as we have heard, moral relativism is all too frequently found in these arenas.

A few months ago, I met a delegation from the Union of Jewish Students who relayed to me the concerns that other noble Lords have expressed about what they have to face on campus. As a result of that, I tabled a Question for Written Answer that, among other things, asked the Government what representations they had made to university authorities concerning invitations to speak, and what steps they would take to protect Jewish and other students from anti-Semitic, Islamophobic or other racist behaviour on campus. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Minister replying, did not really take matters very much further than to refer to guidance already issued. I hope that in replying the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, may indicate an intention to take this further, because the response of university vice-chancellors has been, frankly, rather feeble in this respect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has pointed out.

There are real grounds for concern about what is happening in various parts of the country—not least, rather surprisingly, in the Greater Manchester area, which appears to have been the scene of about 30 per cent of the recorded serious incidents investigated by the Community Security Trust. The trust finds about two-thirds of the complaints to be justified. They are not finding every complaint to be justified, but they take a serious look at these matters. It is extraordinary that Greater Manchester appears to have such a high proportion. Perhaps that is something that the Minister might ask her department, or a department, to look into.

At election time, there is sometimes a temptation for people to stray into this rather dangerous territory. In 1967, when first a candidate for the ward I represented for longer than I care to remember, I was subjected to some anti-Semitic campaigning by the Conservative candidate. In fairness to the Conservative Party, they very publicly and very rapidly repudiated him and his actions. This May, another Labour candidate in another ward, opposed by a Muslim candidate for the Conservative Party, was also subjected to an anti-Semitic campaign, partly conducted on the internet. It was a little odd because the Labour candidate was not actually Jewish, but nevertheless anti-Semitism was deployed. Again, in fairness, the local Conservative Party has taken up this matter and I have no doubt will deal with it very seriously. However, it indicates that the same disease can still abound, perhaps in different circumstances.

Apart from these domestic issues, some wider issues are of concern. For example, I understand that Press TV, the Iranian Government’s broadcasting outfit in this country, has been guilty of repeated breaches of the Ofcom code—not least latterly in giving airspace to publicity for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I am not asking the Minister to give an immediate response to this, but I wonder whether the Government might look again at making representations about whether Press TV’s licence should be continued in circumstances where it so frequently breaches the code.

Another matter arises from the tendency in some countries of eastern Europe—I think notably of Latvia and Lithuania—to present an equivalence between the Nazi occupation and the subsequent Soviet occupation, which entirely leaves out the question of the treatment of those countries’ Jews. I recall visiting the Riga museum and seeing a great deal of suffering portrayed under both regimes, but there was no mention at all of what had happened to Latvia’s Jews or, indeed, to other Jews who had been deported and killed.

However, there are some positives in the situation. Reference has been made to the Holocaust Education Trust and I am grateful to the Government for continuing the financial support for its work, which is to bring home to young people in particular the terrible period of the Holocaust. There is also the Anne Frank Trust UK, of which I declare an interest as a patron. Drawing from Anne Frank’s experience and her very moving diary, the trust goes beyond referring simply to the Holocaust and works in schools and prisons more generally to promote tolerance, encourage community cohesion and to help young people in particular to deal with instances of bullying and behaviour management. I hope very much that the trust’s work will be supported. I am sure that the Government will continue to support it and perhaps even slightly increase their support.

It occurs to me that we have in this country many councils of Christians and Jews but not many organisations embracing the three Abrahamic faiths. That is not a matter for the Government, but as we will have had, once the noble Baroness speaks, a representative of each of the three main Abrahamic faiths speaking in this debate. A message to encourage that kind of interfaith co-operation would be very helpful. I am glad that the present Government are continuing the work of their predecessors and look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.

19:58

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho on securing this extremely important debate. My noble friend was an integral part of the initial all-party parliamentary inquiry in 2005 and, since the publication of the report, he has worked tirelessly to challenge anti-Semitism. Today’s debate is a valuable opportunity to demonstrate our strong and enduring commitment to tackle anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred. I am grateful to Members from all sides of this House for their wise and insightful contributions to this important debate.

As my noble friend Lord Boswell mentioned, this debate is taking place during the Jewish festival of Shavuot, so many Peers including the Chief Rabbi are not with us today. That said, the ongoing fight against bigotry and hatred falls on all our shoulders, whatever our background. It is an issue that crosses party lines. As my noble friend mentioned, I am pleased that Muslim, Christian and Jewish people, those of different faiths and none, are here today discussing this important issue whatever our backgrounds. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, whom I have had the pleasure of working with on many occasions for his kind remarks.

As many noble Lords have highlighted, anti-Semitism regretfully remains a factor in the life of the British-Jewish community. The Government continue to share the community’s concern about the rise of anti-Semitism, both at home and abroad. In particular, we are concerned about the rise of hate on the internet, the growth of extremism on university campuses, the security concerns of Jewish faith schools, the low levels of hate crimes brought to justice and the existence of extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun, the English Defence League and the British National Party. I cannot be clearer; wherever and whatever the roots of anti-Semitism, it must be confronted, challenged and condemned. Since the all-party inquiry in 2005, the Government have made significant progress against the initial 35 recommendations. The police and other bodies have become better at dealing with violence, threats and the desecration of synagogues and cemeteries. However, we recognise that progress still needs to be made, especially when anti-Semitism is less explicit and when there is lazy acceptance of Jewish stereotypes.

It is almost six months since we published our three years on progress report and, despite the progress outlined in the report, we have not been complacent. We will continue to take practical, effective action to stamp out anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it occurs. I am extremely pleased that noble Lords have referred to the specific work of the cross-government working group, which brings together civil servants from across Whitehall and representatives from three leading Jewish organisations: the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, and the Jewish Leadership Council. The working group gives members of the Jewish community direct access to central government and is a vehicle to raise concerns—and I assure noble Lords that these concerns are heard and that the concerns of the community are acted upon.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised a very important point about the UCU and the motion not to use the European Union Monitoring Centre's definition of anti-Semitism. That issue was raised by the Jewish community through the working group late last week. A teleconference took place to discuss the issue this week and an urgent group meeting has been scheduled for the week beginning 20 June. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall keep her updated on the progress of that particular matter. The group has been cited as an example of best practice across Europe and the Americas by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, among others, raised the issue of extremism on university campuses. Noble Lords will be aware that yesterday the Government published an updated Prevent strategy, and this issue was referred to particularly. Universities and colleges promote and facilitate the exchange of opinions and ideas, and promote debate as well as enable a learning environment. However, universities and colleges have a legal and moral obligation to staff and students to ensure that the place of work and study is a tolerant, welcoming and safe environment. Universities and other higher education institutions are charities and therefore they must comply with charity law. The Charity Act 2006 requires all student unions to register with the Charity Commission by the end of June 2011. Legally, all charities must work for the public benefit and must act to avoid damage to the charity’s reputation, assets and associated individuals. Higher education institutions and student unions must therefore give due consideration to the public benefit and associated risks when they, or one of their affiliated societies, invite controversial or extremist speakers to address students.

We accept that universities and colleges of further education will need guidance, information and best practice to address these issues. Therefore the Government will continue to support the sector to improve its capacity. The National Union of Students is already in the process of developing guidance to student unions on free speech and tolerance, which will be published later this year. Moreover, the Equality Challenge Unit will publish outcomes from its major religion and belief study later this year. The Jewish community has been directly involved in the project’s development.

Ofcom and its role in relation to Press TV was another issue that was raised. Officials from the cross-government working group meet Ofcom regularly to discuss issues of concern, and to date I can inform noble Lords that Ofcom has recorded four breaches against Press TV; the first three relate to breaches of the due impartiality requirements by not including viewpoints arguing the position of the Israeli state. However, at this stage I am not aware of any breaches against Press TV in relation to anti-Semitism.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the issue of extremism during election campaigns. We have initiated meetings and correspondence with the Electoral Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the hope of getting clarity on this issue. The cross-government working group that tackles anti-Semitism has been tasked with taking this matter forward. As politicians, we are renowned for having different opinions on a whole host of issues, both domestic and international. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Alderdice made an important point about a diversity of opinion within and between religious communities. However, while we regularly oppose and contradict each others’ ideas, it can never be right that a person standing for high office, such as a Member of Parliament, should be campaigned against simply because of their race or religion.

My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno referred to Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is a place that I visited in 2008 with the Lessons from Auschwitz project. The systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of 6 million Jews and other minorities by the Nazi regime and its collaborators makes the Holocaust a unique and unparalleled horror in Europe’s history. I am proud that this Government have contributed £2.1 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau restoration fund. This contribution, alongside our commitment to continue to fund the Lessons from Auschwitz project in 2011, and the £750,000 that we are providing to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the 2011 commemoration, will ensure that the Holocaust has a permanent place in our national conscience and that the memory of those who perished is honoured and preserved.

This Government are committed to building on the foundations laid by the previous Administration. In the past 12 months, we have appointed Sir Andrew Burns as the UK envoy for post-Holocaust issues. We have agreed to provide up to £2 million to fund security measures for Jewish faith schools within the state sector. We have committed £2 million during 2010-11 to Faith in Action, a small grants programme to support local interfaith activity. In particular, we have supported to the tune of around £275,000 52 projects that are bringing together people of the Jewish faith and other faiths. The Government have also supported Interfaith Week to the tune of £200,000 in 2010, including funding for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Three Faiths Forum, the Council of Christians and Jews, the Joseph Interfaith Foundation and Mitzvah Day UK. The UK also regularly contributes to international efforts to tackle anti-Semitism, and we play a key role in developments in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism.

All police forces must now record anti-Semitic hate crimes, and in November ACPO published the first official anti-Semitic hate-crime statistics. This action has received specific praise at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s High Level Meeting on Confronting Anti-Semitism in Public Discourse, held in Prague in March 2011. The Government have also produced and delivered occupational standards for police officers handling hate crimes, and we have published a diagnostic toolkit to enable local criminal justice agencies to self-audit their performances in the handling of hate crimes, from initial call handling through to prosecution. We have also supported the Community Security Trust, with funding from the Victims Fund. The grant was awarded to support the CST’s work to improve the reporting of anti-Semitic attacks in London and Manchester. The funding also helped to develop a guidance booklet, A Guide to Fighting Hate Crime.

International agencies and monitoring bodies have regularly praised the UK’s approach and are often held up as being at the forefront of state responses to tackling hate crime. However, as I said earlier, we cannot afford to be complacent, and I can assure the Committee that we are committed to continuing this work and to offering whatever support we can in the ongoing fight against anti-Semitism. As I have said before, and will say again, anti-religious bigotry and hatred should not be tolerated whenever and wherever they manifest themselves.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate and in particular to my noble friend Lord Boswell for his efforts in securing this debate and his commitment over the years in the other place and now here to tackling anti-Semitism.

Committee adjourned at 8.09 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 8 June 2011.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion for an Humble Address

15:07

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty The Queen as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave

To assure Your Majesty that this House looks forward to the ninetieth birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh;

To convey to Your Majesty the admiration that is felt by this House for His Royal Highness; and

To express the hope that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh may long continue to enjoy good health and happiness.”

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that I invite the House to agree this Motion today and thereby to place on record, on behalf of this House and the nation, our sincere admiration for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and our gratitude for his unswerving contribution to our national life ahead of his 90th birthday this Friday. The longest serving consort in British history, for over half a century the Duke has both steadfastly supported Her Majesty the Queen in her important work and at the same time created a distinctive and much valued role for himself in our national story. Like his predecessor a century before, Prince Philip has served our institutions with great dignity and honour. His role at the heart of a partnership that has helped to bequeath a glorious reign has been something both fundamental and very special.

Few of us can fail to admire Prince Philip when he comes to the State Opening of Parliament and sits quietly but resolutely next to Her Majesty on the Throne, with a twinkle in the eye and a profound understanding of the values of duty and service; and with an intrinsic grasp of our national character and spirit. Prince Philip has remained constant to this country and its people, and today we are going to recognise and thank him for that.

Born on 10 June 1921, a prince of Greece and Denmark, Prince Philip and his family were evacuated from Greece in 1922 by a Royal Navy ship, subsequently settling in France. Educated in Germany and the United Kingdom, he joined the Royal Navy as a cadet in 1939 at the onset of the Second World War. His appointments included that of first lieutenant of HMS “Wallace”, which took part in the Allied landings in Sicily in July 1943, and first lieutenant of HMS “Whelp”, which partook in the surrender of Japan. He then went on to attain the rank of lieutenant commander in 1950 and of commander in 1952, by which time his active naval career had come to an end following the untimely and premature death of his father-in-law King George VI.

Following his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth in November 1947 and her accession to the throne in February 1952, Prince Philip, who had by then become the Duke of Edinburgh, began his new role in public life in support of the many duties, engagements and responsibilities carried out by Her Majesty the Queen. He is patron or president of some 800 organisations, foremost among them the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, a charity which has touched the lives of more than 4 million young people in more than 60 countries since its inception. He maintains an active interest in industry, conservation and the environment, most prominently as the first president of the UK arm of the World Wildlife Fund. He is also a proud father, a grandfather and most recently a great-grandfather, achievements and accolades sometimes too obvious to mention, but nevertheless sources of immense pride. He is a keen sportsman, a tireless collector, a passionate supporter of the arts, of education, of our Armed Forces and of the Commonwealth—to do full justice to Prince Philip’s achievements and interests would require a litany.

He is a man of extraordinary range, commitment, involvement and passion. The Duke has been at the heart of what this country is about for almost his entire adult life. We owe to him a significant debt of gratitude for all that he has done and continues to do and I know that the whole House will wish to join me in conveying our warmest congratulations to His Royal Highness on the occasion of his forthcoming 90th birthday. I beg to move.

15:13

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is a very great privilege for me to have the honour to associate the Opposition Benches and myself with the tribute that the Leader of the House has paid to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of his forthcoming 90th birthday. The country holds Her Majesty the Queen in very high esteem and regard, all the more so since the royal wedding in April and the success of the extraordinary visit by the Queen to Ireland last month. A fundamental part of that esteem is the role played by His Royal Highness as the Queen’s consort—indeed, the longest serving royal consort in British history. In doing so he has virtually defined the role, at least since it was carried out for Queen Victoria by Prince Albert.

In a BBC documentary for his 90th birthday, to be broadcast tomorrow night, I understand that the Duke says of his role:

“It has all been trial and error”,

but as his son, the Duke of Wessex, says in the programme:

“That kind of view is typical of him. He is very modest about himself”.

While the Duke of Edinburgh may indeed be modest, his achievements are not. For many people all over the world, the words “Duke of Edinburgh” are inextricably linked with the award scheme which carries his name. Since 1956 when the scheme to help the development of young people began, a staggering 7 million young people have taken part in it across 132 countries—an astonishing achievement.

As he approaches his 90th birthday on Friday, we give heartfelt thanks for all that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has done for Her Majesty the Queen, for his service to this country, including his own fine naval record of service, for all the causes which have benefited from being associated with him and especially for the many millions of people who have participated in the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award programme and whose lives have, as a result, been immeasurably altered and improved and whose volunteering has, in turn, altered and improved the lives of so many others.

The Motion before the House today speaks rightly of the outstanding service to the nation given by His Royal Highness in supporting the Queen, and his own deep contribution to our national life. Those are exactly the right sentiments and exactly what we on these Benches wish to support.

15:15

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I am delighted to associate the Liberal Democrat Benches with the humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty the Queen, and the message to be conveyed to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on his 90th birthday. The essential feature of our democracy is the strength and stability of our monarchy. Whereas in other parts of the world presidents and prime ministers come and go, we can take great pride that next year we will celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

The Duke of Edinburgh has been the longest serving consort and the oldest serving spouse of a reigning British monarch. During all this time he has accompanied the Queen to various countries abroad. The Commonwealth, particularly the new Commonwealth, takes great pride in its loyalty to and respect for the Queen and the Duke. It is because of our Royal Family that the Commonwealth has continued to be an important political voice on the world stage.

As a person born in east Africa, I take great pride in one other matter. Prior to the Queen’s accession in 1952, the royal couple visited Kenya. She came to us as a princess and we sent her back as a Queen. We wish His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh many happy returns and thank him for his services to the United Kingdom.

15:17

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, nine decades is a long time and covers a great deal of ground and change. It is my happy task, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers, to wish His Royal Highness a very happy birthday and many congratulations on reaching such a venerable age, while at the same time confounding all the stereotypical views we hold of someone facing his 10th decade. Far from being a gnarled old man, the Duke has retained his bounce and his interest in life. His robust sense of humour has added a welcome informality to official occasions. A reported conversation at a press reception to mark the Golden Jubilee in 2002 went something like this. The Duke said to a journalist, “Who are you?”. “I’m the editor in chief of the Independent, sir”, replied one Peter Kellner. “What are you doing here?”. “You invited me, sir”. “Well, you didn’t have to come”. How can exchanges of this kind not but add to the gaiety of nations?

More seriously, the Duke of Edinburgh, with his originality of thought and readiness to challenge accepted truths, has played a key role in modernising the monarchy, encouraging, as we have heard, millions of the young to undertake challenges. He has made significant contributions to conservation and undertaken the patronage of more than 800 organisations, as we have also already heard. Above all, he has been a steady and ever present consort to Her Majesty the Queen. Long may he continue in this and his many other roles.

Once again, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers, I am privileged to join all sides of your Lordships’ House in offering our congratulations to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, and to support wholeheartedly the humble Address and the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord the Leader of the House.

15:19

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I express the warmest congratulations to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of his 90th birthday. As the embodiment of devotion, duty and loyalty in service to our country, the Duke has been a model example to us all.

As someone who shares a birthday with the Duke, I look with admiration and—if it is allowed in someone from these Benches—envy on his stamina and resilience. Until 2006, he was still pursuing his passion for carriage driving and competing with fell ponies. We have witnessed his tireless energy again in recent days with the royal wedding, the historic visit to the Republic of Ireland and the welcome to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on his state visit. I have had particular cause to reflect on these qualities over the past couple of weeks during a stay in St Thomas’s Hospital, where, in the words of the consultant surgeon, Mr Simon Atkinson, I had to have “a nasty appendix” removed. I was discharged from hospital only this morning. In my somewhat fragile state, the question in my mind has been a very simple one: how does the Duke do it?

His Royal Highness’s long record of service to our nation began before his marriage to Her Majesty the Queen. As for many who risked their lives in the cause of freedom during action in the Second World War, the Duke’s record of military service was a distinguished one. As an officer in the Royal Navy, his quick thinking in distracting a Luftwaffe bomber saved the lives of many on board HMS “Wallace”. After the war, his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth brought much happiness and hope to a nation during what were still uncertain and straitened times. The recent wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has been a reminder of how much the spirits of our nation can be lifted during difficult days by events that capture the imagination and draw on the symbols and heritage that underpin our history and identity.

Since giving up his 14-year naval career, His Royal Highness has acted, as we have heard, as patron to some 800 organisations, as well as being chancellor of the University of Cambridge. In particular, I pay tribute to his passionate commitment to the welfare of our nation’s young people, notably through the award scheme which bears his name and which has been an inspiration to so many similar schemes overseas. The award scheme’s emphasis on physical achievement and service as ways of building confidence and character reflects the Duke’s own experience and values. Underpinning those values has been his rootedness within the Christian religion, first within the Greek Orthodox Church and now for many decades within the Anglican branch of,

“the one Catholick and Apostolick Church”,

giving steadfast and tireless support to Her Majesty in her role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Not everyone is aware that His Royal Highness has a keen interest in theological questions. Bishops who are invited to stay and preach at Sandringham face a barrage of serious theological questions over lunch—and there is nowhere to hide. He listens appreciatively but never uncritically. In my case, the sermon was based on Jesus turning water into wine at Cana in Galilee. In conversation, the Duke suggested many possible explanations for the miracle as opposed to the one that I was giving. He even included a Uri Geller-type explanation. He produced a spoon that Uri Geller had bent for him. “You see this?” he said, “That could have been it”. To my rescue came that still, small voice of calm from Her Majesty the Queen, saying, “Philip and his theories!”. Secondly, among the Duke’s theological interests are several publications that he co-authored, including “Survival or Extinction: A Christian Attitude to the Environment”, a work that incorporated another of his enduring concerns—wildlife preservation and care for the environment.

In ecclesiastical affairs, as on other issues, the Duke of Edinburgh likes to cut to the heart of the matter. My right reverend friend the current Bishop of Norwich recalls that, on first arriving at Sandringham, the Duke asked him, “Are you happy clappy?”. To that, he responded, “No, I’m smells and bells”. I am pleased to say that, following this robust exchange, they got on fine.

Humour is ever one of the Duke’s characteristics. The Duke is in fact a tease par excellence. For example, when showing me around the restored chapel in Windsor Castle after the devastating fire, he said, “Come and see my new piece of modern art”. I looked at it but could not work it out and had to ask, “Who is the artist?”. With a big laugh, he said, “That’s a piece of wood saved from the fire”. Later on, in writing to him, I suggested that he send that piece of modern art to the Yaohnanen tribe, in Tanna, who regard him as a god. I will leave noble Lords to imagine his response.

We, the Lords spiritual, wish His Royal Highness the Duke many happy returns and associate our sentiments with all sides of the House.

Motion agreed nemine dissentiente and the Lord Chamberlain was ordered to present the Address to Her Majesty.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion that a Message be Conveyed

15:25

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That a Message be conveyed to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as follows:

“Your Royal Highness,

We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, warmly congratulate Your Royal Highness on Your Royal Highness’s forthcoming ninetieth birthday;

We express our gratitude for Your Royal Highness’s outstanding service to the nation, not only in supporting Her Majesty The Queen throughout Her Majesty’s reign but also in making Your Royal Highness’s own deep contribution to national life, in particular in Your Royal Highness’s distinguished naval service in the second world war and in Your Royal Highness’s creation of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award which has done so much to encourage the development of young people;

We wish Your Royal Highness many happy returns.”

Motion agreed nemine dissentiente and it was ordered that the Message be conveyed to His Royal Highness by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the House (Lord Strathclyde), Lord Brabazon of Tara, Baroness D’Souza, Lord McNally and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.

Oil Prices

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:27

Asked By

[Lord Barnett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans HM Treasury has to ensure that inflation is reduced and consumers derive benefit when there is a reduction in oil prices.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, the MPC, is responsible for maintaining price stability. It sets policy to meet the inflation target in the medium term. The MPC continues to judge that inflation is likely to fall back through 2012 and 2013. Petrol retailing is a competitive market. It is that competition which should see reductions in oil prices passed on to consumers.

[Lord Barnett]

I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am conscious of the fact that he has a propensity to quote what I said some 40 years ago. I thought of checking this time, but on reflection I realised that the Government have inherited a different policy from that of my time. In 1997, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, as the noble Lord has pointed out, introduced a new policy involving the transfer of power from the Chancellor to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee. The Government do not particularly like the then Chancellor but I assume that they are happy with the inheritance. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that. I know that he does not like talking about interest rates but will he also confirm the extreme national and international importance of interest rates and that the Chancellor still has absolute confidence in the governor and his policy for dealing with inflation?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am very happy to confirm that this Government are entirely comfortable with the structure around the MPC and have complete confidence in the governor. I could go on. I have quotes from 40 years ago. I was going to use quotes from 30 years ago but if the noble Lord would prefer me not to use them on this occasion I will not do so. However, his words of wisdom are always my guide.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, I agree with the Bank of England in keeping interest rates low to support the economy but on the other hand we have rampant inflation: food inflation is 5 per cent; wheat has gone to 70 per cent; corn is 100 per cent. The consumer is being squeezed because we have wage deflation. Does the Minister agree that the Government are between a rock and a hard place? In that situation, should not the Government consider reducing taxes to help the consumer and encourage growth?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I completely agree with the figures given by the noble Lord for the very considerable increases in commodity prices over the past year. Those are, of course, driven by global factors, but they impact very severely on consumers and businesses in this country. That much I agree with. He referred to low interest rates. This is absolutely critical. We have almost record low interest rates on our 10-year gilts at the moment—3.33 per cent, I think, last night. That is a recognition of the confidence that the Government have in the underlying fiscal policy but it also reinforces that the Government’s contribution is to make sure that we continue to have a prudent view on public finances and do not deviate from the course that we set for reducing the fiscal deficit that we inherited.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, is it not clear that the mechanism set up by Mr Gordon Brown for controlling inflation is not working and that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is taking a number of other factors into account in addition to inflation? That being so, would it not be appropriate to revise and improve the remit given to the MPC rather than the Governor of the Bank of England having to write letter after letter after letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why inflation is above target?

[Lord Sassoon]

Well, I am always reluctant to disagree with the analysis of my noble friend who has considered these matters for many years, but I do disagree because I think that the medium-term target that the Bank of England has been given and the framework within which the MPC operates continue to be entirely appropriate. Of course, it is a medium-term target, and the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast from March shows inflation coming down to 2.5 per cent in 2012 and 2 per cent in 2013.The comparison of independent forecasters shows a very similar picture—2.3 per cent next year and 2.1 per cent in 2013. This shows that the Bank of England has the confidence of the commentators and the forecasters to continue to work to its mandate successfully.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Is it not the case that inflation is never going to reach the benign figures that the Minister says? Yesterday we were warned of a gas price increase of 19 per cent, an electricity price increase of 10 per cent, and all the other companies will do the same. How can the noble Lord possibly think that inflation is under control? Is he simply going to let the spiral continue until we land in bankruptcy?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, of course we would not wish to see inflation at the 4.5 per cent it is now. As has been explained, this is very largely driven by global factors with regard to commodity prices. We are not only keeping to our tight fiscal policy, which underpins the ability of the Bank of England to stick to its mandate, but giving help to the most vulnerable—whether that is the Budget announcement that gave a £630 increase in cash in personal allowances for the under-65s, whether it is in the arrangements that we made to cut fuel duty effectively by 6p per litre from what the plans of the previous Government had been, or whether it is increasing the state pension by 4.6 per cent. What the Government must do, and are doing, is to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, with the Chinese economy, the Indian economy and many other economies still growing strongly, is it not likely that the price of oil and other fossil fuels will remain high for the foreseeable future? In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that the Government’s carbon reduction strategy assumes an even greater importance? In that context, can he tell us when the Government plan to bring forward the Bill formally establishing the green investment bank?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, we will bring forward the Bill in due course when it is in good shape. I take my noble friend's point about commodity prices. It reinforces the fact that we need to ensure that all energy users get advice to use energy efficiently in order to reduce their household bills. That is part of where we are targeting government help.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, when energy prices and oil prices rise, the price to the consumer rises very quickly. When world prices fall, the price to the consumer falls very slowly. What are the Government going to do about that?

[Lord Sassoon]

I have no idea what the noble Lord’s evidence for that is. The most recent intervention taken by the Government was to cut fuel duty, as I explained, by 1p per litre on Budget day. The price at the pump over the following few days fell by 0.8p per litre, despite rising oil prices over those same days. The market was investigated by Ofgem or the OFT. The competition authorities looked at the market for oil prices in 1998 and have not sought to look at it again. If the noble Lord or anyone else has evidence about prices, Ofgem, which looks at the market, has dealt with them recently and I am sure that the OFT will as well.

Businesses: Regional Growth Fund

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:36

Asked By

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many small and medium-sized enterprises have been helped by the Regional Growth Fund, and what other plans they have to help such businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, about one-third of the £450 million conditionally allocated for successful bids in round 1 will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. Our expectation is that at least 1,000 SMEs, located in areas where there is not already a vibrant private sector and culture of enterprise, will benefit directly from round 1. The second round of the fund is bigger, and we expect further bids that will benefit SMEs.

[Lord Harrison]

Given that only one-third of the successful submissions are from small businesses, whereas the regional growth fund was designed to help small businesses, does the Minister accept that a flaw in the design of that fund is that you had to submit a minimum bid of £1 million, which is out of reach for many small businesses? Does she accept that the advice on the BIS help site is absurd, given that the proposal that you should spatchcock together lots of different projects from small businesses not only increases bureaucracy but means that projects are brought together which are unnatural neighbours? Is it not time that the Government thought big about small businesses?

[Baroness Wilcox]

I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about: the threshold value of £1 million seems very high for very small businesses. We recognise that £1 million is too high a threshold for the smallest businesses. Sadly, it would take much time and resource to deal with a very high number of very small bids. We have addressed that point by conditionally allocating funding to organisations with experience of the SME sector, so that they can work with it to deliver the grants. Projects below £1 million can join up with other projects to form a coherent package and can bid together to meet the threshold. I come from a business background and know that if you cannot get a grant or a loan for the business the first time round, you go out there to find another business that will join you so that you can get it. This is a competitive process, which is what we want it to be, and I think it will succeed.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, the credit crunch which started four years ago was as a result of the sub-prime crisis. After the credit crunch came the financial crisis then the recession and then the sovereign debt crisis, but the biggest domino effect was that lending to small businesses all but froze. Are the Government really doing enough to compel or encourage the banks to lend to small businesses, given the support that we have given to the banks over those years?

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State, is for ever speaking to and with businesses. Yes, of course we know that we need a predictable tax system to reward endeavour; we know that we need better access to both debt and equity finance; and we know that we need to reduce red tape. We are working hard on all of that.

[Lord Cotter]

My Lords, other support for small businesses is intended to come through local enterprise partnerships. Will the Minister take on board concerns that not enough small businesses—not in sufficient force—are being involved in local enterprise partnerships throughout the country? This is of great concern. Surely this should be part of the approval process that the Minister has to go through when he sets up the local enterprise partnerships in the first place.

[Baroness Wilcox]

The evidence is that we have been overwhelmed by the number of bids that have come in. For the second round that we are in now, there is an enormous number of bids, which is very heartening. It is competitive, and people are doing awfully well with it. I hope that I can speak later to the noble Lord and reassure him on this with the evidence that we have.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, given the record levels of youth unemployment, is the Minister aware of the newly released data from the Federation of Small Businesses showing that only 8 per cent of small businesses have taken on an apprentice in the past year? This is concerning, given that in 2009 more than half of the apprenticeships took place in businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Furthermore, the federation believes that allocated funding to apprenticeships must be used to benefit micro-businesses—that is, businesses that are likely to take on their first apprentice with the potential to grow. It believes that the Government should better promote group training agencies or apprentice training agencies.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, I expected this question to come from the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, whom I see is in the House today. My answer to this question is that this is a challenge fund and projects can cover whatever the bidders want. The aim of the fund is to create jobs and these could include apprenticeships—a key part of this Government’s growth agenda. We look forward to bids coming forward for apprenticeship growth.

[Lord Sugar]

My Lords, my question for the Minister is not the one that she was anticipating. She will recall that in my short stint at BIS as an adviser to the Government, I concentrated on the business link centres. At the end of that period, I concluded that they were, frankly, a waste of money. I was told that they cost £250 million per year. Will the Minister give us an update on the status of the business link centres and indicate whether she has come to the same conclusion? Will the money that was given to the business link centres be deployed somewhere else?

[Baroness Wilcox]

I was not prepared to answer a question on that, but I will of course send an answer to the noble Lord. I would like to reassure him that I think that he would approve of the system that we are using here. It is working. The bids have already levered in £2.5 billion of private sector funding. Maybe he would like to follow carefully how we are proceeding with this sum—and maybe even support us in some ways.

Allotments

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:43

Asked By

[Baroness Sharples]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of allotments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lord, it is local authorities that have a duty to provide statutory allotments. The Government are keen to support local communities that want to use local spaces for community food growing, and to protect existing land for this purpose. New neighbourhood planning provisions in the Localism Bill will provide a new right for communities to shape their local areas, including the means to boost allotment provision.

[Baroness Sharples]

I thank my noble friend for that reply. I realise that the Localism Bill will help, but are local councils playing by the rules in providing alternative sites when those present sites are needed for development or whatever? An enormous number of people who write to one now are looking for allotments and cannot get them. They have to wait years.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we already know that there is a 50 per cent extra requirement for allotments. Local authorities can, of course, make land available if they have it for allotments. The neighbourhood planning provisions in the Localism Bill, to which my noble friend refers, will enable neighbourhoods to identify land where they think allotments could be provided within their neighbourhood plan and have that agreed by the local authority. There are, therefore, methods by which new allotments can be provided, but I recognise immediately that there are far too few for those who want them.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that, in the 19th century, the Bishop of Bath and Wells was one of the founders of the allotment movement. I have to say that there are questions about why he founded the allotment movement, but he did. The Minister may also be aware that under the present development of the Bishop’s Palace in Wells—in opening it more effectively to the public—the palace hosts not only the city allotments but a new community garden. I note that the National Trust has pledged some 1,000 allotments on its premises by 2012, and ask the Minister to encourage the development of land on all suitable estates open to the public as allotments or community gardens.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, that is a fascinating bit of history from the right reverend Prelate, which I did not know but I enjoyed hearing about. Of course, he is right that the National Trust has already started developing allotments and, yes, wherever allotments can be provided and wherever authorities or bodies are able to provide them, we could encourage that, because too many people who would like to grow their own food are waiting for allotments. The more provision, the better.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

Does the noble Baroness agree with me that allotments have many virtues, among them the fact that they provide an important habitat for honey-bees and other kinds of bees? Indeed, some allotment users keep bees on their allotments. Are the Government ensuring that research funding is being sustained in order to monitor and, if possible, to reverse the decline in the honey-bee population in this country? If she cannot tell the House now perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, bees are a little beyond my brief and a little beyond my department’s brief. I am extremely happy to refer the question, probably to Defra, and to ensure the noble Baroness has a reply.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a local councillor; I am pleased to say that we have just provided some new allotments in my ward. In areas with town and parish councils, the town and parish councils are the statutory allotment authorities and very often run all the local allotments. They are often very good at managing the allotments and running them in an economic and financially viable way. The problem of producing new allotments is providing the capital funding in the beginning to set up the allotments before they can be managed. That is a real problem for town and parish councils. Will the Government look again at it?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it is right that local authorities have the statutory responsibility for allotments, and it would be up to them if they wished to put aside a capital sum to provide more in their area. I do not think that the Government can direct them to do that, although we recognise that many people want allotments. I certainly do not think that my department would tell local authorities that they had to provide them.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Does the noble Baroness think that we would have such erudite questions about allotments and bees if we had an elected second Chamber?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity in getting such a question into Question Time. I shall not spend any more time trying to answer it.

[Lord Harrison]

As with the regional growth fund and inflation, on allotments have the Government lost the plot?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am not sure who has lost the plot and it is not an issue I want to address this afternoon.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, my family have some allotments in Surrey—I live in Devon. They are run by the allotment holders, who provide everything that is needed to keep them running; they do not need the local authority. Is this not an example of the big society?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, self-help and people working for themselves, producing their own answers and working without government intervention of course is the big society at its best. After all, the big society is just about that; it is about local people working for themselves and for others and looking after their neighbours. In that regard, what could be better than working on an allotment?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the neighbourhood planning regimes of the Localism Bill and how they may be beneficial to allotment development. What protections are in the system to prevent aggressive development of allotments by narrowly focused neighbourhood forums?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, allotments are protected: one cannot just come in and take them over. Land is made available for allotments and it is a statutory right for them to be there. It would only be if allotment owners did not want those allotments that they could be addressed within a neighbourhood plan and with the wish of the neighbourhood that they should change hands. I do not believe that anybody can aggressively take over allotments.

Travellers: Dale Farm

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:50

Asked By

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what amounts have been promised, by which government departments, as contributions towards the costs of policing proposed evictions at Dale Farm.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Home Office has agreed to set aside contingency funding, up to a maximum of £4.65 million, to assist with the costs of policing the proposed evictions at Dale Farm. The final grant awarded will be agreed after the operation and will only cover the costs incurred. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government has committed to provide up to £1.2 million to Basildon Borough Council to support the evictions at Dale Farm.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the decision to spend £117,000 per family on eviction of these people from the Dale Farm site considering that there are no other sites in the county to which they could be directed? Does this policy not simply mean that another £18 million will have to be spent by local authorities down the line on evicting the same families from even less suitable locations, to say nothing of the downstream costs on health, education and the social costs arising from these evictions?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue which my noble friend has worked on to good effect for decades. He suggests that this is an inappropriate use of potentially several million pounds of public money. However, there will be no need for any expensive police operation if those served with eviction notices leave within 28 days having exhausted all their appeal rights under our well developed system of justice and the rule of law. Why should one community group be allowed to flout our planning laws by suggesting disorder and thus an unaffordable police operation while a lone family or individual is easily required to comply?

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, does the local authority not have a responsibility to have concern for these families? I believe there are 100 children involved. Surely there is an obligation on the council to look after their welfare: indeed, I believe there is an EU resolution on the stocks which would commit the local authority to doing precisely that. Why are these people being deprived of their homes after all the years that they have lived on this site?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Basildon Borough Council had to make an undertaking to the High Court that the matters which the noble Baroness referred to would be dealt with properly.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether Basildon Borough Council has undertaken an equality assessment of its decision to evict the Gypsies and Travellers from this site?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if Basildon Borough Council had not carried out a proper impact assessment of all the consequences of its action, it would probably fail in the courts.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the deep concern that many Traveller children are not being well engaged in the education system, that they are being failed and that the generational impact of continued failure is being perpetuated? Is consideration being given to the education of these children and what steps can be taken to ensure that they have continuity of education and, if possible, stay in the same school?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely important point. If we carry on not properly educating Traveller children we will never break the cycle, because it is very difficult for Traveller families to engage in fully legitimate economic activity if they have not been properly educated. I referred to undertakings in my answer to the noble Baroness: the local authority has to deal with these issues.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain where these people are supposed to go, considering that there are no other sites in Essex, and no sites in the county plan?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the local authority has obligations under the law of homelessness, as the noble Lord fully appreciates. I go back to my original point: we cannot allow people to flout our planning laws.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the original Question was about cost. The noble Earl will know that currently we are debating the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which proposes to party-politicise our police force through the election of police commissioners. Would it not be true to say that the money being spent on those elected commissioners would be better spent on ensuring that our police forces are properly staffed?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would raise the issue of police and crime commissioners; I would have been very disappointed if he had not. We do not intend to limit the influence of central government on policing decisions only to see the same restrictions imposed by PCCs. They will provide the community with a voice and local accountability that is currently non-existent.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, it is clear that this is a very complex issue. I hope that the House and noble Lords will appreciate that if this site is occupied illegally, action has to be taken to remove the occupiers. If the law is not upheld in this instance, how on earth can it be upheld in other instances which may be just as important?

[Earl Attlee]

I am sure that all noble Lords agree that the noble Lord has made a very good point.

Winterbourne View

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:57

Asked By

[Baroness Hollins]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement, whether they will ensure that the terms of reference of the serious case review into the abuse at Winterbourne View encompass the question of the appropriateness of placing people with learning disabilities in private hospitals.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a psychiatrist who has spent much of the last 30 years working with people with learning disabilities who have similar needs to those of the subjects of the shocking “Panorama” programme. I am also the carer of an adult man who has a learning disability and whose behaviour at times challenges those who support him. I have also been a policy adviser on learning disability to the Department of Health on two occasions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the safety and quality of care of those with learning disabilities are of the highest importance. We will discuss the terms of reference for the serious case review with South Gloucestershire Council. We want to ensure that the terms of reference for all of the reviews by the local authority, the strategic health authorities and the Care Quality Commission will give us the evidence that we need to answer the serious questions raised by the events at Winterbourne View. We have asked Mark Goldring, the chief executive of Mencap, to work closely with us in reviewing the evidence.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The national picture needs to be thought about. This matter is not happening just in south Gloucestershire. I understand that there may be as many as 150 private hospitals. I consider that to be unacceptable given the three decades of work to close NHS long-stay hospitals, which was finally achieved just two years ago. Will the Minister consider reversing the decision to end the employment of the national director for learning disabilities, who, as a policy adviser to the department, could have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of government guidance? The Mansell report gives guidance on how to manage and support people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour in the community, rather than exporting them a long way from home to private hospitals.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She raises some important issues. I am aware that the chief executive designate of the National Health Service commissioning board and the current chief executive of the National Health Service, David Nicholson, will be looking at the whole question of national clinical directors and leadership in clinical care in the coming months.

The noble Baroness is right about care in the community. That has been the direction of travel under the previous Government, as it is now. She will know that many Winterbourne View residents were sectioned under the Mental Health Act and had challenging behaviour, an area I know she has experience of. I believe that privately provided care can be trusted; if the commissioning is right, if regulation is right and if the arrangements for oversight are right, it is not intrinsically less likely that privately provided care will be delivered at the right levels of quality.

[Baroness Thornton]

I am seeking assurance from the Minister that there will be a wide-ranging and independent review of this matter, held in public, that will shine a light on what happened at Winterbourne View and allow the wider lessons to be learnt. We need to know whether the CQC’s failure to monitor the treatment of residents was due to the fact that there was a shortage of CQC staff. Does the CQC have sufficient powers to act in this case and, if so, is it using its powers adequately? Could the Minister also comment on the wisdom of placing more regulatory tasks with the CQC, as the Government are proposing in the process of reorganisation? Surely we need to see that the CQC is carrying out its current functions adequately.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, first, there is a criminal investigation under way and it would not be appropriate to launch an inquiry, even if we were minded to do so. As the noble Baroness knows, the CQC has launched its own internal investigation. It has admitted that there were failings in its processes. South Gloucestershire Council will lead an independently chaired serious case review, as has been mentioned, involving all agencies, which will look at the lessons to be learnt. The strategic health authorities involved have instigated a serious untoward incident investigation. The department will, after these reviews have been concluded, examine all the evidence and report to Parliament.

We want to understand not only the immediate facts and why things went wrong at Winterbourne View but also whether there are more systemic weaknesses in the arrangements for looking after people with learning disabilities and who exhibit seriously challenging behaviour. It is very easy to make the CQC into a scapegoat. It is difficult to ask of the CQC that it polices every room in every hospital at every hour of the day. We rely on the CQC and have been supportive of it. It does much good work and clearly it will want to review its own processes as part of this.

[Baroness Barker]

Does the Minister agree that when this abuse was taking place, a number of professionals, including nurses and doctors, must have gone into that establishment and that these professional bodies should start to conduct their own inquiries into what their staff were doing in there at the time? Secondly, a bad provider of care has everything to fear from an unannounced visit, while a good provider of care has nothing to fear. Does the Minister agree that as a temporary measure the CQC could consider conducting only unannounced visits in the foreseeable future?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My understanding is that all patients at Winterbourne View have been regularly reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical team in the past six months on behalf of the primary care trust that commissioned their care, and most of them in the past three months. I am sure she is right to say that those who have conducted such reviews should examine their processes and my understanding is that that is exactly what will happen.

We have endorsed the CQC’s proposal to launch a programme of risk-based and random unannounced inspections of a sample of the 150 hospitals providing care for people with learning disabilities. They will work in conjunction with local government improvement and development, ADAS, Mencap and with experts with experience of this programme. The spirit of my noble friend’s question is amply addressed in the programme.

[Lord Laming]

Will the Minister encourage the Government to reinforce messages about managerial accountability wherever vulnerable people are being cared for and about the fact that the greater the degree of vulnerability, the greater that accountability must be held by the managers of the service?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is quite right. There has clearly been a serious failing in management here. We are looking at that urgently and, no doubt, important lessons will be learnt. All agencies have acted immediately on being alerted to the situation by the “Panorama” team and, as I have mentioned, appropriate inquiries are under way.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

I agree with the Minister about the response around the Care Quality Commission. When such a result as this comes out, the undermining is quite damaging right across the whole spectrum of its work. In hospital trusts and everywhere else, the CQC’s inspection and report are held in great esteem if they are good and are very worrying if they are not. I wonder whether that is denigrated by this unfortunate incident and this awful opportunity that it has had and missed.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I take the noble Baroness’s point. It is very easy to blame the CQC whereas we should in fact first point the finger at those who perpetrated these awful acts and at the management of the hospital. There are a number of other agents involved besides the regulator. We are committed to developing the role of the Care Quality Commission to make it a more effective regulator of health services in England. Those efforts can be supplemented by the role of HealthWatch, which she will know we proposed in the Bill before the other place to strengthen the arrangements for the patient and public voice. I am sure that there is more that we are able to do, but it is important that we learn the facts first before pointing the finger at the regulator or anybody else.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords—

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we have reached 10 minutes and should progress to the next item of business.

Syria

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

16:08

Asked By

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are proposing the United Nations Security Council should take against the Government of Syria in the draft resolution they are putting before the Security Council later today.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, today in New York, Britain and France, along with Germany, are asking for Security Council support for a resolution condemning the repression in Syria and calling for the Syrian Government to meet their people’s legitimate demands, release all prisoners of conscience, lift restrictions on the media and the internet and co-operate with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The violence being meted out against peaceful demonstrators in Syria is an appalling response to the people demanding their basic rights and freedom. It is time for the Assad regime to stop the violence and reform or step aside.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full response—but is it really enough? There are hundreds of Syrian civilians who have died in terrible circumstances; worst of all is the report of a 13 year-old boy who was tortured, emasculated and murdered. There are thousands pouring over the Turkish border and reports of police officers being executed for refusing to fire on crowds of civilians. Does not the Minister believe that the situation in the town of Jisr al-Shughour is so like that in Benghazi that similar measures should be taken to protect the civilians there? Does he agree with the French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, with whom the British Government are sharing the platform today, who said that the process of reform in Syria is dead and that Syria’s president has lost his legitimacy to govern?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the situation is far from getting better: it is getting worse. The reports of atrocities are disgusting. We have all been shocked by the news of the apparent treatment of a young child—indeed of many young children—in the mayhem of violence. All these questions are being debated today at the United Nations. We and the French—the noble Baroness mentioned Monsieur Juppé—are putting forward sentiments very similar to those that she suggested. It is a question of carrying all opinion in this direction in order to get effective co-operative and co-ordinated action. Not everyone, particularly in the Arab world, has yet reached the point where they have united in seeing that further measures are required beyond those that we are already proposing. I myself was able to consult with a number of Arab and Gulf leaders last week in that region and had some mixed opinions on whether this was the time for more forceful action. The noble Baroness can be assured that Her Majesty’s Government hold this matter in the strongest-possible and deepest concern. We believe, and fear, that stronger measures will indeed be needed.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I congratulate my noble friend on the new tougher resolution that the Government are trying to secure through the United Nations Security Council. Let us, however, speak plainly. We know that China is one of the countries that is likely to veto this resolution. My noble friend will of course be aware that Chinese workers in Libya had to be taken out on a Chinese frigate, and that China now has interests around the world. Will he urge the Chinese Government, as they engage around the world, also to build alliances around the world to promote the interests of their own citizens if not for nobler purposes such as democracy and human rights—which, alas, they do not respect?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point which has certainly occurred to me in discussions with senior Chinese diplomats. The traditional or conventional stance of the Chinese authorities and Chinese Government is that they do not interfere in foreign countries. The reality is that because of extended Chinese influence and involvement throughout the world, whether the Chinese authorities like it or not, they are involved and do have to move towards taking a responsible position as they become a world force and a world power, an active member of the World Trade Organisation and a responsible authority and influence in the world. If this is the role that they want to play, they will have to be involved in a much more positive way, as my noble friend says.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

My Lords, it is now 30 years since I left Damascus as British ambassador to Syria. Of course I accept that we are absolutely right to condemn these appalling reports on what is happening in Syria, just as I hope that we condemned in 1982 similar reports of terrible massacres of people in Hama under the present president’s father’s rule. However, does the Minister accept that whatever its other faults, Ba’athism as a system of government is a secular system of government? I believe, and I hope that the Minister agrees, that we should be extremely careful to do nothing that could desecularise that wonderful country.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are clearly very wise remarks. I suspect that the noble Lord has more experience than I do of exactly how we reacted to the atrocious murders in Hama in 1982, which were conducted by the brother of the then president, Hafiz al-Assad. The noble Lord is right that Syria is a secular pattern. It is also a tribal pattern, and the tribal and family groups who have ruled Syria are of course not a majority; they are a minority, among many others. They have ruled by methods that we regard as reprehensible, and that are becoming even more so. I accept the noble Lord’s analysis that one could see a very serious disintegration of a country of many tribes and various religious groups and, indeed, a pattern that could develop a far greater infection of jihadism and extreme religious activity. For the moment we will have to see how events unfold. We hope that they will take a better course, but at present there is not much room for optimism.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I also welcome the steps that are being taken today at the United Nations and I understand the limitations that this Government and the French and German Governments must feel about how far they can go. This is, as the Minister has said, a savage regime, conducting brutal behaviour towards its own people. Can the noble Lord tell us what steps are being taken to engage Arab support in the region and whether consideration is being given to the International Criminal Court, which must certainly be looking at these as crimes of concern to humanity?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As Syria is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court it would need a UN resolution to direct such a course. I have no doubt that the idea has been circulated but no action has been taken on it. As for gaining the support of the surrounding region and the leading Arab powers, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are in direct contact with a range of leaders in the area. Our posts are in constant contact with the area. I myself had contact last week with a number of leaders, including, although not directly an Arab leader, Mr Najib Mikati in Lebanon, which is directly affected by what is happening in Syria. We keep lines as open as we can with all the major influences and parties, not least the Turkish Government and Mr Erdogan who have some direct line of influence over Bashar al-Assad, but so far their efforts have been to no avail.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 were built on the platform of the Arab League agreement, and that provided a degree of cover, preventing Russia from vetoing the resolutions. What is the working assumption of the Government in respect both of the Arab League generally, which presumably is fairly pessimistic about support, and the way in which Russia will now react?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord, with his experience, is describing precisely the modalities and parameters that my colleagues in the British Government and other diplomats are having to cope with in New York at this moment. There is some hope that a resolution can come forward. There are varying views within the Arab League and among Arab leaders about which way to go and how much pressure to apply. There have been in the past first the traditional Chinese attitude of non-interference, which I have already described, and secondly some reluctance from Moscow to be involved. But this could be changing and there comes a point in this transparent interconnected world where the sheer volume of the atrocities means that there is a unity of intolerance to the continual misbehaviour. We may get to that point soon.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [HL]

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Refer to Second Reading Committee

16:17

Moved By

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

That the bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.

Motion agreed.

European Union Bill

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

16:18

Clause 1 : Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “supporting” and insert “permitting”

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I rise to move this amendment in a purely formal way. I anticipate that, in speaking to Amendment 2, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will give us assurances that will enable us to withdraw this amendment, but without further ado I would like to hear what he has to say.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have sought, through the tabling of these amendments and in Committee, to clarify the spirit of the provisions in the relevant clauses of the Bill by tabling all but one of the amendments before us in this group. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who has just indicated that he is moving his amendment formally in order, quite rightly, to elicit from the Government our case for the amendment that we have tabled within the group.

As my noble friend Lord Wallace made clear in Committee, it has not been and nor should it be the Government’s intention to tie the hands of Ministers and their officials who negotiate assiduously in the development of European Union legislation in order to protect and maximise the UK’s interests and priorities. The fact is that Ministers and officials have participated constructively for many years in the earlier stages of the development and negotiation of various EU measures, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that from continuing in the same way. When it comes to the point at which the final decision is taken in the European Council or the Council, what the provisions of the Bill are designed to do is to prevent a Minister from voting in favour of a treaty or other measure specified in Part 1 at this final stage, or otherwise allow the adoption of a treaty or measure to happen, unless and until he or she has the approval specified in the relevant clause of the Bill. As we know, this may be an Act of Parliament or it may be an Act and a referendum where there is a transfer of competence or power. The Bill does not prevent the Government from signing up finally to and participating in anything at the EU level, but Ministers would first have to have the support of Parliament and, where necessary, of the British people before doing so.

The amendment tabled in my name in the Marshalled List makes the position crystal clear, and I hope to the satisfaction of noble Lords. The effect of the amendment will of course govern the use of the phraseology we are concerned with throughout the whole Bill, and therefore not oblige us to table a series of consequential amendments because this change to Clause 1, which is interpretive, will govern the whole Bill.

As my noble friend Lord Wallace explained in Committee, the words we are concerned with, “or otherwise supporting”, are included to make clear that, at the point of the final and formal decision in Council or the European Council, a Minister would be unable to allow a measure to be adopted in Council or the European Council through means other than a positive vote, which under this Bill would have to be preceded by the necessary national procedures—namely, an Act and a referendum, if required. Articles 235(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 238(4) make clear that abstentions at the point of final and formal decision in Council do not serve to block, but rather are treated as support for the adoption of a proposal requiring unanimity. Therefore, letting a measure through by abstention in the Council and then claiming by way of excuse or explanation, as it were, that although it transferred competences or powers and should have had national approval somehow it slipped through and Ministers could not help it, would not be allowed.

In addition, as many of your Lordships know, in Brussels matters often do not proceed to a formal vote. The chairman may just seek the sense of the room, and if no one dissents, take it that the proposal has been finally agreed unanimously. It is then ticked and it goes through. That could happen only after national procedures, which would require parliamentary approval, while if competences and powers are being transferred, it would of course require a referendum. So the phrase “or otherwise supporting” seeks to ensure that Parliament and the British people can be confident that there is no possibility that any inaction on the part of the Government of the day could allow a measure to be finally decided and agreed without the proper approval of Parliament or the people or, indeed, both. To allow a measure to be adopted in such a way would represent a sleight of hand that would cheat both this Parliament and the public out of their rightful say.

My noble friend also made the point that, in this way, the Government were replicating the phrase used by the 2008 Act, which was introduced by the previous Government when Parliament was approving the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. However, we accept the point—made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford—that, although that was the position before, there is no reason why we cannot improve the drafting of provisions from the past, as indeed we can improve on much else that went on during the past Government and seek to do so.

We have reflected further on this point, as we have on all the amendments tabled in Committee, as we should. For the reasons I have given, we have tabled a government amendment to spell out, in the interpretation in Clause 1, exactly what is meant by “or otherwise supporting” and to explain when and where it applies: to wit, that it is only at the final and formal stage in the Council, or the European Council, that the bar on voting for or abstaining on—in other words, otherwise supporting—measures applies, unless or until there is parliamentary and, where necessary, public approval, in which case of course the support could go forward.

We feel that providing this amendment to the definition provides the clarity that noble Lords were seeking in their amendments. It spells out unambiguously the limitations on Ministers and in doing so makes clear—and I make clear now—that this and future Governments may negotiate proposals in future in the same way as they do now and they should seek the views of the scrutiny committees of both Houses in the same way as they do now and undertake any other existing national approval procedures that are required before finally agreeing to a proposal in the European Council or the Council.

That is the position. I hope noble Lords will accept that clarifies the concerns we all had in Committee on this matter and therefore I will beg to move the Government’s amendment. This will confirm to noble Lords that we have heard and addressed their concerns. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, which seeks an exactly similar effect.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps we could be just a little clearer. I thank him very much for the letter he sent me and other noble Lords about what I described as the chicken-and-egg situation, which is part of this nexus that he has been dealing with. That was a very helpful letter and I would be most grateful if he could agree that that letter should not only go to noble Lords who participated in this debate but could also go in the Library of both Houses, because I fear that sometimes the other place does not take very much cognisance of what is said by Ministers in this House. On this occasion, what is said in that letter, in particular about nothing in this Bill inhibiting Ministers from participating in negotiations other than on the final decision, is very important. I hope he can agree that the letter should go in the Library of both Houses.

On another point arising from what the noble Lord himself said, I have to confess to some slight confusion about how many of the instances of “or otherwise support” get taken out and how many get left in and whether there is not a degree of potential ambiguity from leaving any of them in at all. Perhaps he could just clarify that point. I had at first thought, and from what he initially said this afternoon, that he was actually saying that all the references to “or otherwise support” were going and that the statement would simply be that we would not allow any decision to be taken. That is, I think, the sense of what the Government have been trying to do and what those of us who have been trying to amend this provision are trying to do. However, I am still not quite clear where we are on that point.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the first point, I will certainly endeavour to see that the words and wisdom of your Lordships’ House are spread as widely as possible and that the correctness of our view is recognised, in the way that we are changing the phraseology of the past in an improving way.

As to the question of what is amended by our proposed amendment, I think that I said that by changing the definition in the interpretative Clause 1, that change governs all references to the particular words we are concerned with throughout the Bill. It simply overrides and governs all those references, so that there is no need for your Lordships to be bothered with the task of going through each clause amending or adding the amendment at every stage of the Bill. By putting it in Clause 1, in the interpretative section, we are governing and rendering effective in the light of the amendment everything that is said throughout the entire Bill. That is the position as I would like to put it to your Lordships and I believe that that is the correct one.

16:30

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Government for listening with such deep concern to what seemed to me to be perfectly acceptable phraseology, but which gave noble Lords opposite considerable difficulty. It seems to me odd that something that is comfortable, which we already passed in the UK 2008 Act, should somehow become a discomforting phrase here, but I am none the less absolutely delighted to see that the Minister is able to come forward with what is clearly to other noble Lords a major concession and clarify a phrase which to some of us seemed perfectly adequate. It is always good that we should have a consensus in this House—your Lordships are known for a consensual approach—and I congratulate and thank the Minister.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful for those remarks.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I would not go as far as the noble Baroness in describing this as a major concession in the Bill. However, in the spirit of good will in the consideration of the Bill on Report, we are prepared to withdraw the amendments in my name in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, subject only to two points of clarification: first, that his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will be deposited in the Library; and, secondly, that we are absolutely clear that the amendment to the interpretative clause, Clause 1(7), does therefore govern all the other references to “otherwise support” in the rest of the Bill, and that no one is going to turn around at a later stage and say that a Minister cannot publicly advocate a position, either in the Council or in a wider forum, until the point at which a formal decision has to be taken, so it is possible for Ministers publicly to advocate their support for a position, subject to the final decision having passed all the requirements of this eventual Act.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, as a final word I repeat that the definition will apply to any use of this wording elsewhere in the Bill. That is the definitive statement I am making, and that applies.

[Lord Liddle]

On that understanding, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

If Amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 3.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out from “Crown” to end of line 6 and insert—
“(a) voting in favour of the decision in the European Council or the Council, or(b) allowing the decision to be adopted by consensus or unanimity by the European Council or the Council.”

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Clause 2 : Treaties amending or replacing TEU or TFEU

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

4: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, after “treaty” insert “also”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 7. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, will regard this too as a major concession by the Government. These two amendments are intended to address a point raised by a number of Peers during our debate on the first day in Committee some weeks ago on what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, described as a probing amendment. The noble Baroness, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised the question of the correct interpretation of Clauses 2 and 3 with respect to the application of the referendum provision to Gibraltar. They raised the concern that the provisions as drafted could result in the need to hold a referendum in the UK even if the proposed treaty change happened to apply solely to Gibraltar and not to the United Kingdom. They said that this would be nonsensical. I agree that in such unlikely circumstances it would be nonsensical.

As your Lordships’ House is aware, the Bill concerns only the future transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU. As I promised at the end of that debate, we have reflected further on this issue. Our view remains that the requirement for a referendum to be held in Gibraltar under the provisions of the EU Bill is not self-standing but is dependent on three things: first, that there is a treaty change which applies both to the UK and Gibraltar and, secondly, that the treaty change would result in a transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU. Then and only then does the third condition arise; namely, whether the treaty change would also represent a transfer of competence or power from Gibraltar to the EU.

That said, we recognise that it is important to be as transparent and clear as possible. That is the Government’s intention. Consequently, we have tabled these two simple amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 to make sure that the meaning is clear beyond doubt. The amendment makes explicit that only if a treaty change were to apply to both the UK and Gibraltar, and the referendum is to be held in the UK, would that referendum also be held in Gibraltar. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hoped to intervene before the Minister sat down but I missed my cue. I shall be very brief. As the noble Lord and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have been courteous enough to mention me in the context of our debates on these matters in Committee, it would be wrong of me not to say that we on this side appreciate that the Government have genuinely reflected on the Committee stage debate on these two matters, relatively minor though they may be. That is encouraging for us and the hope that we can all take part in improving this legislation and that the result of our labours will not be entirely nil. Does the noble Lord have in mind any specific contingency in which there might be a proposal involving the transfer of powers from Gibraltar to the EU, or is this whole subject merely theoretical? Have the Government provided for it as a purely theoretical possibility, or do they have any issue in mind that might be triggered by this clause?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I appreciate the tabling of these two amendments by the Government. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that they will probably not be thought of as huge concessions almost anywhere. He put that rather generously and he is quite right—they will not. More to the point, they are wise amendments. It may well be that on some future occasion he will wish to land in Gibraltar. He would not want to receive the sort of frosty reception that he would receive if he had done anything to the people of Gibraltar other than what appears as a result of these two amendments. It is a helpful clarification. We are satisfied with it and thank him.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If no one else wishes to intervene, I ought to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which there would be proposals that would represent a transfer of powers or competences from Gibraltar to the EU. However, I have not looked back at Protocol 3 of the 1972 Act which ratified the treaty of accession and the extremely complicated circumstances in which Gibraltar is treated as a member of the EU but does not take part in all aspects of EU policy. For example, it does not take part in the common agricultural policy, but it takes part in the freedom of movement.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Would the Minister recommend to other European Union member states that have territories that are not specifically part of their geographical parameters—such as Spain and the Canary Islands, and France and her piece of territory in north Africa—that they follow the lead of the United Kingdom in drawing more fully into their embrace the territories that belong to them?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long. The question of the different relationships between the Crown dependencies and the EU, and Gibraltar and the EU, is a deeply arcane subject. I read an extremely long report from the Government of Jersey some 18 months ago about the relationship between Jersey and the EU. It is very good bedtime reading for anyone who does not wish to go to sleep. These are very complicated areas. However, I and our advisers cannot at the moment envisage the likelihood of a referendum. We nevertheless hope that this amendment clarifies the situation.

Amendment 4 agreed.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

5: Clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert “, and
(d) the Electoral Commission have issued a certificate stating whether or not it appears to them that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it. ( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the treaty may be ratified.
( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that fewer than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the treaty may not be ratified unless—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to ratify the treaty, and(b) each House has agreed to the motion without amendment.”

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, Amendment 5, and the similar Amendment 8 that is grouped with it, are both in my name. Although these amendments are relevant to the European Union Bill, they are not about European Union policy. They are about the way in which we deal with referendums in this country and the role of Parliament, if any, in relation to referendums. Perhaps this might have the unique result that, when we continue the discussion on this amendment, we might find that Europhiles, Europhobes and Eurosceptics are all on the same side, which would be rather unusual. The amendments have a good—indeed, a noble—parentage, since they are in substance the same as the much discussed amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

The effect of Amendment 5 is quite simple. The Government have proposed that, if, as a consequence of the referendum lock set up in the Bill, a national referendum were to be held on any of the about 50 cases covered by the Bill, that referendum result would be mandatory and Parliament would have no role. This amendment would not change that situation if at least 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote had voted in the referendum. However, if there were a poor turnout and a smaller percentage of the electorate voted, the result would remain valid but would have to be confirmed by a Motion in each House of Parliament. This will give Parliament its proper representative role if there were, for example, a derisory turnout.

This amendment is particularly relevant to the Bill because all the potential decisions or transfers of power or competence to the European Union covered by the Bill are already subject to our veto and the Government have stated that they do not intend to make any of these decisions or transfers in the current Parliament. Unless, therefore, a sunset clause is inserted—the subject of later amendments—or, if it becomes an Act, a future Parliament repeals the Bill, the legislation has the potential to require national referendums for many years ahead.

What would be the circumstances of these potential referendums? First, they would be about issues where the UK Government had concluded that it would be in the national interest to act. If not, the Government would simply veto the proposal under existing powers. Secondly, a referendum might be about a change to qualified majority voting. There are 40 different cases listed in Schedule 1 on subjects which voters might find of little interest or importance. An example might be a change in the method of voting for the appointment of advocates-general of the European Court of Justice. Such a bizarre national referendum would probably attract a miserable turnout. This amendment would give Parliament an opportunity to take stock. Alternatively, a future referendum might be about a serious treaty change or a group of changes. In Committee, the Minister speculated that in the future this might be the case, although I personally consider it improbable, but in any event there would clearly be a significant turnout in such circumstances. This amendment does not affect the mandatory nature of such a referendum decision.

To conclude, this amendment would bring back a role for Parliament in those cases, and only in those cases, where the British public had demonstrated their lack of interest by a very low turnout in a referendum. I beg to move Amendment 5.

16:46

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I can add very little to the lucid presentation made by my noble friend Lord Williamson. I start from premises which I have described to the House before. My first premise is to regard referenda as unreliable things. The more complex the subject, the less reliable they become. I have said many times that the referenda which I have always been enthusiastic about were those which I was able to introduce at a meeting of the Welsh area council of the Conservative Party in the 1960s—namely, to determine, on a county basis and at seven-year intervals, whether public houses should be open on Sunday. That was put into law within a short time by Henry Brooke and remained there for 35 years, because after five seven-year lapses every county in Wales had finally been liberated, Caernarvon being the last. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris was then able to repeal the legislation. Nobody can argue with that.

Between 1974 and 1979, when I was on the opposition Benches in the other place and was able to do other things, I was on the board of a company called AGB Research, which was one of the largest and most effective market research companies in Europe, specialising largely in the measurement of television and broadcasting audiences. The whole process depended on trying to determine what people thought. In so far as we were dealing with quite simple things about broadcasting, it was easy enough to decide. In so far as we were measuring relative enthusiasm as between butter and margarine, we felt that we could rely on a referendum-style questioning and answering analysis. But unlike many of our competitors, we were always clear that we would never touch political opinion polls with a bargepole because we felt that in that area, however well one tried to do it, the outcome was likely to be less than lucid and less than decisive. For that reason, throughout this legislation I have been wholly lacking in enthusiasm for the introduction of referenda in substitute for decisions taken by Parliament.

We have reached the point when referenda seem likely to remain in legislation, but the least we can do is to try to make those referenda less ill founded than they might otherwise be. If we do not prescribe a minimum along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, then we are at the mercy of decisions being taken by almost invisible percentage votes. I do not regard there being much wisdom in a 40 per cent referendum, but I am delighted to be able to follow an example set by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was a colleague in the other place for many years and who, the House may remember, was also the author of the Rooker-Wise amendment on income tax legislation. So for the second time, although it is not like that Rooker-Wise legislation and his name does not even appear on this amendment, I am glad to endorse his wisdom, particularly when it is reinforced by the lucid, compact argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. It is the minimum we can do to exclude the unreliability of this unattractive device. It should be in the hands of Parliament. This amendment enables it to come back into the hands of Parliament if certain conditions are not fulfilled. I speak in support of the amendment.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I speak in partial support of this amendment. I cannot say I am very enthusiastic about part of it, but nevertheless I agree with the general thrust. Before I turn to the amendment, I would like to say how much I admire the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, particularly his actions in the 1950s in persuading the Conservative party in Wales to agree to a set of referendums on whether pubs should be open on Sundays. I say that because in the valley where I was brought up there was a Labour majority of 35,000, but the club with the biggest membership of all was the local Conservative club. Why? Because it was open on Sundays. He deserves to be commended for his altruism, which deprived the Amman Valley’s Conservative party of a considerable amount of beer money.

My Lords, I am not too keen on this amendment for one reason. We have a figure which, if it is not reached, then prima facie at any rate the referendum should not be valid. However, in those circumstances where the turnout does not reach 40 per cent, the result is deemed to be valid because the matter will come back to Parliament and, if each House passes a resolution saying that, despite the turnout being under 40 per cent, the measure should go through, then it will go through. I question the value of that. If you have that in the Bill, it seems to me it is slightly pointless having a 40 per cent plateau. If one is going to have a figure that the turnout must reach for the referendum to be effective, why should Parliament give the Government a second chance of getting their policy through? If there is a condition that you must have 40 per cent, surely if you get that 40 per cent the referendum is valid; if you do not, the logical conclusion is that the referendum is not valid. If it were as simple as that, I would support the amendment entirely. On the other hand, I must say that if the amendment is one the House is prepared to accept, I would certainly go along with it rather than not have anything like it.

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, I find the amendment rather strange. I certainly agree that a poor turnout may be taken as complete lack of interest in having a referendum on the issue, but a poor turnout certainly could not be taken as support for the measure in question. One must remember what sort of measures we are talking about: these are measures that cede more power to the European Union. So if there is a low turnout, the one thing that is absolutely certain—along with the fact that there may be lack of enthusiasm in voting at all—is that there is minimum support for ceding more power to the EU. That seems to me to be an absolutely rotten reason for handing the whole matter back to Parliament. Half the trouble at present, and the reason there is so much distrust over this whole area, is that people feel that, over the years, Parliament has been far too fast to cede more powers to the EU.

As I have said before, it seems extraordinary that when the people give to our parliamentarians the opportunity to use certain specific powers they then spend the whole of a Parliament handing over those powers to other people. No wonder there is a lack of understanding of what is being done in the people’s name. It is pretty nonsensical to say that if there is a low turnout in the referendum, we should hand the whole matter to Parliament, which is half the cause of the trouble in the first place. After all, it is Parliament which the public feel, with fairly good evidence, cheated them of the opportunity of a referendum when Lisbon turned up as a rehash of the European constitution. That is one of the causes for the Bill. We are having a Bill now to try to rebuild some of the lost confidence in the EU, and we should judge the amendment by that problem. As far as I can see, the amendment would add to the problem rather than reduce it.

[Lord Tomlinson]

When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, speak about nonsenses, that seemed to be a cue inviting me to participate in this debate. The noble Lord talked extensively about ceding powers to Europe, but the very essence of the Bill is that the issues subject to referenda are issues that require unanimity in the Council of Ministers. The Government have every power that they need; they have only to say no and by that process they can stop any ceding of powers to Europe or anywhere else. They can deny unanimity. That is not what it is about. The idea that the Bill is the last bastion defending the rights of Englishmen, to stop his rights being transferred to Brussels, is really the argument of the knave who knows better, because it does not do that at all.

If we are to have what I believe to be nonsensical referenda inflicted on us, there has to be at least some measure to give a minimum standard of credibility to the referenda. Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I am not particularly happy about the amendment, although I will support it. The idea of putting to a referendum an issue where people can vote for or against does not really transfer sovereignty to the British people. I would far rather see a question with four options: “For”, “Against”, “Don't know” and “Don't care”. If we had that, considering some of the issues which will be subject to referenda, I suspect that it would be a combination of “Don't know” and “Don't care” that would win in every case. The amendment would not give us a great deal of protection, particularly as, as I said, power already rests in the hands of Ministers. If there is such a reluctance of Ministers to use the power that they already have, an honourable retreat is available from Government to the Back Benches, so that they can continue their impotence from there. When the Government have every power that they need, they also need the political will to use it, not to use a fig-leaf argument trying to bind a successor, in circumstances where they seem to be predicting their imminent defeat at the next election.

17:00

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, which is a Tory amendment. I am surprised to find myself sounding more Tory than the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, which is a feat I had not expected to attempt. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, comes from the West Country, and I suspect him of being a Burkean. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, took us through John Locke. The Taverne view against referenda was derived from Locke, and he contrasted that with the evil Rousseau, who led the French in the direction of referenda. I would have preferred to have dinner with Fox, but Burke impresses me on the role of Parliament. The reasons I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, have nothing to do with the European Union; they have to do with the position of Parliament.

Burke’s speech in 1774 was to the Bristol electors who had just elected him. He had the guts to say:

“The wishes of the people should have great weight with their Representative, their opinion his high respect, their business his unremitted attention. It is his duty…to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to them…Your representative [in Parliament] owes you, not only his industry, but also his judgment; and he betrays you, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.

That seems to me to be the core of Tory philosophy on parliamentary democracy. I agree with all that; it seems to me to be 100 per cent correct.

This Bill is a constitutional innovation. It says that once an Act of Parliament has been passed, it will be struck down by the people if they say no in a referendum. This is not the alternative vote referendum scenario. As Conservative noble Lords may remember, we did not vote for the alternative vote; we voted for a referendum on the alternative vote. In the case of this Bill, the treaty amendments that would have been considered by Parliament, and the 57 varieties of decisions—the baked beans can of decisions—that would have been considered by Parliament would have been subject to Acts of Parliament. They would have received parliamentary approval and then they would go to referenda. That is the first time, I think, that has happened in our constitutional history.

[Lord Tebbit]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for lecturing me on conservative principles. Does he think that when Locke was making that speech—

[Noble Lords]

Burke!

[Lord Tebbit]

Does the noble Lord think that he envisaged a day when Parliament would be transferring sovereign powers from the people of this country to those of another country, to people who they could not elect and could not dismiss?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am sure that Burke was not thinking of the situation of the EU Bill which is before us. The noble Lord is absolutely right. He may have been thinking of a situation in Ireland which developed in ways that bore some resemblance to that during his lifetime, but I am sure that when he was addressing the Bristol electorate his concern was simply with explaining to them how he saw the role of Parliament and the sovereignty of Parliament. It is because I think that he was right about that that I think that we should vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, which I hope he will press to a vote. It does not restore full parliamentary sovereignty, but in a situation where—in his words—a derisory turnout had voted, the question of whether Parliament’s will should be overruled would be raised. That is a little bit of Burke that would be rescued from the mess of Rousseau that we are in.

[Lord Dykes]

I rise briefly to speak enthusiastically in support of this amendment and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for his remarks—I agree with them all. I was, like others may be, a little startled when the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, began to say that he rather agreed with the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. But I understand what he was getting at. The beauty of the amendment is that it can appeal to a whole range of Members of this House in deciding, irrespective of their own particular views on the virtue of referendums, or referendumitis, or the danger of referendums, or whatever, that this would be a good way of making more respectable a given referendum result with a turnout requirement—following the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a totally different context—and would make sure that we were not trivialising the exercise in a way that would disconcert the public in a big way. The beauty then is that, if the threshold is not reached, the power goes back to Parliament and the Government as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would always wish.

On 5 April, in the early stages of the Committee of the whole House, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, in referring to Schedule 1, said:

“if we present to the electorate the sort of issues in Schedule 1 and ask them … to turn out at the polls”—

in referendums—

“we are being not only completely unrealistic but deeply insulting to them”.—[Official Report, 5/4/11; col. 1694.]

I have left out a few of the smaller words, but essentially that is what he said.

The electorate would say that that is what they elect parliamentarians to decide. We could easily have participation rates of less than 20 per cent, and we would return, therefore, to the Vernon Bogdanor example. I believe that this matter is important for parliamentarians in both Houses, but particularly here, as this House has an opportunity to improve the Bill in a way that government Ministers have already started to do with their generous amendment. We must work hard to restore public faith in the public’s ownership of first-rate parliamentary standards of tradition, work and devotion to the public good. My personal view is that I am very fearful of referendumitis and this Bill would deliver a lot of it in the future if the situation were allowed to get out of hand.

Most sensible citizens are highly intelligent and quite rightly regard subjects other than mere politics as far more important and crucial. I often do. I would cite family and children, the local community, jobs and job prospects, football and—even better—rugby, holidays, the kids’ results at school and music. Very many of those things are more important than politics. The public want to enhance political quality by leaving the political decisions to their elected representatives, even if some of them in the other place are sometimes rather nerdy people, like Bill Cash or John Redwood. We have to remember the warning words of my noble friend Lady Williams when she spoke of the disastrous example of California, which had become a bankrupt state as a result of excessive referendumitis and foolish populism. This amendment provides a pragmatic way of making the results of referendum—if there has to be one—more respectable. I hope that this House will support it.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, would not describe people who oppose his points of view in such terms as “nerds”. It does not enhance debate and it is quite unnecessary to lampoon one’s opponents.

The amendment has a certain superficial attraction, but we need to be extremely careful what we do. If you say that a decision on an item on which a referendum is to be held can take effect only if 40 per cent of the electorate vote, you could say that about almost every election we have. People are elected to the House of Commons—certainly in by-elections—on a turnout of less than 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. Why on earth should that be legitimate and a referendum on a matter which is to be transferred to European governance not be accepted? We have to be very careful not to create a precedent here which might be used in other circumstances that may be inconvenient to Parliament and certainly to local authorities, where the turnout is very often far below the 40 per cent of those entitled to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, talked about the various alternatives that might be put on the ballot paper. If you pass this amendment, there is another alternative which is that you can campaign for people not to vote. That is good democracy, is it not? Or is it? If you encourage people not to vote to get the decision you want, that is extremely bad democracy. I do not want to delay the House any further, but I believe that before we vote we should be very careful about what we are doing.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as always, made a very careful and thoughtful speech which places me in a slightly awkward position. I find it surprising that there is so much enthusiasm for this amendment from those who accuse the Government of obstructing the process towards greater European integration. They have said that the Government have been putting locks on moves towards further European integration. Here they are putting a padlock on the lock; they are putting another obstacle in the way of European integration. Let us not forget that one will get a referendum only when the Government are proposing to acquiesce in a step towards European integration. Therefore, I find it a little strange that those who are enthusiastic about more integration and think that the Government are being obstructionist about this want to put up another obstacle.

I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that there is a danger that we will have lots of referendums on trivial subjects such as the number of advocates-general or the voting system for having advocates-general. There are several reasons, which we went through in Committee, why we will not get a whole series of trivial referendums. First, these sorts of changes tend to come along in packages after major treaty revisions and we have been assured there will not be major treaty revisions. It seems unlikely that any one country is going to invest a huge amount of political capital pressing for a change in the voting system for choosing advocates-general. If some power has not been given to Brussels even after the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty—the series of constitutional treaties we have had—if powers are left to individual countries, there is a very good reason for that. Obviously in previous negotiations countries have not wanted to cede those powers. The idea that we are going to get a lot of referendums on trivial matters is unrealistic and is a chimera. If that was the basis of the noble Lord’s argument I would not accept it. There are many subjects that are by no means trivial, such as our borders and our criminal justice system, where it would be wholly appropriate to have a referendum. That is why I am broadly a supporter of the Bill.

I said at the beginning that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, places me in a slightly awkward position because I was, as some of my noble friends will remember, a very strong supporter of the 40 per cent threshold for the referendum on AV. Indeed, I voted twice against my party on it. I do not like to make personal comments but I got to my feet largely because of my noble friend Lord Dykes, who I have known for many years. On the AV question, my noble friend was a very firm opponent of the 40 per cent threshold to which he has put his name on this occasion. As I am placed in an awkward position and he is also exposed in an awkward position, I am prepared to do him a deal. If he will not support this amendment, I will vote for it.

17:15

[Lord Risby]

My Lords, it is worth pointing out that the referendum is now part of our political culture. Indeed, it is not only part of our political culture, but right across the European Union referendums are deployed to get people’s views. It is now a fundamental part of the whole democratic process. However, the potential effect of this amendment is to make the referendum advisory. That is the point because if it is below 40 per cent the decision is referred back to Parliament. The essence of that argument is that the result ceases to be mandatory and effectively becomes advisory. That destroys the whole point of the reconnection process.

We are trying through the Bill to reconnect the people of this country with the European Union. It is a big challenge. If we are going to re-engage people in that process we must recognise that, if there is going to be constitutional change, the vast majority of people will want to feel that their voice is represented in the process. We owe that to them. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the 40 per cent figure is arbitrary. It would be absurd in a local or European election, when sometimes the figure drops below 40 per cent, to reject the result. That is not the way we do things. We must remind ourselves that the vast majority of people will want a referendum if there is going to be an important transfer of powers to the European Union.

The AV referendum showed us that on an important constitutional issue, the people of this country will be fully engaged. They took it seriously and voted in great numbers. I have the greatest confidence that in a matter such as the one before us, the potential transfer of additional powers to the European Union, they will of course be very interested. Therefore, I feel that turnout would be quite high.

We must make sure that people feel that when they vote, their vote counts and is decisive. Otherwise, it will destroy the point of the referendum. The referendum lock should be given without qualification; it is in the spirit of what the Bill is about. The fullest acceptance of the referendum result voted by the people is something that we should recognise. It is our duty as parliamentarians to do so.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I voted on two occasions for the Rooker amendment on AV. It is tempting to join the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in taking the position that there may be a similar argument for supporting here an amendment that requires a 40 per cent turnout. However, the position is not at all analogous. In this situation, the aim is to protect the people of this country from having the powers of their Parliament and Government further diluted and given away, as has sadly happened in the recent past, with Parliaments breaking their word to citizens and acting in a way contrary to that which they promised—I refer, for example, to the recent Lisbon treaty.

It is very clear that the Bill is there as a protection for the British people, and it would be made meaningless if we said to them, “We are going to give you this lock and protection, but if less than 40 per cent of people vote, we will give power back to the Government of the day who command a majority in the House of Commons”. It is not an analogous situation to changing the voting system, where there were powerful arguments requiring an adequate turnout. It is not a situation that Burke would have supported in the slightest; he would have been absolutely against giving away the powers of the British Government and Parliament to another organisation. Either we give citizens a meaningful lock or we do not. Therefore, I feel no discomfort in opposing these amendments, having supported the Rooker amendment on AV; it is the whole point of the Bill.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I find myself in disagreement with both my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord behind him. I am opposed to referenda in any case and do not think that we should judge referenda, even if we are in favour of them, by the particular amendment that is before us. We should judge referenda as referenda. Therefore, to vote for a 40 per cent division between compulsory and advisory on one subject and not to vote for it on another seems not to hang together. The issue is not about the European Union. Everyone knows where I stand on that. It is about an issue which comes from before that. Long before there were these debates on the European Union, there were debates about referenda. I enjoyed debating them and I have not changed my view on them.

The parliamentary democracy which we have is the greatest gift which we have been able to give to the world as a whole. Irrespective of the comments of my noble friend Lord Risby, parliamentary democracy and referenda do not go together, as a matter of fact. The one comes from a different tradition and I am not going to be one of those who besmirches the tradition by referring to the use of referenda by such people as Louis-Napoleon. That would be wrong. But referenda do come from that tradition and not from our parliamentary tradition.

Therefore, I was much enlightened by the reminder which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gave us of the great conservative thinker, Edmund Burke. He said that the embarrassing fact of being a parliamentarian is that you do have, in the end, to make up your own mind, even though the popular press, the women’s advisory committee of your association, the local doctors’ alliance and a whole range of other people tell you that you have got it wrong. I remind noble Lords of what happens if you take that away. It means that nobody with a strong view on abortion, for example, would be able to uphold his or her view in those circumstances. If he or she were to follow the views of the electorate, he or she would not be able to uphold what he or she thought was a moral position. The same would be true about capital punishment. No one would have voted against capital punishment if they had listened to the average elector over the past 30 or 40 years.

Let us not be too easily lulled into that simple concept of the referendum now being part of our democratic heritage. Referenda have always been used—I say this as a committed Conservative—in a way which has tended to favour those who take a very conservative attitude. My noble friend takes a very conservative attitude, so I am happy to give way to him.

[Lord Tebbit]

May I assume, therefore, that in defence of parliamentary sovereignty and all that of which he has been speaking, my noble friend will assert the right of Parliament, and none other, to decide whether prisoners should have any voting rights at all? Will he be on side in this matter or will he defer to some agency outside Parliament?

[Lord Deben]

I am always worried when my noble friend intervenes upon me but I am very pleased on this occasion to say that I agree with him entirely. This is an issue for Parliament and Parliament should make up its own mind—I have no doubt about that at all. He need not worry. I am a great defender of Parliament. But I ask this House not to allow itself to get into the situation which the Swiss got into. After all, Switzerland was the last country in Europe to allow women to vote. Why was that? Every time they passed it in Parliament, it was the referenda which defeated it. I ask noble Lords to be very careful about this.

Let us look at this amendment. I have great sympathy for the view which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, expressed. It seems to me that this is a very simple concept. We who are arguing for it have accepted that in our view, for bad reasons, we are going to have referenda. We are unlikely to have a referendum on something trivial—I do not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson; I think it will be likely to be on something of note. It will be on something which the Government have decided not to veto. It is going to be quite a rare occasion. It is going to be something which the Government have presented to Parliament, Parliament is going to vote for it, and it will then be placed before the public. All we are saying is that if less than 40 per cent of the public think it worth while voting, Parliament can reconsider the matter. It can take into account what the public have said and then ask itself what should it do.

I finish by saying that I would say this about a proposal for a referendum on something that I believed my side would win in all circumstances. This is not a matter about the subject; it is about the mechanism. It is that which we should face. May I suggest to noble Lords that this House has got to do its duty in ensuring that when there is a major change, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we ensure that it is not one with unforeseen circumstances? All we are saying is that if enough people vote, then it is mandatory; if not enough people vote, it is advisory. That seems to me to be a sensible compromise, so I ask the Minister to help those of us who find this Bill very difficult indeed and at least allow us to have this compromise, which is in the best tradition of British parliamentary democracy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, seldom have I been made glummer than I have been made by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and indeed, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and those who tabled this amendment. They have encapsulated perfectly the disdain of the political class for the people of this country.

[A noble Lord]

That includes you.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am indeed a member of the political class, but I think I see it perhaps with more objectivity than those who tabled this amendment. If your Lordships' House has a vote and less than 40 per cent turn out for it, the result is still valid. If 10 per cent of your Lordships' House votes, perhaps rather late at night, the result is still valid.

I say that those who tabled this amendment really do not understand the disdain of the people of this country for the political class, and that disdain is justified. Look at the position into which our political class has led this country over the past 50 years—since Suez, perhaps, and we got that wrong. Our children cannot learn to read; our prisons are overflowing with the illiterate; our hospitals are dirty; we are failing the old, most of whom end their lives in misery and loneliness; our streets are dangerous; our transport is creaky; our police are overburdened and overbureaucratised; even our Armed Forces are being asked to do too much with too little, and their morale is beginning to crack; immigration is out of control; Islamism is on the march; and our economy is in terrible trouble, the pain of which will, of course, be visited upon the people. I think the British people are justified in thinking very ill of their political class.

Noble Lords may remember that for about two minutes last year I was the leader of the UK Independence Party and, rather against my will, we consulted focus groups, which I always think should be completely unnecessary. Even I was surprised by the answer to the question about what people thought about the political class. Every class of the British people in every area of this country said that they regarded the political class not with dislike, not with disdain, not with distrust, not even with anger, but with hatred. I believe that our system of representative parliamentary democracy, which those who tabled this amendment and the leaders of our political class like so much, is no longer supported by the people, and therefore has broken down.

Do not let us forget that up to the 19th century and the early 20th century most people in this country could not read, so it was reasonable to send representatives to Westminster to take decisions for them. But now people can read. On the whole, they are very much more sensible than the people who represent them and they want referendums. They want referendums not only on the European Union but perhaps across the board, which might be the only way to reconnect the people with their democracy. I believe that their decisions—even if only 15 per cent of them turn out to vote—will be very much wiser than those of our failed political class. Therefore, I oppose these amendments.

17:30

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I shall speak specifically on the 40 per cent threshold and will start by reaffirming the point made by other noble Lords on these amendments going against the Government’s objective of re-engaging with the British people, particularly on major EU issues about transfer of power and competency. I want to reassert the coalition’s intentions on referendums in other parts of our life. The Localism Bill, which we discussed yesterday, has many arrangements in place for referendums.

It might be helpful to remind the House of the other referendum that took place a couple of months ago. I am not referring to the AV referendum but the one in King’s Lynn about an incinerator. After a strong campaign against a local incinerator, the turnout was 61 per cent. It was interesting that there was a division between a county council view and a district council view about whether there should be such an incinerator. The county council view ignored the will of the people. I am afraid that my Conservative colleagues and my noble friends on these Benches suffered some significant defeats in the local elections. Nine councillors were rejected because the people felt that their voice had not been heard after they had been allowed to give it. We miss that opportunity at our peril. I have given that specific example because, in Committee, I raised the issue of the Scottish referendum in 1979 after which there was a significant disconnect. It has taken many years to address it. Some would argue that there is still a legacy of distrust between Westminster and Scotland.

I would prefer the political parties and other groups involved in campaigning for referendums to engage with the public, rather than there being a threshold which, as others have mentioned, could skew the result. You may get not just the “don’t knows” and the “don’t cares” referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, but those who do not support the motion actively being asked not to vote in order to skew the result. Then the public debate becomes about voting and not about the issue. That would be wrong.

The contrast between these two types of referendum is striking. In the first, a real referendum resulting in engagement with the public undoubtedly has helped the public’s perception. The 1975 EU referendum benefited the perception and understanding of the EU for many years. But in Scotland there was a real contrast and, as I have mentioned, serious damage is still there.

Finally, last year, the Lords Constitution Committee stated that there should be,

“a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and super-majorities”.

Let us heed that sage advice and not support the amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I find that I am afflicted by the quite well known advice once given to me by the Whips. It was, “Never listen to the debate on any issue”. When I saw this amendment I was rather dismayed because, as my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, it replicates exactly the proposal which he, I and others put forward on the AV referendum. I found myself thinking, “Now I have got to be against this because I am against Europe taking more powers from Britain. How am I going to reconcile this in my mind?”. My noble friend Lord Deben has been very helpful in this regard because it is not about the issue of European powers or the role of the European Community. It is about the relationship between Parliament and referendum.

I am going to upset a number of my noble friends by being on an unpredictable side in this argument. My noble friend Lord Risby said that it is now part of the culture in Europe to have referenda. I am rather alarmed by that, because we have a parliamentary democracy. I support this Bill in its intention, which is to give the people a say before a power is transferred, if that should happen. It seems very dangerous to get into a position where we have what is a constitutional innovation—the concept of drop-dead referenda. The moment the vote is cast, that is it. It has become enshrined in law and Parliament no longer has a say. That is a new concept which has crept into our constitution. When we joined the European Union, we did not have a referendum of that form. The Scottish referendum, with all due respect to my noble friend, was not of that form, either. Parliament was still in control and had the final say. My noble friend Lord Deben has been consistent throughout all the time I have known him in his opposition to referenda. I am not against referenda but they must be supported by a substantial group. We could argue about whether 35 per cent or 40 per cent or 50 per cent is the right number, but there ought to be a clear view expressed by the people.

Perhaps I may take up an earlier point. I know nothing about the incinerator but I have been involved in public life long enough to know that if you want to put an incinerator anywhere, you are going to get a majority in a referendum against it. That is why we have elections and that is why we have Parliament. It is in order to take difficult decisions, which, as my noble friend has said, may very well be unpopular. So I am rather inclined to support this amendment for that reason. It seems to be consistent in supporting the constitutional principles which this House should be concerned about. Tempted as I am by the expediency of the case, I think that argument ought to prevail.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

In supporting this amendment, is my noble friend comfortable with the concept of a turnout of less than 40 per cent, which is therefore null, and a no vote by a narrow majority? Bearing in mind that the Government will have instigated this referendum because they want a yes vote, if they get a no vote by a narrow majority and the House of Commons reverses it to a yes vote, is my noble friend comfortable with that idea, because that is what he is advocating?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not advocating that at all. It would be a matter for the House of Commons to decide. The House of Commons and this House would have to take account of the nature of the campaign and the strength of the vote and the arguments that are put forward. The pressure of a referendum in itself, however big the turnout, will be a major factor in the considerations which are taken by the elected Members. I am not comfortable with the idea of cutting Parliament out when there may have been a low turnout. By the way, I was also not comfortable with accepting these arguments when I rejected them not many weeks ago in the context of having a threshold on the AV referendum.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I want to make three short points. First, I refer to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who always argues his case with great force and effectiveness. However, on this occasion, it seemed rather strange. He said that if there is a low vote, it simply proves the lack of enthusiasm for the European Community, and the fact that people will not vote is equivalent to a no vote. The circumstances, as has just been pointed out, will be whether the Government support a change in the law. Suppose the next Government are a Conservative Government. They are not likely to make a major transfer of powers to Brussels. On some of these minor matters in Schedule 1, they might see the advantage in not having a veto and make that part of their case. If there is a very low vote, it is a toss-up as to which way it will go, but a 10 per cent vote in favour of a transfer of power and 9 per cent against is a quite a likely result. In effect, the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that it makes a transfer of power more likely.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says that it is not likely that there would be an individual vote on some of the minor matters set out in Schedule 1 because they would be packaged, which is also what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has told us on a number of occasions. But a package is particularly unsuitable to the referendum process. Let us suppose that some people in the country are passionately concerned about joining the European public prosecutor’s office, while others are passionately concerned not to have an extra judge in the European Court of Justice. Yet others may be very concerned about not having a new protocol for the deficit procedure. All those issues may be part of a package. Which way should people vote if they are in favour of one and against another? What should they do? It makes a nonsense of any sort of referendum.

The second point I want to make is that if this amendment is not passed, we are likely to be left with referendums on some of these minor matters. Are they really going to bind this country closer to Europe and reconnect the public with Brussels? Are they going to make Brussels more popular? Of course it is a result that I do not necessarily approve of, but would it not make referenda less and less popular with the public?

That brings me to my last point. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to Burke. I should like to comment on that since I was the first person to bring Burke into the argument. In his doctrine, Burke says that the will of the people should always prevail; it is the anti-Rousseau argument. What is interesting is that while there have been some tests of it, although only a very few, they suggest that Burke is actually quite popular. I shall give two examples. In my speech at Second Reading, I referred to a by-election in which I resigned on an issue over which I was unpopular in the sense that a local poll showed a majority of three to two against our joining the European Community. But I argued for the principle of Burke that I was entitled to exercise my judgment, and Burke prevailed by a substantial majority. I can give another example. One of my neighbours where I lived until recently was a Conservative MP I greatly respected. He was the late Norman Miscampbell, who was a Member for Blackpool. Many people will remember that a police superintendent was murdered in that town, and a campaign was launched by his widow to restore the death penalty for the murder of a policeman. It had overwhelming support in Blackpool, but Norman Miscampbell, on principle and very bravely taking the Burke view, voted against the restoration of the death penalty. His fellow Conservative MP in Blackpool, the late Peter Blaker, supported the petition and voted in favour of it. At the next election, Norman Miscampbell’s vote increased by somewhat more than that of Peter Blaker. Burke is not unpopular. When they reflect on it, people think it very reasonable that Members of Parliament should exercise their own judgment and not act as puppets.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a few remarks in support of this amendment. I find some of the arguments that have been used against it quite bizarre. The noble Lord, Lord Risby, said that the vast majority of people in this country want these referendums. If so, he has nothing to fear from the amendment. If the vast majority of people in this country want referendums, more than 40 per cent of them will vote when a referendum question is put, and this Bill, as amended, will then provide mandatory outcomes. It has been suggested that this is all about engaging with the British people, but if we cannot get 40 per cent of the people to vote, is that not a failure to engage with the British people? Surely that is precisely what it is, which is why having a threshold makes sense.

I argue that we should not go down the primrose path of thinking that the referendum fashion is sweeping across Europe. First, we are not talking about Europe; we are talking about Britain. I do not see why we should accept that argument as valid in our case. In any case, I have a strong feeling that most people who have supported referendums around Europe now bitterly regret it. In the most recent one, last weekend, the Slovenians voted against raising the pensionable age to something quite a long way below the pensionable age in this country; not, I would have thought, a very sensible thing to have happened—something rather like the incinerator case, I suspect. I am very much in the same group as the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Forsyth. It is not a very good idea to have these referendums. The Government could quite easily have avoided most of the petty referendums by drawing up a much simpler Bill, but they chose to throw in the kitchen sink. Given that, the case for a threshold is really rather compelling and I therefore support the amendment.

17:45

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that the power of the Executive has got much stronger in the House of Commons? We all talk here about parliamentary democracy in terms of the other place, but how many times have the Government actually been defeated over the past 20 years?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

It is not the time of night to go into a lengthy disquisition on British constitutional history, but we still live in a representative parliamentary democracy and we still accept that a Government who have a majority in the House of Commons can make laws. However, we are seeking to contradict that with this provision. The amendment that is being moved is a small, modest palliation of that.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

This amendment is not in fact about the absolute underpinnings of this Bill, although it is a very tempting set of red herrings that have been laid in front of your Lordships’ House. This set of amendments is about whether or not there should be a 40 per cent threshold and, with your Lordships’ permission, I would like to comment purely on that point.

The 40 per cent threshold seems to me, as a former Member of Parliament and of the European Parliament, to be a rather odd thing for noble Lords to be considering today. We do not have a 40 per cent threshold in the general election or in the European election, for example. We are perfectly comfortable with assuming that 50 per cent of those who come out to vote is the threshold on which the electorate are exercising their wisdom. I find it extremely difficult to see why, just for this Bill, some noble Lords are so adamantine in their perception that a 40 per cent threshold—and no less—is the absolute minimum they will accept if a referendum is to give a valid answer from the British people.

All noble Lords who have commented on the imperative of parliamentary democracy and Parliament’s primacy are, of course, absolutely right. I think that it is Clause 18 of the Bill that, for the first time ever in many generations in Parliament, absolutely clearly defines that it is only through the primacy of Parliament that EU legislation can be accepted at all. It is our responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made the point in his very thoughtful intervention—and I fully support this—that we have been far too fast in ceding power from this Parliament to the European Union. However, I would perhaps remind him that that is our responsibility, certainly in the House of Commons and Government but also, to a much lesser extent, here. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, is in his place, representing the several generations of outstanding work by EU sub-committees in your Lordships’ House. That has not been the case in the House of Commons, which has let slip piece after piece of legislation pouring in from Brussels. Indeed, it is the Ministers of the day, from every single Government—from the previous Government and the ones before that—that have fed the House of Commons so little material that somehow it has unwittingly, or in some other mode, let through all of this legislation and the growing burden of all these regulations which are, I believe, oppressing the peoples of the European Union and particularly the peoples of the United Kingdom.

This modest Bill, although it is relatively lightweight, does contain two or three very important points, the first of which I believe is the primacy of Parliament over EU legislation and therefore surely over the outcome of any referendum. It also gives the wonderful possibility of a downhill-driven knowledge base to the British people and some small modicum of authority over what will happen. I very much support the Bill because of those two points.

Coming back to Burke, to the point that was raised in the context of representative parliament, I cannot help but comment, because the flavour comes through so strongly, that some of the arguments that noble Lords are putting forward tend to resonate with those of us whose female forebears fought for the vote for women. In other words, somehow some elements of the population are not fit to bring their judgment to bear on important matters affecting the United Kingdom. It is difficult. Burke, of course, was wonderful, but before him and at his day women did not have the vote. Academics had more than their current bundle of votes per person, so did the landed gentry, so did the aristocracy; well, wonderful, but today is different.

One of the key differences is that today we have modern technology. Only the day before yesterday I had five e-mails, no less, from the great Steve Jobs himself urging me to discard my newly purchased iPhone and my iPad of the week before last in favour of iCloud, where all my data are going to be parked for ever and a day. Modern people, men, women and children of all backgrounds, all income brackets, all of us—I leave aside prisoners because I do not want to interfere with the debate between two prominent powerful members of the Conservative Party on that one—all those people have knowledge now, absolute knowledge, just as much as we do, and they have time, they have energy, they get involved.

My noble friend Lord Dykes commented that—despite the absence of cricket in his tremendous tour de force of commenting on what the British public are interested in—the British people trust their political representatives to make political judgments on their behalf. Noble Lords know full well that the British public have no trust in any politician at all at the moment, although I believe that they have greater trust in your Lordships’ House than in the other place. What they do have confidence in is the knowledge that they take, albeit false knowledge, from Wikipedia, from iCloud and from other data that are now so readily available 24 hours a day and which people take, commandeer and use. Therefore, they want to be involved; they are able to be involved; they are knowledgeable about being involved and that is why the heart of the Bill is a good idea.

The 40 per cent threshold is a very odd idea, unless we are going to carry it right forward into the European Parliament, into the general election, into local elections, presumably—we can have a dismal turnout, yet we respect the council that is elected none the less and the mayors that are elected, if they are. I expect that there will be a pretty low turnout if we have elected police, for example. So we do accept that low turnout and we take just over a 50 per cent threshold as a majority. That is the way in which our parliamentary system works, that is the way in which our electoral system works. I can see no rationale, no reasonable argument that has been laid in front of your Lordships’ House so far this afternoon, which tells me that I should support this set of amendments. These referenda will be few and far between—probably once every 10 years if the European Union actually proposes a further transfer of sovereign power, which at the moment is highly unlikely. It is busy with the euro, it is busy with the superabundance of enlargement; it is not going to propose anything very important for the moment on these grounds. Maybe once every 10 or 15 years there will be a referendum. Is this of such profound significance that it outweighs the normal way in which we vote in general elections? I think not. The logic is against it because the Bill says that the primacy of the British Parliament overrides everything coming from Brussels in any case. I oppose the amendments.

[Lord Triesman]

It has been a long debate and I suspect that there has been a very full review of most of the issues. I am very pleased to be associated with the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Dykes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in this amendment. I also find myself in very strong agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Forsyth. I too have been thinking about Burke. It may completely destroy any prospect of my ever sitting successfully on these Benches again, but the reality is that those are the key arguments.

There was such strong support for my noble friend Lord Rooker’s original concept of thresholds and the feed-through to the parliamentary system—there are some differences here that I shall explore in a moment—because it was felt strongly that when there were to be significant changes to our constitution or the arrangements under which we are governed, there ought to be a demonstrable degree of legitimacy. Goodness knows, 40 per cent is a pretty modest figure when looking at a level of legitimacy for changes that profound. None the less, it was an attempt to say that there should be some authority for the decision, and that the figure gave at least that degree of authority. One of the arguments adduced at the time was that in the commentary on the turnout in local elections, in particular, dipping below 40 per cent, as it often did, people made very severe criticisms of the quality of our democratic life. When it was higher than that, people tended to think it was healthy. I do not want to say that that seems to be the key reason. I just make the point that on turnouts of less than 40 per cent, results were routinely disparaged. Anybody looking back over the press and other commentary at the time would come to same conclusion.

The constitutional debates in this House were interesting. Many of your Lordships said that once the decision is taken in a referendum we should not try to second-guess the electorate. They will have spoken, however small the turnout and however profound the issue. None the less, they will have spoken. That was never a convincing reason not to look at the prospect of some threshold. That is why I agree so strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Unfortunately, we look at it from where we are now, with this legislation in front of us.

The reason why I assert that we may be in a slightly different position now is that most of the arguments that my noble friend Lord Rooker produced are still very good. However, the argument today has a slightly different salience. It has been argued that, in relation to Europe, the people of this country have felt disenfranchised. That may well be true; I do not particularly choose to argue that it is not the case. They may well resent having had less say than they believed they should. What is needed in these circumstances may be the indelible mark of people’s approval for changes that might have a significant effect on their lives. I can see that. If it is true that we need that new kind of indelible mark, let us make sure that it is a credible mark, which has some authority and dignity and has not gone through on very small figures.

The reason why I believe that this is significantly different from the arguments about, for example, local elections, and different—with the greatest respect to former Members of the European Parliament—from European parliamentary elections, is this.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I was merely making the general point that 50 per cent-plus is our normal modus operandi. It is impossible to see why it should be any different for this referendum.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the argument for 50 per cent plus has been widely canvassed recently among the people of the United Kingdom, who formed a very clear view of it, which I agree with. I make this point because it goes to the heart of the difference that we are discussing. The difference seems to be that Parliament will have taken a decision to put the matter to the electorate. The question is: what size or degree of opposition should there be before Parliament is overridden and its decision—the decision that has been advocated by the Government of the day—set aside? The decision that forms the fundamental proposition being put to the people will have been argued for from government Benches, and may well have been argued for from opposition Benches as well, before it ever gets to the point where it is put to the people. The constitutional innovation is that people are being asked to set aside whatever Parliament, and indeed whatever the Government that they have elected, have said. This is a very profound difference from any arrangement that we have seen at any time in the United Kingdom.

18:00

On major issues there can be little question but that there should be a proper referendum. The euro has been mentioned. The view of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, commands great respect from me. I agree with him that borders, taxation, law and order and the examples that he gave are significant issues. This is why, in Committee, a number of noble Lords—myself included—have said that, were they in Government, they would have the confidence to just say no and spare everybody the problem of going through any kind of referendum. Why would we change our law and order? Why would we relax what we regarded as a proper defence of our borders? What Government who took genuine responsibility would do that? Just say no. The respect of the people of the United Kingdom, seeing a Government who said no in these areas, would be profoundly greater than any other kind of mechanism designed to achieve the same result.

Parliament is the proper representative place. Should there be an unconvincingly small turnout, which does not have what I have described as authority, Parliament should, and people will expect Parliament to, fulfil its proper role. If the result of the election were below 40 per cent, Parliament might very well conclude that the decision was still in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom and use the authority it was elected to use. It might on the other hand conclude that it should not do so. This is the nature of a parliamentary debate and a decision taken on the balance of all the issues concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, also described this as a constitutional innovation. I have tried to describe why I believe that is the right description. It is a constitutional innovation of a very profound and difficult kind, and one born of the fear of taking responsibility for taking difficult decisions ourselves as parliamentarians. Of course there are the issues that should be put before the people of the Untied Kingdom; I hope that I have illustrated what those might be. Alongside this are those instances where it is quite right that Parliament and the Government of the day should say no. In light of this Bill, this amendment stands as the optimum extent to which it is possible to defend the historic role of Parliament and to ensure that the responsibility of Parliament is not given away in needless circumstances.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, before the Minister gets up, I have a point of order.

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I will make the point of order whether there are interruptions from other parts of the House or not. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said that we had had enough of this debate and that, when he got up, no other noble Lord would be able to speak. This is not in accordance with the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords. If noble Lords turn to paragraph 8.139, on page 152, they will see that, as long as the House accepts that they should do so, noble Lords may speak until the Minister gets up. After this, there shall be no speeches. However, before the Minister or spokesman gets to his or her feet, with the permission of the House, any Member of the House may speak

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct, as I have got up, this debate now comes to a close.

As always, it has been a fascinating debate with many profound remarks. It has predominantly been a debate about referenda, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the debate has been entirely separate from the Bill. Speaking as one of the, I suspect, rather few ex-Ministers who have taken a referendum Act through the other place in the distant past—the Northern Ireland referendum Bill—I suppose that, in the eyes of my noble friends Lord Deben and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, I am damned before I start.

Nevertheless, let me set out one or two of the arguments that have perhaps not been exposed as clearly as they should. We know that the purpose of these amendments is to include a minimum turnout threshold for any referendums arising as a result of the Bill. If the threshold is not met, regardless of the result, hey presto, the referendum would become advisory and not mandatory. This proposition has a whole string of disadvantages, which are not all obvious but become clear if you think about them. First, as many of your noble Lords have pointed out, instead of it being mandatory on the Government, it leaves the British people in real doubt about what the effect of their vote will be. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is incidentally entirely wrong that it will be mandatory on Parliaments; it will be mandatory on Governments, though it is true that Governments often, but not always, control Parliaments. However, this goes by the board if we pass the amendment. It will be the end of the British people’s mandatory certainty and they will be back where they started, passing the ball back to Parliament and the party and Government controlling Parliament. This is where the record has, frankly, not been brilliant or reassuring. This is one of the reasons why we are facing these problems.

We have the glorious assertions of excellent and eloquent spokesmen like the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Triesman, that the only need is for the Government to say no. However, they have not said no. They have said yes, when many people have felt that this yes was the wrong and inappropriate proposition. The fear is that, now that we have said yes to Lisbon, we have said yes about handing many important powers to the European Union. We work with the European Union and believe that they should have powers. However, will it be a no or yes in future? The doubt remains. The doubt must be removed. The reassurance is not there. For the vast majority of the people, the call is for the reassurance to be there. Though the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not agree with me, I suspect that the vast majority in this country want us to be good Europeans and to be effective in Europe and effective in allowing Europe to use—and not have us unravel—its vast range of existing competences. They are, however, worried as to whether it will be a yes or a no in future. The noble Lords do not seem to have grasped this central point. It is simply not right to lead people in doubt about what their role will be. It leaves them with a doubt—a dangerous doubt—about whether they will be listened to, about the lack of clarity and about whether their views will count.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, brought us back to Edmund Burke. I love Burke. He is one of my favourites. However, he is not particularly my favourite when he warned that democracy only works if, as he put it, there is a policeman within each one of us. It is slightly different from the proposition about parliamentary democracy. We all know perfectly well that Burke was not operating in today’s situation. He perhaps did not foresee the iron discipline of party politics, where some parties get a complete grip on Parliament. Has the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, recently read—or ever read—Lord Hailsham on elected dictatorship? In it he would find a heavy antidote to the glorious idealism of the Burkean age, in which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and Mr Burke could speak out to their conscience freely unaware of any party restraints. I have spent 31 years in the other place and I am afraid that every day I was aware of party restraints.

I cannot see that this 40 per cent threshold would reconnect the British people with the decisions being taken in their name at the EU level; it certainly would not do so. These devices do not serve to solve the problem, as astutely identified by a great many commentators day after day on the radio or in the newspapers. I see that my brief refers to the BBC’s Europe editor, who said the other day that,

“Across Europe voters feel insecure, suspicious of an elite with its own vision of an ever closer union but which doesn't necessarily address their hopes or fears”.

I would hope that this wise House of Lords, where we wear our party allegiances somewhat more lightly, would support efforts to resolve this concern and to see the European Union on a more solid basis than, frankly, it is today, not only for lack of popular support but because it is facing very serious policy issues as well. For those of us who want to build a better relationship between the British people and the EU and, indeed, people generally and the EU right across the 27 countries—soon to be 28 or more—I would have thought that this is the way to go.

By the same token, the amendment before us undermines that whole aim of the Bill. That is the first point which must be taken into account and cannot be dismissed, unless those who do so think that popular support and consensus are irrelevant, do not arise and that parliamentary wisdom is so entrenched and admired that anything decreed by Governments in Parliament will be immediately accepted—it will not. Secondly, the point has rightly been made that thresholds of this type encourage game playing during a referendum campaign rather than a proper presentation of the arguments to achieve a desired result. For example, if supporters of the yes campaign know that Parliament supports the treaty change in question, they have a huge incentive to keep the vote down below 40 per cent rather than going out and making the case for change.

Thirdly, the Government believe that we should encourage public participation rather than providing reasons for keeping that down. We could wish that the internet age had never occurred and that the days of massive and wide public consultation had not developed, but they have. As my noble friend Lady Nicholson rightly pointed out, are we saying that local elections are not legitimate? We can wave a hand and say that they are different but that is just an assertion. I do not think that they are all that different. Are we saying that the European parliamentary elections are not legitimate? What does it do to the trust in the body politic if a majority have voted no in the referendum but Parliament decided, because it has the power to do so, to go ahead anyway? That would be extremely damaging.

Fourthly, the Lords Constitution Committee, to which some of my noble friends referred, in its wisdom—it is a very wise committee—shares opposition to thresholds. Its report on referendums in the UK concluded that,

“there should be a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and supermajorities”.

Thresholds are bound to distance voters from the issues on which the British people want to have their say. Incentives to campaign to abstain would be vastly increased.

There is a further question. During our first days in Committee on the Bill, the wise noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that during the debates on the EEC Referendum Act 1975, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—then Margaret Thatcher—had objected to the possibility of the referendum being mandatory. She also said:

“The Government might regard themselves as bound, but the result could not fetter the decision of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/1975; col. 315.]

That, of course, is exactly our point. That is why I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is wrong. These referenda, or the referendum that might occur—I think that it will occur only once every few years, but I will come to that in a moment—are mandatory on government. That is the whole point of the Bill. However, they are not mandatory on Parliament. They cannot be. Parliament’s view of the treaty will be taken during the passage of legislation for the referendum. If Parliament did not support the treaty, it would not pass the legislation, so Parliament has its say and remains supreme in every sense.

18:15

Your Lordships will recall that this issue was discussed extensively during the first day of the Committee stage and noble Lords raised important issues on the need, or not, for turnout thresholds. There is nothing in this Bill which would bind this or any future Parliament from legislating, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, or disapplying the provisions of the legislation or legislating contrary to the will expressed by the electorate in a referendum. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty clearly means that this or any future Parliament could legislate contrary to the referendum outcome if it so wished, although it would have to account to the British electorate for its reasons for doing so.

That also goes to the heart of the question on whether holding referendums in this area is a major constitutional change, as some of your Lordships have asserted. The recent nationwide referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons showed that where an issue is important, people will turn out to vote. The Government believe that the issues covered by the referendum lock in the EU Bill are not the trivial ones that noble Lords keep asserting. They are highly important and sensitive. They involve the red lines and major issues that have been central to British politics and, indeed, the politics of the European Union, for decades and are vastly important to the British people, successive Governments and Parliament. I challenge those who try to diminish them or assert that they are trivial to argue that proposition in a public forum. I do not believe that it can be sustained.

We do not have a “magic bullet” in terms of ensuring a high turnout. We expect both sides of the debate to make the strongest possible cases to encourage voters to express their views. However, what noble Lords are proposing in this amendment would almost certainly ensure that the turnout, and the British people’s faith in Parliament, would suffer. To that extent it would be a highly negative move if the amendment were passed. Given the importance of the issues to which we have applied the referendum provisions in the Bill—they are very important—the people should be given a real say.

I know that this House has supported, and given a majority vote to, 40 per cent thresholds in the recent past. However, when comparing this Bill with the AV vote Bill and the subsequent referendum, I would point out that this is not a matter of opinion, as in the AV case, but of a treaty or a reduction in sovereign powers which has to be ratified. That is what would come before the British people. A decision has to be reached and to take that decision away from the people and give it back to Ministers—that is what an advisory referendum would do—may appeal to some but it is flatly against the aims of this Bill, against the restoration of public confidence in the European Union and against the spirit of our times.

I do not believe that there is any great appetite in any of the 27 countries of the Union—shortly to be 28 and perhaps more—for treaty changes, let alone for veto surrenders. I was very impressed by the wise evidence of Sir John Grant, who was our permanent representative in Brussels for four years up to 2007, in the post-Lisbon phase, which, incidentally, was totally different from the pattern of developments in Brussels before Lisbon. He commented on the possibility of a referendum taking place in the next five years on a move from unanimity voting to QMV by passerelle, but he played that down. He added that passerelles were in any case “difficult to use” for the simple reason that,

“everybody’s got to agree that some of them are going to be outvoted”.

I thought that those were wise words on the reality of whether we are going to see a dribble of small referenda and small changes or whether in fact, as is far more likely, we are going to see an established pattern of changes coming into a large treaty, which will have good and bad bits in it. Just as the electorate has to choose at election time between the good and bad bits of party manifestos, so they would have to make that choice with regard to the next Lisbon treaty, Budapest treaty, or whatever it might be called. I do not think there is any comparison at all with the small referenda we have had in the past—perhaps not the one that I took through Parliament and certainly not the one on Sunday opening hours in Wales. That seemed to me—if I may be forgiven the word, but it has been used—an absurd comparison. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that this pattern of little referenda on little items is utterly implausible. I think the evidence that Sir John Grant gave to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee is far more convincing and based on recent and deep understanding of how the Brussels system actually works today.

For all those reasons, I would urge the noble Lords, despite the superficial attractions of 40 per cent—and they are very superficial—to understand its grave disadvantages. The amendment aims at the very heart of the Bill and undermines a lot of the causes that many of us hold dear about the positioning of this country in the 21st century. That being so they would be wise to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, it is traditional to say we have had a wide-ranging debate. On this occasion it is true. When I put the amendment forward, I hoped I would get a measure of support from different parts of the House. I have done that, but of course there has been a good measure of disagreement as well. I have also succeeded in doing something I did not set out to do: I have clearly split the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. That will, perhaps, give me a reward in heaven, although I will go on a little longer to say that I will be first to have a reward here in the Chamber.

I would like to make one or two very brief points. The first is that this amendment comes forward because of circumstances that have been dictated by the Government’s Bill. They are nothing whatever to do with a blank space about how we are going to deal with Europe. We have a Bill on the table that potentially introduces more than 50 referenda. I do not think we will get those, but in any event what is happening in the near future, to which the Minister referred, is not relevant because the Government is not going to take this action during the current Parliament.

What we are discussing is what sort of referendum regime we want to build into our constitution for the medium term and what role we think Parliament should play in that. I think Parliament should play some part, particularly in those cases where the British public has shown a complete lack of interest in—or even their disagreement or contempt for—the Government’s attempt to hold a referendum by voting in negligible numbers. I think it is perfectly reasonable, in those circumstances, for Parliament to take responsibility. That is the basic approach and I stand by it.

I do not want to go into all the other details because I know nothing about the incinerator in King’s Lynn. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that we have reached the death of the political class. I know they are a bit threatened, but I do not think they are dead. All those issues are beyond me.

One final point is that there have been a good number of comparisons with elections, local elections and so on, which have no 40 per cent bar. I think all those arguments are totally irrelevant. In particular, we had a Second Reading of a Bill yesterday that made possible a large number of referendums on local government. Every one of those referendums was going to be advisory, not mandatory. The position of the Government, particularly the Liberal Democrats, is in favour of advisory referenda and I cannot see why they wish to act differently in this case. I think I have said enough, and I wish to get my reward here and not in heaven. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:25

Division 1

Ayes: 221

---

Labour: 154
Crossbench: 45
Liberal Democrat: 6
Conservative: 5
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 216

---

Conservative: 140
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 8
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

18:37

Clause 2: Treaties amending or replacing TEU or TFEU

Amendment 5A

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

5A: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, after “that” insert—
“(a) a referendum does not need to be held in accordance with section (Process for determining the necessity of referendums); or(b) ”

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, after that great victory for Parliament—let us thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for moving the amendment and being the moving spirit behind it, with other Cross-Benchers—I now speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Triesman, which are also about the role of Parliament, about strengthening Parliament and substituting the discretion of Parliament for the automaticity of the referendum locks that the Bill contains.

The amendments do not drive a coach and horses through the basic principle of the Bill, which is a requirement for referendums on the big issues affecting Europe's future, but they set up a special Joint Committee of Parliament: the European Referendum Scrutiny Committee. In cases where Parliament had passed an Act under this legislation, that committee would be there to consider whether it was necessary to have a referendum on that Act. In making those judgments it would take account of the criteria in subsection (4) of Amendment 5B. Those criteria include whether the matter was significant, whether it was urgent and where the national interest would lie. It would come to a judgment on whether it felt that a referendum was justified. If a referendum was justified, it would be up to each House, in a Motion, to approve that recommendation. It is important to emphasise—because this is a change in the amendment that we moved in Committee, perhaps to make it more acceptable to sceptics in the House—that if there was not to be a referendum, it would require both Houses to say no to the recommendation of the Joint Committee that there should not be a referendum. In other words, it would meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, makes that with executive control over the Commons, it would be possible for a whipped vote to defeat the idea of a referendum, because they would have to go against the recommendation of the committee and win that position in our Chamber as well.

What is the point of putting in place this proposal? It is to inject proportionality into the Bill. The Bill contains no proportionality whatever. It is a “thus far and no further” Bill as far as the European Union is concerned. It assumes—and it is an extraordinary assumption—that a Government can today foresee all the circumstances in which change in the European Union might be necessary over the coming years. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, keeps telling us that he sees very little prospect of a referendum occurring in the near future. However, within two years of the approval of the Lisbon treaty we have already had a proposal for a revision of that treaty, under the simplified revision procedure, to create a European stability mechanism, which is necessary to deal with the crisis in the euro area. That is not the result of an attempt to deceive people after it was thought that there would be no treaty changes immediately after Lisbon. That is not the reason. The reason is that, due to the crisis in the euro, circumstances have occurred which no one foresaw and it is necessary to make this minor amendment to the treaty.

As it happens, that does not affect us. However, if there was a change which in a similar set of circumstances did affect us, it would require a referendum. Yet it is hardly the kind of major issue about the nation’s destiny that would justify having a referendum. It would therefore be up to the Joint Committee that we would establish to decide on the proportionality of these questions as to whether a referendum was necessary. It is a strengthening—an affirmation—of the rights of Parliament, just as we have voted for a few moments ago, and an important one to make.

18:45

I make three main broad political arguments for this. First, if you are seriously committed to Britain’s participation in the European Union, you want a British Government to be able to respond flexibly to events and to be a good partner to our partners in the Union. We cannot completely tie our hands in advance when we do not know the future—as the example of the European stability mechanism shows.

The second political argument is that there is no reason why the Liberal Democrats could not support this amendment. As I pointed out before, the coalition agreement in its text drew a very clear distinction between major treaties where referenda would be necessary and minor changes which would require primary legislation in Parliament. This Bill does not represent what the Liberal Democrats signed up for in the coalition agreement. I do not see why they have to besmirch their pro-European reputation by signing up to something that is simply there in order to appeal to the Eurosceptics on the Conservative Benches in the House of Commons. It is very clear—I could read it out but I will not delay the House by so doing—that under the coalition agreement, they could quite happily support this kind of proposal. Within the coalition agreement there is precisely the judgment about proportionality that this Bill does not contain.

The third point is defending the great cause of democracy. The Government argue that there is a great crisis of legitimacy in the European Union. Indeed, there is. But when you look at British politics, there is also a great crisis of legitimacy. When you look at opinion polls and who people trust, you will see that the European Parliament probably has a higher level of trust than many British institutions. In fact, trust in our political parties is, if anything, rather lower than trust in European institutions. I am not saying that because I like that situation. What I am saying is: be very careful if, in the Europe case, you think that the remedy for this lack of trust is to move to a referendum-type democracy—to move to the people being able to vote on anything and everything, which is what this Bill proposes on Europe. There would be absolutely no reason why people should not make the same argument about Westminster and move to referenda on anything and everything. What we would end up with is a situation like California, where propositions are voted through which make the task of running an efficient government wholly impossible. It ends up with contradictory propositions being carried in popular referenda and you cannot have an effective system of government. For all these arguments, we need to keep first and foremost in our mind the need to strengthen the role of Parliament in this Bill.

That is what the amendment does. It does not stop referenda; it does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill; but it introduces that vital element of proportionality by proposing a special committee of both Houses to examine the case for a referendum and gives Parliament the right to decide in which cases referenda should take place. That is in accordance with the principles of the Constitution Committee of the House. I thought that it was a bit rich of the Minister to quote the Constitution Committee on thresholds but to ignore completely its major point that it believes that referenda should be confined to fundamental issues of constitutional importance. This is a mechanism for confining referenda to issues of constitutional importance. For that reason I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to me that it addresses an issue which desperately needs addressing in the Bill, and that is flexibility. The structure of the Bill, particularly in its elaborate nature, with the 56 possible incidences of referenda, is, frankly, a couch of Procrustes, on which we are busy stretching ourselves and on which, no doubt, our feet or our heads will one day be lopped off. It is very rigid indeed. It leaves very little appreciation to the Government of the day, although of course the Government of the day will have had to agree in Brussels that, in principle, subject to the proceedings in this Bill, they will go along with it. However, then the rigidity comes back in. It is not surprising in a way. The Government proudly call this Bill a referendum lock, the key of which they have taken out and are now throwing out of the window.

I think this amendment is one way to deal with the issue and earlier today we discussed others. I very much welcome the fact that the Government recognise that, in the handling of this “or otherwise support” issue, they needed a bit more flexibility and they have now moved an amendment, which I was delighted to see went through unopposed, which gives a little more flexibility. It enables a Minister in Brussels to say that he would take something back to London and subject it to the procedures under the Bill, but that he would support it. It enables him to say that but, of course, it does not allow it to go through in any legal sense. That is an increase in flexibility. We have just voted for an increase in flexibility for Parliament because, if less than 40 per cent of the British people are prepared to get off their backsides and vote, then Parliament will be able to take a decision itself and the result of the referendum will be only advisory.

It would be splendid if the Government would think a little more about how to introduce more flexibility into the Bill, while not removing the essence of it. I accept that it is supported by a majority in the House of Commons and that it is in the coalition agreement, which says that, if there are major constitutional changes, there will be a referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, the recommendations of our own Constitution Committee are rather clear on this point but were ignored by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted the bit he liked, but did not quote the bit he did not like in the Constitution Committee’s report. That was a much longer bit, which said that referendums should be used only for major constitutional innovations. If you look at the various clauses of the Bill, you will see that there are stacks of things there which are not major constitutional innovations. This provision will give a little more flexibility there, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider that because flexibility will be needed somewhere down the line. The more care taken with the legislation, the better that legislation will be for the interests of this country.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I say to noble Lords opposite that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise that this amendment is intended to enhance scrutiny and to improve propositions that might be put forward by the Executive. We also accept the spirit of what noble Lords opposite are trying to do. For the record, I do not find, in the copy that I have just looked up, the elements of the coalition agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred as endorsing this amendment. I would not want to tempt him to read out the entire section on Europe in the coalition agreement, as the hour is late.

I shall speak to the substantive elements of the amendment. We do not believe that it would be right to take such a dramatic step to remove from the Executive, the Government of the day, the decisions about what they will support or not and to give them to a committee of both Houses. We have had a long debate about Parliament and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and so on. In Committee, we heard a lot of argumentation across the House regarding urgent situations and what would happen because decision-making was so late and would be so stymied. I find that the methodology proposed here would certainly add to the amount of time that would be taken to deal with measures if a Joint Committee had to rule on them. There would also be the issue of reintroducing some rather subjective concepts: urgency and national interest. We have had debates on those subjects; both are highly subjective. We are also conscious of the judicial review implications contained in the Bill.

Finally, the amendment seems to miss the underlying theme of the Bill, which is that the Executive make a call on a proposal, bring it to Parliament, Parliament agrees it and then the public are to ratify that decision through a referendum. As we have repeatedly heard from the ministerial Bench, the Bill is designed to reconnect the British public with these policy issues that emanate from the European Union. The public will be empowered, through the processes proposed here. To take that away and to give it to a Joint Committee of both Houses seems to me to entirely miss the point of the Bill. On that basis I suggest that it goes contra to where we had got. Before I conclude I give way to the noble Lord,

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Baroness has said that one of the reasons why she did not want to support the amendment was that she was worried that it would raise the possibility of judicial review on the decision about whether a referendum was necessary. According to this amendment, that decision will be taken by a parliamentary committee—in this case a joint parliamentary committee—so how could there possibly be a judicial review? That would be contrary to the Bill of Rights.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I think I can see the point that the noble Lord is making. I wonder whether he is interested in hearing my reply, as he is now engaged in another conversation. As I understand the amendment, the committee would make a recommendation to the Government on the basis of urgency, significance and national interest. I think the decision of the Minister, in accepting or not accepting the recommendation, would be subject to judicial review.

For the reasons I have enunciated, I can see that the amendment is well meaning but I urge my noble friends to oppose it.

19:00

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the clause makes no reference to the Joint Committee advising the Government. The Joint Committee would have the responsibility for making a decision. By definition, if the decision is made by a parliamentary committee—a Joint Committee or other parliamentary committee—it could not be subject to judicial review.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Since the noble Lord continues with the matter, I will detain the House for a moment. What is the point of a recommendation coming out of a Joint Committee if the Government ignore it?

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate and there is one thing that we can say about ourselves: we are at least consistent in our inconsistency. We were talking earlier about 40 per cent thresholds and yesterday we were talking about 5 per cent thresholds, and some of us have been subjected to referendums over the years whether we like them or not. Therefore, the important argument about parliamentary democracy which was put forward eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others does not quite register. I fear that this amendment suffers from the same weakness that it is the purpose of the Bill to try and resolve—that, effectively, Parliament is making these decisions. We hide behind the words “major constitutional significance”—some people may say they are weasel words—because what is major to me might not be major to the noble Baroness. We then take away from the Government of the day any significant role unless they rely on their party positions to whip people into particular positions.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to the fact that the Government had to be able to respond and be a good partner to our European colleagues. I believe that the United Kingdom has been an exceptionally good partner over the years. However, simply because we have particular constitutional architecture concerning how we take decisions that affect us in no way invalidates us as a good partner nor does it invalidate a Government’s ability to respond. There are many decisions that require an urgent response. I see no reason why that cannot continue.

It is only when there is actually a change of substance that time will be taken to ratify that. Even when we have been talking about the current economic position in Europe we have been looking at the stability arrangements and others, and we know that these are going to take 18 months to 24 months to get through on existing arrangements. Therefore, I do not believe that this country would be unable to respond and act as a good partner. Nor am I frightened by the prospect that if we enhance our constitutional arrangements our European partners will take the huff and stop dealing with us. I do not believe that for one moment. It is our business. I believe that the Commission accepts that it is our business to decide whatever structures should be put in place. That is the way of the world. Other countries do it. Other countries have referenda; other countries have a variety of constitutional locks. As the European Union grows, I suspect we will enhance the variety of different decision-making processes that come in. Why should we be worried about that?

I do not think that people on the street are running around saying, “I wonder if we are a good partner with our colleagues in Paris or Bonn”. I do not think this is something that registers with the people. What does register is if they are told one thing and then something happens that is the opposite of what they were told or promised. That comes back to why there is a need for such a Bill. Whatever its inelegancies—and I can see that there are many—it is there because we have broken a trust. There is a huge gap between what we as politicians think and what the public think of us. It has only been the recent financial crisis and the situation with bankers that we now have somebody we can look down upon. Until then, we were really at the bottom of the pile.

The truth is that we are, and have been, inconsistent. We have chopped and changed on referenda. Burke was quoted extensively—I am no scholar on Burke—but he was operating in the 18th century.

[A noble Lord]

He was Irish.

[Lord Empey]

Yes, and all the better for it. However, time has moved on and things have evolved from what we did when kings were able to come into this building and chop people’s heads off. Our constitution continuously evolves. Just because we are attracted to the idea that a representative should be free to come into Parliament and express his or her opinion on behalf of those they represent—and people believe that to be a sacrosanct position—in the way the modern world has developed, the referendum genie is out of the bottle whether people like it or not. You are not going to be able to push it back in so the question is, what triggers it? Do we leave the trigger with the institution which has led us to the position where this Bill is on the table or do we put in some safeguards so that people know they will get their say?

I think that there is little alternative but to give this a try. It is not something that will last for ever—it might change. After 10 or 20 years it might no longer be sustainable and we need to improve it. We have moved on, people have moved on, communication has moved on and, thank God, people are educated to a much greater extent. Years ago, when people came into these buildings they represented the masses outside who could not read or write. Perhaps very few people had any grasp of what was going on around them. Their world was confined to their farm or, in more recent years, to a factory. Today, the people out there are much more sophisticated and probably know more than many of us in here. We have to respect that and trust the people.

We all make mistakes and sometimes referendums produce results that we do not like. The same happens in elections: it is the peril of the democratic world. However, we should look at the alternatives around the world. Whatever faults we may have, ours is a better system, but it has to evolve. I fear that this amendment, if passed, short-circuits and defeats the whole purpose of the legislation. Therefore, I am unable to support it.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, because the purpose of the Bill is to give the people of this country the final say on what happens in terms of our relationship with Europe. If we allow this amendment to go through—and I totally oppose it—the effect will be to open it all up again so the discretion is left with Parliament. That is where the whole problem started. Successive Governments have misled this country about the implications of the treaties that we have signed. They have always been understated.

I spent much time as a Government Whip in another place saying to my colleagues, “Don’t worry about this, it is just tidying things up and putting things in order. It does not really have any impact on the way we do business here.” Every single time I said that I was lying through my teeth. Government have been lying though their teeth from the very start when we entered the economic community. We said to everybody, “Don’t worry, there are no issues of sovereignty here. We are joining a free trading area. A free trading area is a wonderful idea and we want to get into this as quickly as possible”.

[Baroness Quin]

When we joined the European Economic Community, we were already in the European free trade area. I am old enough to remember that the debates focused on the difference between a free trade area and the treaties that established the European Economic Community.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

That was not the story that I was told. If I had realised the massive implications for the transfer of sovereignty as a result of signing, I would not have supported the referendum on the question of our membership of the European Union.

There has been a tremendous amount of deception. Not only is it an understatement of what we have signed up to, but it is a process of grandmother’s footsteps—a little bit at a time, always understating the implications. Therefore, with reference to the amendment, if we leave it with Parliament to make the decisions about whether the implications of the business are worthy of a referendum, we are right back in the position of deceiving the people of this country and will merely sow more mistrust and undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to reassure the British people that if there is any question of us being drawn further into the European Union we will put it to them to decide whether it should happen.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, there is another reason to disagree with the amendment. Any Joint Committee composed of Members of your Lordships' House and the other place is bound to be stacked in favour of the Europhiles. In your Lordships' House, we now number some 800 Members, of whom I think only eight are prepared to say, more or less in public, that we should leave the European Union. That compares with some 84 per cent of the British public who want a referendum on whether we stay in the European Union at all—which has nothing to do with the Bill—and more than 50 per cent who believe that we should leave outright. In recent years, I have often pointed out that the composition of your Lordships' Select Committees is skewed in favour of Europhilia, even by the standards of your Lordships' House. I have not made a recent examination of the members of the main European Select Committee or its sub-committees, but I am prepared to bet that not a single member of those committees agrees with at least half the British people, and perhaps only two or three of them could be regarded as vaguely Eurosceptic.

In the House of Commons, some 26 Members have joined the joint Better Off Out group and have voted in a refreshingly Eurosceptic direction on the Bill and other matters. The Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament of course will be stacked by the Whips and will, in the recent tradition of both Houses of Parliament, get wildly out of tune with the British people—something that the Bill is supposed to do something to correct. The amendment goes in entirely the opposite direction and I hope that it will be resisted.

19:15

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I need to recant. In Committee, I was against the amendment on the grounds that it complicated things. However, now it seems that it may be the only hope for dealing with a problem that I had hoped would be dealt with by another route. I was young, innocent and idealistic; I did not realise that we would end up cheering a government concession that means that, in the Bill, “support” is a term of art defined at the beginning, and the various prohibitions on Ministers of the Crown in any way supporting X, Y and Z does not mean that they cannot propose, advocate or support them in Brussels—just that they cannot vote for them. This is a huge advance and I am beginning to understand how difficult the legislative process is.

Clauses 2 and 3 have two different procedures, depending on whether the treaty amendment emerges by the classical method plus a convention, or by the accelerated method that is meant to deal with emergencies. We have two different procedures, and one of the paradoxes is that we have a significance test in the second but not in the first. Therefore, we envisage that any treaty amendment by the first, traditional method plus the convention must be significant. The second curiosity is that I thought that a treaty amendment was a treaty amendment, whichever route it came by. The third curiosity is that the accelerator method, covered in Clause 3, is meant to be used in an emergency, but we do not have any emergency or urgency test built in.

The charm of the amendment, as I now see, is that it brings in these tests. It would get significance into the traditional method, where it is not at the moment. It would also bring in urgency and the national interest, which perhaps is not a bad idea. It is a complication and it is a great pity that we have not had any clear rationale for the separate methods that depend on the origin in Brussels of the treaty amendment. However, we are where we are and clearly the Government are not going to give us any concessions on that. Therefore, faute de mieux, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I begin by dissociating myself entirely from the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that somehow the Bill gives encouragement to referenda and public votes “on anything and everything”. That was his phrase, but it could not be further from the truth. It would be impossible to think of a proposition that is more remote from what the Bill is intended to do. The Bill is about transfers of power and sovereignty—over a wide range of issues, I concede—from the United Kingdom and this Parliament to the European Union. I am left almost speechless; what is unimportant or trivial about that? These are issues that we have dealt with again and again—the famous red lines that successive Governments have found to be of extreme importance to Britain. The argument is not that we should not be involved with the European Union in all these areas, but that we should retain a veto power if we are pressed too far; that all the powers that are needed have been conceded under the Lisbon treaty; and that those that were left out—the remaining issues where unanimity must prevail, where the veto must be kept in place and where no further treaty competences should be transferred—are all the important remaining ones, which many of the 27 countries insisted on preserving.

These are the important issues: defence and security, national security, military issues, national tax, fiscal and energy policy, provisions under the EU budget, financial management of the EU, citizenship and elections, foreign policy and social security. These are not trivial issues that can be dismissed. What prevails in these comments is a devastating lack of understanding of the importance of the remaining issues that are not within the competence and power of the EU because the nation states do not feel that it is necessary for them to be there—and, on the contrary, think that they should remain under national and sovereign control. Therefore, the starting point of many of these comments is so far removed from what is in the Bill and what the Bill is concerned with that I find it very hard to find a bridge of words to link the two, but I will try my best.

Under these amendments, decisions on whether a referendum on treaty change or a decision—these are big issues—should be held would be made by a special committee of both Houses. This is similar, though not identical, to the debate we had on amendments in Committee. They were limited to Clause 6 decisions, and seem to have widened the scope of the so-called European referendum scrutiny committee to cover treaties and Article 48(6) decisions. This is a big assignment of discretion to this parliamentary committee. How this committee would come about, I am not too sure. I have to say in the best of spirits to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that if he thinks that this committee would be free of interference from the Government or party-political pressures of various sorts, then his innocence is not entirely lost.

I am at least pleased that this amendment recognises that consideration should be given to the need for a referendum when treaties or Article 48 decisions are to be made. This is a clear step forward from the status quo, where it was entirely down to Ministers to decide whether a referendum was to be held and where, as we have sadly seen, Ministers and Governments can and do change their minds—hence many of our problems. The amendment appears to have retained the provisions in the Bill—which is good—that all treaties and Article 48 decisions must in future be ratified through an Act of Parliament. At least it retains a greatly increased role for Parliament, which this Bill stretches for and seeks to provide. This is a definite advance.

Moving from ministerial discretion over whether a referendum should be held, to parliamentary discretion over whether a referendum should be held, really is not sufficient. What we would have is an extra step in the process of deciding whether to have a referendum, which I suspect would merely diminish further rather than increase the confidence and trust of the British people when compared to the current provisions in the Bill and to what the Bill is trying to do. It would cut right across, and therefore potentially diminish, the work done by the European scrutiny committees of both Houses, which—despite the overrides, which one must concede have been too frequent—has been valuable in giving some impression to the general public and to the electorate of this country that there are some brakes on the system.

Why would the arrangements for the proposed European referendum scrutiny committee diminish public trust? The answer is that because whereas the Bill is, with the exception of the narrowly defined significance test, very specific about which transfers of power and competence would lead to a referendum—that is what this whole Bill is about—these amendments would do away with the certainty. In agreeing the Bill as drafted, Parliament would be giving a clear signal to the public as to when a referendum would be held. If the amendment were agreed, the whole process would be lost in a whirlpool of subjective political judgments and, I have no doubt, of manoeuvres as well, and of all the pressures that operate through our political system—perfectly properly, because that is the way that a democratic system works. The idea that they would be absent and that an isolated, divinely independent judgment could be reached by this committee is absurd and naive.

These amendments require the committee to assess all treaties and Article 48 decisions against significance, urgency and the national interest. These are highly subjective terms which are capable of a far wider range of interpretation than the criteria in Clause 4, which have been carefully analysed and crafted. This amendment moves the whole debate away from an objective consideration of whether power or competence has been transferred from the UK to the EU. It moves it away from objectivity to subjectivity of precisely the kind which works against trust and against confidence, and against support for the whole European Union project which I thought so many noble Lords wanted to see reinforced.

Government and Parliament will of course take into consideration issues of urgency, importance and certainly the national interest when negotiating a treaty change, and in passing Acts to ratify treaty change. These are centrally important issues, but they are not the right criteria on which to decide whether a referendum is needed before a treaty change or an Article 48 decision is ratified.

The other problem with these amendments is that the decisions on these highly subjective issues will be made, frankly, by a small number of parliamentarians. I have said that we are not quite sure how they would come to be on this committee. The way this committee is set up means that it could only ever deny the public a referendum, which is what is promised under this Bill. I do not like to say it, but when my noble friend Lord Hamilton points it out, it is a fact that the British people’s trust in the institution of Parliament and the political parties within it has, in this area, been eroded over the years, particularly on issues of Europe; I sometimes think that on other issues it is grossly exaggerated. One always marvels at how many people are generally critical of the political class, but when they start talking about individuals—the hard-working Members of Parliament—they say, “Oh no, our person is splendid. It is just the general lot we do not like”. It can be overdone. However, on the issue of Europe, it is quite clear, by every measure that we have seen of the public’s support and the general tenor of the public debate, that a lack of trust is noticeable. People have been promised a referendum on a treaty change, only to see it taken away again. This is reflected in the number of people who do not value the EU, who do not trust it or who simply do not seem to grasp its work, aims or purposes. There is a sense of apathy, because people feel powerless to influence decisions which affect their daily lives. To deny this really is to shut our minds to the good and valuable side of the EU’s work, which I believe is enormous and often underestimated.

The coalition Government intend to address this cynicism, apathy and lack of trust. The aim is to reconnect the British people directly to the key decisions on the EU and assure them that, while there are now vast powers and competences in the EU’s hands, any further expansion of these would have to be very carefully argued and in many cases put to the British people for their approval. It remains a mystery to me why the Opposition still somehow argue that there should be these extra powers—that we are going to need these future treaty changes—but what for? One is left groping the air, trying to understand the mystery of it all. It is a sort of apophatic doctrine, that somehow there are issues ahead so complicated that the people cannot put them into words or understand them, and that these require the flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, keeps returning to.

We know that the British people want a say. The June 2009 survey by the European Parliament found that eight out of 10 people in this country agreed that future EU treaty changes should be decided by referendums. Fewer than one in 10 disagreed. These amendments do not represent the modern reality about transparency and openness that we in the coalition Government want, and which reflects a modern attitude to participatory democracy. They are a step back in time which may be nostalgic and romantic, but they take us away from reality and away from the future.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington, who is not in his place at the moment, for what he said about these proposals in Committee. He said that,

“you are moving even further away from a situation where the general public has any confidence at all that its views are considered when vital decisions are made”.—[Official Report, 16/5/11; col. 1230.]

However well intentioned these amendments, they cannot serve to enhance this Bill or its underlying virtues and purpose. The Bill is deliberately designed to set out as clearly as possible which treaty changes would require a referendum, while avoiding the need for trivial referendums. That seems to me to be a scare story which I hope we are not going to hear repeated because it is not connected with the reality, the intention or the possibilities which arise from this Bill. Leaving it to the discretion of a committee of parliamentarians to decide whether a referendum is needed will do nothing whatever to reconnect, re-engage and regain the trust of the British people. I believe this is an amendment that we could do without and that does not help the Bill or the underlying purposes, which I believe most noble Lords in all political parties and in none basically want reinforced. I think these amendments go the other way and take away from us the purposes and goals that we should be pursuing, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

19:30

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I have to confess that I am staggered by the Minister’s reply. He misrepresents the position of the Opposition, and I do not think he understands the content of the Bill that he is putting before this House. Let me briefly say why. He goes on at length about allowing people to vote on decisions that affect their daily lives. Is he putting this forward as a general principle? Do the Government think that there should be a vote on the merits of their health reforms and the changes to their health reforms? How many people in the country do they think would vote for that? The idea that this Government stand for a general principle of giving people the right to have a say over decisions that affect their own lives is a nonsense.

Why is it that this principle should simply be applied to the European Union and be applied in a way in which the Government do not appear to understand what they are doing? The Minister says that we are saying that this Bill will require referenda on anything or everything. In the case of the European Union, there are 56 instances where this Bill requires a referendum. Is it seriously being suggested that there are 56 issues of profound importance affecting Britain’s future in Europe which would require a referendum? I suggest not. We know what those major issues are. We will have amendments later to confine the referenda to those major issues. It is a nonsense to suggest that we should have referenda on 56 issues. As far as Europe is concerned, that is anything or everything.

There is a point-blank refusal on the part of Ministers to understand the need for some flexibility when we are dealing with the future. I do not think that the government Benches understand the point of an Article 48(6) simplified revision procedure, which is under Clause 3. It is to deal with circumstances which we cannot foretell, yet in every circumstance, apart from very limited exceptions, this legislation says that such an amendment would require a referendum. It is the view of every expert on the European Union that that is going to inhibit greatly Britain’s ability in future years to play a leading role in the European Union.

As for the Minister’s remarks about how parliamentary committees are all fixes and you cannot trust what they say, I thought that he had respect for the workings of Parliament and for the workings of the Constitution Committee of this House, for instance, which puts forward very objective reports, despite the party composition of its membership. I would have thought that if we agreed, as this amendment proposes, to a parliamentary process for deciding what was proportional, such a parliamentary committee would do its job independent of the Executive in such a way that we could all respect its judgment.

I am afraid I am unconvinced by the Government. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:35

Division 2

Ayes: 158

---

Labour: 127
Crossbench: 19
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 208

---

Conservative: 133
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 12
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.48 pm.

Research: Science and Technology Committee Report

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:47

Asked By

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Setting priorities for publicly funded research (3rd Report, Session 2009–10, HL Paper 104).

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, it is often said that the future success of this country depends on our continuing success in science and technology. Although I am not a scientist, I fully agree with that comment. There are clearly a number of other determinants of national well-being, not all of which are in our control. However, success in science and technology is significantly within our control. It is with that element of the nation’s future that we are concerned today.

We start from a strong platform. We have talent and, equally importantly—I shall come back to this—we attract talent to this country. This is a good place to be a research scientist. We have institutions which give civil support to this, most notably the Royal Society, as well as the various academies and institutions, including the Royal Society of Edinburgh, of which I confess an interest as a past president.

We have talented and able scientists who continue to build on the legacy of Newton, Boyle, Harvey, Darwin, Clerk Maxwell, Rutherford and so on. I could go on for half the evening but I shall not. I mention those names and the talent of our scientists to point out that, in forthcoming debates about the membership of this House, I fervently hope we will continue to have the immensely able and informed scientific opinion which, as noble Lords will hear in this debate, we have with us. As the boxing metaphor puts it, the nation has a capacity to punch above its weight in science, technology and engineering. This is not simply an additional national boast and an intellectual luxury in which we enjoy indulging but one of the key conditions of our economic vibrancy as a nation.

This report was prepared as a matter of some urgency in the autumn of 2009 and the spring of 2010, before the impending election, to help the debate about the place of science and technology in our community at a time which evidently was going to be one of financial austerity. For a variety of reasons the report comes fairly late to this House, but there have been significant movements since it was submitted both in the Government’s response and in the development of some of the recommendations that we have made. As a consequence, my remarks will focus partly on the report—some of its highlights and one or two of its key recommendations—and partly on policy developments of the new coalition Government which have real significance for our capacity in science and technology.

Initially, what were our main recommendations? The first is just motherhood and apple pie; that is, spend money wisely. I have to say that usually—I speak here as a chastened former vice-chancellor—scientists come along with their hand out doing a good impression of Oliver Twist asking for more. That is not the point of this report. The point is to use what we have to best effect and to ensure that in policy formulation and implementation the systems that we have are at least fit for purpose. Although we are not asking for more money, I should point out—I think that this will come up later—that we need to keep in mind who our competitors are internationally. Both France and the USA have declared their intention of enhancing the spend on science and technology.

As to the report and spending money wisely, I want to make two points, which I think will be expanded on by some of my colleagues. Evidence given to us suggested at that time a certain flabbiness in co-ordination within government, in policy formulation and in drawing on the best possible advice in this area. I believe, and I think that my colleagues agree, that this led to a limitation in overall vision. Science and technology and its importance for our community is so critical that there has to be a vision that is clear and understood widely by the community at large so that when we are supporting significant spend in science, as we are and which is a good thing, the arguments will be understood by the wider community.

One condition of informed vision, planning and policy is knowing where we are. We asked a key question of our witnesses: what is the total spend, department by department, across the whole of government on research in science and technology? Our witnesses, who came from well-informed sources, could not answer that question. One of them significantly pointed to the difficulties in this country as compared with other countries in putting a total figure on research and expenditure in science and technology across all departments. You can do it for the research councils—that is pretty straightforward—but a significant part of our research activity is funded through departments. “We don’t know” was the answer, and no one at that stage could tell us. I believe that there has been progress since then. I will come back to that in a moment. We need to know what steps can be put in place to ensure that there is such a total picture of the platform from which we start in planning expenditure in this area.

The second point I want to make from the report is that we attach very great importance to the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser. I believe we have an excellent Chief Scientific Adviser at the moment. There are scientific advisers in most departments but not all. I point the finger at the Treasury here. I would like to know when that is going to happen. There was talk of a scientific adviser there. The Chief Scientific Adviser and his colleagues in departments have a critical role to play in policy development and implementation. We believe that the Chief Scientific Adviser should have more access to specific departmental and interdepartmental debates about funding. The condition of this is that they are present in key meetings with the Treasury as these are identified over the months and years to come. The scientific adviser should have input into departmental expenditure, budget creation and discussions with the Treasury. The advice that the scientific adviser gives in the formulation of policy is critical. We also put stress on encouraging scientific advisers to find the best advice they possibly can. This may not seem an obvious point but it was obvious to us on the committee. The recommendations I point to have to do with the chief scientific advisers, their presence departmentally and also, in Sir John Beddington’s case, at key Treasury meetings and departmental management boards.

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to point to two or three policy developments that will have, and are having, an impact on our capacity in science. This has been a constant refrain from the committee over the years. The Government’s left hand must know what their right hand is doing. Understandably, co-ordination sometimes fails. It is a big complex business. However, I will give three examples where I have concerns to ensure that the unintended consequences which could be bad for science are not a reality. I start with the question of science in schools. I thoroughly supported the clear statement by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the importance of funding STEM subjects in universities, both in civil terms and also in terms of the economy. I am concerned that that has not gone along with equally clear statements about whether we will have enough well-qualified and able students coming through to fill the places in universities that are going to be so funded. Put bluntly, I am concerned that that will not be the case. I simply ask the Minister to ask her colleagues in the relevant department what they are going to do about the critical point of the curriculum for science and the attractiveness of science to senior pupils in schools. Good things have happened and I support the Browne proposals and the department’s interest in the Baker-Dearing trust’s initiative on technical education. I think that that is very good and very important.

The second example is the Department of Health. I do not want to intrude on private grief but there are real discussions going on about the state of the current Bill. The Bill contains a clear permissive statement that research can be commissioned. I would like reassurances that the resources will not simply slide away from those who do the commissioning. If the resources move significantly towards a different form of commissioning within the health service, will there be a danger that the major input of the NHS into research might slip backwards—for example, for drug trials which are very important in this country, but also basic research in medical science? It would be good, even if not today in writing, to have some reassurances that this can be done.

The last point is a matter of government policy. When I was a vice-chancellor I was well aware of the importance of looking internationally to recruit the best scientists. Universities have raised concerns about visas and we would like to be reassured again that there is no coyness or truculence in issuing visas to those who have been identified as capable of making major contributions to scientific research in this country. It is easy to turn off the enthusiasm of those who want to come, and plenty of other countries are developing policies and procedures to make it easy for these individuals to go there. So I ask three questions about contemporary policy and how it is developing. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

19:58

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, I did not have the pleasure of serving on the committee under the noble Lord’s chairmanship. Interestingly, I was conducting a similar inquiry in another place at exactly the same time on the same subject and coming to the same conclusions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for analysing so admirably the Government’s response to the Select Committee report. The fact that the Government’s response bore precious little relevance to the actual recommendations of the report makes his contribution today even more noteworthy. That said, he is right to say that the Government’s actual record on research is far more positive. Ministers have chosen very wisely to build on the sound foundations laid by the previous Government, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Drayson, even agreeing to include in the Ministerial Code a requirement to take notice of independent scientific advice, which was a recommendation from both our committees. Despite draconian cuts in public expenditure, a flat cash settlement of £4.5 billion is to be welcomed; and the major capital investment at Harwell, at the new Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, for molecular biology at Cambridge and, of course, the fact that the St Pancras development is going ahead, are clear indications of the Government’s commitment to science.

The Treasury is almost on message. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that this afternoon a scientific adviser to the Treasury, James Richardson, was appointed. However, we should not get too excited because his press officer in the Treasury quickly sent a message saying:

“I would like to stress that the post of Chief Scientific Advisor will be taken on alongside James’ current responsibilities as the Director of Public Spending and the chief Micro economist at the Treasury”.

How much time he will have for the job, I do not know.

However, lest we get carried away by the Government’s record, the reality is that despite a decade during which we have seen research funding double, the amount we have spent as a proportion of GDP has actually fallen from 0.69 per cent in 2004 to 0.6 per cent in 2009, and this at a time when the UK was enjoying the most prolonged period of economic prosperity that the nation had ever seen. More worrying is that, while we were spending arguably more in cash terms but less as a proportion of our GDP, all our competitors were outstripping us in terms of their investment. Even more important is that over the coming decade, they are all planning to increase their spend rather than simply hold it where it is.

The Science and Technology Committee report recommended urgent prioritisation of our research effort, a call that has been echoed by most scientific bodies. Since 2004, we have had a 10-year science and innovation framework which has served us well, and we should be honest enough to admit that. But we need another one, and it has to be in place before the next CSR, and we have to do the lobbying for it. A key priority of any plan must be the re-engineering of our research infrastructure, in particular in our universities and institutes, by asking what we expect them to deliver and giving them the resources to do so. By default this is happening, with 90 per cent of our research funding now being spent in around 30 of our universities. But if we are to remain globally competitive, further concentration, probably involving amalgamations of universities or departments, will be absolutely necessary if we are going to remain world class, which is where we have to be.

I shall say to noble Lords what I have said before. We cannot sustain 165 higher education institutions offering master’s and PhD courses. In the United States, only 28 per cent of universities offer PhD programmes, while in the UK the figure is 90 per cent, often with few faculty. Surely the time has come to look at US-style graduate schools in the UK. Further, many say that the new fee regime will make students more demanding customers. Quite frankly, that is no good for science. What we want is our universities to become more demanding providers. They should ask more from their students in order to raise the academic bar. We constantly forget that that is the best way to give value to our students.

Finally, and here I have to declare an interest as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, it is crucially important that we retain links with our charitable research funders. Some 15 per cent of the money going into our universities comes from charities, with the 126 member charities in AMRC spending roughly £1 billion last year. Without the Charity Research Support Fund introduced by the previous Government, it would not be possible to deliver the front-line support that charities provide. I want to ask the Minister about this because the replies I have had so far suggest that the Charity Research Support Fund will last only until 2011-12, with £198 million. I hope that my noble friend will be able to get a message from the Box saying that at least throughout the whole of this comprehensive spending review period, it will remain in place. Without it, we will seriously affect the amount of money going into research from our charities.

20:05

[Lord Oxburgh]

My Lords, in the spirit of doing the best with what we have, I intend to follow the lead made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in discussing the role of departmental chief scientific advisers. Until a couple of decades ago, the departments for which research was important tended to fund and manage their own research institutes. It was not a perfect world, but Ministers and officials had direct access to scientific advice and technical expertise that was closely tailored to their needs. This situation changed dramatically when a majority of government research institutes were privatised, turned into executive agencies or, in some cases, closed. The consequences for government science have been profound. Perhaps the main one is that today, there is virtually no opportunity to pursue a scientific career within the Civil Service.

New science and engineering graduates are recruited and indeed welcomed, but they bring very little experience of the world of science and engineering with them. The consequence is that when it comes to advice on matters of policy and procurement in these areas, departments may have virtually no relevant expertise or experience. In essence, departments lost at this time much of their ability to be intelligent customers. It was this situation that led successive Chief Scientific Advisers to place great emphasis on the roles of their departmental counterparts. Necessarily, the majority of departmental CSAs come from outside government. They have brought in high levels of recent experience of research and business. However, appointing a CSA is one thing, and using them properly is another.

For a newcomer to be effective in Whitehall, there are several requirements. The most important of these is for the CSA to win the confidence of colleagues and to convince them that he or she can help the department do its job better. This means that the CSA must be seen to bring real expertise and experience to the job, and early on must take the time to get to know their Ministers and colleagues properly, as well as understand departmental priorities and problems. This is very hard for someone who can devote only a day or a couple of days a week to the job. Secondly, the CSA needs sufficient rank to be taken seriously within the department. They must attend senior staff meetings so that problems can be spotted before they arise. Without that, the job becomes simply reactive, so that advice is often given too late and may not be taken seriously. Thirdly, the CSA has to have sufficient resources to do the job. These may be resources of people or of money to bring in external help. I make these points because there may be a tendency, at a time of financial stringency, to think that a departmental CSA is an unaffordable luxury or that savings can be made by downgrading the post. This is far from the truth if the CSA is being used properly.

Against that background, it was a real concern to learn from evidence given at a recent meeting of the Science and Technology Select Committee that the Ministry of Defence plans to reduce the grading of its CSA when the present incumbent shortly retires. I must confess to a particular interest in this post as it was one that I held some 20 years ago. For the moment disregarding the fact that, as our report shows, the MoD has a massive R&D spend that is comparable to that of all other government departments put together and that the department does not have an entirely unblemished procurement record, technology is probably more important to the MoD than to any other department in Whitehall. It depends on maintaining a technological edge to which the CSA should make a vital contribution. This is particularly the case at a time, such as the present, of rapid technological change. At a time when challenges to our armed services appear to widen daily, does it really make sense to risk the quality and level of their technical support? In military matters there are no prizes for coming second. Lowering the grade of the MoD CSA sends a very clear message to the outside world: namely, that lower-calibre and less experienced applicants would be acceptable.

In the present climate, the need for effective departmental CSAs to help ensure good value for money is stronger than ever. I ask the Minister to use the influence of her department to ensure that the role of CSAs in Whitehall departments is not diluted and in particular to ask the Ministry of Defence to reconsider its plan to downgrade its CSA.

20:11

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for introducing this important debate and for chairing the inquiry of the Select Committee of which I was a member. I should also add that I am the noble Lord’s successor as chairman of the Select Committee, although he is, as they say, a very hard act to follow.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has said, nobody seriously questions the importance of science and technology for the future well-being of this country. I want to add two points to that. One is the inherent unpredictability of identifying where those future significant discoveries will arise. It is famously said—perhaps apocryphally—that when Faraday was asked about the importance of his discoveries, he said “What use is a baby?”. The other point I wanted to make is that our own science and technology base not only enables us to benefit from knowledge generated here but to tap into the global source of knowledge—it enhances our absorptive capacity.

Science is one of the things at which the UK excels. If the Wimbledon tournament that starts in a couple of weeks’ time were a tournament for science, we would certainly not be waiting 75 years for our first male champion and 34 for our first female champion. The figures are very familiar but are worth repeating: we have 1 per cent of the world’s population, invest 3 per cent of the world’s science funding but produce 9 per cent of the scientific papers and 14 per cent of the most highly cited papers. In terms of bangs per buck we are top of the G8 league and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has already said, this is in spite of the fact that our public investment in science as a percentage of GDP is low—about half that of many of our major competitors.

However, we should not rest on our laurels. The global landscape of science is changing very rapidly and the recent Royal Society report Knowledge, networks and nations highlights the rapidly changing global landscape. China, with its R&D spend growing by 20 per cent per year, is predicted to overtake the USA as the leading nation for publishing scientific papers by 2013. The Royal Society also highlights many other developing countries—for example Iran and Turkey—as dynamic rising stars.

In short, unless we not only sustain but increase our investment in science, we will very soon lose our pre-eminent position. The comprehensive spending review, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has mentioned, did secure level cash funding for science programmes over the next four years. This was, in relative terms, good news, but we should not forget that our competitors are increasing their investment. We should also not forget that the settlement included a swingeing 54 per cent cut in the capital budget of the research councils.

I ask the Minister whether she agrees that the funding levels for science in this country do indeed pose a serious threat to our ability to attract and retain the best talent in a global market in the coming years. We should also note that some government departments cut their R&D budgets dramatically: 45 per cent for DCMS and 20 per cent for Defra. We heard from the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, last week in evidence that some departments have not yet determined their budgets for the coming years. Can the Minister confirm that she has the figures for all the departments and can she tell us what those figures are?

I turn briefly in the last few minutes to the question of scientific advice, to which others have already alluded. As we have heard, over the past few years, an increasing number of government departments have appointed chief scientific advisers who are leading experts from academia or other sources outside the civil service. This has been a most welcome development. However, I seek reassurance from the Minister that the commitment to this ideal is not faltering.

Therefore, I want to ask the following questions. First, given the importance of social sciences for many policy matters, will the Government appoint an independent—an independent—chief social scientist to replace Professor Paul Wiles, who has retired? When are the Departments for Transport and for Business, Innovation and Skills going to replace Professor Brian Collins, who was their independent chief scientific adviser? This latter point is particularly important in light of the recent critical reviews of these two departments by the Government Office for Science. The review for the Minister’s own department says,

“the resourcing and organisation of SE evidence and advice has not always been given the priority that is needed in BIS, and is not yet to the standard that we (the Panel) would expect”.

In light of that, I want to hear from the Minister what steps are being taken to improve scientific advice in her own department.

Finally, in an editorial in the leading scientific journal Nature last year, which gave an early assessment of how the new Government were handling scientific advice, the conclusion was:

“It should leave those who promote evidence-based policy feeling anxious”.

Will the Minister assure us that the anxiety expressed by Nature is not justified?

20:17

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, as one of the few non-scientists speaking in this debate, I should say that I was prompted to speak because the grand challenges that the report refers to and the issues that it raises so powerfully—food security, water security and climate change—concern us all. I was very concerned by the issues which were so well expounded between the chairman and the Chief Scientific Adviser when, on page 43 of the report, they talked about orphan issues. They both agreed that such important issues often fall through the cracks in the system. That is really what prompted me to speak today. It is very worrying to think that such important issues—in critical areas such as biodiversity or climate change, which are the ones that the report quotes—are not being covered.

That perhaps is also why questions that require a cross-departmental response are so essential. There is a non-answer to the key question on page 68 of the evidence, which is really worrying. I want to ask the Minister today the same question:

“Please could you send the Committee copies of papers … on how departments and research councils will work together on cross-departmental issues?”.

The answer was:

“The papers … are internal documents at this stage and we are unable to share them with the Committee”.

So my question for the Minister is: have they now been shared, or can they be? And is the Minister satisfied that cross-departmental sponsorship works well? That question is prompted by my visit to the Natural History Museum earlier this year to see its work in some depth. Its primary sponsorship body is, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because it is a museum. However, much of its work would be sponsored by almost any other department, whether it was Defra or DECC. Its work on a national, European and international level concerned with ecosystems, for example, is absolutely critical. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is not speaking tonight. He made some incredibly important points in this report with regard to systematics and taxonomy. Indeed, the Committee has previously done some very interesting reports on these issues. He said that it is a discipline that is quite critical in delivering biodiversity and conservation commitments.

It is critical also in understanding a swathe of issues around, for example, food security—one of those grand challenges—biological pest control and plant adaptation to climate change, to mention but a few. Last week the Government published the first national ecosystem assessment which underlined how valuable a healthy environment is to our economy. If there are gaps in our knowledge of that ecosystem, it will be very hard to build on the aspirations of the environment White Paper.

It was also interesting to learn from the Natural History Museum’s recent assessment that for each pound of government money invested, £4 in wider economic benefits are delivered. Too often grants for research are seen as a cost to the Government rather than as an investment giving, in this case, a pretty fair return.

I may be a lone voice in today’s debate, but when I look at appendix 5 and see the public funding for R&D, the challenges mentioned—climate change, food security and water security, in one category—and then I look at the spend, I come away with the feeling that our priority is still literally to be able to fight our way out of adversity. The MoD research budget, as has already been mentioned, is nearly twice that of all other government departments added together. We are still at the point of paying lip service to solving problems through the acquisition and application of knowledge, while actually spending too much resource in researching which weapons would be best to use if that approach fails and we literally have to fight for our share in a hungry, water-short, energy-poor world.

I do not think that that is a battle we can win anyway in the long term with weapons. I do think that we could win it with enough investment and effort in understanding the problems and developing the solutions. I understand that this report is not asking for more money, it is asking for it to be spent in a more rational and wise way and in closing those cracks. I hope that, over time, we can look at shifting that investment.

20:22

[Lord Rees of Ludlow]

As noble Lords have emphasised, science is indeed a UK success story, but the UK could pay a heavy price if we lose this competitive advantage. We are up against strengthening global competition for the most talented individuals, the most innovative firms and leadership in high-tech sectors. The CSR indeed cut the science budget less than we had feared, but those who read in the foreign press about trends here do not get a positive impression. We still lag behind our OECD comparators. Our universities are perceived to be engulfed in turbulent restructuring. Mobile talent from eastern Europe or Asia is in consequence less likely to perceive the UK as a favoured destination than was the case a few years ago. Our brightest young people, savvy about trends and anxiously choosing a career, are not getting a signal that the UK offers enticing opportunities in cutting-edge science.

A dangerous feedback operates here: a downward trend of just a few per cent in the UK when other countries are on the rise sends a signal that disproportionately reduces our chances of attracting, retaining and incentivising top talent. To attract academics, access to responsive mode funding is crucial. We must continue to support the best research across all subject areas; otherwise we could lose out on the greatest innovations, which often occur at the interfaces of traditional disciplines. We also need breadth, to provide absorptive capacity so that the UK can seize on ideas from the rest of the world and sustain top-rate university education.

Last year’s Nobel Prize in Physics went to two Russians on the faculty of Manchester University. They created a substance called graphene; a new form of carbon, a lattice one atom thick with extraordinary tensile strength and electrical properties which could lead to transformative technologies. If the UK is to sustain its scientific excellence, our universities must provide a supportive environment for serendipitous breakthroughs such as this. We must continue to be a preferred destination for people like Novoselov and Geim and, of course, our border agencies must welcome them in, wherever in the world they are from.

I want to say just a word about impact as measured in the report. The impacts of science are often felt far away from the time and place where the original research is done. Even in medicine, where research is often highly targeted, the lag between scientific research and health benefits can be anywhere from 10 to 25 years. In other areas of science it can be decades before direct benefits are felt. The lineage of any spin-off can be traced back to a surprisingly diverse range of influences. What is controversial is not whether the impact is important—all scientists realise that and all aspire to make an impact—the issue is whether impact can be appropriately quantified as a measure for allocating specific grant support. Most of us are concerned that it is too long-term and diffuse to serve that role.

The across-the-board public support for academic research comes, of course, from within the ring-fenced science budget, but, of course, when it comes to the development phase, we cannot do everything and prioritisation is essential. The Government have a role here, as emphasised in the Hauser report, in bridging the gap between what is done in universities and what is needed to develop ideas into marketable projects. This is a gap where bodies like the TSB may not be adequate in scale and where something else may be needed. Chief scientific advisers within government departments have a role here, as they have many other roles. This system has proved its worth; excellent incumbents coming from outside the Civil Service, when given access to Ministers and top officials, can really make a difference.

From outside government, it is also the role of bodies such as the Royal Society—where I declare an interest, as a recent president—to provide scientific guidance to government and to the public. Indeed, at a time when, through the Public Bodies Bill, some statutory advisory bodies are under threat, the role of academies has never been more essential in providing independent, authoritative advice. The global developments of the 21st century will be driven by waves of new technologies. We must be equipped to ride these waves and to ensure that scientific advances optimally enhance our quality of life and the environment.

I end with a quotation from a distinguished Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, of Wigton, who lectured in the Sheldonian Theatre last year:

“We are supposed to be the clever country. We used to be the commonsense country. Not for much longer if the politicians continue to undervalue the potency of those Francis Bacon called the ‘merchants of light’, of new knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, which is unarguably the only sure wealth of the future”.

20:28

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as the other non-scientist and I enter the debate with some trepidation after hearing the contributions. First, I welcome the report and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for his introduction. He said that the UK was a good place for science and technology and our aim should be to keep it that way, but we are in danger of losing our world-leading position in science. The Government only have a three-year spending review period plan for science. We have called for the Government to reinstate a 10-year funding plan for science. This allowed researchers and investors more confidence in the long-term funding landscape and was welcomed by British scientists and campaign groups.

The report states:

“Our first recommendation is fundamental: that the Government should make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their current research funding commitments”.

In their response to the report’s fundamental recommendation, the Government said that,

“funding of science and research will be addressed in the forthcoming Spending Review”.

The Government have repeatedly claimed that the spending review science settlement is a long-term plan for science and refused to reinstate Labour’s 10-year plan for science. However, scientists know that three years is not long-term; it is not even one PhD funding cycle. In a speech to the Campaign for Science and Engineering before the Budget, John Denham called for the Government to put in place a long-term funding plan. He said:

“It’s essential that the forthcoming Budget sets out a clear framework for science funding well beyond the current spending period and ideally for a 10-year period”.

We would argue that the previous Labour Government rescued British science. We introduced the science research investment fund in 2002 to address a historic backlog of upgrading and updating required by the physical university research infrastructure across the UK, left by the previous Tory Government. We also set up the higher education innovation fund. We set up the UKRC, funding for which was withdrawn by BIS this year, to promote the position of women scientists and engineers. We set up the Technology Strategy Board and the RDAs that have successfully invested in British science and innovation. We introduced the 10-year commitment to invest in science and innovation. This gave the research community long-term confidence, as I said. This long-term increase has now been reversed, with a real-terms cut over the next three years, while, as several contributors have said, our international competitors—even those with deficit reduction programmes—increase their investment.

As I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, pointed out, China is increasing investment in R&D by 8 per cent, Germany is increasing investment by 7 per cent, France by 1 per cent, Australia by 25 per cent and the USA by 5.7 per cent. There are major new players in world science, from Brazil to Singapore and from the Gulf states to India. As the Royal Society said in a recent report, we need to keep running just to stand still. The coalition does not seem to understand how tough the global competitive environment is.

Several contributors have said that the cuts under the comprehensive spending review could have been worse. The reality is that the science budget stays the same in cash terms, but has a 10 per cent real-terms resource cut of £450 million over that period. Capital research and development spend takes an enormous 40 per cent cut, which will recreate the huge backlog of building works that built up under the previous Tory Government. Other areas of the science budget, such as funding for engagement and diversity in science, also face large cuts. There is an increasing focus on centralised excellence to the detriment of regional research centres and universities. RDA science funding, which was £440 million per annum, has also been lost. Therefore, I have the following questions for the Minister. Why is the UK reducing its overall spending on research and development when our competitors are increasing their investment? When will the Government set out their plans for investment in British science and innovation beyond 2014-15?

The noble Lord, Lord Rees, made some interesting points when he talked about worrying signs and downward trends. If we want to maintain the UK as a place where people want to continue undertaking research, and to attract such people as the recent Nobel Prize winners he referred to, we have to make sure that we create the right environment.

I must admit that when I looked at the report from a lay person’s perspective, I found a lot of complexity, even in dealing with the terms. I would not have known until I read more carefully what “responsive-mode” research was—I would have referred to it as blue-skies research—as opposed to “targeted” research. What interests me in all this important talk of research and development is something that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said in the conclusion of his contribution. He talked about turning research into applications that become marketable products. We may excel, as one contributor said, in producing the largest number of papers in the world, but if we cannot turn them into marketable products, there is a failure that needs to be addressed. It reminds me of that old advert about what we might call “the appliance of science”.

I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response and thank the committee for producing a very interesting report.

20:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for introducing this debate on the report Setting priorities for publicly funded research produced by the Science and Technology Committee, which he chaired. The Government’s response was published in July 2010 and a copy is still available on the committee’s website. I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the limited time that we have for such an important subject, but I will write to any noble Lords whose questions I do not manage to pick up. It has been a pleasure to hear views, advice and questions from some of the finest minds in the country, possibly the world. It is one of the great advantages of this House that we are able to do so. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.

There have been many developments since the Government published their response to the report Setting priorities for publicly funded research. In October 2010 the Chancellor announced that science and research programme funding would be protected with a flat cash, ring-fenced settlement for 2011-15. This was a major commitment to science at a time of great pressure on public spending.

I will try to answer questions as I go through. I hope this does not make it too disjointed. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who talked of a charity support fund, the charity support fund is part of HEFCE’s block grant for research and will continue throughout the spending review period, as was announced last December. I hope that is helpful.

In December, the science budget was allocated to the individual research councils, HEFCE and other programmes. In line with views from leaders of the academic and business communities, the balance of funding between research councils and HEFCE was kept broadly the same—here I acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Young. The coalition Government’s long-term vision for science and research was published alongside their plans for science funding to 2011-15.

In the Budget in March, an additional £100 million was announced for science capital projects. This investment will develop infrastructure at national research campuses in Daresbury, Norwich and Cambridge, and the International Space Innovation Centre at Harwell. This is a vital investment in our research base, particularly life sciences and space industries, which are critical for delivering economic growth. This investment is not intended to reverse the announcements in the spending review, but it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to research and their willingness to invest prudently as and when additional funds become available.

The spending review announced that key scientific infrastructure projects would go ahead. There will be a £69 million investment in the Diamond synchrotron at Harwell in Oxfordshire, and £220 million capital funding for the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation in London. Since the spending review, the Government have announced funding for three further projects, including £33 million for the birth cohort study.

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the matter of the government Chief Scientific Adviser’s input into Treasury meetings. Sir John Beddington cannot, of course, attend all Treasury meetings, but he meets regularly with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and is working closely with the Treasury on the implications of the spending review for departmental research budgets. I understand from this work that the overall outcome for research spending by government departments also looks good in the circumstances. Sir John Beddington explained this in detail to the Lords Science and Technology Committee two weeks ago.

The Government have emphasised their commitment to health research in the National Health Service White Paper and the spending review. The Department of Health will be increasing its investment in health research in real terms over the next four years. A crucial part of this will be £775 million to promote translational R&D. The department has been very clear on this.

Peter Luff reported recently that the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology budget is, in cash terms, expected to rise over the spending review period. The nature of departmental research budgets and ongoing planning means that we cannot give the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Krebs, the final figures for every department for the next four years. I understand that Sir John will be sending the Science and Technology Select Committee information for departments that are in a position to provide details of their expected expenditure over the spending review period. Each year the Government publish outturn figures on departmental expenditure on R&D in the science, engineering and technology statistics. This autumn the Government will be publishing outturn figures for all departments for 2009-10.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned that some departments have had significant cuts in budget. In general, research spending plans for other government departments are in line with the settlement that they have received from the Treasury in the spending review. Departments are now looking very carefully at their priorities and the resources needed to deliver their science, research and evidence needs. They will not have all the answers overnight and should probably not try to set too much in stone. Going forward, departments will be reviewing and updating their science and innovation strategies to ensure that they reflect current departmental priorities and cross-cutting issues and that policy-making delivery and evaluation is evidence based.

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was concerned about science in schools. The Department for Education’s The Importance of Teaching—The Schools White Paper 2010 showed the Government’s commitment to continue to provide additional support to promote the uptake of science. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that Research Councils UK’s cross-council programmes bring together partners across government and business to address global challenges and create growth opportunities for the United Kingdom. As well as the government Chief Scientific Adviser, there is a strong network of departmental chief scientific advisers and departmental directors of analysis across Government that ensure that Government have access to, and use, the best science, engineering and analytical advice, including to address research challenges that cut across departments. These networks work closely with the research councils. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, brought the news that the Treasury has appointed a chief scientific adviser today. I am delighted to support this very welcome news. The fact that the new Treasury chief scientific adviser, James Richardson, has other duties means that he is at the heart of the decision-making process in the Treasury, which should be a very good thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, worried about the MoD CSA being downgraded. The MoD recognises the importance of science and engineering to its business. This was considered carefully in planning following the spending review. It has been decided that the MoD’s chief scientific adviser will be at director-general level, rather than permanent secretary. I understand that Sir John Beddington has been closely involved in this decision. He will be a member of the selection panel, which I hope is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about the Government’s chief social scientist. Jenny Dibden and Richard Bartholomew are joint heads of the Government’s social research service. These arrangements work very well—it says here. In response to the noble Lord’s question, “When will the CSA, DfT and BIS be replaced?”—sorry, that cannot be right—I can say that DfT and BIS are currently looking at how the CSA function will best be delivered. This includes exploring the possibility of a shared role with another government department to take advantage of the synergies and overlaps between their science, technology and research interests. The government Chief Scientific Adviser has been involved in these departments’ deliberations about the role of their respective CSAs and will be involved in the appointment process.

Departments also draw upon independent advice from science advisory councils and around 70 scientific advisory committees. In line with the Government’s priorities, it is essential that advice takes place in an open and transparent way. This is why the coalition Government have now included a specific reference to the principles of scientific advice to Government in the ministerial code. Continuing with the theme of independence, the Government restated their commitment to the Haldane principle in December. The long-established Haldane principle continues to work well. It protects scientific independence and excellence and is one of the key factors that makes the UK research base a world leader.

In response to the third point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, despite commitments to reduce net migration, the Government recognise the value that academics and scientists bring to our economy. Recent changes to the points-based system have made provision for this. The truly world class will come through the exceptional talent route in tier 1 where entry is not contingent upon a job offer. Otherwise, others will be prioritised through tier 2 where points are awarded for high-level qualifications.

The coalition Government have continued to demonstrate our clear commitment to evidence-based policy making and to science and research by giving a real boost to our world-class research base. This puts science and research in a privileged position. We will work hard to ensure that investment delivers economic benefit, creating new businesses and improving existing ones, attracting highly skilled scientists and technicians and international business investment and improving public policy and services.

European Union Bill

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

20:47

Amendment 5B not moved.

Clause 3 : Amendment of TFEU under simplified revision procedure

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Triesman]

6: Clause 3, page 2, line 32, after second “condition” insert “, the urgency condition”

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, given the debates that we had in Committee and the debate which we had shortly before the dinner break, it is possible to speak to this amendment fairly briefly. Its aim is to take account of circumstances where the Government conclude that it is in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom to act with greater dispatch than would occur if the whole of the processes set out in other parts of this Bill were gone through.

Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked—I understand the point—“What are the circumstances in which events might take place that are difficult to put into words?”. I shall try to put at least one such circumstance into words, but I recognise immediately that it may be difficult to do so in the context of the judgments that Governments have to make about the interests of the country when events precipitate at a rate which is not anticipated in the normal course of events. However, my ministerial experience, and that of many others in your Lordships’ House, tells us that events happen. I think that I am quoting a former Conservative Prime Minister, and he was entirely right—they do. Events happen and Governments have to respond to them. We will be able to deal with many of them using the sovereign processes of our own political system. Some will occur in a wider context and we will deal with them through international organisations, including the European Union and its existing competences—that is not the subject of this Bill—the United Nations, the World Bank and others. Those are not the issues to which I refer. However, it seems to me at least conceptually possible that some things will happen which require an urgent response and where it will be clear to the Government of the day that they need to act in concert with others in ways which are not covered by current arrangements. Before any noble Lord says that he cannot conceive of such circumstances arising, I assure the House that they will do so. They will arise, for example, around an environmental disaster or a financial disaster. The purpose of this amendment is to make provision for the circumstances in which they will arise.

When we talked about the meltdown of the world banking system, noble Lords rightly pointed out that the emergency arrangements that were made took a considerable time to design and to begin to be put in place. Indeed, they are not in place to this day and we have not reached the end of that process. That is rather regrettable because it seems to me that in international terms we are without a number of the levers which we would probably desire to have, in order to have a real impact on some of those events in concert with others. The G20 made a very good effort at least at one meeting, and arguably at two meetings, to try to work out some sort of architecture to deal with those circumstances. Others may disagree but I believe that if Europe had been able to speak with a more coherent voice in the G20 meetings, it would have been much more likely to have arrived at an authoritative consensus with the United States and with China in particular.

It seems to be within the realms of possibility, and perhaps not so fanciful either, that there could be circumstances—particularly in acute financial crises—where the Government might conclude that emergency conditions applied, they needed to be able to act under those conditions, it was desirable for the interests of the country and the people of the country that they did act under those conditions, and that slight variations in the current arrangements would make that more possible. These are inevitably difficult conditions to envisage largely because every time you try to do so you can usually point to a set of arrangements which have already been designed to take account of them. However, we have surely learnt, certainly since late 2007—we have learnt this rather harsh lesson through 2008 and up to the present—that it is not possible to predict all those circumstances, manage them, say that we have the levers for managing them or say that the other institutions, particularly the G20 in which we put such faith, are capable of doing so, partly because Europe is incapable of acting or speaking in a single and coherent way. I beg to move.

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has not persuaded me of the need to include an urgency condition. It seems to me there is absolutely nothing that prevents the UK from co-ordinating with other EU member states in response to any natural disaster. Furthermore, if the amendment were adopted, the ability of the UK to react speedily might even be circumscribed. The amendment does nothing to improve clarity; rather, it confuses the situation, compromises legal certainty and is very subjective. Amendment 10 states:

“The urgency condition is where an amendment under the simplified revision procedure is considered to be urgent”.

“Considered” by whom and in what forum? It is very unclear. I venture to submit that this amendment does nothing to improve the clarity and certainty of the Bill.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I too oppose the amendment, although I recognise that in tabling it the opposition Benches are very conscious of the leap in the dark that we are making to some extent with this Bill. It is about future eventualities at a time of significant flux in the world, and indeed in the European Union. One would need to be a clairvoyant to imagine what might be coming down the road in terms of emergencies and urgencies that would need rather speedier action than the normal pace of change in the European Union. In fact I think one of the reasons why there is a disconnect between the British electorate and the Union is partly because of the very slow and cumbersome methodology and pace of reacting to events. When there is a deep economic recession or a great financial or banking crisis, people out in the country want their leaders and politicians to act speedily to deal with the issues that led to those events, and perhaps would wish us to move faster than we have been capable of doing in international fora and multilateral institutions.

Despite recognising these things, I nevertheless oppose this amendment because I think what defines urgency is so subjective and so much predicated on what the Government of the day, and the policy-makers on either side of the debate, would imagine to be urgent or not. While I think we all know what is urgent when it hits us in the face, and it is quite right that we should and should then act speedily, enshrining it in law seems to raise a host of problems, not least again with judicial review. It also creates a basis of very subjective analysis as to whether something is urgent or not, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in his very helpful moving of the amendment, accepted that we do take quite a long time—that even the European financial stability mechanism is going to take a leisurely pace. This really goes to the heart of the argument; that it is better for us to look for ways to facilitate speed and urgency when the urgent situation arises, rather than to seek to enshrine it in law at this stage.

20:59

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I have read the amendment, which would restrict the operation of the Bill to matters of urgency. That is what it is about. I thought that the Bill was about major transfers of power, not just little changes to ongoing, day-to-day matters in the EU; it is about major transfers of competence or powers. Whenever you are transferring powers from this country to another institution, it ought not to be done in haste. There should not be urgency about it.

Those sort of matters, those great matters, should be decided only once all the issues concerned have been examined by the Government and by Parliament; and then by referendum. Why do we want an urgency clause? We cannot afford to have an urgency clause when we are transferring powers from our country to another organisation. I cannot support the amendment, although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, feels that it would be helpful to the Bill. I do not think that it would be helpful to the Bill, because it would undermine its whole purpose, which is to ensure that when this country transfers major powers elsewhere, there has been proper consideration over a proper period by the proper authorities, including the Government, Parliament and the people.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I need to make a rather nerdish point.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Oh no!

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will be very upset. I accuse myself of being nerdish, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that I can be considered in the same class as Mr William Cash.

We are talking about an amendment to Clause 3. Clause 3 is about the accelerated, simplified procedure. I do not know why we have Clause 3 separate from Clause 2, but we do, and we are debating it. The simplified procedure cannot be used for the transfer of competences. That is what the treaty states. Article 48(6) states that the decisions referred to in the second paragraph,

“shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”.

We are talking about urgency and the use of the competences that the treaties have conferred. We are talking about urgency because that is the nature of the simplified procedure. It was invented to move fast in situations where we might want to. It avoids the convention, it avoids the full paraphernalia after Parliament—you still have to consult Parliament under Article 48(6), but that can be quite quick.

This is a modest amendment, unlike the previous amendment on which we voted, which was bigger. This is a modest amendment because it simply suggests that the urgency condition might be written into Clause 3, on the simplified treaty revision procedure, which is about urgent treaty revision and not about competence. It cannot be used to confer competences on the Union from the member states.

It seems to me appropriate and modest to say that, when we are dealing with treaty revisions or decisions taken under Article 48(6)—which, by definition, will happen only in a hurry—we should be able to have an accelerated procedure here in this country. We might accept that the general view was correct: this was an emergency and we needed to move fast. Of course, if you did not accept that, you would have said “No” in Brussels and the accelerated procedure would have stopped, because it still requires unanimity. By definition, you are in a situation where people have thought, “We haven’t got the time to do the whole shooting match”. This is important. The Government think it is in the UK interest—they voted for it. Who would decide whether the urgency consideration applied? It is a question asked in this debate. The House would decide. Parliament would decide. If this provision was in the Bill, the Government would have to explain whether the urgency procedure, in their view, applied. Parliament would vote on that. This is a parliamentary democracy—that is where the decision should be made.

I do not see anything wrong with this amendment. It seems to me that it is appropriate—particularly appropriate—to this clause. I supported the previous amendment—the bigger amendment—which would have written it also into Clause 2, alongside the significance condition, which sadly is still missing in Clause 2, for reasons that I do not understand. Putting it in Clause 3, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, proposes, is absolutely appropriate and I support the amendment.

The Minister commented with approval, as would I, on the evidence that Sir John Grant gave to the Commons committee. Sir John Grant made two points that the Minister quoted with approval. I approve of them too—although, as the Minister delicately pointed out, Sir John is a more recent permanent representative in Brussels than me. There may have been a faint connotation in the Minister’s remark that I might be a bit fuddy-duddy or out of date. I accept that; it is perfectly possible, and Sir John Grant is a very brilliant man.

Sir John said that he saw no chance of serious treaty amendment in the next few years. I agree with him for a whole lot of reasons. Nobody in Brussels wants it; the UK Government have said that they are not going to have it; and it is in a coalition agreement. That seems to me to be fairly conclusive, so I think Sir John Grant was on pretty safe ground with that prediction. He also spoke of the unlikelihood—and the Minister quoted him—of the passerelles being used in the near future. I agree. That seems to me to be implausible too.

What the Minister did not mention—I cannot remember whether Sir John Grant did—is the much more likely scenario in which, some time in the next decade, something will cause people to say, “Jeepers, we are going to have to change something. This is clearly a case for the accelerated procedure”. Things do happen in the world, things change, and the chances are—I do not think this is very likely in the near future, though the monetary example is fresh in our minds—that some time in the next decade there will be a need seen by most people, possibly by us as well, for a change, and if it is to be done quickly then the chances are that people will use Article 48(6) procedure.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

May I, with apologies, ask a nerdish question of the noble Lord? If I understand Article 48(7) correctly, it suggests that urgency can be carried through at the fastest in six months. Is that correct?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not think that is what the treaty says, but yes, it is likely that that is the case. Of course, any treaty amendment requires ratification by whatever the national procedures are. I am talking about an emergency situation in which most people think, “We have to do this pretty fast”.

We could still have our referendum. If the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, were accepted, there is nothing to stop the Government of the day saying to Parliament, “Despite all the risks of delay, we actually think this is a sufficiently serious matter to justify having a referendum”. That is entirely open to them, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is accepted. However, that amendment would remove the present danger in the text, which is that there would be an absolute requirement to have a referendum because there is no potential let-out for an emergency, even though that is the most plausible scenario for a treaty amendment and everyone, including us, would have agreed that it was an emergency and therefore justified the accelerated procedure. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

The noble Lords opposite will not be surprised to hear that I find it very difficult to accept this amendment. Coming from the Brussels angle, I remind noble Lords that in Brussels the word “urgency” relates to the French word “urgence”, which means of powerful importance. I recall that week after week, month after month in Strasbourg and Brussels, we had urgency debates which took place many days, weeks and sometimes months after the activity in question, such as a revolution somewhere or the Arab spring. It took me a while to realise that the English meaning of the word “urgency” is quick or hurry up whereas in French it means something that counts, something that is valued and something to which we should pay special attention. It is rather like high representative which does not mean high at all, but important.

I suggest that the transfer of sovereignty falls into the French “urgence” category—it is something of powerful importance—but inevitably Brussels life advances at the pace of a snail; it is very slow. Rather like the mills of God, Brussels grinds exceeding small and it takes a very long time. I have never known anything of importance, high-value, “urgence”, to happen at any speed in Brussels. Nor do I think that the transfer of sovereignty, important as it is, should be done in haste. I honestly cannot anticipate Brussels not taking maybe a decade over something of real value, such as the transfer of sovereignty.

When I joined the other place in 1980, I found myself dealing with a very important piece of legislation on intellectual property. It was data protection and intellectual property in computer software. When I arrived in the House of Lords, a decade later, I found that the Bill had been to Brussels and come back to the Lords and it was still in an active, first-step, consultation process. Two years later, when I arrived in the European Parliament, being lucky enough to be elected there in 1999, I found the Bill was in the European Parliament. It was just about to leave the European Parliament when I left a decade later. Powerfully important things such as that take a considerable length of time. How much longer do we imagine that the transfer of sovereignty would take?

During the past decade, we in the United Kingdom have very actively supported the enlargement of the European Union. It now has 27 states and more are coming in: Croatia tomorrow and the Balkans the day after. As a result, quite properly, the slowness has increased tremendously. It is no longer possible to put things through even at a reasonable speed; now things are slower than slow. That is why I do not see a referendum coming our way even if this Bill goes through in its entirety, which I hope and pray it will, for maybe at least a decade. Brussels is simply not able to think that way. The confusion of the euro, combined with the continuing enlargement, has made the whole system so slow, and I do not think that we will see a referendum in the next 15 years or so. Urgency, in English terminology, is simply not available.

21:15

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, if you do not mind me saying very briefly, I find the debate that we have been having since dinner of singular unreality. It reached its apotheosis in the last speech, which told us, “Keep calm dear, nothing is going to happen for 16 years. Everything is going so slowly, as they will be translating urgency from ‘urgence’ and back again and making something of it”. I am sorry, but you have to look back only one year to see a circumstance where there was a major crisis, when the Greek economy was on the point of collapse and the European Union, including Britain, decided that something needed to be done about it because otherwise there was a very real risk for the solidarity of the whole European financial structure. It is no good saying it will not happen. It has happened. Please do not tell me that it could not happen again.

So what happens then if you lock all the doors and throw all the keys out of the window, as the Government are absolutely determined to do? Their supporters have explained with enormous eloquence this evening how jolly happy we will all be when we throw all the keys away and we cannot unlock the door—we cannot do anything in less than two or three years or something like that—and we shall all be happy. What happens? They find some other way of doing it. That is what will happen now. And the British Government will help to find another way too, because it will be in our interests to do so.

This debate is a matter of total unreality. It has no meaning whatsoever. If the Government had a bit of common sense, they would see that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, does have quite a lot of sense in it.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I suggest that what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said illustrates the very reason why this amendment is undesirable. It is not in the interests of this country to get sucked into bailing out economies that have gone off the rails as a result of the problems of sharing a currency. Had there been a requirement for a referendum, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the previous Government would not have been in a position to have committed this country to things to which he should not have committed us.

Charming and likeable though the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, may have been, this amendment is just another excuse for watering down the basic principle of this Bill. It is of less magnitude than the last amendment. Urgency is a subjective matter—it could arise; it could not arise—but the basic principle of the Bill is that the elite of British Governments will no longer be able to commit this country to loss of sovereignty and other such matters without the consent of the people.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all understand that events happen—although I believe that what Harold Macmillan said was, “Events, dear boy, events.” We also understand that in a crisis Governments get together and take the necessary decisions to deal with that crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said that we cannot envisage what sort of crisis we might be facing in five to 10 years’ time or even in two years’ time. The G20 is a very good example of the sort of body which has come to operate relatively effectively, as a form of consultation about a number of global problems. However, the G20 is of an entirely different quality from the European Union. If there were a crisis, the relevant Governments would necessarily get together and have to act, but they would undoubtedly act by consensus. That would be different from agreeing to change the structures and competences of a European Union, which is not simply an international organisation but a structure of law, a semi-confederal institution of which we have become a co-operative member.

Having had some informal conversations across the table with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I note that Article 48(6) states—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Is not the argument that he is adducing one that entirely excludes even the theoretical possibility that the European Union might turn out to be the best instrument for addressing the crisis that we are talking about? If the crisis can be dealt with by consensus with other Governments—the G20 or whatever—that is well and good, but what the Government are doing in the Bill is excluding the possibility that the European Union may be the most effective instrument for solving the problem and might need additional powers for that emergency.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Bill in no way excludes the European Union from being the appropriate body to respond. It is entirely appropriate that bodies such as the European Council and the Council of Ministers in its various forms should take decisions. How those decisions are taken, and what their legal implications will be, are matters probably best not dealt with in an emergency. Where there might be a transfer of competences, one should consider it not under emergency conditions but rather more coolly.

I was about to quote Article 48(6), which states that the decision under the simplified procedure,

“shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.

That is why urgent decisions will take 18 to 24 months to get through the various constitutional requirements, and why the question of what we mean by urgency does not limit the British Government.

It is of course very difficult to foresee what sort of crises we might face, or how and in what framework we and others would respond. The European Union exists as a framework and therefore may very often be used as such, and we and others would work through it. It has plenty of competences and the ability to take decisions by consensus in response to a crisis. However, that does not transfer powers and competences. That is the difference between taking urgent decisions and changing the nature of procedures, structures, powers and competences. With respect, I say that the urgency question is not an important part of the Bill. There would be sufficient time to complete the processes set out by the Bill, by an Act of Parliament and, where required, a referendum of the British people.

The second part of the condition is that the treaty change should be in the national interest. My noble friend Lord Howell said, when debating a previous amendment, that the national interest is not an entirely objective concept. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, agrees that the coalition has come together in the national interest and is acting in what we think is the national interest—although he may have a different view of the national interest from members of the coalition. Politics revolves around our contesting views of Britain's best national interests. Therefore, the concept is not an entirely objective one that we can usefully write into the Bill. No Government would agree to any treaty change at EU level if they were not of the firm belief that such a move was consistent with the national interest. No Administration would ever agree to a treaty change if they considered that it would be against the interests of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I assure noble Lords that the national interest, as we see it, is at the heart of every major decision that this Government take on EU matters—as I assume was the case with the previous Government and will be for any subsequent Government.

Having answered those questions, I urge noble Lords to withdraw the amendment. We have had a useful but general debate about what might happen in a hypothetical crisis that none of us can yet quite envisage, let alone consider what immediate changes in powers or competences it would require.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, just to take any possible lingering tension out of the highly charged environment of this Chamber—I would hate to wind up everybody inappropriately—I will tell you now that, in a few minutes, I will withdraw the amendment. Before I do so, I have to say that, from an intellectual point of view, these have been some of the more depressing arguments that I have heard. I do not mean to say that in order to be rude. I just think that we must allow ourselves the courtesy of being a great deal more rigorous.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, it is plainly the intention of the amendment to provide a means whereby, in circumstances which are very pressing and where we need potentially to adjust our capacity to act—this is about our capacity to act and the mechanisms that we can use to act—we do not deny ourselves the opportunity to do something if it is in the national interest.

I cannot imagine that it really needed any presentation to us, but I readily accept that what constitutes the national interest will not be determined by some objective basis, as would a demonstration of Boyle’s law of gaseous volumes. This is not a point that I have ever attempted to make. The national interest will be defined by the Government of the day, whether a single party or a coalition. We may or may not all agree with one another, but it is in the nature of our parliamentary democracy that the power to arrive at a conclusion about what the national interest is is vested in a Government that enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons and can proceed on that basis. In that sense, from a political point of view, it is a completely objective test. I know whether the Government of the day enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons precisely because I know what would happen if they did not. It is a very simple matter.

Let us not deal with this kind of discussion as though it were incumbent upon us to do something like Boyle did, in showing the way in which the volumes of gases under pressure react to it, which can then be set out in a textbook to be tested to kingdom come in any laboratory in the land. Let us deal with it as political people—I was going to say, if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was in his place, as humble members of the political class. Let us deal with it as political people—with a small p—who understand perfectly well the convention which decides what the national interest is at any time. I am sorry, but I cannot buy that kind of argument. I do not think it treats us credibly.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that it was never my intention in moving this amendment that the Bill should be watered down. I do not like that interpretation being ascribed to what I have said. I have always tried in the House, whether on the government Benches or on these Benches, to be very candid and very frank—it does not always win you friends—about what I am doing and why I am doing it, because it seems to me that life is a lot easier if you try to do it that way. The reason is not to water it down but to make certain that Ministers in any Government have the kind of authority and ability to act in circumstances which come along that we cannot predict.

I am not omniscient, and I cannot say any more than anybody else in the House what I know will happen or what kinds of competence we may require at a particular time to deal with those issues. I will be candid with the House: I did not expect the collapse of Lehman Brothers; I was astonished to know that we were within two hours of the Royal Bank of Scotland collapsing; and I notice that sovereign debt crises are occurring more rapidly and are likely to occur more rapidly. I just say to the House no more than that it is extremely likely that we will face more such circumstances. I do not want to feel that we do not have all the levers at our disposal in order to deal with them.

21:30

The decision would plainly be taken by the Government putting a proposition to Parliament about what is urgent in those circumstances, and Parliament would decide it. That was the question that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, was asking. It will unquestionably be what the Government of the day judge to be urgent. I am perfectly confident, knowing our incapacity in the United Kingdom to speak other people’s languages generally, that we will mean urgency to mean urgency—ce n’est pas le même mot que l’urgence en français. We will know exactly what we are saying and why we are saying it, and we will not need to borrow anybody else’s dictionary in order to translate it. In lots of legislation, we leave ourselves with emergency powers for circumstances we cannot predict in relation to national security and a wide range of other matters. We do that because we are sensible, and we take the precaution of allowing ourselves the room to be able to act.

I come to the conclusion that I put to the House, but it relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which, again, I understand. Of course, it would be great in all circumstances if we had sufficient notice of anything that happened to be able to go through every single process and feel that we had interrogated it to the nth degree. Of course that would be desirable. I understand that, but we do not live in a world which affords us that luxury on every occasion.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

What I was talking about was the transfer of great powers, which would be permanent; what the noble Lord has been discussing is matters of emergency. Those are quite different because, for example, on the financial crisis that has blown up in the European Union, it is perfectly possible for the Government—indeed, the Government alone, backed later by Parliament—to make decisions that might last for five years, but would nevertheless not be permanent transfers of power. That was what I was trying to get at.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, if I misunderstood the point, I of course apologise.

I conclude my remarks by saying that this does not involve the same sort of transfer of powers as under Article 48(6). It is not intended to do so. We have all acknowledged that it has a different standing.

My key point is this, and I address it to the government Front Bench to think about—even though they obviously cannot respond to it this evening in this particular debate. The G20 was as good an attempt as anybody could make in the circumstances to try to find some way of codifying the responses to the financial crisis across the world. Thinking of it professionally almost—as an economist—I think that it was a pretty poor outcome and the G20 did not do what it was supposed to do. The key players did not play the roles. It may be that a number of people, including eminent politicians from this country, talked up what the G20 was capable of doing and what its successes might be, but when we look at it in the cold light of day, we do not have in the international financial system the protections that some pretended there would be as a consequence of that meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for that is that a number of coherent economies in Europe that were used to mature financial operation found themselves without the tools to respond together, and that had a profound effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

7: Clause 3, page 2, line 38, after “decision” insert “also”

Amendment 7 agreed.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

8: Clause 3, page 2, line 42, at end insert “, and
(d) the Electoral Commission have issued a certificate stating whether or not it appears to them that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it. ( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the decision may be approved.
( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that fewer than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the decision may not be approved unless—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to approve the decision, and(b) each House has agreed to the motion without amendment.”

Amendment 8 agreed.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

9: Clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out “(1)(i) or (j)” and insert “(1)”

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I hope not to detain the House long on this. In a sense, with this amendment we are trying to skin the same cat in a different way. It is designed to extend the scope of the significance clause in order precisely to give our Government, because we want to support them and make them effective in the European Union, the flexibility to cope with the unforeseen. We have made this point many times in these debates. Basically, the Government point-blank refuse to accept its validity. They argue, first, that all the red lines and every issue in the Bill is of constitutional significance, including the full list of issues in Schedule 1, and that therefore any move on these issues should require a referendum. That is the Government’s position on my first point.

Secondly, they would argue that the EU has plenty of competences to act already in most situations, which is true, but that does not cover any potential new situations which we cannot foresee, to which my noble friend Lord Triesman referred. Thirdly, they argue that when we talk about circumstances that might occur which would require action, we cannot name any of these circumstances and that it is all hypothetical and nonsensical.

This amendment is on the assumption that it is not hypothetical and nonsensical. We can already see brewing in the European Union the makings of another big step forward towards fiscal federalism being considered at a senior level within the Union. One just has to read the—in many ways wonderful—parting speech made by Jean-Claude Trichet last week when he received the Karlspreis in Aachen. It was about the achievements of the European Union and all Members of the House should read it. He said that as a result of the present crisis, not today but the day after tomorrow, there would be a need for the creation of a European finance ministry and for member states to concede sovereignty over economic questions, particularly when they were in difficulties and failing to conform to European rules. I can understand his frustration in dealing with the situations in Greece, Portugal and Ireland.

If I was still an adviser in No. 10 Downing Street, my reaction would be to say, “Gosh, there’s something potentially quite big here coming down the track. We may well have changes of Government in France and Germany in the next couple of years. We have got to do some hard thinking ourselves about how we anticipate the situation”. I would say to the British Prime Minister that if he wants to avoid another big treaty, he has to think about how, on all the relevant issues—economic governance, supervision of the banks, the structural reforms necessary to make the European economy competitive and the advance of the single market—we can make Europe more effective. If necessary we have to be prepared to look at small changes in the treaties which we could make under the simplified revision procedure that would convince our partners that serious action could be taken that would not require another big leap forward. Therefore, that is what I would be doing.

These issues are likely to be right at the top of the agenda in the next two or three years. On page 14 of this wretched Bill, in Schedule 1, we see how it would inhibit any British Government from considering even the slightest change in decision-making processes in these crucial areas. In Schedule 1(2) we see that referenda would be required on any changes in the approximation of national laws affecting the internal market, any changes in the broad guidelines of economic policies, any changes in the adoption of provisions replacing the protocol on the excessive deficit procedure and any changes in the role of the European Central Bank on prudential supervision. These are precisely the issues that are going to be at the top of the agenda in European Union policy-making in the next few years, yet we are putting a ball and chain around the feet of our Ministers, because we know that Ministers are not going to put forward anything that would require a referendum, and we are preventing Britain from playing the role it should be playing in the next few years on these issues.

Some noble Lords may argue that these issues are nothing to do with Britain because we are not in the euro. I think that that is completely wrong. Although we are not in the euro, the success of the Government’s economic and political strategy very largely depends on the success of the euro area to which a huge proportion of our exports goes. If we are going to get a rebalancing of the British economy into exports and investment, we have to put forward policies for the success of the euro area, because we will not succeed in those ambitions unless we engage constructively in that debate. Yet we are hampered completely from engaging constructively in it because of the conditions of this Bill. So let us be pragmatic. Let us give ourselves the ability to act in our national interests.

[Lord Dykes]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is not that point even more relevant when one thinks of the very helpful and positive Answer of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, answering Questions on Monday, when he said how important it was to maintain the solidarity of the UK with the eurozone through all the common work that we are doing together? Is that not even more important now that we are going to have the pan-European financial supervisory agency based in London? What if a crisis emerges that needs to be dealt with precipitately by all national Governments together?

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is so right. I actually congratulate the Government in many respects on their attitude. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech in Paris earlier this year in which he said, “We are not in the euro but by gosh we want the euro to succeed. It is absolutely essential to our interests”. This was what Mr Osborne said. Some Members on the Conservative Benches may not recognise that point but that is where Britain’s national interests lie and we have to have the flexibility to deal with these situations. I do not know what precise flexibilities would be required but we have to have that.

In terms of historical parallels, I am reminded of Harold Macmillan’s wonderful quote, “Events, dear boy, events”. Of course it was Harold Macmillan as Chancellor of the Exchequer who had failed to realise the significance of what was happening at Messina and then woke up later to the reality of the treaty of Rome and the threat that this presented to Britain’s position in the European Union.

Harold Macmillan wrote in his diary—using the language of a man who had fought in the First World War and lived through those experiences in a different age from that in which, thankfully, we are living in—that, “If we were to allow the French and the Germans together to create a united Europe with Britain not being a part of it, we would be sacrificing everything that our men had fought for in two world wars”. That was his view in the 1950s. Our view today should be decided on the basis of a proper calculation of our national interest. We need to be fully engaged in all the questions affecting the European Union. We ought not to have this ball and chain, and we should have some flexibility. That is why I urge the Government, even at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill, to think about how it could be amended to give Ministers the pragmatic flexibility they need in order to represent our national interests effectively in Brussels and in order that Britain can live up to its role as one of the leading partners in the European Union. I beg to move.

21:46

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I think that this is what might be called the Rumsfeld amendment, because it has been moved to deal with the unknown unknowns. That is what it is all about. I had not remotely intended to speak in this debate, but the noble Lord’s enthusiasm is so infectious. He looks at the European Union and sees that nothing has ever gone wrong with it. We ought always to be in there and engaging with it. We must be careful not to miss the train. We must always be positive regardless of what is happening. He tells us about the wonderful speech that Monsieur Trichet has made, saying that we ought to have fiscal union in order to save the euro. No mention is made that that comes out of the ashes of the disastrous ruin of monetary union.

I think it was the noble Lord who used the same arguments to try to persuade us to join the euro. He said that we are losing influence. Even though the euro has now itself faced enormous problems and even though some of my noble friends on the Back Benches have said that we shall never be able to have a single currency area without a fiscal union, we are told, “That is ridiculous. Now fiscal union is just another great step forward. We have got to be positive about it”.

The noble Lord also says that the European stability mechanism is another thing that we are missing out on, and that we ought to be involved in it. Of course, the ESM is in complete contradiction to the whole basis on which the euro was set up. It is not because it was an unexpected disaster—it was a predicted disaster. The reason the ESM had to be created was because the treaties totally forbade it. Yes, we do face some unknown unknowns.

I apologise to the House because we should not all give our own views on Europe, but I was completely provoked by the noble Lord, who seems to be like Alice through the looking-glass: every disaster is seen as a step forward. We just ought to take a step back, hold our breath, and think about it a little.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am going to resist the great temptation to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I do so not because I do not think that he is completely wrong, which I think he is. He is quite wrong to write off the euro in this way, and he is wrong to suppose that we would not have had to face a systemic crisis caused by fiscal collapse in Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Whether or not the euro had ever existed, we would have needed to take intelligent and concerted action. The noble Lord, with whom I have debated these matters with great pleasure on many occasions over the years, is as wrong as he has always been. I am happy to give him good money in a private conversation afterwards that the euro is far from being in a state of crisis and that it will survive.

I hope noble Lords understand the very important distinction between a fiscal crisis, which has hit a number of countries that are members of the eurozone and have the euro currency, and a crisis for the euro itself. You can have a fiscal crisis caused by Governments overborrowing irrespective of the currency in which they are borrowing. Even if those countries had been members of the dollar area and had borrowed so much that the financial markets were in danger of ceasing to refinance them, there would have been a crisis affecting them; and because of the number of assets that we inevitably hold in those countries, which are major trading partners of ours here, we could not have been immune to a fiscal crisis irrespective of the currencies involved.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does the noble Lord accept that the ECB is technically bankrupt?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I accept nothing of the kind—the ECB has a triple-A credit rating, as I am sure the noble Lord knows.

[Lord Flight]

Would the noble Lord give even just a little bit of credibility to the argument that the problem of different economies sharing the same currency is that the costs of some in the southern part of Europe have gone up 35 per cent while Germany’s costs have only gone up 10 per cent, so they have a big competitiveness problem, which is part of their fiscal problem? In the case of Spain and Ireland, the problem is that they have had a low rate of interest that is unsuitable for their own domestic rate of inflation, causing real interest rates to be negative. That caused everyone to borrow too much and the banks to lend too much, so they have had an overlending problem, in part caused by the fact that they are sharing an inappropriate currency. If they had their own currency, they could devalue when they had such a crisis.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am getting signals, quite rightly so, from my Front Bench so I really must not respond to the substance of that because I shall be turning this into a debate—which we ought to have in this House on these important matters—on fiscal and monetary issues in the European Union at present. I hope that the Government take note of the obvious interest on their own Benches in having the opportunity to discuss this matter and exchange our various perspectives on it. I wanted to intervene really just to support my noble friend’s excellent amendment. If it is accepted by the House, it will get rid of a large amount—80 or possibly 90 per cent of the damage—that could be done by this Bill. If this amendment goes through, Clause 3(4) would then read:

“The significance condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the decision states that … the decision falls within section 4 only because of provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and … the effect of that provision in relation to the United Kingdom is not significant”.

In other words, the only exemption from the need to have a referendum would be in relation to matters that were not significant for the United Kingdom. Surely, to accept this particular amendment is a cost-free concession on the part of the Government. I cannot believe that the Government actually want to provide for having a referendum on something that is not significant for the United Kingdom. Am I perhaps wrong about this?

We need to probe the Government’s logic a little here, because what an extraordinary thing it would be if the Government want to take through Parliament a Bill providing for the possibility of having referenda on issues that are not significant for the United Kingdom. The Government cannot turn around and use the argument that what is significant or not might be a subjective and difficult matter to determine at any one point, because they have already accepted in this Bill, as it stands, the need to make a distinction between significant and non-significant. That argument cannot be made. The only argument that can be made is that we need to provide for having referenda on something that is not significant, which does not make the slightest sense. I ask noble Lords to envisage a scenario in which we have a referendum in this country on something that everybody accepts is not significant for the United Kingdom. We ask the electorate to focus their mind on a difficult, technical and perhaps rather abstruse matter—maybe a whole package of such matters, which is what the Government have been suggesting recently; to take the time to master the relevant briefs or at least make up their minds on this matter; and to take time off from their work or from their leisure activities and go to the polls on something that they are told in advance is not significant for the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Since the noble Lord has such confidence in the judgment of Ministers that he wishes to recentralise the possible decision-making that would come through referenda, why does he not have confidence that the judgment of Ministers would be that something inessential would not come to Parliament in the first place? There is an illogicality in his circular argument.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

There is no illogicality at all. There is no need to provide for a referendum on something which is not significant for the United Kingdom unless the Government believe that they might, at some point, wish to have such a referendum, which I regard as an utter absurdity. It would be an insult to the electorate; it would be treating the whole electoral system of this country in a thoroughly frivolous way. I have to ask the Government: what is the purpose—what is the logic, because it is not clear to me at all—in providing for the possibility of referenda on non-significant subjects? It would be an utter contradiction in terms.

I have to mention to the House a matter which I must not go into in any detail for fear of breaking the relevance rule. I shall not do that, but I need to refer to the fact that a week or two ago the Government published a Bill on reform of the House of Lords which provides for fundamental changes to this House, and therefore to the legislature of this country, without providing for a referendum at all. So we have a situation in which the same Government are saying, on one hand, “We have to change the House of Lords in a fundamental way and we cannot have a referendum on it”, and at the same time saying, “We have to have referenda on changing the rules on qualified majority voting on taking decisions about the future of the public prosecutor’s office in the European Union”—something idiotic like that. Now they come forward and say, “No, actually we need to provide for referenda on explicitly non-significant matters”. What an extraordinary contradiction.

I see that, for once, I have the agreement of the noble Lords, Lord Flight and Lord Hamilton, as well as other distinguished Members opposite. Maybe the Government, in responding, should not just turn to me; they should turn to their supporters on their own Back Benches. They certainly need to turn to the country to explain the logic of the Bill, because, whatever it is, it does not appear to be coherent or something that has been properly thought through. I am sure that it is not deliberate hypocrisy—I would not dream of accusing noble Lords of that. Maybe it is some kind of confusion, but we need to know what it is, because what they are bringing forward seems to have no sense at all either from the rational or the pragmatic point of view, or to be credible in any way.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, perhaps it is for me to try to put this amendment back in its box, from which it seems to be rapidly escaping into fascinating issues such as reform of the House of Lords. I am not sure whether that is immediately germane to this amendment, which does not involve any transfer of powers or competencies to the European Union as far as I can see from the debate. I shall, if I may, abandon that and return to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved with fiery eloquence. He was frank enough to admit that the purpose of the amendment was an attempt to say, I think his phrase was, the same thing in a different way. I shall try to avoid giving the same answer in a different way, but I am afraid that the answer I am going to give will not please him very much. Anyway, I will do my best.

The amendment seeks to extend the scope of the significance condition beyond the two types of transfer of power identified by Clause 4(1)(i) and Clause 4(1)(j). We had a similar amendment, did we not, in Committee? I explained at that stage that the significance condition as drafted applies only where there may be a proposal for treaty change under the simplified revision procedure which would result in a transfer of power—I shall come to the competence issue in a moment—from the UK to the EU, as defined by the criteria in Clause 4(1)(i) and Clause 4(1)(j), namely treaty changes which seek to impose or extend a requirement obligation or sanction on the UK. It is only then that an assessment by the Minister is required as to its significance. As I said at the time, the significance condition is applied deliberately to such a limited range of proposals in order to establish a transparent and un-fuzzy, un-grey, unequivocal set of criteria, for Parliament as well as for the people, for which a referendum will be required under the Bill.

22:00

We agree that a minor proposal concerning administrative procedure need not constitute a transfer of power or competence. Therefore, it would be disproportionate to have a referendum before the UK could agree. The whole tableau of suggestions that referenda would be applied to these minor matters that I have described simply does not arise. We also want to ensure that the amount of latitude for Ministers is limited to maintain consistency. That is a deliberate purpose of the Bill. However, the amendment would go the other way. It would involve the extension of the significance condition, which is of concern to the Government and is not in line with our purposes.

I should make it absolutely clear that there would be no value in extending the significance condition to the criteria that are in Clause 4(1)(a) to (h). Those are the paragraphs that come before the two to which it does apply. Each of these criteria relates to a transfer of competence. At the beginning of the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out accurately that measures under the simplified revision procedure cannot be used to extend the EU’s competence; Article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union specifically stipulates that. Therefore, to extend the significance condition, as suggested by these amendments would create a sort of loophole through which you could drive a coach and horses.

Transfers of competence and questions of whether to give up UK vetos or emergency brakes in such very sensitive areas as tax, social policy, justice and home affairs—not at all trivial areas—will be left once again to the discretion of Ministers. They will determine whether the British people should be consulted. Therein lies the problem that we are all trying to address, and which has led to so much distrust and the feeling that Ministers will not necessarily be able to say no, which noble Lords on the Benches opposite urged as being the simple answer. Why do the Government not just say no? There is not sufficient confidence that that will happen because it has not happened in the past. Any move now to extend the significance clauses in the way suggested would leave the British people with very little confidence that the Bill will prevent a repetition of the past, when powers and competences were transferred to the European Union without people being given the say that they were promised.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, said in Committee:

“Disillusionment has crept in because over a prolonged period of years Governments of different persuasions have made promises on these matters which they simply have not kept”.—[Official Report, 26/4/11; col. 72.]

That is where the difficulty has arisen. That is the problem that we are addressing with the aim of strengthening public support for the Union, which is not strong, particularly at a time when the Union faces difficulties. I hope no one is suggesting that there are no such difficulties; they are being faced. The system, our commitment to it and our membership need public support. We must overcome that disillusionment.

Without the parliamentary and referendum locks—both of which are in the Bill, as we know—that we seek to include, we could condone so-called competence creep. It is possible; we have at least to ask whether it could be condoned through the simplified provision procedure, even though, technically, the TEU rules that out. I certainly do not suggest that the EU has tried or will try to smuggle transfers of competence past member states. However, while the Union is grounded in law and must operate within the express limitations of the treaties, we must remain vigilant to any proposal under Article 48(6) that might be aimed at doing just that. That is why we have arranged and crafted the Bill to ensure that Parliament will have a full and effective role in overseeing and interrogating the judgment of Ministers, and in assessing whether a transfer of competence may be taking place under a particular proposal. That is a clear message sent by the Bill—that the people and Parliament will have their say on specific treaty changes and measures—and it is a more effective route to a more open and accountable relationship between the UK, its peoples and the European Union.

In Committee, the Government were accused of cynicism by some noble Lords for including the areas that we have in the automatic referendum lock. I suggest that the referendum lock that is easy for Ministers to pick and dismantle would itself lead to an increase in public scepticism that decisions taken in their name at the EU level are made without their consultation or consent. The amendment would deliver exactly this state of affairs. It would replace the clarity and certainty of the Bill with obfuscation and opacity. The Government intend to bring the UK’s relations with the EU into the light. We can only do that if we are prepared to move away from these grey areas that are constantly being sought by these various amendments and defend our actions clearly to this House and to the people.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, had some further remarks on a theme that has run through many of these discussions; namely that somehow the Bill would weaken our hand in the European Union, marginalise us and prevent Ministers from dealing with certain situations that lay ahead. The Bill will have no impact on the UK’s ability to play an active leading role in negotiating and shaping the legislation agreed in the European Union out of the provisions of the existing treaties. The day-to-day business of the EU is not within the scope of the Bill. The effect on our negotiating hand for changes is not in question. We can, and will, still continue to participate and negotiate in any treaty change or use of the passerelle without hindrance. Any proposition to the contrary is not founded on the facts or practice.

I return to the remarks that I quoted and which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, elaborated on. The European Scrutiny Committee asked our very distinguished permanent rep in 2003-07, Sir John Grant, how he might have operated had the Bill been in place. He replied that,

“since by definition the Council’s working groups and the Council of Ministers worked within the competence of the EU and as there could be no negotiations on legislation where there was no competence, the Bill, which concerns itself with competence or changes in voting procedure, would have made no difference”.

Here we have the voice of reality, of the practitioner, speaking against the theories, extravaganzas and possibilities that remain ill defined and do not coincide with the way that the European Union works. The whole proposition that there must be add-ons of power, additional treaties, an abandonment of vetoes and transfers of power to the European Union is a vague future pattern that simply does not fit with the reality of how the European Union is developing and is tackling all sorts of issues.

No doubt there will be crises ahead. Of course there are crises. However, there are competences to deal with the crises. There are all sorts of operations and patterns that can be developed to meet these things. The noble Lord talked about Jean-Claude Trichet talking about the day after tomorrow and the possibility of a finance minister emerging—a sort of grand treasurer of the European Union. The idea that such things are possible, that propositions on such major and central issues of our sovereign control of our finances could be brought forward without the consultation of the British people, is absolutely incredible.

I hope that these matters do not come forward. However, if they did, they would raise very important issues that would excite considerable public comment and attention and deal most intimately with out national interests and plans. We would have to start thinking about that which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talks about. This thinking ought to lead rapidly to ways in which we could deal with these issues in a co-operative and practical way. However, if it came about that there was an overwhelming demand and conviction that there should be a new treaty throughout the whole European Union, it would certainly have to be put to the people. The idea that it would not be put to the people is absolutely incredible.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect, this amendment is about having a referendum, or not having a referendum, on matters the effect of which—to quote the Bill—

“in relation to the United Kingdom is not significant”.

Nobody in the world would argue that setting up a finance ministry for the European Union was not significant for the United Kingdom; the question is why we should have referenda on matters which are not significant. The noble Lord has cited a lot of possible scenarios, all of which involve dramatically significant events which would obviously be significant events for us, but the big issue concerns why we should have a referendum on matters which are known not to be significant for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that we are arguing in a circle because the Bill provides the significance test and matters in paragraphs (i) and (j) of Clause 4(1), which I have described, might well be ruled by Ministers not to be significant, and therefore there would be no referendum. Furthermore, in Clause 4(1) there is a whole string of exempt conditions where no referendum will occur. Therefore, I do not see what the noble Lord is worried about. As regards issues that are deemed to be insignificant, or issues that are deemed to fall under Clause 4(4)—sorry, I said Clause 4(1), whereas I meant Clause 4(4)—Clause 4(4) states that:

“A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section merely because it involves one or more of the following”.

There is your list. There are the things that are not significant which will not attract a referendum. The noble Lord was speaking with great feeling and fervour but I cannot see that his worry is well founded. I am clear that this amendment would not assist the purposes of the Bill and would undermine certain values and aims of the coalition’s European policy. On that basis, I strongly urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I will withdraw the amendment, but the Government are making a major mistake in not listening to the points made not just from the opposition Benches but from the Cross Benches as well about the necessity to keep open some flexibility to deal with the unforeseen. If the United Kingdom wants to resist major treaty change, we will almost certainly have to propose minor changes which would demonstrate a willingness to deal with the practical realities of the situation that the EU would be facing. It is the Government who are not living in the real world and not facing up to what it is necessary to do if we are to be an effective member of the European Union in the years ahead. I regret very much having to say that, but with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.13 pm.