Religion in the United Kingdom

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for securing the debate today on one of the key issues facing the UK and its diverse religious communities.

The benefits of religion and of those who follow a faith to their communities locally or nationally cannot be underestimated. Others have spoken of problems in society today and I want to focus on the positive work of our faith communities. Six years ago, when I was deputy chair of the East of England Development Agency, we funded a report on the vital role played by faith communities in social, economic and spiritual terms in our region. The research was carried out by the University of Cambridge and it discovered that volunteer time in our faith communities was valued at a minimum of £30 million a year. Work is varied and its scope impressive—working with homeless people, support for those who abuse drugs and alcohol, and anti-racist projects as well as the more traditional social cafes and outreach groups from church, synagogue and gurdwara.

Particularly important has been the support and, therefore, the benefit to child-focused services, including a project in Watford called Girl About, supported and promoted by the Soul Survivor church, working across Watford in a safe and supportive environment with vulnerable young teenage girls in and out of school. There is also much work in faith communities with the elderly. The survey mentioned that, in the region, more than 30% ran both formal and informal learning projects to help adults to improve their skills.

I remain impressed whenever I visit a faith-based organisation at its commitment to its outreach work. The Faith in the East of England report says:

“Secular bodies find it hard to understand that people of faith must be true to their faith, and not confuse this with a fear of religious people trying to convert others”.

It is on the basis of public benefit that the Charities Commission grants 99% charitable status to religious applicants. Last week, however, there was a heated debate in another place, suggesting that this might be under threat because of the case of the Preston Down Trust, a member of the Plymouth Brethren. It was denied charitable status because of an inability to demonstrate true public benefit and concerns about disbenefit to adherents, including, for example, not permitting any of their young people to go to university and worries about those who chose to leave. The debate in Hansard suggests that all Christian charities are now under threat as a result of this case.

The truth is far from that. Nearly 20% of all charities on the register are for the advancement of religion, with many hundreds of new Christian charities being registered each year. The commission is working with many faith groups to make applications easier and faith groups were a key part of the consultation in 2006 before the new guidance came into place. The Evangelical Alliance said of the new guidance:

“Religious Charities can be reassured that the propagation and teaching of faith principles will continue to be regarded as beneficial, provided it is open to and directed towards the public as a whole”.

This last phrase is key to the Preston Down Case, and why it differs from others. Others may speak on this later in the debate, but I am aware that, even with recent improvements, many of the brethren groups are not what we would describe as truly open, as they have restrictions on free and open contact with the outside world, especially with family members who have left. Contrast that with the exceptional contributions by many faiths that I have outlined earlier and the clear guidance from the Charity Commission. I think we have much to be proud of from across our faith communities, and their contribution to the United Kingdom today.

Bangladesh: Human Rights

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Hussain on securing this important debate on a subject that, frankly, needs to be discussed more openly for the safety of politics and democracy in Bangladesh but, more importantly, to save the lives of those who dare to oppose the Government.

For those of us who remember Bangladesh 40 years ago—the bitterly fought war, the emergence of the new nation, as well as the many natural disasters that Bangladesh has had to face—we recognise that this is a country struggling against many odds. Most of us have watched and willed Bangladesh to take its place as an open and emerging democracy in the 21st century. But the recent, continuing and increasing disappearances of people, especially politicians, is worrying. With elections due next year, it does not take much to see that the silencing of opposition individuals who may either be a threat to or a thorn in the side of the current Government is a useful but illegal tool. As has already been referred to by my noble friend, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both catalogued very specific examples in shocking detail. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina says that her Government have zero tolerance for extrajudicial killings, but she has singularly failed to investigate allegations properly or to bring the perpetrators to book. Actions speak louder than words.

One of the most publicised disappearances, already referred to, has been that of Ilias Ali and his driver. I will not go over the details of that case, but I will say that when the Prime Minister asked the police to investigate, she also accused him, quite extraordinarily, of going into hiding so that his own party could cast guilt on the ruling Awami League party. Protests at the time objecting to politicians’ disappearances were quelled by tear gas, batons and bullets from the local police.

More recently, and perhaps more worryingly, when Sheikh Hasina was being feted in the UK during the Olympics, she had ordered the arrest of Mir Quasem Ali, a leading member of the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, who is well known both as a politician and through his ability to reach people through the Jamaat newspaper and media group. It appears that his real crime has been to criticise the war crimes tribunal set up by Hasina, which seems to take a very retributional approach rather than the justice and reconciliation examples set in South Africa and, more recently, Northern Ireland. I hope that Bangladesh might turn to look at that model. During the Olympics when Sheikh Hasina had a meeting with Ed Miliband, she gave a public undertaking that,

“all the future elections in Bangladesh will be held in a complete fair and neutral manner”.

Let us hope that that is the case.

There are other human rights issues too, on which others have touched. There has long been concern at UN and international level about the role of women in Bangladeshi society, with a real worry that female education still is restricted to suitable domestic training. With a woman head of state, that is ironic. Forced marriage for young girls also remains a real problem, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, referred earlier.

One man who has done much to develop the economic independence of poor women in Bangladesh has felt the wrath of the Bangladeshi Prime Minister. We know Mohammed Yunus as the Nobel Prize winner who, more than 30 years ago, almost single-handedly developed microcredit for women desperately trying to survive on not even subsistence-level incomes. Lauded across the world, and teaching other countries how to model his Grameen Bank, most would assume that he would be equally celebrated at home in Bangladesh for his work that has saved the lives of millions, and has given meaning and brought income to millions more women—but not a bit of it. It is said that the Prime Minister thought that she should have received the Nobel Prize herself.

Regardless of that, there has been a very public vendetta against him. I am told that there is a Bangladeshi word for this and I apologise if I pronounce it wrongly. It is “hinghsa”, which means vindictiveness or jealousy. This seems to be a state form of jealousy. As a result, Mr Yunus has been forced to retire from the Grameen Bank at short notice on a technicality and a public tribunal. The Government say that they have the right to do this because the Grameen Bank is a government bank, but the majority of it is held by very small stakeholders with the Government owning 3%.

My noble friend Lord Hussain referred to the specific issues of the Rapid Action Battalion in Bangladesh. I want to raise one matter that so far has not come up. In the past, the UK has provided training for the RAB, which is worrying. I understand that the staff from the NPIA have also taught the RAB appropriate intervention and interviewing techniques that meet international standards. But the flagrant breaches of these standards by the RAB must now cause us to question whether we can continue with this training. It is interesting that for exactly this reason the US has now stopped training in this method and financial support.

It also is worthy of note that the World Bank and the IMF have delayed payments and loans to Bangladesh because they are so concerned about the situation there. Despite that, we still provide £250 million a year to Bangladesh in aid through DfID. Surely, the time has come for us to review this in light of the human rights cases, especially those designed to undermine and prevent the democratic process from taking place, as a matter of urgency. Please can the Minister let us know what the Government are going to do to ensure either that payments are withheld or that there are proper strings attached to any aid we might provide. Worries about terrorism should not permit state-sponsored terrorism.

Iran: Capital Punishment

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There have been successive UN resolutions. We are limited by the fact that not every member of the UN Security Council is agreed on how far we should go in these affairs. I cannot answer my noble friend precisely on when the last resolution came through—I do not have it in front of me—but I shall certainly write to him giving the details that he wants.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, following the welcome judgment by the UK Supreme Court in 2010 that overturned the previous Government’s refusal to grant asylum to homosexuals from Iran, what are the UK Government doing to work with other Governments, such as that of Australia, who bizarrely still believe that it is acceptable to argue that it is possible to hide one’s sexuality?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Our position is quite clear. As my noble friend is aware, we regard all these abuses and attitudes as offensive against human rights and we would like to see them changed. We are working both bilaterally and at the United Nations on all these issues and I assure my noble friend that every opportunity is taken to make known our views and to press them on the countries concerned.

Israel and Palestine: West Bank

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Brinton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Israel following the recent order to Palestinian farmers in the West Bank to uproot their olive trees.

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

My Lords, the Government are aware of the recent order by Israeli authorities to Palestinian farmers in the West Bank village of Deir Istiya to uproot 1,400 newly planted olive trees. On 8 May, our embassy in Tel Aviv raised our concerns with the Israeli authorities responsible for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We encourage and expect Israel to adhere to its obligations under international law.

[Baroness Brinton]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that the Israeli Government seem to be changing the rules about land ownership on the West Bank at whim, what further pressure can the UK Government bring to bear on the Israelis to cease this illegal activity immediately and to allow the farmers to continue the cultivation of their trees, which is also their principal economic activity?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understand the concerns of my noble friend, who has direct personal experience of the situation in this area. There are difficulties in that there all kinds of different rules governing the ownership of land—layer after layer of them arising from the different status of this area over several decades. This causes confusion and difficulty, and my noble friend is right to identify it. These are the problems. We keep raising them with the Israeli authorities. Obviously, if the trees were mature and established, it would be even worse, as ancient olive trees are of great value, but even with these newly planted trees, there remains a constant dispute about whether the area is a nature reserve, as the authorities suggest, or an area where planting can properly take place. We shall keep monitoring the situation very closely indeed.

European Union Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I find this a fascinating amendment because those of us who are opposed to referenda in any case are now presented with somebody who is in favour of a referendum but does not want to have it when it is inconvenient. This is a most peculiar amendment. I think that referenda are always wrong in a parliamentary democracy and I have always stood by that. I have never changed my view from that and I am not changing it now, but if we are to have a referendum, the concept that we must not have one except in three years’ time, irrespective of what the public think, seems a most peculiar argument. To complain about the fact that in a second referendum people made a different choice seems an odd thing. After all, that was the choice the people made. I think that this is proof of why referenda are not an acceptable way forward, because the truth is that a referendum analyses what people think at a particular moment.

I became opposed to referenda at my father’s knee. I remember just after the war he was explaining to his infant son about politics. He said that he remembered the peace pledge. Eleven million people signed the peace pledge and two years later one could not find any of them. Once we got near to the war, they all disappeared. That is the problem with a referendum, because it is an irresponsible act—one is not responsible for the vote that one makes because it is secret and private. Surprisingly enough, I found a number of my constituents who voted one way in the referendum we had about remaining in the European Union and who within two or three years decided they had really voted the other way. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and felt that they had mistaken themselves, but if one is going to have a referendum, one has to have it without strings.

The noble Lord is presenting something that gives the lie to the whole referendum argument. People who want referenda want referenda because they want a particular response. That is why they want them. They want it because they think it will produce a particular answer of which they approve. When they find that there is a possibility that it might not produce that, they want rules to make sure that the public cannot have another go. I beg your Lordships’ House to accept that if we are going to have referenda, we had better have them on a fair deal and not on the basis that we restrict them in case the public possibly take a different view the second time.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I cannot really follow the points of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on referenda. I disagree with his initial argument, but I support the principle about the people having their say, whether one agrees with it or not. I find it understandable that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, proposed the amendment, given the frustrations that he and his colleagues clearly feel about both the Irish and Danish referendums on treaties in the past, but it seems to me that there are two reasons to oppose the amendment.

In Committee, the Minister made the valid point that it would be very unlikely that two successive referendums would be called, not least for the important political reason that it would be likely to cost the Government of the day dear—assuming that it were the same Government—with a cynical public punishing them for so doing. Secondly, the Bill is not a crystal ball attempting to predict the future, no matter how much the noble Lord would wish it so. The Bill must allow for flexibility for a future Government and this amendment would tie their hands.

There are checks and balances within the Bill: a second referendum would require a second Act of Parliament with the detailed and appropriate scrutiny that comes with that—and that is before the Government of the day would have to start convincing the public of the need for that second referendum. There might be rare circumstances in which a second referendum were relevant—the checks and balances that I have outlined will force politicians and the public to think carefully about returning down the road of another referendum. To ban it completely for three years, or even five, as we looked at in Committee, removes that option for those circumstances which, though rare, are not impossible. There might be changes to the treaty that significantly benefited our country and other member states, which it might therefore be appropriate to consider. Or there might be a financial crisis in the eurozone—as there has been recently—in which the circumstances have so substantially changed that it might be appropriate to go back for a second referendum.

To conclude, the amendment seeks to remove the flexibility and the voice of Parliament and the people should there be a rare but necessary need to consider a second referendum.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I very much sympathise with my noble friend Lady Brinton because it is unlikely that any Government would be brave enough to hold another referendum on the same subject when the country had made it quite clear that it did not want the measure put forward originally. However, to turn to the distaste of referenda generally expressed by my noble friend Lord Deben, presumably that distaste is slightly tempered by the referendum confirming our membership of the European Union. Let us face it, this referendum was put forward by Harold Wilson to solve a problem that he had within his own Labour party and settle the issue for good. Many people—I am one of them—voted in favour of our remaining in the European Union and it seemed to settle the issue for some time after that.

European Union Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

European Union Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Lord Judd: My Lords, I take that as general advice to the House, rather than as personal advice. There has been a great deal of discussion in this important debate about the interests of the British people and national interests. There are those of us who believe that the biggest challenge of all in politics, across the political divide, is to lead the British people in understanding that the best way their interests can be furthered, in the very uncertain future that now faces us, is to build strong international institutions in which their well-being will be safeguarded by essential—this word that is now so respectable—co-operation with others.

When I intervened at an earlier stage in our deliberations on this Bill, I talked about the lack of vision behind this legislation. Having listened to this debate, I am frankly more concerned about that than ever. I really believe that we are losing sight of the wood for the trees. Of course I respect the legal arguments and niceties but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is absolutely right to say that if only our energy, thought and deliberations were going into how we strengthen international institutions rather than how we preserve a traditional view of our national interests, it would be a great thing for British politics.

I believe we have to look at the significance of this Bill in the real world in which we are living. We know that part of the political drive behind the Bill is to reassure the British people that they have a Government who are not going to allow this international institution to start running their affairs in any greater dimension that it does already. This is such a wrong concept of the interests of the British people. The whole challenge is how we strengthen this institution in protecting their interests, together with those of our fellow citizens in Europe and more widely.

I feel strongly that we must also recognise how the media will play these deliberations. We know that a great deal of the popular media will say to the British people, “This is a fight against British interests and the European Union”. We have talked in this debate about Brussels and the European Union as though it were separate from us, just as over the years we talked about the United Nations as though it were separate from us. They are us; they have no being other than us, together with our colleagues in Europe. Our challenge is how we should work and co-operate with others in Europe to make them strong and effective. There is a problem of the leadership within the European Union—the drive within its practicalities—having got ahead of and lost contact with the British people. There is a huge job to be done there in re-establishing political leadership and in understanding what is at stake and why certain measures are necessary or not. Most disturbing of all is the reality that if we pursue this Bill to its conclusion, the message that will go to our European partners is that our membership of the European Union is not a full-blooded commitment but conditional.

All of us who have participated in government and been through such issues in the past know that if there was something of such significance that the view of the British people should be tested, any responsible British Government would be prepared on an ad hoc, specific basis to consider a referendum. However, to build into legislation the concept of conditionality is not the way to enhance and strengthen our role within the European Union. From that standpoint, I believe very much that the amendment put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench and the other amendment, which in all practical respects reflects it, are the right amendments. We shall otherwise be making an historic choice in our deliberations: to go down the road of Little Englandism, as distinct from a role of real leadership and real participation in the international community, where the interests of our people can best be protected.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, although I oppose both Amendments 61 and 63 for attempting to kill the Bill before its effect can be seen in practice, I have some sympathy with Amendment 62. Over the eight days that this Committee has sat, many noble Lords have expressed concern from both the pro and the anti-European perspectives about detail that is often not in the Bill itself, as the Bill is not about policy but very much about a legislative route and framework. As a new member of this House, I have found it somewhat bemusing that we have ended up debating policy issues—particularly dead-fish catches—when the Bill seems really to focus on the framework. That is not surprising given the strength of feeling on all sides about Europe, and I recognise that it is unlikely that we will ever reach unanimity; obviously, much of the concern is about that. Indeed, that was expressed in the coalition agreement—that we would be working from different policy perspectives but trying to find a route where we could work together, better to engage with the British public.

I have some sympathy with Amendment 62, on the grounds that it proposes a range of actions available for a future Parliament, and a future Secretary of State and his or her Government. However, there is one fundamental flaw with Amendment 62, in that it proposes that Part 1 and Schedule 1 expire at the end of this Parliament. The Government have said that they do not expect any referendums during this Parliament, because it is not expected that there will be any transfers of powers or competences during this Parliament. As an aside, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is conflating the “policy versus law” argument that I made earlier, because the Government have announced that they are taking the logic of this and turning it into law for the framework, not tackling policy issues.

That is why I hope that the arguments made in Amendment 64, to which I have added my name, will find favour with the Committee. It is a probing amendment that tries to find a pragmatic route through the current impasse in the House. In the amendment, we propose a sunset clause for half way through the next Parliament, which will give time to see how the referendum lock would work in practice. Importantly, it also provides for the opportunity to revive the order, should a future Secretary of State so will it; of course the correct instruments would go through both Houses. This gives a future Parliament the means to let the Act expire or to revive it by order, without having to schedule large amounts of time in both Houses at the beginning of a new Parliament. Amendment 64 therefore offers a neat solution for those on all sides of the argument, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I had intended to intervene for the very first time on the Bill to make a passionate denunciation of the idea of a sunset clause—on its inappropriateness—and I understand that if I do not intervene today I might have trouble intervening at a later stage. Given the pressures of time, I hope that the House will give me leave to not make that intervention today, but perhaps to intervene at a later stage.

European Union Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grenfell]

I hesitate to intervene at this late hour but what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has just said provokes me to do so. He has, maybe inadvertently, hit the nail on the head. This Bill is about trying to prevent the European Union acquiring more powers in ways that the Government feel would be wrong. The noble Lord spoke about the difference between powers and agreement. In fact, the effect of the Bill is to prevent and make far more difficult the reaching of agreements within the European Union. That is what it is all about. It is not about power but the ability of the European Union to reach more and better agreements.

We have had an interesting debate that has covered an enormous number of topics. We have talked about the Monetary Policy Committee, the environment, piracy, human trafficking—all very interesting for those of us who respect the views of those who know what they are talking about. However, I am not sure that the coalition Government and those on this Front Bench are at all interested in this debate. They have already made up their minds; the integrity of Clause 4(4) has to be defended at all costs. They are not prepared to give way on any of this and do not want any additions to the clause. One wonders what this debate is all about.

I do not want to belittle the powers of this House to be able to persuade Governments to change their minds, but on this particular issue I am a pessimist. We are not going to be able to do so because if these excellent amendments are accepted, one of the central pillars of the whole Bill collapses. When that pillar collapses, the whole edifice begins to crumble, so I am sure the Government are going to stick firm on this. It will be extremely hard for us to persuade them to accept any of these amendments. That depresses me greatly because these amendments are vital. I suggest that we make every effort to persuade the Government, but I am a pessimist on this. The case has been well made by my noble friends Lord Triesman and Lord Liddle to get these amendments through, but if the Government are not prepared to accept them this bad Bill becomes even worse.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I absolutely agree that the policy areas set out in these amendments are important for debate. We had an extremely interesting debate earlier and it is absolutely key as well that the EU continues to focus on these issues. However, I am really struggling to identify the areas within the existing treaties where the EU is not able to act. I would be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, if he could help by giving some specific examples. On those covering climate change, for example, which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke eloquently about earlier, I understood that Article 191 of TFEU allows the EU to act in,

“preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment”,

so where is it not covered that requires this amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Article 170 says:

“To help achieve the objectives referred to in Articles 26 and 174”,

et cetera,

“the Union shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures”.

That seems to me very much to give the competences needed.

[Baroness Brinton]

I am grateful for that intervention from my noble friend Lord Wallace, which was much more informed than I could possibly have given.

[Lord Deben]

It was a perfectly right intervention but that does not actually give powers to compel. It says that the countries shall do it but there is no mechanism at the moment to insist that they do it. That is the issue.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I fundamentally disagree with that point. The key point here, which we have come back to day after day on this Bill, is that this is about the process not the policy. The process has been absolutely clear and I still wait to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on where these are not covered by existing treaties.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was good enough to mention me in his few remarks and to accuse me of what I think was the impossible and most undesirable dream of the United Kingdom being altogether free of the European Union in all these matters. He is of course correct. However, he then mentioned the common fisheries policy as though that has to be solved by the European Union and as though the EU will not solve the acknowledged disaster which the policy is, environmentally and in every other way, if it is prevented from doing so. Surely, from our point of view, as I have mentioned before, the answer is terribly simple. We simply leave the European common fisheries policy and take back our international waters. Seventy five per cent of the fish which swim in European waters all the year round swim in waters that used to belong entirely to the United Kingdom before we made the mistake of joining the European Union. We then manage our own waters, re-establish our fish stocks and let out any surplus to foreigners.

On energy, the noble Lord again believes that the European Union is essential to solve our energy problems but, surely—