EU: UK Opt-in Protocol (EUC Report)
Baroness Quin Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The UK’s opt-in Protocol: implications of the Government’s approach (9th Report, Session 2014–15, HL Paper 136).
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the report for today’s debate focuses on the Government’s policy on the opt-in protocol, which allows the UK and the Republic of Ireland to opt in to or out of EU justice and home affairs measures. The report concerns, in particular, the Government’s approach to measures—most often, international agreements—which do not have a justice and home affairs legal base. The policy of the Government is one that the former coalition Government applied from 2010 onwards, during which time both the EU Select Committee of your Lordships’ House and Sub-Committee E, which is the Justice Sub-Committee, had occasion to question its lawfulness.
The inquiry that led to this report was triggered by a letter from the then Justice Secretary and the then—and current—Home Secretary in June of last year setting out the Government’s opt-in policy in some detail. The novel reasoning underpinning that letter prompted us to hold a short inquiry. We wanted to seek the views of legal experts on a dispute that had hitherto been confined to us and the Government. We were also prompted by a series of judgments from the Court of Justice over the previous two years that appeared to put the Government’s policy in some doubt, so we wanted to seek the views of legal experts on those cases also.
While our inquiry at first glance may appear to have focused on a very narrow area of government policy, we felt that the Government’s approach raised wider concerns. First, we were increasingly concerned that the approach violated basic EU principles. We also thought that it could give rise to legal uncertainty in the many international agreements that the EU concludes and therefore cause the third countries negotiating those agreements uncertainty. We were also concerned that the Government’s approach could be counterproductive to our interests in the EU and could possibly undermine our good standing and our reputation with our partners.
In essence, the main issue that we wished to resolve was whether the opt-in protocol could be applied when the Government alone, unilaterally, considered that a proposal for EU legislation contained justice and home affairs content or whether a formal justice and home affairs legal base, under Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, had to be cited.
While we were concentrating on this very specific aspect of government policy, we noted—and our report makes this clear in chapter 2—that,
“the opt-in Protocol has provided the UK with a very effective safeguard against participating in legislation with a legal base in Title V, particularly internal EU legislation”.
This fact is clearly demonstrated when you look closely at the Government’s annual opt-in reports, but it was not mentioned at all in the Government’s evidence to the inquiry, which is why I stress it here today.
I should also add that the recent balance of competences review undertaken by the outgoing Government does not seem to suggest that, in justice and home affairs with the opt-in and opt-out processes that are available to them, the Government have had any particular difficulties in safeguarding their position on these issues. Overall, from the Government’s point of view, the system seems to have worked satisfactorily—perhaps the Minister can confirm this in his reply—whereas so often the general impression seems to be given that the EU is somehow constantly a threat in this area of policy and has to be constantly resisted.
Before I turn to the substance of our conclusions, however, let me mention our concern with the Government’s way of co-operating—if that is the right word—with our inquiry. Four months elapsed from the launch of the inquiry until the Government submitted written evidence and confirmed their willingness to attend to give evidence. By that time, all our other witnesses had given evidence and we were contemplating having to report without the Government’s own evidence. The Government explained that the delay was caused by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, delivered last June, which they had been considering, but in our view that judgment, although complex, did not justify such a long delay in the Government’s co-operation with the inquiry. We stated as much in the introduction to our report, and we hope that similar delays will not occur in future Select Committee inquiries of this House.
It is also disappointing, of course, that we have not had the Government’s formal response to this report today. It would, I am sure, have better informed our debate. After all, our report was published on 24 March and the Government are normally obliged to respond within two months. Obviously, we had a general election, which meant that purdah was in place, but in accordance with this an extension for a response was given until 22 June, yet we learn that the Government are still considering their response. I would like to hear from the Minister today whether he has a firm date for the formal response to be sent to us. Even though time is fast running out, can we be assured that this will be before the parliamentary Recess next week?
I now turn briefly to summarise the committee’s conclusions under our chapter headings. In chapter 3, we looked at the meaning to be given to “pursuant to” in Articles 1 and 2 of the opt-in protocol. None of the expert evidence we received in the course of the inquiry supported the Government’s broad interpretation of “pursuant to” in that protocol. We felt that this was significant in itself and we noted in particular that the Republic of Ireland did not follow the UK’s practice of applying the opt-in protocol in the absence of a Title V legal base. We agreed with all our witnesses that a legal base was also necessary to define the source of the EU’s power to act and that this was consistent with the principle of conferral. We therefore concluded that the phrase “pursuant to” had an accepted legal meaning and that in the context of the opt-in protocol it meant that the Title V legal base was required before the opt-in could apply.
We also felt that the Government’s very broad interpretation of “pursuant to”, of the merits of which they tried to persuade the Court of Justice, would actually give the EU wide powers to increase its competence in many other policy fields where it is mentioned in EU treaties. We queried whether this was a consequence the Government wanted. It certainly seemed to us to be potentially counterproductive—a word I mentioned earlier.
In chapter 4, we looked at the issue of determining the legal base of an EU measure with JHA content. Again, all the evidence we received here contradicted the Government’s approach to determining the legal base of a measure with JHA content. We accepted the weight of that evidence and concluded, as a consequence, that the Government’s distinction between whole, partial and incidental JHA measures was misconceived and that the Government should reconsider their approach.
In chapter 5, we looked at the issues of legal certainty and loyal co-operation in the negotiation of international agreements with JHA content. While we accepted that there is a distinction between actual and potential legal uncertainty, we concluded, none the less, that the potential for the Government’s policy to create real legal uncertainty was considerable. We concluded, too, from our point of view in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, that the Government’s approach creates legal uncertainty around parliamentary scrutiny, as the two examples we gave in the introduction to the report showed. These two examples related to the fourth money laundering directive, an important measure, and Kosovan participation in EU funding projects.
We were concerned that the Government’s unilateral interpretation raised questions about their acceptance of the uniform application of EU law. We were therefore also concerned about what impact that might have on the UK’s reputation among other member states. Finally in this section, we concluded that the Government’s policy puts them at risk of breaching the duty of sincere co-operation, under which member states have a duty to co-operate strongly with European Union institutions in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements.
In chapter 6, we looked at how the opt-in protocol had been interpreted by the EU institutions, because the Government put it to us that they believed that the Commission had actively pursued a policy of “legal base shopping”, in order to undermine the UK’s opt-in rights, which was a serious charge to make. Certainly, in one specific case they provided evidence that lent some support to this allegation in respect of the former Commission, and perhaps in particular a former Commissioner. However, it must be said that in this particular case the European Council of Ministers, quite rightly, supported the UK’s point of view, and the UK in the Council was able to overturn the proposal for the legal base that the Commission had made, pointing out that it is related to the substance of a measure and cannot be related to whether that measure might have a certain geographical coverage or not. However, despite that exception, which the Government had drawn to our attention, we concluded that there was no persuasive evidence at all to suggest that the Commission had circumvented systematically the UK’s opt-in rights.
In chapters 7 and 8, we looked at the case law of the European Court of Justice and the Government’s litigation strategy. While we recognise the Government’s concerns, again we concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the court for its part had sought deliberately to undermine the safeguards in the opt-in protocol. We concluded that it was highly unlikely that the court will change its established approach to determining legal bases, including for measures with JHA content, as the Government suggested it might, and we therefore recommended that the Government review their litigation strategy in the light of these conclusions.
Rather than just criticising the Government’s strategy, we also made one suggestion, that if they wanted to raise these concerns with their partners, they could consider the feasibility of an inter-institutional agreement on the scope of Title V. I would be interested to know whether the Minister feels able to respond today to that suggestion made in the report.
In conclusion, and in looking forward to hearing what other noble Lords may say on this matter, I will say that the sub-committee’s report was strongly endorsed by the EU Committee of this House and, therefore, comes here with all-party and non-party approval. I thank very much all colleagues who contributed to the inquiry, in particular my former colleagues on the EU Justice Sub-Committee, with whom it was a pleasure to work.
We believe that it is essential that the Government carefully consider the evidence which the inquiry received and which casts doubt on the legality of the Government’s policy. While the formal response to the report is still awaited, I none the less hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance here today. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
The French and German interpretations are also referred to in the committee’s report. Of course, the protocol has to be read as a whole on what its intention was. While I do not want to weary the Committee with the evidence that was given by government lawyers, the noble Lord will recall, no doubt, the fact that Article 1 should be read in the context of Articles 2 and 3. Indeed, I remind him of what John Ward said in his evidence to the committee, when the then Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary gave evidence. He said, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that,
“I think it is important that the words ‘pursuant to’ need to be read in the context of Protocol 21. Protocol 21, we say, is different because of the particularly sensitive nature of justice and home affairs matters. But it is clear, looking at the context of the rest of the treaty, that it is fully recognised that justice and home affairs matters are difficult and sensitive, which helps to interpret Protocol 21”.
Baroness Quin
I would like to pursue this further. The phrase “pursuant to”, which my noble friend Lord Richard referred to, generally has an accepted meaning, both in English and in the other language versions, which applies throughout EU legislation, and it is simply the Government who have one view and everyone else has another view. Is that not the case?
Lord Faulks
Of course, I do not dispute the evidence that the committee heard. The argument that was used in the course of the questioning by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was that we should be looking at the natural, ordinary meaning, which is the traditional way of interpreting a statute in British law. A purposive interpretation would admit a rather broader interpretation of what the protocol was intended to achieve in terms of the opt-in and opt-out.
These are deep legal waters, and we could spend a great deal of time debating this. I accept that the preponderance of legal opinion was against the government interpretation, but I respectfully refer the Committee to the fact some of the difficulties were acknowledged by the committee in the course of its evidence—not, I accept, specifically to deal with the “pursuant to” aspect, but to do with the choice of legal basis. Paragraph 119 of the committee’s report states:
“Dr Bradshaw said that the Law Society had no insight into the Commission’s thinking, but noted that the choice of legal basis was ‘a matter of profound disagreement on occasion, not just between the EU institutions and the member states, but also within and among the EU institutions’”.
Indeed, the conclusions of the committee at paragraphs 184 and 185 were:
“We agree with witnesses who have suggested that the CJEU’s approach to determining the legal base of international agreements means that the complexity of an agreement is not always reflected in the resulting choice: it renders somewhat invisible the ancillary or secondary objective, including ancillary or secondary JHA objectives. We understand why this would cause concern to the Government”.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, even though this has not been a long debate with many speakers, it has been a high-quality debate with many powerful points made. I am very grateful to my noble friends and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for all the words they have said in support of the work of the committee and of its report. I echo strongly the words of my noble friend Lord Richard about the excellent work that the clerks of the committee did. In my experience they worked assiduously and are immensely able. They certainly guided me, as a non-lawyer, through some complex legal territory which might have become a legal quagmire without their assistance.
I also thank the Minister for the manner in which he responded. His defence of the Government’s policy as it has evolved so far did not elicit much support from those who spoke in the debate, but I hope that in the Government’s consideration of this matter—which, given the long delay, I hope will be very serious—will take on board the points the committee made. Although I am no longer chair of the sub-committee and no longer a member of the EU Select Committee, I have a feeling that this subject will not go away as long as the Government persist in following this approach. I say that to the Minister in the hope that I may convince him and his colleagues to look more favourably on the report’s recommendations than we think may be the case at the present time. Having said that, I once again thank all those who have taken part in this debate.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Quin Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate, which includes a number of maiden speeches. In that context, I very much look forward, immediately after my own contribution, to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane.
Today’s debate focuses on a number of important themes. I cannot deal with all of them, but let me briefly record my strong agreement with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others, about the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I found the consequences of the general election deeply worrying for our constitution—consequences both from the actual election result in terms of seats and because of the approach to the constitution which the new Conservative Government seem from their election manifesto and from this gracious Speech to be likely to pursue.
Colleagues have spoken in this debate about their own experience of the election campaign. During that campaign I worked in three very different constituencies: in Gateshead, my old parliamentary patch; in Berwick-upon-Tweed, the constituency in which I now live; and in Glasgow East, where, despite the defeat Labour suffered, it was a pleasure working with a great team of enthusiastic and talented young Labour volunteers who I believe can make a great contribution in building up Labour support there once again.
I found it depressing that in a UK-wide election so much of the focus was on separate national identities rather than on our common British identity, and while I congratulate the Conservatives on winning the election I was frankly appalled at the tactics of claiming that Labour was in the SNP’s pocket. Not only was that not true but it played into nationalists’ hands in Scotland. It was no doubt a very useful short-term tactic to weaken Labour, but it was a very dangerous and irresponsible tactic for the long-term view of the cohesion of the United Kingdom. I am glad that some Conservatives, such as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who I am glad to see in his place, had the courage to voice their concerns about this.
The emphasis on nationalism within the UK was also evident, I felt, in some bizarre broadcasting decisions during the campaign. The BBC, of which I am usually an enthusiastic supporter, gave us regional election debates that meant in reality a question-and-answer session with Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, with Leanne Wood in Wales and, astonishingly, with Nigel Farage in England. Although I am no fan of UKIP, its title is the United Kingdom Independence Party, not the English Independence Party, and it has MEP representation in both Wales and Scotland. I certainly therefore resented UKIP being seen as the party of England in those debates. I can only feel relieved that despite the absolutely massive publicity given both personally to Nigel Farage and to his party, he was not actually able to win a seat in Parliament. I also thought that the absence of the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, from the regional debates was wrong. It was as if Plaid Cymru was the governing party in Wales in those debates, which is clearly far from being the case. Indeed, everything that happened in the election seemed to be aimed at reinforcing the view that devolution is only about national identity rather than about a rational and sensible decentralisation of decision-making.
Because of the nationalist surge, I also worry that south of the border we are becoming increasingly forced to identify ourselves as English rather than British, even though many of us, particularly those like me with mixed heritage, do feel British. As someone who welcomes and celebrates our increasingly diverse population, I am also aware that many people who came to our shores chose to come to Britain, to the United Kingdom, rather than to any one of our constituent nations.
I also have to say that I very much regretted what I felt were the Prime Minister’s ill-judged and ill-timed comments the day after the referendum in Scotland, when he announced his plans for English votes for English laws. To those people—the majority—who had voted no in the referendum, this seemed like a further erosion of the United Kingdom, to which they had just given their support. How much better it would have been if, in welcoming the referendum result, the Prime Minister had pledged to do all he could to make the UK as a whole work better and to listen and consult widely before making further constitutional decisions.
Of course, making the UK work better as a whole will no doubt involve not only honouring the commitments to Scotland and Wales but devolution and decentralisation within England, but this needs to be done in a way that contributes to the success of the UK as a country as a whole and does not undermine it.
Sadly, the Government are now embarking on a number of England-only policies, some of which verge on the incredible. Apparently, money is to be given to cities but only if they agree to have directly elected mayors, even in cities where there have recently been referendums that have resulted in that idea being rejected by the people. For a Government who are planning to hold an in/out EU referendum, it seems an alarming precedent to be already ignoring or contesting referendum results that have been held in cities in our country. Are the Government similarly planning to ignore the EU referendum result if it does not produce a result that they like?
In the north-east of England there are towns that have elected mayors and there are towns that do not, but I have not noticed a difference in the quality in local government there as a result. Indeed, as my colleagues from the north-east of England know, I always like to pay tribute whenever I can to the huge successes of Gateshead Council in recent years, yet Gateshead, with its superb record of partnership with both the public and private sectors, has a traditional model of a council with the leader elected by the majority of councillors. I ask the Minister directly why the Government are proposing to penalise such proven success and why they are proposing to override wishes democratically expressed in local referendums.
Devolution in England is complex both because of the size of England’s population and because of the different types of area within England. Some areas can fit into the city-regions model and some into the county-regions model, and some are a mixture of these, but the danger with one model is that some communities and rural areas, or areas such as the coalfield areas in the north-east, will lose out because they do not fit into some narrow definition decided by politicians at the centre. We need to get devolution right rather than rush into a single approach. I was glad that the Minister, in his opening comments, said that he rejected a one-size-fits-all approach across the UK, but I suggest to the Government that they also ought to reject a one-size-fits-all approach within England when looking at the issues of devolution.
Given, however, how complex further devolution within the UK is, this is why the constitutional convention is such a sound one. It has been remarkable that in this debate there have been calls for such a convention right across the House, from all quarters, so I urge the Government to give real consideration to this and not simply to plough ahead with their programme, which seems to be their approach at the moment.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Quin Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
Amendment 172B is in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Wigley, and relates to Clause 61. I tabled two more amendments in the same group with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, Amendments 178ZA and 178ZB, which are similar to the first amendment and relate to Clauses 86 and 95. Even though my noble friend spoke on a slightly different aspect, I associate myself with his comments and with his concern for victims.
Although I do not have a financial interest to declare, I was prompted to table this amendment by some work that I did some years ago with the Prison Reform Trust. We were part of a project called No One Knows, which looked at the experience of people with learning difficulties and learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. I chaired the project’s advisory group, which brought together people with knowledge of issues from various spheres, including members from Mencap, healthcare professionals, people involved in social care and learning and skills, and various practitioners and academics. We were also helped in that work by the Working for Justice Group, a group of people who have direct experience of the system and whose first-hand knowledge was invaluable to us.
The project produced what I hope was an authoritative report, Prisoners’ Voices, which was well received by Ministers at the time, who undertook to look at our recommendations. I am pleased to say that both the previous Government and this one have taken some action on those recommendations; in particular, we are about to have more of a proper screening programme in the prison system to identify people with learning difficulties and disabilities. There have been improvements in the training of prison officers in this respect, and the very welcome recent development of some offender behaviour programmes recognising these particular issues. In addition, the Easyread system is being adopted in various parts of the criminal justice system, to increasingly good effect.
However, I believe strongly that further improvements and commitments in this area are necessary, certainly as far as the courts are concerned, which explains the tabling of these amendments. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Wigley, for their support, particularly on an issue such as this, where I recognise their keen interest and experience. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for signing the other two amendments that I mentioned. It is perhaps particularly appropriate because I know that the Prison Reform Trust’s report, Prisoners’ Voices, has been taken very seriously in Wales. The previous Health Minister in Wales, Edwina Hart, was part of the launch in Wales of the report and the measures that we wanted to see adopted.
I am also aware that Mencap and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, had very similar concerns about this part of the Bill to the ones that are reflected in these amendments. I say to the Government that these are, at this stage, obviously probing amendments, but with the plea that the Government look at our concerns with a view to try to change the wording of the Bill to reflect their importance.
We know that a very large number of offenders have learning difficulties and learning disabilities. Obviously it all depends on the definition that you use. If you use a very wide definition of learning difficulty, you could make the case that the majority of people in the prison system are affected. The work and research that has been done suggests that a core of, say, 20 to 30 per cent of offenders and people in the criminal justice system are affected by learning difficulties and learning disabilities. If you have a prison population of 80,000, that means anything between 16,000 and 24,000 people; so we are talking about a considerable number of people that we need to be aware of.
The figures for young people are even more serious. Research by Professor Karen Bryan and others seems to indicate that more than half of children who offend have speech and language communications difficulties. About half this group have very poor skills indeed. It is important for all parts of the criminal justice system to be aware of this, but it is particularly important in the initial stages, when people charged come into contact with the system. The Bill refers to ordinary language, which is welcome as far as it goes, but I find it somewhat vague. What may seem ordinary to a well qualified and educated lawyer may be way out of the ordinary to a young offender with learning difficulties or learning disabilities. As the Prison Reform Trust puts it:
“The term ‘ordinary language’ is imprecise; what is ‘ordinary’ to a magistrate or a judge may not be ‘ordinary’ to the individual offender”.
In the course of our work, we came across some very interesting examples. For example, one young person was asked in court whether he was remorseful about the crime that he had committed. Since he did not know what the word “remorseful” meant and was rather distrustful of it, he said no. Even such words as “victim” or “breach” are sometimes sufficient to confuse or mislead someone in that position. Indeed, Mencap makes the point that almost a quarter of prisoners under 18 have a learning disability or difficulty, with a 78 per cent reoffence rate among those at risk. That reoffence rate is an important part of our concern that we have the ability to make sure that we communicate properly with such people, as that can help to avoid some of the later difficulties that we are all keen to avoid.
I am aware, in conclusion, that an amendment trying to do what I seek to do here was tabled in another place by my honourable friend Helen Goodman, and I accept what the Minister Crispin Blunt said in reply on that occasion—that that particular amendment was defective and could have resulted in omitting some valuable elements from the Bill. However, my amendment, in trying simply to insert some wording, seeks to rectify that, and for that reason I hope that the three amendments that I have tabled can find favour and that we can find a better wording than the imprecise and unsatisfactory current wording of the Bill. I do not believe that there is a difference of substance or principle here; it is really simply a concern that we get the wording right so that the desired result is achieved.
Lord Ramsbotham
I rise to speak in support of Amendment 172B, to speak to Amendment 174, and to speak to Amendments 173, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184 and 185 both on behalf and in support of my noble friend Lord Rix, who would have declared his interest as president of the Royal Mencap Society had he been able to be in the House.
I speak first to Amendment 172B. I must declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has already pointed out, more than half the children who offend have some form of learning difficulty. The inability to communicate is the scourge of the 21st century, about which I have spoken many times in this House, most recently in the context of the Health and Social Care Bill. Regrettably, except in Northern Ireland, there is currently no routine screening to identify children with communication difficulties or learning disabilities. Until and unless there is, and early remedial action is taken, these children will be unable to understand or participate in the judicial process without effective support, which in turn must be related to their abilities or lack of them. This is yet another example of a need, identified in this Bill, being inhibited by lack of provision in another Bill. I hope that the Minister will speak to the Department of Health before Report so that we can consider how best to proceed with this amendment.
Amendments 173, 177 and 181 to 185, to which I speak on behalf of my noble friend, who much regrets that he cannot be present, are all based on the principle of safeguarding vulnerable people in the criminal justice system. They also reflect demands that the system should be sufficiently flexible to achieve the delicate balancing act of protecting offenders with additional needs while prosecuting them. Of course, perpetrators must face the consequences of their actions, but they should not be denied the support that they may require in order to understand and participate in the judicial process.
Justice: Pre-trial Publicity
Baroness Quin Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are considering legislation to strengthen measures against pre-trial publicity which may prejudice a fair trial or undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, there are no current plans to legislate. The Government referred the subject to the Law Commission in the summer and we will study with interest its conclusions in due course.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, this Question was prompted by the case of Mr Jefferies in particular. He recently gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and described how, although innocent of any crime, he was vilified in the press to such an extent that he was in fear of his life. Any of us as citizens could imagine ourselves being caught in such circumstances simply by being linked through coincidence or circumstance to a crime. Although I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has shown himself willing to prosecute in such cases, will the Government none the less look at amending, for example, the Contempt of Court Act so that action can be taken at an earlier stage rather than when havoc has already been wrought on innocent victims’ lives?
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Baroness Quin Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
My Lords, given that the Minister referred to the amendment on regional development agencies, perhaps I could raise a point in relation to them. I am very disappointed that the Government did not change their mind on their approach to regional development agencies, particularly in my home region of the north-east where there has been strong support for an agency over a long period of time. Indeed, a former member of this House, Lord Burlison, to whom I pay tribute, was very active in setting up a home-grown regional development agency there before it was sanctioned by government. That shows the longevity of this issue in our region.
One area where the regional development agency was active was in supporting applications for European funding for regional projects in regions such as mine. It is not clear who will take over that role. A great deal of money is going begging at the moment. Given that we are in a time of financial stringency, it seems quite wrong that in an area such as the north-east, which has high unemployment, regional projects are not going ahead because no advice is available to bodies applying for regional funds, and nor are there matching funds. This very important issue is gaining prominence in the region. I would be grateful if the Minister would at least address it in his reply.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, this is an extraordinarily different Bill—as the Minister said—from the one that was published. Frankly, it was then an appalling Bill, with its unprecedented number of Henry VIII powers and with profound and chilling implications for many organisations that carry out public functions. I contrast the Bill as it was—the so-called cull of the quangos—with the proliferation of quangos, including the biggest quango in the world, that we will see as a result of the Health and Social Security Bill that is before us at present. Noble Lords applied themselves to the Bill in the best way that this House does, in a very impressive example of the House enacting its role in our legislative process properly and fully. As a result of the changes that this House made, including the removal of Schedule 7 and of those clauses that would have enabled the sale of the public forestry estate, the Bill left this Chamber a much improved piece of work—not with all the changes that we on these Benches would have liked, but much improved.
In part that was because the Government, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, responded properly and appropriately to the concerns expressed by the House and by many people and organisations outside it. Further changes were made in the Commons—hence the number of amendments under consideration today—and I am pleased to say that we on these Benches warmly welcome Amendment 1, moved by the Minister. We also welcome the amendments relating to S4C, and some others. However, like my noble friend Lady Quin, I am deeply unhappy about the amendments relating to the RDAs. Their inclusion in the Bill encapsulates the topsy-turvy legislative process that the Government seemed bent on pursuing earlier in the Session. The saga of the abolition of the RDAs was a disgrace—a prime example of pre-legislative implementation that has had a profound and a negative impact on some regions, for example the north-east and the West Midlands. It is clear that not all RDAs were working as well as they should have been—but why abolish all of them just because one or two needed improvement?
Having said that, we will not vote against the amendments because we recognise that it is the end of the road, notwithstanding the paucity—or perhaps complete lack—of consultation on the issue, and the fact that there was extraordinary pre-legislative implementation of the abolition of RDAs, which we deeply regret. I hope that the Government will not pursue such policies in future but will seek to ensure that they legislate before they implement.
Referendums: Constitution Committee Report
Baroness Quin Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I, too, am pleased to participate in this debate, particularly as this was the last report in which I was involved as a member of the Constitution Committee, and it is a subject that I was particularly keen to see the committee examine. I am glad to say that I strongly support the report and its recommendations.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Jay on her appointment as chair of the committee. I add my own words of thanks to the outgoing chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, who also addressed us this afternoon.
I hope that this debate is timely. It is good to see that, unlike the debates on many committee reports on the Floor of the House which are often dominated by committee members, the debate on this one has also attracted a large number of Members who were not involved in the committee’s deliberations but have obviously been very interested in the committee’s work on this subject.
I was certainly concerned about aspects of the Government’s policy on referendums, and that concern was triggered when the then leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said on 10 June 2009 in another place:
“Is it not time to allow people the opportunity to present a proposition and have it voted on in a local referendum … Should we not give them the right to hold a referendum on massive council tax rises?—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/09; col. 800.]
That seemed to herald a considerable change in our political system, perhaps even going so far as to introduce a California ballot initiative system of a kind which I think has caused many problems. Certainly it begged a lot of questions about how massive tax rises should be defined, and indeed perhaps, following the comments of my noble friend Lord Foulkes, whether massive reductions could also be the subject of a ballot.
I was also concerned that at the time the then leader of the Opposition and his team did not wish to give oral evidence to the committee, despite being invited to do so. I am therefore very glad that the current committee has been pressing the Government to give their opinion on these issues. I hope that the Minister who has the possibly unenviable task of responding to the debate will be able to give us more information about the Government’s precise plans.
In that connection, I have learnt—and certainly the point has been made—that the Government are proposing to transform the leaders of 12 large councils into mayors, with mayoral powers, and then to ask for this to be subsequently confirmed in a referendum at some unspecified date. That seems to be an extraordinary way of bringing in a change. If you agreed with referendums, presumably you would ask the people beforehand, but it seems very strange to bring in this change and then, at some unspecified date, to ask for it to be confirmed. Perhaps in his reply the Minister can enlighten us on that specific point.
In some ways it is difficult to argue against referendums, certainly when one hears comments such as, “Let the people decide” and “Let the people’s voice be heard”. However, I share the concerns of both the committee and many others who have spoken in this debate that, despite what the Government say, we have tended to proceed on an ad hoc basis for a variety of political reasons and for political expediency. Certainly, the precedents are not good. The 1975 referendum was essentially devised as a way of massaging divisions in the Labour Party. I think that the current Minister and I—I was a junior member of his staff in the Labour Party at the time—both remember that period very vividly. Indeed, the referendum which was unexpectedly —to me, at least—announced in April 2004 and which has been referred to in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, also seemed to be an announcement for short-term political consideration rather than a decision thought out on the basis of constitutional principle.
I believe that we need to think about when we want to use referendums, and I also believe that we should try to proceed on a cross-party basis as much as possible. That might be seen as a naive belief in our party-political system; none the less, when we talk about constitutional innovations and major constitutional changes, it would be much more satisfactory if cross-party, or at least a fairly broad measure of, agreement could be achieved in those circumstances.
We need to think about how far we are a parliamentary or representative democracy and how far we want to move towards being a plebiscitary democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned the debates about the Lisbon treaty and I largely agree with him. It was a long, complicated treaty and I would be the last person to say that members of the public are not capable of judging for themselves the nature of a treaty such as that. However, one part of me wonders what Parliament is about if it is not there to scrutinise in detail, line by line, treaties and then come to a decision as a result. That seems to be a fundamental element of a representative democracy and it is certainly something that we should think about very carefully before changing it. Sometimes a referendum can seem to be an abdication of responsibility in which a Government say, “Oh well, this issue is too difficult. Let’s not deal with it ourselves”, yet sometimes in politics you need the courage to make difficult political decisions.
I was not going to mention the north-east referendum at all, having been indelibly scarred by the experience. However, I was provoked into doing so by the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and those of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who I think, to my horror, said something about the north-east being a “far-off fastness”. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that if you live in the north-east, you think of the south-east of England as being a far-off fastness.
I do not think that the north-east referendum was a case of a Government very keen on the idea trying to foist it on an unwilling population. The genesis of north-east devolution is rather different. Many north-easterners—indeed, I was one of them— campaigned for years to try to promote the idea of regional devolution, and the Government, of whom I was very proud to be a part, had some members who were not very enthusiastic about it. I very much agreed with the comments made in an intervention by my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who said that of course a referendum is very much influenced by what is going on in the country at the time of that referendum.
I say to the right reverend Prelate that there had been many opinion polls before the actual referendum in the north-east which showed that people favoured the idea of regional devolution and yet the timing of the referendum must, in many ways, have delighted the No campaign almost beyond its wildest dreams. There was an anti-politician feeling around which was not helped by the fact that MPs’ expenses were published for the first time and their salaries, secretarial expenses, living in London allowances and all the rest were added up as if there were a huge inflated sum which MPs were putting in their pockets. Although I am a strong supporter of the Scottish Parliament, it was also unfortunate that at that precise time the estimates of the building in Edinburgh happened to be more than 10 times the original estimate and, therefore, if you were a No campaigner saying, “Who wants a lot of extra expensive politicians and a white elephant?” then these things were grist to the mill. I console myself by remembering that in Wales there was a very strong vote against devolution in the 1970s but, none the less, public opinion can and does change. Although I may not be around myself, I hope that this will happen in the north-east.
Quite rightly, the report looks at international examples. I wish to add one which does not appear in the report: it is interesting that Germany, a strong and decentralised democracy, is very much against national referendums because of past experience particularly in the interwar years and when the regime used them to manipulate public opinion and to engineer particular outcomes.
In conclusion, I think that the committee is right to urge caution. We need to think carefully about referendums becoming an integral part of our system. Preferably, we should proceed on a cross-party basis. In highlighting these points, this debate is very much to be welcomed. Like others, I look forward to the Minister's reply without envying him his task.
Queen's Speech
Baroness Quin Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to those noble Lords who have become Ministers in the new Government. I congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose long experience was partly gained through the Labour Party. I am glad that his political hero is still Clement Attlee. That his experience and ability should be channelled into government is good news and I warmly congratulate him on that.
As has been pointed out in the debates, there are many ironies in the current governmental situation. I was struck by this when I returned to my London flat after spending most of the election period at home in the north-east of England. Having marvelled at the harmony and mutual admiration shown by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in their Downing Street press conference, the first piece of literature that I saw on my doormat was an election communication from the Liberal Democrats warning me that the Tories were putting the NHS at risk and asking me, “What else are the Conservatives not telling you?”.
However, as many people have pointed out, the parliamentary arithmetic as a result of the election made some kind of coalition or joint arrangement inevitable and, given the numbers, the coalition that has now been formed was the more obvious outcome. I pay tribute to both parties for the huge efforts that they put in to negotiate and secure a deal. Having said that, I believe that it is probably in the area of constitutional affairs where the greatest tensions within the new coalition Government are likely to arise. We have seen some evidence of that even today.
While I have often agreed with Liberal Democrat colleagues in the past on issues of constitutional reform, like my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd I was somewhat taken aback by the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister in which he rather grandiloquently compared his reform programme with that of the Great Reform Act. He criticised the outgoing Labour Government for excessive decentralisation and for quashing dissent in a way that I found both wildly inaccurate and, sadly, ungenerous. As has been pointed out, Labour had enacted a profound decentralising programme with devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London and even proposals—sadly voted down in a referendum—for regional devolution within England. The Liberal Democrats had supported most of that programme. Indeed, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, I remember the days of the coalition Government in Scotland. At that time I was an Agriculture Minister and worked closely and happily with my Liberal Democrat counterpart in the Scottish Parliament, Ross Finnie. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out in his speech that, as well as these decentralist measures, our Government also brought in many measures on civil liberties. I am glad that he listed those and I wish that the Deputy Prime Minister had at least alluded to some of them.
The Government’s programme contains constitutional proposals that I certainly support. Like the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I wish the Government well on Lords reform, as I have always supported the principle of a largely or wholly elected House. I agree strongly, however, with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Royall in her speech on Tuesday—and, indeed, by many others in today’s debate—rejecting the idea of creating in the interim many more Conservative and Liberal Members. That seems to fly in the face of a principle that I thought was widely accepted in this House. It also runs counter to the comments repeatedly made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in previous debates—he even repeated them today—that a House of over 800 would lack credibility. If these proposals are brought forward, that is exactly what we would have, if not considerably more than 800. I hope that there will be a re-evaluation and reconsideration of that approach.
One suggestion that could be picked up from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that failed to make it through the wash-up period before Dissolution is that of allowing existing Members to retire. It would be interesting to know—perhaps the Minister will say in her wind-up—whether or not provisions will be brought forward to allow existing Members to retire from this House in the way foreshadowed in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill before Dissolution.
I also support the proposal for fixed-term Parliaments but, like many others who have spoken today, I do not support the 55 per cent requirement, which smacks of political manoeuvring. I hope that the Government will try to reach a wider consensus on this issue. It would be worth while doing so, particularly since opinion polls seem to show strong public support for the idea of fixed-term Parliaments.
I support changing the voting system to AV, although I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats settled for that. Furthermore, winning a referendum on it, particularly depending on the political circumstances of the time, will not be easy. Perhaps I might suggest, rather controversially, that AV be considered for the European Parliament. I was elected a Member of the European Parliament in the days when we had constituencies. Even though I was aware that the first past the post system distorted the vote, it was nonetheless very satisfying to represent a specific territory and have that territorial link. The constituency that I represented was very big, but it was suitable for the kind of industrial and economic issues that were dealt with in the European Parliament.
Like others, I am concerned about the Government’s approach to local government. I hope that they will not proceed with the proposal to force elected mayors on 12—I do not know where that number came from—cities. I do not favour forcing local authorities to go down that route. I am concerned, too, that Governments—I include my own in this—do not recognise sufficiently some of the achievements of local government. The local authority that I represented and worked closely with for a number of years, Gateshead, had an outstanding record, which compared favourably with those of the great local governments of the 19th century. It was good at promoting educational success, which is why I have some concern about the wholesale academy approach being put forward by the Government.
Finally, I am concerned about the likelihood of the Government making much greater use of referendums in our constitution. This has not been mentioned much in today’s debate, but we seem to be in danger of lurching towards a plebiscitary rather than a representative democracy, without thinking through the consequences. At local level in particular, the Government seem to favour a plebiscitary approach. That has not proved a panacea, as examples such as California amply illustrate. I strongly recommend to the Government the recent report of this House’s Constitution Committee on referendums and urge caution in this respect.
The Government have set themselves an ambitious constitutional programme. While I genuinely wish them well in pursuing some of those goals, I hope that they will be prepared to think again about others on which I have expressed some reservations today.