Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Prime Minister was standing for election as leader of his party—and, therefore, Prime Minister—I asked an esteemed Conservative Minister and parliamentarian of some integrity whom he was voting for. I was surprised when he said Boris Johnson. I suspect he had his misgivings, but his reason was that he thought he was a winner. I countered that Boris Johnson would see Parliament as an inconvenience, and I regret that I am being proved right.

First, we had the unlawful Prorogation, when the Prime Minister attempted to shut down Parliament for five weeks. Then, last week, having gained parliamentary support for the Second Reading of his withdrawal Bill, he pulled the Bill only because MPs would not agree to an unreasonable programme Motion—not, as the noble Baroness said, to any kind of timetable; they would indeed have agreed to a timetable, just not that timetable. All that was being sought on that occasion was the normal and reasonable process of consideration and scrutiny. Then, having won the vote on his Government’s programme for the forthcoming year, he demanded a general election—thus again trying to avoid the normal and reasonable process of scrutiny of his legislation. Then, having failed to get a two-thirds majority for an election at a time of his choosing under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, he was obviously relieved and delighted when the Liberal Democrats and the SNP threw him a lifeline and offered to support an election. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, joked during the Queen’s Speech debate that these days fact is certainly more unbelievable than fiction; he is right. This is a book that nobody would have dared write.

When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced by the coalition Government, we were told that it would create strong and stable government, even from a minority Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who introduced the Bill for the Government, said that this would ensure that election dates would no longer be picked for a narrow, partisan, political advantage. We were given lots of high-minded, constitutional reasons why it was so important, yet our own Constitution Committee admitted to some scepticism, recognising that the Bill’s origins and content,

“owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand”.

Basically, the Conservative-led coalition Government sought to bind Parliament to give it a five-year term in power. Having succeeded in that, neither party now sees any further use for the legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. What benefits did she think would accrue from a fixed-term Parliament, given that the Labour Party included a commitment to it in its 2010 election manifesto?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think the noble and learned Lord will find that, at the time, we proposed several amendments to the Bill that the noble and learned Lord rejected. Even in my wildest dreams, I did not suggest that it would be strong and stable government. I think the contradiction is that, at the time that the noble and learned Lord was taking the legislation through, he said that it would stop the politicisation of elections—nobody would call an election for political advantage. What do we think is happening at the moment?

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I think that most of us listened carefully to what the Prime Minister has said today. The Statement was very different in tone to what we heard last Wednesday, so hopefully her entreaties to the Prime Minister had some impact.

When the Prime Minister took office in July, we were promised a fresh approach to Brexit, and that, despite actions suggesting the opposite, the Government really wanted to strike a deal with the EU. Having patiently awaited the result of the Conservative Party leadership contest, our EU partners were promised certainty by Mr Johnson. The de facto Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Gove, tells us that the new Cabinet Brexit sub-committee has had dozens of meetings over the summer, leading to a new plan for the Irish border being drawn up and dispatched to Brussels.

It is perfectly legitimate for the new Prime Minister to want to put his own plans to Brussels. In doing so, however, he would have been conscious that the Article 50 process was designed to take two years—not just the two weeks before the last European Council summit—for good reason. It was unfortunate that his advisers briefed the media that this would be a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Thankfully the tone has shifted to something much more conciliatory. We welcome that.

We must, however, face facts. Despite being welcomed by the DUP—I am sorry that our DUP colleagues are not here today for the Statement—the plan has been dismissed by all the other major political parties in Northern Ireland, as well by manufacturing and retail bodies. Retail NI’s Glyn Roberts said that the proposal was “worse than no deal”. Trevor Lockhart, the group chief executive of an agri-foods business, said on this morning’s “Today” programme:

“It is ultimately a balance between what works politically and what works economically. The UK backstop, for us, delivered economically but clearly did not work politically, and in the pursuit of getting a political solution the interests of businesses in Northern Ireland to some extent have now been sacrificed”.


Those are harsh words. For a plan centred on the principle of consent, there appears to be little consent for it.

Last night the noble Lord, Lord Empey, powerfully made the point that the Government were reneging on their commitment not to have a border down the Irish Sea. Like him, I struggle to understand the position of the DUP, as that party has opposed a border in the Irish Sea since the very start of the Brexit process.

Those in the know told us to watch out for the reaction from the EU 27. No news would be good news; it would mean talks were going into the tunnel for further discussion, and a deal was possible. Anything more than a basic acknowledgement of receipt would spell trouble. What, then, was the verdict? The Taoiseach warns that the texts tabled,

“do not fully meet the agreed objective of the backstop”.

The President of the Commission, while welcoming a degree of clarity about the UK’s intentions, noted several “problematic points”. The European Parliament’s Brexit steering group was less than enthusiastic, and that institution, which has to ratify any agreement, has already signalled that it will not support a deal without a backstop.

As I noted earlier, now that the party conference season is over, the Prime Minister appears to be approaching matters differently. I hope that talks will continue and progress will be made. However, given the leaked and very unwise memo calling on Conservative MPs to call the EU “crazy” if it rejects such a plan, it is vital that these talks take place in good faith.

So let us look briefly at the issues with the proposals. Despite warm words from the Government on the Good Friday agreement, it is not clear that this arrangement would uphold the UK’s commitments. The plans talk of a limited number of physical inspections taking place away from the border at the premises of producers, or perhaps further down the supply chain. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, but is she able to confirm what arrangements are envisaged for such checks? Would the system operate in the same way as the Sweden/Norway border, with UK customs officials able to inspect premises in the Republic and vice versa—because that is how Norway/Sweden works?

The use of electronic submissions for trusted traders is surely part of the solution, but I am slightly concerned that the clue is in the name—it works only for “trusted” traders. What would the criteria be for a “trusted trader” under the new scheme? How do the Government envisage dealing with irregular traders, or those attempting to smuggle goods across the border, particularly if the UK ends up not participating in EU-wide intelligence and data-sharing schemes? Is the Prime Minister confident that his answer to that will reassure the EU 27 with regard to upholding the integrity of the single market?

Key to the plans is the inclusion of agri-food, a sector that relies heavily on cross-border trade, in a single regulatory area across the island of Ireland. Has the Lord Privy Seal had an opportunity to reflect on the comments of the Food and Drink Federation, which last night said that,

“these proposals don’t work for shoppers and consumers. That’s because they ask food and drink businesses operating in Northern Ireland to pay—through new bureaucracy and costs—for the Government’s inability to agree a comprehensive exit deal”?

Such concerns have been echoed by a variety of retail organisations across Northern Ireland and the Republic.

On these Benches, we are extremely worried by the Government’s insistence that there is,

“no need for … extensive level playing field arrangements”,

in the withdrawal agreement. The Leader of the House and the Minister sitting next to her will have heard the debates over the past couple of years in your Lordships’ House, and they will understand that what has been spoken about is more than mere customs procedures. Such arrangements cover social, employment and environmental standards, which completely underpin the contents of the political declaration. Can the Leader confirm whether the Government wish now to amend the political declaration? If so, have they prepared a new text? Do they believe that it is feasible to secure substantial changes to and ratify—including passing the withdrawal agreement Bill through both Houses—the withdrawal agreement and political declaration in the time available over the next two to four weeks?

Simon Coveney, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, has indicated that if this were the final offer, the outcome on 31 October would be a no-deal exit. However, the Prime Minister has toned down his rhetoric since the Conservative Party conference and has talked about this being a “broad landing zone” for a deal, with the Government prepared for further discussions and further concessions. However, the fact remains that time is tight if Boris Johnson and his advisers stick to their “31 October or die-in-a-ditch” mantra. The fact is that the withdrawal Act No. 2 is a lifeline for the Government. It is an irony that the Prime Minister’s best chance of securing deal is an Act that he has opposed and done nothing but attack.

Noble Lords will recall that exactly this scenario was envisaged during our earlier debates on the first withdrawal Bill. We argued that it would be wrong to tie the Government’s hands if they were close to a deal but running out of time because of an inflexible exit date. The Prime Minister says in his Statement that,

“we are some way from a resolution”.

The extension legislated for in the most recent withdrawal Act gives the Prime Minister the flexibility he needs if he genuinely wants to get that deal over the line. Therefore, given that the Prime Minister feels that his proposal is the basis for further talks, does the Leader also accept that that is what he is suggesting? If a version of this proposal is agreed with the EU, are the Government confident that the necessary systems can be put in place during the transition period ending in December 2020? What are the Government doing to ensure, and is the Leader confident, that Stormont will be sitting by then?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement that was written in much more measured tones than the one she was required to read last week. It is thanks to the purported Prorogation having been nullified that Parliament can now hold the Government to account on this important development. It is worth reflecting that if that had not happened, these important proposals would have been brought forward without Parliament being in session to examine them.

It is important that we examine these proposals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has asked a number of detailed questions on their application and how it is proposed that the arrangements will work. It appears that, from having no borders as a full member of the European Union, the Prime Minister’s proposals would give Northern Ireland two borders. Does the Minister believe that these proposals are better for the economy and, above all, for the security of Northern Ireland than what Northern Ireland has at present? It is important, too, that we closely examine the proposal of a “potential”— the word is there in all the documents—regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and customs checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Simply to state that position must surely suggest that Northern Ireland’s economy would be in a worse position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quoted a number of businesses that have expressed considerable scepticism about the proposals. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

“Businesses are telling us that the potential increased costs will seriously damage … supply lines and indeed business survival.”


There are other quotes that could be repeated from spokespersons who have cast doubt on the workability and cost of these proposals. It would be interesting to see whether the Minister, when she comes to reply, can quote any business or business organisation which, in the last 24 hours, has given support to these proposals. The proposals depend on electronic and, in some cases, physical checks—possibly on business premises. What estimate have the Government made of these added costs to businesses as a consequence of such additional surveillance?

Last night, in response to a point that has been raised on a number of occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that the proposals did not breach Section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,

“because they avoid checks, controls and physical infrastructure at the border”.—[Official Report, 2/10/19; col. 1765.]

I note his words, “at the border”, but if one looks at Section 10(2)(b) of the 2018 Act, it refers to creating or facilitating,

“border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU”.

I believe there is a difference between “at the border” and border arrangements; customs arrangements are by their very nature border arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister conform with the provision, given the clear indication in his Statement that checks could take place at designated locations anywhere in Ireland and Northern Ireland?

The Statement referred to the,

“potential creation of an all-island regulatory zone on the island of Ireland, covering all goods.”

It goes on to say that it would eliminate,

“all regulatory checks for trade in goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland”.

So, of course, there would be checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Will the Minister indicate whether this would be a two-way process? The Prime Minister, I understand, seemed to indicate in a reply that it would be only one way: for goods coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Surely, however, if Great Britain has higher regulatory standards than the European Union, there would be checks for goods coming from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Can she confirm whether that would indeed be the case, or is the Government’s working assumption that there will never be situations where the regulatory regime in Great Britain would be more stringent than that in the European Union? Have the Government had any discussions with the Scottish Government as to the implications of this proposal for any infrastructure required for such checks at Cairnryan?

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the powerful speech yesterday evening by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who wondered how the DUP could possibly sign up to it. He gave various quotes at col. 1744, quoting DUP spokespersons opposed to any form of regulatory divergence. Why would they? Maybe the secret is that the answer is in the word “potential”, if it is read in conjunction with the consent arrangements, which in the explanatory note provided, refer to consent,

“within the framework set by the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement”.

There are people in your Lordships’ House who are far more expert in the intricacies of the Good Friday agreement and the procedures in the Northern Ireland Assembly than I am—I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Alderdice is behind me—but I understand there is a procedure called a petition of concern. Is it possible that a petition of concern could be used to ensure that these arrangements never take place, and could be vetoed by the DUP and others before they ever had a chance to take off? Does the Minister think that that enhances the chances of this arrangement being agreed to, not only by the Government of Ireland but by the European Union?

The Written Statement laid by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, yesterday and reflected in the Prime Minister’s Statement, refers to a revised political declaration. The Statement says:

“In parallel, we will be negotiating a revised Political Declaration which reflect this Government’s ultimate goal of a future relationship with the EU that has a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement at its heart”.


While there is a lot of detail on the arrangements with Ireland, there is very little detail on what arrangements or provisions are sought for the political declaration. It would be helpful if the Minister, when she comes to reply, would indicate what provisions are proposed. Does it mean that the reassurances we had in times past about maintaining workers’ rights and environmental protections may no longer be the case?

The Statement from the Prime Minister also says:

“If our European neighbours choose not to show a corresponding willingness to reach a deal, then we shall have to leave on 31st October without an agreement and we are ready to do so”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has already indicated how the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act might come to the assistance of the Government, but assuming this agreement does not pass, and that the House of Commons does not agree to no deal, can the Minister indicate in detail how the Prime Minister can state that in these circumstances, we shall have to leave on 31 October without an agreement consistent with the provisions of that Act?

Obviously, an orderly departure from the European Union is preferable to a disorderly one. However, we on these Benches do not believe there is any agreement that can be reached which gives us a better deal, in terms of our security, our prosperity, our trade, our jobs, or the future opportunities for our young people than the deal we have at present, as full members of the European Union. That applies to the United Kingdom as a whole and to Northern Ireland in particular.

Update to Parliament

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we have heard a change in tone. When I heard the Statement in the House of Commons, I was quite shocked, and I hope that the noble Baroness was embarrassed at having to read out some of that Statement this evening.

The Prime Minister just does not get it. I did not think I could be any more disappointed in the Government. I got it wrong, because I just was. Iain Dale, a Conservative Party-supporting journalist, blogger and broadcaster, has put out a message tonight saying:

“When in a hole you either stop digging, or you get a bigger shovel. Boris has clearly decided to hire a JCB”.


We need less of the aggressive bluster and more humility, which might be more appropriate. The Statement was provocative and aggressive. At every opportunity the Government have to take a step back and put the country and the unity of our country first, they fail to do so. The Prime Minister told us, his Cabinet, the British people and Parliament, that Prorogation was not about Brexit. But that claim is totally undermined by the Statement we have just heard.

The Prime Minister is fond of quoting former Prime Minister Winston Churchill—to whom he bears no resemblance whatever. But I think the most apt political quote today is from Harold Wilson:

“A week is a long time in politics”.


I suspect that it feels even longer for the Prime Minister, and so it should. He is wrong to say that his comments show no disrespect to the judiciary. They do. He is wrong to say that he followed the exact same process as his predecessors on the Queen’s Speech. He did not. The normal amount of time for Prorogation before the Queen’s Speech is five days. He chose five weeks.

Let us be absolutely clear about this: the Prime Minister sought legal advice as to whether his actions in advising Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament were lawful. Why? Has any Prime Minister, or any Government, ever before sought legal advice on whether Prorogation was legal? Prorogation is normally uncontroversial, so why did this Government do so? Why did this Government feel the need to get legal advice to find out whether it was lawful to prorogue? Because they knew it was dodgy. It was so dodgy that they did not even share their legal advice with the Cabinet. They would not even admit to the Cabinet that it was about Brexit. The Cabinet Office minutes—just of a conference call, not even a proper meeting—said:

“It is important to emphasise that this decision to prorogue parliament for a Queen’s Speech is not driven by Brexit considerations”,


but, they went on, by,

“an exciting and dynamic legislative programme”.

Does anybody believe that? Did the Cabinet even believe it when it saw the minutes?

The Government also say that there is discrepancy among the lawyers—that they have different views. No. All 11 justices of the Supreme Court of this country issued a judgment that was exceptional in both its clarity and its unanimity. The key to the Supreme Court judgment was whether the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty the Queen was lawful. In reaching that judgment, the court addressed two issues. The first was whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament—including the House of Lords—of scrutiny and holding the Government to account. The answer, the Supreme Court said, was that “of course it did”. The second question was whether removing that fundamental right of scrutiny and holding the Government to account was justified. The answer of the Supreme Court to that is devastating. It concluded that that there was no reason—

“let alone a good reason”—

for doing so.

The Supreme Court did not address motive. The Scottish court did, and that was not overturned by the Supreme Court. The Scottish court said that the principal reason for the advice to the Queen was,

“to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference”.

The government arguments were always flawed and weak. As we have seen, this Government loathe scrutiny and fear challenge. The assertion used that the Prorogation was of a similar number of days to the proposed recess is—as the Prime Minister’s friend, President Trump, might say—“fake news”. It is not about time but functions. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet were fully aware that Prorogation meant no debates, no parliamentary sittings, no committee meetings and no awkward questions to answer.

The Prime Minister’s contempt for Parliament is clear in the full text of the redacted paragraph, when he says:

“The whole September session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the public that MPs were earning their crust”.


As a girly swot—and proud of it—this is a pretty pathetic insult for a Prime Minister to launch at a predecessor. It is also incorrect: there were September sittings long before David Cameron became Prime Minister. Like so much else from this Prime Minister, he tries to be offensive and gets it wrong even then.

I do not want to say too much about elections. As I said when we were debating the legislation before the—not—Prorogation, this is a matter for the House of Commons. However, I want to comment on one thing. I think that the language used by the Prime Minister in attacking MPs and the House of Commons is extraordinarily unpleasant and aggressive. It is embarrassing and could just be that, if it were not also dangerous. Whatever their views, MPs on all sides have struggled with the most difficult issue of our generation. They are trying their best. Their mandate comes after the mandate of the referendum held in 2016; they were elected in 2017. He should apologise to them as well as to the Queen. I think it is due.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in a different position from most of the Cabinet. She is being named in the Supreme Court judgment as being sent to the Privy Council meeting with Her Majesty the Queen. It would be wrong of me to ask and of her to answer about her meeting with the Queen. Beyond politics, however, there are questions of process and propriety. As Leader of the whole House, she has questions to answer. Did she see the legal advice on Prorogation? Did she ask to see it? Did she ask any questions about the advice being given to Her Majesty prior to being dispatched to Balmoral? Who told her to attend? Was it the Prime Minister or was the instruction from the special adviser Dominic Cummings?

It was a hard decision when I decided, along with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, not to attend the Prorogation ceremony that took place in this House. It was not taken lightly or easily. We feel totally vindicated in making that decision. Does she who took part feel that she should apologise to the House?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, which is more of a rant. Little did I think it would only take two months for us to wish to see the return of Theresa May, comparing this with the kind of Statements she had to read out during her tenure.

My noble friend Lord Newby is in Sydney and asked me to stand in. I apologise that I was not present earlier to ask the Urgent Question in my name. I was on a plane that was delayed getting into Gatwick Airport.

There are lots of things I find difficult to take about the Statement. The Prime Minister rants against Parliament. He describes the legislation that this House passed earlier this month is described as a “surrender Act”. That is insulting. I also find it difficult to accept that coming from a man who, if he really wanted Britain to leave the European Union, could have voted for the deal that was put before the House of Commons. Two times out of three he did not support it, which is indicative of the man. In fact, the one time that he supported the deal it included the backstop, which he now describes as undemocratic. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to support something when it suits him although he actually believes—or at least says he believes—that it is undemocratic.

Amid the inevitable furore, let us take a step back and consider what, at the core, the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday was about. In giving advice to the Queen, the Prime Minister acted unlawfully and accordingly, the purported Prorogation of the present Session of Parliament was of no effect. As the judgment of the Supreme Court stated, it was,

“as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect”.

That is both profound and momentous, and I believe it requires contrition and humility, not the kind of bombast that we have heard this evening.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, indicated, it is a comment on her prescience and that of my noble friend Lord Newby that they decided to have no part in that Commission. I have probably known the Lord Speaker for over 35 years, as I have known the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for over 40 years. I do not believe for one moment that they, in the words of the judgment, were,

“carrying out the Queen’s bidding”,

in a way which was not in good faith. I believe that is the case but I am not quite sure the same could be said about the Leader of our House, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans. She has some questions to answer, both as Leader of your Lordships’ House and as one who attended that Privy Council meeting at Balmoral when the unlawful order was made.

In the Supreme Court and the Inner House of the Court of Session, the judges placed much weight on the fact that in neither the Cherry case nor the Miller case was any explanation given by the Government as to why an exceptionally long period was required for this purported Prorogation. The Statement from the Prime Minister refers to,

“the exact same process as my predecessors”,

but the evidence of Sir John Major in the Supreme Court blew out of the water the proffered explanation that it was needed to prepare a Queen’s Speech. Does the noble Baroness have any other explanation? She must have known from precedent that five weeks was not needed. Indeed, when I asked her why no recess dates had been set for the conference season earlier this month, she told me, “There’s always been a conference recess for as long as we can remember”. For as long as we can remember, there have never been five weeks needed for a Prorogation. Did she, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked, have sight of the legal advice? Did she ask for sight of it? As a member of the law officers’ trade union, I uphold the convention that one should not lightly disclose law officers’ advice. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, the fact that legal advice was sought in itself suggests that to seek a Prorogation in these circumstances was on dodgy ground.

In response to the earlier repeat of an Urgent Question to the Attorney-General by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, asked why no Minister—let alone the Prime Minister—had sworn an affidavit to put before the court to explain the reason for such an exceptionally long period of Prorogation. They asked whether it was because they did not wish to perjure themselves. Can the noble Baroness explain why no affidavit was forthcoming from either the Prime Minister or any member of this Government?

Reading the judgment, there are two key features in why the Supreme Court reached the view that it did. It believed that the sovereignty of Parliament was being undermined if the Prime Minister could advise a Prorogation for an exceptional length of time; and that Parliament has a key role in holding the Executive to account, which would be frustrated by an exceptionally long Prorogation. There is of course a distinction between Prorogation and recess: during Prorogation, committees cannot meet and Parliament cannot be recalled, except in very exceptional circumstances. The subject matter of the Statements and UQs that we have had today—on the collapse of Thomas Cook, Operation Yellowhammer and the situation in Iran, to which one could add issues such as the granting of an arms export licence to Saudi Arabia in contravention of a court order—illustrates just how crucial it is that Parliament is able to hold the Government to account. Yet this Government wanted to frustrate that for five weeks.

In paragraph 61 of the judgment, the Supreme Court says:

“It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason—let alone a good reason—to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9 or 12 September until 14 October”.


Ministers have rightly said that they will respect the Supreme Court’s judgment, but as the Statement from this Prime Minister makes clear, they then say that they think the Supreme Court got it wrong. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, tell us, specifically, which parts of the Supreme Court’s judgment are wrong and why? Does she support the sovereignty of Parliament? Does she support the idea that Parliament should hold the Executive to account? Does she accept that Prorogation for such an extended period of time would have undermined both these cardinal principles of our constitution?

While the Supreme Court did not speculate on motive, the Inner House of the Court of Session, reaching the same conclusion, did consider motive. Lord President Carloway, at paragraph 53 of his judgment, said:

“The circumstances demonstrate the true reason is to reduce the time available for the scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance”.


The Supreme Court neither disapproved nor disavowed the findings of the Court of Session. It is clear that senior judges did not find credible the public explanation of the Prime Minister of why he sought a Prorogation of such exceptional length; it is quite a staggering conclusion for the court to reach and quite an indictment of this Administration. Will the noble Baroness confirm, given this Administration’s track record, that if no deal is reached by 19 October, the Prime Minister will abide by the law passed by Parliament just before the attempted Prorogation—no ifs, no buts, and no second letters?

I understand that this morning Mr Michael Gove described the Prime Minister as the Pep Guardiola of British politics. Let us look at his record since he came into office just two months ago: parliamentary by-elections—lost 1-0; House of Commons votes—lost 6-0; appearances before the Supreme Court—lost 11-0. If Pep Guardiola had that record, I am sure that he would be considering his position—it is time the Prime Minister did likewise.

G20 Summit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement today. It was always going to be difficult following the Brexit vote, but as the new Prime Minister, Theresa May appeared confident. She met with most of the other world leaders who were interested to meet her—partly, I think, because they are keen to understand what the post-EU era means for them and their relationship with us in the UK. So this was, by any standards, a crucial summit. We are all aware that the vote to leave the EU has created considerable uncertainty here in the UK, but in paragraph 42 of the communiqué the international uncertainty is also clear. Despite some promising recent manufacturing statistics, the long-term uncertainties remain.

What is clear is that the Government are still thinking through the implications, what our negotiating position is going to be and what outcomes we seek. It is now common knowledge that no advance preparation had been undertaken, which makes the job of the Prime Minister even harder. She had to attend this summit knowing that she would be expected to discuss with other world leaders how the decision would affect them and their relationship with the EU and the UK. Countries such as Japan were seeking some degree of predictability for their investments and businesses in the UK, but she was unable to provide reassurance or answers—not because she does not want to be helpful or make the best case for the British economy but because we are still in the “don’t know” zone. While I appreciate what lies behind the statement “Brexit means Brexit”, I have to admit that I do not know what it means—and neither, apparently, do other members of the G20.

Following the Prime Minister’s meeting with her old university friend, the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, I think that we were all left with the impression—I certainly was—of exciting new trade and economic agreements. But the clarification from Mr Ciobo, the Australian Trade Minister, has dampened that excitement. It almost sounded like a “Yes, Prime Minister” sketch as we heard him say on the “Today” programme that a UK-Australia deal could happen only,

“when the time is right”.

Sir Humphrey might have added “in the fullness of time” or “in due course”.

We cannot sign deals with other countries while we are still in the EU and we do not know when we will be leaving it. Meanwhile, negotiations between Australia and the EU will be completed probably before we even start. To heap humiliation upon embarrassment, the Australian Minister added that because the UK has no trained negotiators of our own, he has offered to lend us Australian experts for the initial talks. Can the noble Baroness confirm that what is really on offer is talks about talks? Will we accept their kind and generous offer to use their experts for our discussions with them?

Is the noble Baroness also able to say anything more about the meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, following his 15-page memo on Japan’s specific concerns, and whether they discussed car manufacturing remaining in the UK whatever the Brexit terms are?

We understand why our allies are uncertain. I fear that there is a danger of us becoming marginalised. Meetings took place without us that in the past we might have expected to be part of, such as President Obama’s meeting with Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. What is encouraging, though, is that these countries are not hostile. I think that they genuinely want to make their economic relationship with us work—but we have to get moving to create the certainty and clarity that they need.

It is not just our international friends who are uncertain. So are we—even, it appears, members of the Cabinet. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, responded to a question from Anna Soubry MP about whether, in light of the concerns raised at the G20 about the impact on the economy,

“the Government are prepared to abandon that membership of the single market”.

He told the House of Commons that,

“the simple truth is that if a requirement of our membership is giving up control of our borders, then I think that makes it very improbable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/16; col. 54.]

Those were the Secretary of State’s words: “very improbable”.

Now, I am not clear how he defines,

“giving up control of our borders”,

but he was quickly slapped down by No. 10, which said that this was his “opinion” and not “policy”. Yet, in your Lordships’ House yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, responded to my noble friend Lord Wood, that the Government,

“are not in a position to go into detail on this other than to say that we are not looking at an off-the-shelf response”.—[Official Report, 5/9/16; col. 889.]

I am confused, and I do not think I am the only one. I thought that the Secretary of State was articulating government policy from the Dispatch Box—but apparently not. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether, when Ministers make statements in either House, the statements should be regarded as government policy—or can we now expect to hear private opinion as well? How will we be able to tell the difference?

Finally, the summit also discussed other issues, included terrorism and refugees, as referenced in the Statement. Paragraph 44 of the communiqué deals with refugees. I welcome that the Government signed up to the communiqué quote:

“We call for strengthening humanitarian assistance for refugees and refugee resettlement”.

The noble Baroness will have heard the exchanges in your Lordships’ House yesterday and again today about the grave disappointment with the Government’s actions to date on resettling those unaccompanied children who qualify to come to the UK under family reunification laws yet remain in the camps in Calais—in the Jungle.

Is she aware of the report today from UNICEF, which is highly critical of the UK Government because of the danger that these children are in? They are often traumatised by both the journey from their home country and by what they witnessed or suffered there. As the author of the UN report states, they are,

“at risk of the worst forms of abuse and harm and can easily fall victim to traffickers and other criminals”.

What can be more important than ensuring that these children, who are legally as well as morally entitled to safety and refuge in the UK, have that refuge? Does the noble Baroness consider that the Government now need to take faster and more effective action to fulfil both the Dubs amendment on child refugees, passed by this House while Theresa May was Home Secretary, and the agreement reached at the G20 summit?

I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to address these questions and that the Government truly understand how important clarity is and that uncertainty is the enemy of good government.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement this afternoon. The Prime Minister’s Statement and the G20 leaders’ communiqué clearly set out the challenges facing the global economy at this time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quoted, it goes on to state clearly:

“The outcome of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU adds to the uncertainty in the global economy”.

One wonders whether any of that uncertainty was dispelled by the numerous meetings that the Prime Minister had. She says that “Brexit means Brexit”, but I rather suspect that none of the other G20 leaders knows what it means; and as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, indicated, it appears that some members of the Cabinet do not know what it means either. When one hears that Downing Street spokespersons are dismissing a Secretary of State’s quotes as being personal rather than a statement of government policy, it suggests that the collective responsibility that we had in the coalition was a model that this Government ought to follow. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will take the opportunity now, and not rely on a No. 10 spokesperson, to make the position very clear with regard to the comments of the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU on Monday.

Since the result of the referendum in June, a number of Conservative Ministers have sought to give the impression that they could agree new trade deals in time for tea. The clear evidence from this summit is that that will simply not be the case. Although a number of world leaders have talked about maintaining good relations with the United Kingdom—which is very welcome—few gave the impression that a trade deal with the United Kingdom was a top priority for them. President Obama made it clear that a trade deal between the EU and the USA was a much greater priority. He was not the only world leader to take that position. The Japanese Government have released a detailed document setting out their concerns. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has warned the Prime Minister that Japanese companies need more certainty in order to stay in the United Kingdom, and Japan’s ambassador to the United Kingdom has highlighted that Japanese companies could disinvest from our country.

The Prime Minister’s statement refers to the leaders of Mexico, South Korea, India and Singapore, who said that they would welcome talks on removing barriers to trade between our countries. That is very welcome, but can the Leader of the House give the House some context? What percentage of goods are exported from the UK to these four countries in total, compared with the percentage exported to one country, Germany, with which we would inevitably be raising trade barriers unless we enjoy full membership of the single market? Even Australia, the country from which the Prime Minister had the warmest welcome at the G20, has been clear that any post-Brexit deal with the UK would have to wait until Australia had completed parallel negotiations with the European Union, a process which will not even begin for another two and a half years at the earliest. I fear it is a long time since Britain has stood so alone on the world stage. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, at the summit, the Prime Minister did not hold a single bilateral meeting with any other Europe Union leader?

Will the noble Baroness take this opportunity to end the current uncertainty? Do we not owe it, globally and to companies here at home, to indicate what our position will be with regard to membership of the single market? Does she agree that securing such membership should be the Government’s priority rather than burdening British companies with additional red tape and compromising our position as a global economic nation?

We on these Benches are also deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister failed to raise the issue of steel exports with China during her bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping. Thousands of jobs at Port Talbot, and across our steel industry, are facing an uncertain future because of dumping of steel on the EU market by China, but although it was raised in plenary, it does not appear that the Prime Minister took the opportunity to make the case in a bilateral meeting.

Although there has been much aspirational talk by Ministers of preferential trade deals, one is conscious that the only concrete, substantive trade deal that we have heard about since Parliament returned on Monday is the continuing supply of military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what discussions the Prime Minister had with Saudi Ministers at the G20 regarding the position in Yemen and international humanitarian law? Will she clarify her Government’s definition of a “serious” breach of international humanitarian law?

With regard to other matters, the communiqué states a clear commitment to,

“usher in a new era of global growth and sustainable development, taking into account … the Paris Agreement”.

Given the news that China and the USA have now ratified the Paris Agreement, will the noble Baroness commit to the UK ratifying that agreement in line with our international partners? Will she also confirm whether or not it will require parliamentary approval under Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and, at the same time, whether the same parliamentary requirement applies to any Brexit agreement with the remaining EU?

The communiqué also states a clear commitment to,

“taking into account the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.

What action are this Government taking to ensure that the sustainable development goals are truly universal and that each government department is working towards these goals?

We on these Benches remain very concerned at the global refugee crisis. Given the attention given at the conference to the refugee crisis, will the noble Baroness be more specific about the Government’s objectives at the upcoming high-level meeting on refugees and migrants in New York later this month? Can she also answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in relation to the some 380 children eligible to come to the UK who are currently in Calais?

We have heard in recent weeks that Brexit is Brexit, but we seem to be no closer to knowing what it actually means. From the briefings given on the Prime Minister’s plane, we know that it does not mean a points-based immigration system or that £350 million a week will be given to the National Health Service—that promise, given by those who are now senior members of the Conservative Government, is no longer worth the bus it was written on. There is much confusion from the Conservative Government, and in the face of that confusion, we on these Benches will continue to fight to keep Britain open, tolerant and united.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, although I think it poses more questions than it answers. In the light of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie—I see he has now left the Chamber—even more questions have been raised.

First, I want to express our horror at the appalling, evil attack on Istanbul airport last night. Yet again, we are shocked by the hatred that leads to such vicious, indiscriminate violence and murder. Our thoughts are with all those who have been affected, because such horror will never leave them.

Turning to the detail of the Statement, although it includes other issues, clearly, the one that affects us most is that of our leaving the EU. Nevertheless, I noted the comments on the agreement made with Turkey in March. I hope that the Prime Minister, in discussing that agreement, raised the issue of the shocking conditions in the camps in which refugees are being held in Turkey. Did he raise that issue, and if so what response did he receive?

What this Statement reinforces is the massive uncertainty that our country faces. It is clear that the first enemy of our stability and security as a nation is that uncertainty, which has many different forms. There is economic uncertainty for businesses large and small and for consumers. There is uncertainty about who will be the next Prime Minister and whether another general election is looming. There is uncertainty about the Brexit negotiations. At the same time there is uncertainty, now increased, for many local communities where those who do not look or sound British enough are now feeling very vulnerable.

I was going to say that at no point should we forget the uncertainty of British citizens living across Europe, but from the comments just made in Questions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, it appears that they are to be some kind of negotiating tool in discussions on whether EU citizens living and working in this country are to be allowed to remain. The degree of uncertainty that that will cause in those communities across the country is shocking. Given that negotiations could go on for years, we will have people living or working in this country who do not know what their future holds. We need an explanation or clarification from the Government as a matter of urgency.

The Prime Minister referred in the Statement to estimates of a slowdown in eurozone economic growth of between 0.3% and 0.5%, caused largely by a predicted slowdown in the UK economy because of our trade with the EU. If that is the predicted slowdown for the eurozone, what is the predicted slowdown for the UK economy? If the EU is able to predict such a slowdown across the whole eurozone, I am sure the Government have considered it and made predictions. Can the noble Baroness comment on the report in the business section of today’s Daily Telegraph—not my normal reading material, I confess—that Vodafone and easyJet are now considering moving their headquarters out of the UK, with thousands of jobs leaving these shores, and that Visa could also relocate hundreds of jobs to EU countries? The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, laughs and suggests that I read the Daily Mirror. I can tell him that I do read the Daily Mirror and I commend to him an article from last Friday by the historian Dan Snow about our historic links with Europe and the dangers now presented to this country by this Prime Minister. On the question of jobs, rather than waiting for a new Prime Minister, can the noble Baroness tell me what action the Government are taking today to protect jobs here in the UK?

I welcome the section in the Statement about our relationship with our European partners and its importance over so many years; it is part of our history and part of their history. We should never forget the tremendous contribution of our European allies in the Second World War, particularly in the Battle of Britain, when the role of both Polish and Czechoslovakian aircrew was critical. Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness about men such as Tony Liskutin. He was a true hero. He first fought with the Czech air force and then with the French. He then joined the RAF to fight on D-day—subsequently teaching our own noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to fly. However, today, their descendants and families are facing despicable attacks here in the UK. The Prime Minister said in his Statement:

“We are a proud, multi-faith, multi-ethnic society”,

and predicted that,

“we will stay that way”.

I say to the noble Baroness and to the Government that just saying something does not make it happen. You have to do more than that. So, again, rather than just waiting for a new Prime Minister, what practical steps are the Government taking today, and have Ministers discussed this wave of increased attacks?

In the section of the Statement headed “Next Steps”, the Prime Minister said:

“First, there was a … reassurance that until Britain leaves, we are a full member. That means that we are entitled to all the benefits of membership and full participation until the point at which we leave”.

I have to tell the noble Baroness that it does not feel like that. If that is the case, why was the Prime Minister not allowed to attend the most crucial session for the UK in which issues relating to the Brexit vote were discussed? Is the noble Baroness now able to answer two questions that she was unable to answer on Monday? Now that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, has resigned as the EU Commissioner for financial stability and services, when will he be replaced and can she provide an assurance that a new British commissioner will be appointed? Furthermore, if we are still entitled to full membership—as the Prime Minister was assured—is she confident that the UK will still hold next year’s EU presidency? Can she update us on that situation since Monday?

As a nation, we have been able to hold our heads high. We had a European and international outlook on our role in the world and the influence we could bring to bear for the greater good. However, today, not only do we face profound economic change but our long-held cultural and social cohesion faces enormous challenges and risks. We all have friends and neighbours who today feel more vulnerable. The only way we can deal with this is to unite around that common purpose of decency and tolerance. As I said on Monday, at times like this we have to rise to the challenge to ensure that what unites us is bigger, better and stronger than what divides us. That is the only way we can face and tackle these challenges.

The noble Baroness will understand that these risks and challenges can only be increased by uncertainty. I deeply regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, in his answers today, has increased that uncertainty. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will today be able to address these questions and tell us when the Government will clarify the comments made by the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I share the outrage expressed about the terrorist atrocity perpetrated in Istanbul yesterday. On behalf of these Benches, I offer condolences to the bereaved and say that our thoughts are very much with those suffering injury.

I do not intend to rehearse the sentiments I expressed on behalf of these Benches on Monday—people know the position of my party on the referendum and its result, which we respect—but the Prime Minister, I am sure, had a very difficult task at the Council yesterday. The result of the referendum was not what he had campaigned for and I am sure he would not be human if he did not feel some tinge of discomfort when he walked out the door, knowing that people were going to talk about him as soon as the door was closed. However, I suspect that whatever difficulties he had will pale into insignificance compared with the difficulty our next Prime Minister, whoever that may be, will have when he attends meetings to discuss Brexit.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Wait and see, because I do not absolve my party leadership from this either. There is a serious issue about the quality of political leadership in our country as a whole. My party is also dealing with internal political problems, largely due to fallout from this result, and our country is crying out for strong, decent, decisive, caring and competent leadership from both Government and Opposition. Our country is entitled to demand such leadership from us at such a challenging time.

So what can we do? Individually and as a House as a whole, we have a responsibility. I believe—the noble Baroness emphasised this point as well—that we have the expertise, judgment and experience in this House to assist and lead in finding a way through. The role of your Lordships’ House in working through the referendum decision and in examining the detail will be essential. As we have already shown, the tone in which we conduct our debates and our deliberations must stay as it is, and we should show the way in being measured and honest.

Our excellent European Union Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has already considered and reported on the process and difficulties of withdrawal, referred to by Sir David Edward, a leading—or probably the leading—expert in EU law as the,

“long-term ghastliness of the legal complications”,

which he described as “unimaginable”. However, we have to imagine them and to work through them.

There are many questions not yet answered and many may not have even been considered, so I shall ask the noble Baroness just three which I think are the most urgent. Today, we are debating the Investigatory Powers Bill. Obviously, the practical implications of such legislation are linked to our co-operation with other EU countries. Given that we shall at some point disengage and have to create a new, separate framework for those countries, what consideration has been given to this and are a rethink and further consideration required?

Secondly, the legislative programme cannot just be business as usual. Paragraph 67 of the EU Committee report states that the Government would need to enact in law everything that they wanted to keep in law which had come from treaties or a directive. Clearly, this cannot be done overnight, but our relationship with the EU is deteriorating by the hour and there is real urgency here. Have the Government considered a timescale for such legislation and will it mean a new Queen’s Speech, so that the legislative programme can be withdrawn?

Thirdly, the Statement referred to the devolved Administrations, but there was more about the role of the Civil Service than about the role of Parliament. Parliamentary oversight of the negotiations will be essential and, clearly, we will want to play our part in scrutiny and policy formulation. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance not just on debates but on parliamentary oversight of negotiations?

These past weeks have been challenging. That so many people took part and voted shows real interest and engagement, yet with such a binary choice it was harder to make the case for the complexities of what was involved and what could follow. Many who voted still wonder and worry whether they have made the right decision. There is no route map for what comes next. There is no long-term certainty for our economy or our society, and it is at times such as this that we have to rise to the challenge and ensure that what unites us is bigger, better and stronger than what divides us.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement and welcome the words she added in respect of what your Lordships’ House may be able to contribute. I declare my interest as a Britain Stronger In Europe board member.

As a democrat, I respect the outcome of Thursday’s referendum, but—I suspect like many colleagues across the House—I am profoundly saddened by the result. I have a deep anxiety about what the future holds for our country. I am worried about the divisions that have been laid bare across the country during this campaign and echo many of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, about the tone of much of the debate and the campaigning. I am fearful for what this means for our outward-looking and tolerant country as well as for the future integrity of the United Kingdom. Many on these Benches are angry that notwithstanding his fine words in the Statement about his vision for Britain, this Prime Minister put party interest before national interest, complacently believing that he could win a referendum primarily designed to settle internal Tory divisions.

The European Union is an institution to which we have belonged and contributed for the past four decades. It has delivered peace, promoted equality, kept us safe and opened the doors of opportunity, but it will no longer be a part of Britain’s future. I think too that the leave campaigners do not appear to have any plausible strategy. We have already seen that they are backtracking on many of the promises they made during the campaign. So the result will change not only the very fabric of our country, it will change Europe and our relationship with the wider international community. Regrettably, the United Kingdom has on many occasions failed to provide leadership in the European Union. As a result, the people of this country have seen Governments play a half-hearted role at best. There has been a failure domestically to make the positive case for the European Union and the benefits it brings. In some ways, therefore, it is not unsurprising that when faced with years of the EU being blamed for everything that is wrong in this country, a majority of people voted to leave.

But I fear that we are only just beginning to realise the adverse impact the vote will have. Since Friday morning we have seen the value of sterling plummet. Some £120 billion was wiped off the markets in the first 10 minutes of trading on Friday, while this morning sterling slipped another 2.6% against the dollar and the pound is at a 31-year low. Surely the leaders of the leave campaign owe it to us to tell us what they think is negotiable with other members of the European Union, what is not negotiable in spite of their many promises, and what the likely consequences will be for the British economy. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England have tried to steady the markets this morning, but fundamentally it is the uncertainty of the United Kingdom’s position which will continue to cause nervousness in the economy. Businesses and the markets like certainty, but certainty would appear to be the last thing we have in the wake of the referendum.

I have a number of questions for the noble Baroness. Can she indicate what the present Government would wish to achieve in negotiations with the European Union? Do they believe that we should seek complete access for the United Kingdom to the single market? Do the Government even have a view? Given that younger voters overwhelmingly voted to remain in, what hope can the noble Baroness and the Conservative Party offer future generations that they will have the same access to jobs across Europe as previous generations?

Of course it is not just the economy that is uncertain, but the very fabric of our constitution. Article 50 states:

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

I think that the House will be interested to know what the Government’s view is as to what our own constitutional requirements are. Are they an Act of Parliament, a resolution of the House of Commons, a resolution of both Houses or an executive decision by Members? That is an important question for the noble Baroness to answer.

Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted strongly to remain in the European Union and the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that, if the people of Scotland ultimately determine that they want a second Scottish independence referendum, there will be one. Can the noble Baroness confirm that that is the position of the United Kingdom Government? Does it mean that if the Scottish Parliament asks for a further referendum, the Government will bring forward an order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer the necessary powers for a referendum to take place?

Northern Ireland as we know shares a land border with another EU country. Thousands of people cross it every day in both directions visiting friends and family, while the economy of Northern Ireland relies heavily on the European Union as a pull factor for internal investment, and directly in the form of research and development grants and peace grants. Can the noble Baroness set out the Government’s understanding of the operation of the common travel area where one country is an EU member and the other country is not? Can she also say something about mandate—the mandate of a future Prime Minister elected not by the country but by members of the Conservative Party, and what that means in terms of taking back control?

The leave campaigners have now admitted that they cannot do much to reduce immigration, so we need a serious and informed public debate about the long-term challenge of immigration. However, the anti-immigration rhetoric we have seen during the campaign has encouraged a surge of right-wing resentment. Perhaps the noble Baroness will wish to elaborate more on what the Government intend to do to tackle that. Finally, although I very much respect the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, to resign his position as a European Union Commissioner, we are still members of the European Union. Can she give an indication of the timescale for Britain to nominate another EU Commissioner so that we do not actually have an empty seat at the table?

We on these Benches firmly believe that it is in the United Kingdom’s best interest to stay as closely engaged in European networks of co-operation and joint operation as possible. We will continue to make the case for Britain’s future with Europe and to fight for an open, optimistic, hopeful, diverse and tolerant United Kingdom.

Her Majesty the Queen: 90th Birthday

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 21st April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness and to speak on behalf of these Benches to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday and to support the humble Address.

For many of us, milestone birthdays are a time for reflection, but when that birthday is a 90th and a whole life has been spent in the public eye in public service, that reflection has an added dimension. Like all of us, Her Majesty the Queen will have many personal memories of births and deaths, and of people, places and events. While her life has brought more privilege and opportunities than most, she has also known the highs and the lows, and the joys and the sadnesses that normal family life brings. As the noble Baroness also said, it is impossible to reflect on the role of the Queen without recognition of her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh—outspoken, sometimes irreverent and at all times totally human, his support has been vital.

The late King George VI, with his sense of public responsibility during the Second World War, had a huge influence on his daughter. I am sure he would take immense pride in how she has conducted herself and shaped the role of our longest serving monarch.

This 90th birthday is a time for public celebration and public reflection. It is not just here at home but across the world that those with memories of the Queen will share them—memories of a visit, a conversation or even just a comment.

As the noble Baroness said, when Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born on this day in 1926 in London, few could have predicted the life that lay before her. At that time, she was third in line to the Throne, because the then Prince of Wales had not yet met Mrs Simpson and started the chain of events that led to the Queen’s father becoming King. Yet the responsibility is one that she readily absorbed, making her first radio broadcast in 1940 at the age of 14, as the noble Baroness referred to, on BBC “Children’s Hour”, to the children evacuated overseas during the Second World War.

With thousands of other young women, she qualified as a mechanic and driver with the ATS. For the time, that was quite bold and daring for a princess and not a decision that the Government were at all happy about, believing that her most important training should be as heir to the Throne, not as a mechanic. Her determination and persistence in insisting that she wanted to serve her country was a clear indication that she would become a Queen who would bring her own style and make her own way. So on VE Day, the two royal princesses were as keen as anyone to celebrate the peace. Her Majesty has spoken about joining the crowds in Whitehall, where they mingled anonymously with those linking arms and celebrating the end of the war. In a world without selfies or mobiles, I wonder how many thought that the two attractive young women partying with them looked just like Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, as with the first, the royal families from across Europe found that as time moved on so did they. In those post-war years, the monarchies of Bulgaria, Portugal and many other countries ceased to exist. But here in the UK, a country that has known just a very short-lived republic in the 17th century, the monarchy has not just survived but has increased in popularity. We should recognise and happily acknowledge that such success is to the enormous credit of the Queen and the way she has conducted herself and undertaken the role—a role for which there is no manual or guide.

In the age of Twitter, “Celebrity Big Brother” and, at times, the sharing of private moments far too publicly, it is refreshing and enormously valued and respected that Her Majesty the Queen has never spoken out publicly of her views on a political or policy issue. She has maintained a dignified privacy of thought and displayed strict impartiality. If it was frustrating at times, it never showed.

The 12 Prime Ministers who have had weekly audience with the Queen have found a willing listener and someone whose discretion they can rely on absolutely: no leaks, no Tweets, just absolute confidence. Those who have attended Privy Council meetings will recognise that businesslike approach.

Some will have heard of the Labour Minister who, while standing as business was conducted, suddenly heard her mobile phone ringing very loudly from the very large handbag at her feet. Hugely embarrassed, she dived into the bag and desperately rummaged until she eventually and triumphantly retrieved the phone and silenced it. Her Majesty looked at her and sympathised: “Oh dear, I do hope it wasn’t anyone important”. I do not think either of them will ever talk to me again.

That dry sense of humour has become very evident over the years. At the opening of the Docklands Light Railway, shortly after her election in 1987, the late Mildred Gordon MP was asked by the Queen how she liked her new job. She responded that she felt that she had little power to help her constituents. The Queen replied understandingly, “Once they find out that you lot can’t help them, they all write to me”.

The fascination with the life of the Queen is magnified overseas, and often the most die-hard republicans show an admiration for her role. Many will recall the somewhat bizarre pirouette of the former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, behind the Queen in 1977—although he later also spoke of his respect. Just last week, almost 40 years later, the current Canadian Prime Minister and Pierre Trudeau’s son, Justin Trudeau, met Her Majesty and paid a glowing tribute. You had to smile as one onlooker observed, “The hereditary principle is alive and well”.

There are other well-known people who also celebrate their 90th birthdays this year: Sir David Attenborough, the singer Tony Bennett and Fidel Castro. In those 90 years, the world has seen massive social and cultural change. In technology, John Logie Baird had only just demonstrated his new invention, the mechanical television, yet last Christmas, the Queen’s Christmas message had more viewers than any other programme on Christmas Day, even “Downton Abbey”—I was looking for the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, but fortunately he is not here. In 1926, the first transatlantic telephone call was made from London to New York, the first red telephone box was installed and the national grid was set up. In that same year, the League of Nations convention abolished all slavery—so it seems so disappointing that, almost 90 years later, we had to bring in our own Modern Slavery Act. While this week we debated and sought to improve the Government’s Trade Union Bill, it was tougher in 1926, when we had martial law on the streets in response to a general strike.

So times have changed, but values have not. The British Royal Family is one of the most traditional institutions in the world, yet if we stand back and reflect on the past 90 years, both the 90 years of the Queen’s life and more than 60 years of her reign, we see significant changes. Many politicians would give their right arm for her approval ratings. She has perceptively, skilfully and without fanfare guided the monarchy into the 21st century. It is clear that Her Majesty values not just the monarchy of today but that of the future, and has encouraged and supported her children and grandchildren in undertaking official engagements and public service.

For some in your Lordships’ House, she has been the Queen for our entire lives. Many of us do not remember any other monarch. She is the figurehead of our nation, and I hope that our tributes today convey something of the high personal esteem in which she is held. So today is a day for celebration. Happy birthday, Ma’am.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I am delighted to add our good wishes and congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on this very special occasion of her 90th birthday. Her Majesty has had, and continues to have, an extraordinary life which she has dedicated in service to our country.

As we have heard, we are living today in a very different society from the one into which Her Majesty was born 90 years ago today. Then, the sufferings and losses of the Great War were still raw. It was less than a decade since the United Kingdom had emerged from the horrors of the First World War, vowing that such devastating conflict should never happen again. And yet, sadly, it did happen again, when Her Majesty, then Princess Elizabeth, was barely a teenager. As we have heard from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, during the Second World War Her Majesty not only served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service but brought comfort to many young people by broadcasting a message to evacuees, urging them to have courage.

Thankfully, today the prospect of war breaking out in the heart of Europe is unimaginable. Today, too, we are living in a world which is far more interconnected than it has ever been. Again, the Queen has fully engaged with this changing world. The metamorphosis of empire and colonial rule into the Commonwealth of free nations has in no small way been achieved by the Queen’s strong personal commitment to that unique institution and force for good in the world. She has kept up with technology and the IT revolutions which have transformed our world. In March 1976, when almost 50, and taking part in a network technology demonstration, the Queen was the first Head of State to send an email, although I rather suspect they did not call it that then.

Throughout the huge change that this country has experienced in the past 90 years, Her Majesty has been a constant, standing with her people whether it be in times of tragedy or times of joy. Her unwavering sense of duty, supported for more than 68 years by the Duke of Edinburgh, and her commitment to the service and welfare of the people of this country are surely an inspiration to us all. When speaking in your Lordships’ House on the eve of Her Majesty’s 80th birthday, my noble friend Lord McNally recalled the vow that the then Princess Elizabeth made in Cape Town on her 21st birthday. She said:

“I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service”.

Gladly, it has been a long life and surely no vow has been more dutifully honoured.

On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I offer my warmest good wishes to Her Majesty the Queen on this most joyous of milestones for a day full of love and affection from family, friends and a grateful nation. Long live our noble Queen!

Panama Papers

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 11th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. It has been a difficult week for the Government. For most people, the reports that they have heard over the past week or so about offshore investments, tax havens and corporate tax avoidance are way outside of their personal experience. Most people are still going to open bank accounts in their local high street, if they can find a branch open. So the press reports will not be fully understood by everyone, but three things emerge. Overwhelmingly, most people have said that they were very familiar with reports on the Panama papers, with just over 4% of those aged 65 and over saying that they were not—so most people have read the information and heard what is going on. There is a general attitude from most people that, even without understanding the full details, something here is not quite right. But only 8% of people said that they were surprised at the reports. For me, that indicates a cynicism about the finances of those in the public eye and highlights a necessity for public confidence in financial regulatory regimes.

George Osborne said in his Budget Statement last month that people,

“talked about social justice, but left enormous loopholes in our tax system for the very richest to exploit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/16; col. 956.]

When he said that, I do not think that he was anticipating the Panama papers. What has become clear, as news from across the world shows, is that not everyone who holds such offshore accounts or funds welcomes the transparency that this leak has brought—not because they have done anything illegal or necessarily wrong but because they never intended it to be public. Clearly, some have found it very difficult and for others it has had serious consequences.

I have a few questions for the Leader of the House on the Statement. It reports that Crown dependencies and overseas territories have agreed automatically to exchange taxpayer financial information from September. That is welcome, but it has taken some time, as my understanding is that these negotiations were initiated and made progress under the Labour Government. I ask specifically about bearer shares, when the identity of the investor or beneficiary is secret. Holding such shares is illegal for UK companies, but can she confirm that it is legal for a UK citizen to hold funds in bearer shares in other countries? If it is not, what is the penalty?

The Statement also says that there will be new legislation this year,

“to apply to corporations who fail to prevent their representatives from criminally facilitating tax evasion”.

Your Lordships’ House will appreciate that that is not a new announcement. In fact, the Government have already consulted on this, and published the consultation responses last December. The report on responses to the consultation last year, under the fourth item, “Next steps”, said that there would be further consultation early in 2016, including seeking views on,

“the merit and content of industry drafted guidance”.

Why is further consultation needed after there has already been a consultation? Is that approach of industry-drafted guidance really appropriate, and has that consultation, which was promised for early 2016, yet been published? Given that we have an extra consultation, is this an opportunity for the Government to take account of the recommendations from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in its report, Changing Banking for Good? That commission included Peers from across your Lordships’ House, including the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord McFall. Following their work, and having taken evidence, they were clear that it is not just corporate responsibility that is needed—they recommended individual responsibility. The commission received considerable evidence, including from bankers themselves, that led it to the recommendation that, without such individual responsibility, it would be impossible to crack down on banking failures and problems. Does the Leader of the House really believe that, without individual responsibility, the legislation proposed would be an adequate deterrent?

The fines and compensation paid by UK banks in the past 15 years come to more than £53 billion, which is six times the cost of the 2020 Olympics. It is an almost inconceivable amount of money. Yet no one has ever gone to prison and only one person has ever been held personally culpable and personally fined, to the tune of half a million pounds. I think that the Chancellor raised the point that it is the customers and shareholders who bear the cost of that failure, not the senior managers, who are supposed to be rewarded for being responsible. Yet there are numerous accounts of those who have wrongly claimed benefits and been sent to jail. A quick internet search finds dozens of cases where false claims of £30,000 or less have led to custodial sentences. So will the recommendations from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards be considered as part of this new consultation on corporate responsibility so that the Government can consider individual responsibility as well?

Will the noble Baroness explain why the Government lobbied the EU against plans to tackle tax avoidance? Conservative MEPs have regularly voted against measures to deal with aggressive tax avoidance and press reports suggest that the Prime Minister personally intervened to block EU plans to take action on tax havens. It would be helpful for your Lordships’ House if the noble Baroness could clarify those points.

Finally, on enforcement, the commitment of a £10 million cross-agency task force is welcome. Additional funding is clearly essential, especially given the cuts that have been made to HMRC. In the last Budget, the Chancellor made a strong case for bearing down on tax avoidance and evasion, especially in relation to the impact on public finances, and I think we would agree on that. In terms of ensuring that taxes are paid, the OBR reported just last month:

“HMRC is also now less optimistic about how much of the lost yield can be recouped through additional compliance activity, on the basis that they are unlikely to be able to work the higher number of additional cases on top of existing workloads”.

To date, the Chancellor has refused requests better to resource HMRC. How will the £10 million referred to today be allocated? Will it go directly to HMRC or is it something to be found from within existing Treasury budgets?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I look forward to her response in answer to those questions.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. As I observed to my noble friend Lady Kramer, if when we went into recess on 23 March we had thought that on the first day back there would be a Statement entitled “Panama Papers”, we would wonder what in the world had been going on. However, they relate to a very important issue because it is at the core of our politics.

It is, I think, agreed on all sides of your Lordships’ House that people in this country should have full confidence in our leaders and that when decisions are made and Budgets are written there is not even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest or personal gain. Regrettably, we are now in a position where not only do people no longer have complete faith in this Government’s decisions but, more fundamentally, trust in politics and in our ability to get things done has been damaged by the events of the past week. It is a poor indictment of our political system that there is now such a great demand to see politicians’ tax affairs and that trust in politics is now so low that there is almost an assumption that a politician is doing wrong, playing the system or is “at it”, and there is the cynicism referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. In the nearly 33 years since I was first elected to the House of Commons, I have known politicians from right across the political spectrum. With very few exceptions, I can say that whatever our differences in political outlook—and some of the differences have been quite fundamental—my experience has been of men and women united in the common purpose of public service. Sadly, that is not always the common perception, so there must be change.

There has been some discussion about the Prime Minister’s personal affairs. Frankly, they are beside the point. Indeed, if this issue triggers an avalanche of published tax returns, and consequent personalisation as they are pored over and individuals are identified, there is a danger that the fundamental point of the weaknesses in the current system will be missed. For, miles removed from the Prime Minister’s personal tax affairs, these Panama papers have shown up dictators stealing from their people from Sudan to Syria, from the family of Mubarak to the friends of Putin, aiding warlords and leaders ripping off developing countries which need the most help. The epicentre of much of this activity would appear to be in a number of British Overseas Territories. At its peak in 2005, it was claimed that there were more than 7,000 somewhat dodgy deals in the British Virgin Islands alone. We have some responsibilities there, so can the Leader of the House guarantee that the Prime Minister will use the options available to him to ensure that those under the UK’s watch can no longer be complicit in helping dictators and other unsavoury characters?

When, not so long ago, the Prime Minister asked British Overseas Territories to reform their activities, particularly in relation to disclosure of beneficial interests in companies registered there, they said no, and he backed down, but today we are told that they will provide UK law enforcement and tax agencies with full access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies. That turnaround is very welcome, but can the noble Baroness tell us whether at the anti-corruption summit this May it is intended to press overseas territories to make available to tax authorities in other countries with a legitimate interest in the information a central list of beneficial ownership in each fund created?

In coalition government, the coalition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, took unprecedented action to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion, very much at the prompting of my colleague Danny Alexander. I am sure the noble Baroness will like to confirm that we made 42 changes to tax law, closing down loopholes and making strategic changes to deter and prevent tax avoidance. We invested nearly £1 billion in HMRC to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and increased the number of staff working to tackle tax avoidance by 2,500. Will she confirm that we strengthened the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime and introduced a tougher monitoring regime and penalties for high-risk promoters of tax avoidance schemes?

Will she also agree that there is more that can and should be done? Indeed, in March my party leader, Tim Farron, asked my colleague Vince Cable to lead a major review on tax to ensure that people can have faith in the system and to make sure it works in a truly globalised world. I hope that, in a spirit of non-partisanship, when that work is done the Government will be willing to look at it closely. We will of course want to examine closely criminalising those who assist in evasion, which has been announced by the Prime Minister, but can the noble Baroness confirm that that is the same policy that Mr Danny Alexander announced on 19 March 2015, when he unveiled plans to,

“make it a criminal offence for corporates to fail to prevent tax evasion or the facilitation of tax evasion on their watch”?

The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition foreshadowed that question. I am quoting from a press release by Her Majesty’s Treasury. Is this a reannouncement or is there is really something new?

In a similar view, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House look again at some of the other proposals trying to tackle tax evasion that my right honourable friends put forward during the coalition, which were blocked by her party? Does she also recognise that the current anti-abuse rules, while an excellent start, can and should go further? Will the Government strengthen the penalties for participating in repeated avoidance schemes? Does she recognise that the changes the Government are bringing in will not even allow someone to be named unless they have been involved in three separate avoidance schemes, and that this is does not go far enough?

At the weekend, the secretary of the Church of Scotland’s Church and Society Council, the Reverend Martin Johnstone, tweeted:

“I hear #DavidCameron is being discriminated against for being rich. It's tough but easier than being discriminated against for being poor”.

In all this, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake: the need to rebuild faith in our politics by doing what matters, by reaching out and helping people, and by having a politics that works for people and their communities when it is their interests that are at the heart of how things are done. We must not lose this opportunity to change the system, so will the noble Baroness assure the House that the Prime Minister’s announcement today will be the start of a process to strengthen our anti-abuse rules and to rebuild trust in our politics?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord for their remarks. Before I respond to some of the specific questions that they put to me, I want to re-emphasise a couple of points in the Prime Minister’s Statement. While David Cameron has been Prime Minister of this country, we have done more to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance than any Government before we came to power. Some of the evidence to illustrate the impact of our action has already been highlighted. We made 40 tax changes to close off loopholes which have brought in £12 billion. We have brought in £2 billion from offshore tax evaders since 2010. One of the points which is worth me highlighting, which has not been fully recognised, is that all this action, whether on tax avoidance or on closing tax loopholes generally, means that the gap between tax owed and tax paid is now at its narrowest point ever. That illustrates how much we believe in making sure that people pay the taxes they owe and that the actions we have taken have had a positive effect.

We have been leading efforts worldwide; it is not just about the things that we have done in this country. Thanks to the work of the UK, more than 90 countries have signed up to the automatic exchange of information. That means that agencies such as HMRC can now pursue avoiders and evaders in ways that they have never been able to before. Our determination to tackle corporate secrecy by shining a light on beneficial owners is going to be game-changing. I get civil servants briefing me on some of these technical matters, and when you start asking questions, you realise just how different things will be when all these measures are in place. I do not think that that has been properly understood and recognised. It is the right thing for us to do.

The anti-corruption summit that the Prime Minister will be hosting next month is the first one ever, and it follows from him taking the lead at the G8 in 2013. The noble and learned Lord is right that while we did a lot when we were in coalition with the Lib Dems, there is more to do and we will continue to pursue this while we are in government because it is absolutely the right thing for us to do.

I turn to the specific questions asked by the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord. I was asked about the new criminal offence. I would not want to say that the Lib Dems in coalition or indeed Danny Alexander should take credit in quite the same universal way that the noble and learned Lord was trying to claim in his remarks, but it is true to say that this is a new criminal offence, previously announced, and a lot of work has been undertaken in consultation to prepare for this legislation. That is a good thing. It is good that it has taken time for this to come through and that it has been widely consulted upon. It is not a knee-jerk reaction to any of the events of the past week; it will be properly thought-through new legislation. It will be part of the Queen’s Speech, and we will hear more about that when we introduce the legislation later this year.

The noble Baroness asked me why further consultation on the legislation was necessary. I do not think we are trying to pursue further consultation. The consultation has happened and we have produced a written response to it. As she would expect, as we finalise legislation—

European Council: March 2016

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister earlier today. I have to say that it was not quite the Statement that we were expecting after the media noise over the last day or so. She may have noticed when she was speaking that noble Lords were flicking through the Statement that was released, because the last part that she read out was not released to the Opposition or to your Lordships’ House in the usual way. I do not imply any discourtesy, but I suspect that the crescendo that we heard in defence of compassionate Conservativism at the end probably had not been written in time for the printed copy.

As MPs and Peers left Westminster on Thursday evening, no one could have foreseen the events of the weekend. Clearly, problems were simmering at the heart of the Government, which led to the dramatic resignation of the Work and Pensions Secretary on Friday evening, just as many of us were about to turn in for the night. In the Statement, the Prime Minister paid fulsome tribute to Iain Duncan Smith for his work in government. But for those who read his resignation letter and watched him on TV yesterday, it is clear that his concerns and the reasons for his resignation are deeply held. Although some feel that this had been building up for some time, others such as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, took to the airwaves to condemn it as a more recent conversion. We may never know the truth.

I genuinely welcome the fact that, despite these distractions, the Prime Minister was able to focus on what was an extremely important EU Council, on which I want to focus. Europe is facing the most severe migration crisis since the Second World War. Many have observed that this is the biggest challenge that the EU has ever faced. Given the scale and the seriousness of the crisis, and the importance of the EU Council meeting, I find it disappointing that internal government political problems dominated the weekend’s news coverage.

Before we get into the detail, we should just reflect on how the human misery at the heart of the crisis is too often lost in the language of EU agreements and treaties. This is nothing less than a matter of life or death for the people involved. You just have to imagine being a parent and paying your life’s savings to someone you know full well to be a criminal just to try to possibly escape the horror that has convulsed your country, with no real prospect of peace in sight. We have seen this in Syria, Afghanistan and north Africa. Many of these families know that they face a great risk, but they believe that staying is a greater risk for them. We just have to imagine and think how absolutely desperate they must be. They have not packed suitcases to go off on holiday, nor have they have been able to sit down and make a rational choice to leave their homes. They feel that there is no alternative but to seek refuge and a better, safer life for them and their children elsewhere.

In 2015, more than 1 million people made that dangerous journey to Europe in a desperate search for safety. Upon arrival, if indeed they make it that far, despite the best efforts of charities, the authorities and volunteers, they all too often face appalling conditions. There is no proper access to all those things that we take for granted: homes, food, sanitation, healthcare and schools. They do not have them in the way that we expect to have them. This is a humanitarian crisis on the most enormous scale. Talk of migrants—especially “bunches of migrants”, a phrase that we have heard—merely dehumanises each and every individual tragedy that we are faced with. Perhaps we should all try to remember that and think about how we speak.

It is right that our response to a crisis of this magnitude is an EU-wide response. It is also right that, through the EU, we engage with Turkey. The need for Europe-wide co-operation underlines the case for remaining in the EU. Labour supports Turkey’s application to join the EU, but we also recognise that this is certainly not an immediate prospect: important issues have to be addressed first and conditions met. We want to be satisfied with regard to human rights, governance, free media, the rule of law and Turkey’s relationship with Cyprus. However, the agreement reached over the weekend, if implemented properly and fully, could relieve some of the pressure that both Turkey and Greece are facing. I welcome the clarification on Turkish visas and Schengen. We also pay tribute to those from our Armed Forces and military engaged in the EU naval operations for their vital work on this issue.

However, questions remain both on refugees and on the wider issues, which I hope the noble Baroness can address in her response. For those seeking refuge who are to be returned, what measures will be taken to ensure that they do not again fall into the hands of traffickers and that they are protected by international law? What measures are guaranteed for those claiming asylum in terms of access to interpreters and to legal advice and representation? Is the noble Baroness able to confirm whether Turkish travel documents have a sufficient level of integrity and security in line with EU standards, including on fingerprints? In repeating the Statement today, she gave some figures on the number of refugees who have settled in the UK. If she could update those figures, that would be helpful.

What progress has been made with ensuring that Turkey fully respects the Geneva Convention on human rights, to ensure that all those arriving from other countries receive formal international protection? What steps are being taken to ensure that those arriving in Turkey do not simply shift via other routes—for example, through Libya? What support is being given to Greece to enable it to execute the terms of the deal at such notice?

Finally, on the other issue that the Prime Minister mentioned, the tampon tax, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Primarolo, who is in her place. She tells the story of how, as a Treasury Minister, she sought and, in 2000, succeeded in reducing VAT on female sanitary protection to the then lowest level of 5% from the higher level that we as a Government inherited of 17.5%. It was not easy. She was told the justification for why it could not be reduced to the lower level of 5% in a scene worthy of “Yes Minister”. She was told: “But Minister, it is only for essential products”. When she asked for examples of what those could possibly be, she was told, “Well, Minister, essential products like razor blades”.

Today, we welcome the progress made and recognise the efforts of my noble friend in getting us to this point. The right decision has been made. The Chancellor said last week in his Statement that the money raised from that 5% VAT would go to charities. Does that mean that charities will not receive that income, or will the Chancellor find some other way to make up the deficit of the money that they were expecting? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer my questions.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Given that much of it was about Turkey, I am sure that she and the House as a whole wish to place on record our condolences to the families of those who have been the victims of recent terrorism atrocities in both Ankara and Istanbul.

Faced with such an immense challenge, it would be unreasonable to doubt the good faith of those who have strived to reach some agreement between the European Union and Turkey over the past few days, but it should not come as a surprise when I say that we on these Benches have serious misgivings about the EU-Turkey deal which has emerged from the European Council meeting. The United Kingdom should be leading by example in the response to the refugee crisis. We should be using a significant influence to fight for an EU-wide response that is fair, just and respect the values that this country holds dear. Credit where credit is due: where this Government have played a leading role, such as in encouraging humanitarian relief in Syria and the region, we have been successful, not least at the Syria donor conference in London last month.

However, when we look at the agreement and the Statement from the Prime Minister, we find it shameful that the United Kingdom is demonstrating such reluctance to stand up for vulnerable refugees who have fled from war and terror. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, gave very clear substance to what those people are facing. Our continued inaction does not do justice to Britain’s history and values.

When one reads the Prime Minister’s Statement, one finds that we will not be taking more refugees as a result of this deal. Put that in a context where people are facing misery and need. One wonders whether this is really a manifestation of compassionate conservatism.

Safe and legal routes are crucial for moving the current process forward. The vast majority of refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq choose to stay in the region, as close to their homes as possible, but for those who cannot survive in the region, routes must be available to apply for asylum not only in the United Kingdom but in other countries as well. On these Benches, we support the measures set out by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees on 4 March: humanitarian admission programmes, private sponsorships, family reunions, student scholarships and labour mobility schemes. Direct resettlement from the region is part of that, and we should be scaling up our resettlement programme. Twenty thousand people over five years is insufficient. The United Kingdom should use its leadership in Europe to encourage other European countries to scale up their own programmes of direct resettlement.

We also need a system in place for those already in Europe, including the estimated 26,000 children who arrived in 2015, 10,000 of whom are now missing. In the vote in the earlier Division, the House made its view very clear on that.

On previous occasions the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and other Ministers have tried to argue that, by accepting those seeking asylum who have travelled the fraught journey to continental Europe, we are only encouraging more people to do so. I have always thought that it was a bit like saying that the Good Samaritan should really have passed by on the other side because, by stopping to help, he was only encouraging more acts of highway robbery on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. If, as the Statement hopes, the agreement breaks the business model of the people smugglers, what reason is there then for us not taking an equitable share of those who are already in continental Europe?

Clearly, the Dublin system is not currently sufficient to deal with this crisis. Instead, the United Kingdom should encourage the European Union to develop European-wide systems of responsibility for asylum seekers, including setting up a system for asylum requests to be distributed equitably across EU member states which takes account of different demographic projections, such as the high net migration in the United Kingdom, compared to forecast population decreases elsewhere.

Turning to the specifics, many people and well-recognised organisations have expressed concern that the proposals as they stand seek to address only the short-term concerns over European borders. Serious questions were raised after the 7 March proposals were published as to their standing in European Union and international law. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give the House the Government’s assessment of the international legal position in relation to this agreement? Can she give details of how full and proper asylum determination procedure will be carried out in Greece in full compliance with European Union law? The agreement states:

“People who do not have a right to international protection will be immediately returned to Turkey”.

Can the noble Baroness provide more detail on who that covers? What provision is made for families and children, given that children and women now make up 60% of those crossing to Europe? Will those who have the right to international protection be granted asylum only in Greece, or will they be relocated elsewhere?

The one-for-one arrangement appears to apply only to Syrian refugees. What is the position regarding other nationalities, such as Iraqis and Afghans, who are also fleeing conflict areas? Not surprisingly, Greece is having great difficulty processing the number of people through the relocation provisions, so can the noble Baroness give us some detail as to how quickly people will be assessed and indicate what provision the United Kingdom is making for the assessment process?

There appears to be little in the way of concrete proposals to tackle trafficking within Turkey and other launch points, including Libya. Although we would like a full investigation into the cash flows of the smuggling businesses, in the mean time, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the money provided by the European Union to improve humanitarian conditions for refugees in Turkey will be closely monitored and, where possible, be funded through international organisations, including UNHCR, UNICEF and other NGOs?

Finally, the EU-Turkey statement reaffirms a commitment to re-energise the accession process. We have supported Turkey’s application, but I do not think that anyone can be under any illusion that, however important it is, it will be a difficult and probably long process. Can the Leader of the House assure us and confirm that, given some of the actions of the Turkish authorities in recent months, there will be no watering down of the justice and rule-of-law requirements of EU membership?

In conclusion, we have seen in recent days the real colour of this Government on this and other issues. Whether it is in relation to the incredibly vulnerable unaccompanied children and families seeking refuge in Europe or the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to pay for his bonus for the wealthy by punishing disabled people, it appears that, time and again, this Government’s choices are driven by cynical politics and public image rather than economic necessity or indeed humanitarian concern.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 22nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement, which is hugely significant for the future of our country and its place in the world. I am also grateful to the Chief Whip for allowing some additional time for Back-Bench contributions and questions.

Clearly, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the UK’s relationship with the EU was the only issue discussed at the European Council over the weekend. I am grateful that, in the Statement she repeated today, the noble Baroness made it clear that other issues were also debated. It must be immensely frustrating for other countries that issues such as migration, Syria and Libya have not received the same degree of interest as our referendum has. Perhaps that makes a profound point, because those are obviously issues where European and international co-operation are absolutely vital and crucial.

On our role within the EU, the Prime Minister is clearly relieved that a deal has been done and that he has been able to announce the date for the referendum, although at times over the weekend it was all looking slightly dodgy. We were told that, following the completion of negotiations, there would be an English breakfast on Friday morning where the deal would be finalised and then the PM would travel back for a Cabinet meeting in the evening. However, as that breakfast became brunch, brunch became lunch, and lunch became dinner, it was clear that there were still a few sticking points. When we saw Angela Merkel rushing out for a bag of chips as sustenance we knew there was still some way to go. Perhaps the Prime Minister thought that he could starve them into submission. Finally the deal was announced—not exactly what he had asked for but, as any experienced negotiator will confirm, that is the nature of negotiations. The deal had significant changes that certainly cannot be dismissed as unimportant, although some have tried. Then, for the first time since 1982 during the Falklands crisis, the Cabinet met on a Saturday.

There is an historical connection here, in that it was Harold Wilson, the first and until now the only Prime Minister to hold a referendum on the European issue, who is said to have once remarked:

“A week is a long time in politics”,

though his referendum campaign lasted just half the time of ours. If a week is a long time, the next four months of campaigning are going to seem like an absolute eternity. There will be discussions and deliberations and, as leaflet after leaflet extolling the views of one campaign or another is handed out and posted through letterboxes, recycling bins are going to be full to overflowing.

I predict some excellent debates and factually based communications that will inform and enlighten. I also predict nonsense, scaremongering and bad temper. We shall also have some moments of pure theatre. The “will he/won’t he” performance of Boris Johnson’s announcement last night was clearly designed to create the maximum spectacle and drama, and he succeeded in that. He was obviously aware of the deliberate impact that that would have on the Prime Minister.

However, for most of us this issue has to be more than just about personalities and theatrics. It has to be about more than who can shout the loudest or get the most celebrities signed up to their campaign. It is more—so much more—than Mr Cameron’s deal. Support for that view has come from surprising sources. It was almost incredible to hear Chris Grayling yesterday morning on the radio saying that it was a relief rather than difficult to declare his opposition because he, like many others, had made up his mind weeks ago, but had done the right thing and let the Prime Minister continue his negotiations. The right thing? Whatever the Prime Minister returned with was never going to get the support of the very people—his Cabinet and his party—he was trying to please. When, on 2 February, we had that previous Statement I expressed our view that too much of the Prime Minister’s negotiating position had been targeted at his own internal party problems, whereas the only objective must always be the national interest and the key issues that impact on people’s everyday lives.

I am not suggesting that the deal is not helpful. People will have their own views. However, there are so many other issues that are crucial to the UK and to Europe on which we should be taking a lead. We should be exerting our influence and trying to create the kind of EU in which we can take great pride. The Labour Party and the trade unions played a strong role in ensuring that issues such as employment rights, guaranteed paid holidays, paid maternity leave and protection for agency workers were kept out of any renegotiation. Those rights are far too important to be lost or weakened.

The same applies to consumer and environmental protections that have a real and tangible impact on many if not all of us. That includes the cutting of data roaming costs for mobiles and for using the internet, the improvement of air passengers’ rights, clean beaches and bathing water—good for our well-being and a boost to local economies—and how we deal with and dispose of waste. Thanks to EU legislation, on those kind of issues we all benefit. Indeed, given that the air quality here in London and other parts of the UK continues to fall short of EU clean air standards, it would clearly have been more beneficial to the public health of our fellow citizens if the Government had engaged more proactively on this front.

I watched with incredulity yesterday as Iain Duncan Smith claimed that we would be safer out of the EU, as being part of it increased the threat of Paris-style terrorist attacks. Is this the same Iain Duncan Smith who supported the Government’s proposals to opt out of EU measures to deal with crime and policing, including terrorism, and then found out, along with the rest of his party, that they had to opt back in to everything because it actually worked? It worked because it made us safer.

For so long, Brexit campaigners have been telling us that EU citizens travel to the UK in order to get benefits. Then, when the Prime Minister reaches an agreement to cut these, the argument shifts to being that it will not make any difference. You cannot have both sides of the argument at the same time. As this campaign progresses, let us have the kind of debate that can make us proud as a country and as a Parliament. Let us try to recapture some of that vision and promise that was in the hearts and minds of those who first conceived that a way to peace and prosperity was a Europe—which was then divided and devastated by two wars—that would work together with common principles and values for the benefit of all citizens. Let us have a debate of vision and of facts. We should recall that in 1961, our application for membership was vetoed because it was felt that we would be too dominant and powerful through our relationship with the Commonwealth and the US. Yet today we maintain those strong and special relationships alongside our membership of the EU.

None of us would claim that the EU was perfect. We all recognise where it has been weak and where change is needed. But would it not benefit this country if we could again be seen as a powerful figure on the European stage—a powerful country that would take a lead within an EU that works better for working people, strengthens businesses small and large, and brings ongoing and better reform? Why should we not seek to build human rights, employment rights, consumer and environmental protections into future Europe-wide trade treaties? Taking on workers from other countries should never be used as an excuse to drive down wages or disadvantage local workers. Rather than merely seeking greater control for ourselves, why should we not seek to stop the pressure from Brussels to deregulate and sell off public services? That is a matter for national Governments. Why are we not pressing across the EU for a more humanitarian and strategic response to the thousands of refugees seeking asylum, with far too many losing their lives in the process?

Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 23 June, the EU is still going to exist just 21 miles from the shores of Dover and across the border in the Republic of Ireland. That is a fact of life. If we vote to leave, we will still have to manage that reality while our businesses, large and small, that want to trade within the EU will still have to abide by its regulations, which the United Kingdom will have no part in making. During this referendum we will hear a lot of talk about sovereignty, independence and what it means to be a nation state in the ever-changing world of the 21st century. We have already heard quite a bit about patriotism. I so hope that neither side in this debate will seek to claim ownership of patriotism or denigrate anyone else’s.

As I said earlier, and I am sure that I speak for many Members of your Lordships’ House, I hope that the debate will be more informative and enlightening than it is misleading and ill tempered. However, my plea is deeper than that. Already today, we have heard the news that the pound is falling in value, partly from the uncertainty of Brexit and partly because of a Government who are now seen as divided and preoccupied. This makes the need for a constructive, positive debate not just important but absolutely essential. Four months is a long time. The Government must not be so preoccupied with this debate that they lose focus on other issues. The debate has to be about the future of the UK and not that of the Conservative Party, as entertaining as that may be, because this is not about entertainment. This is a huge decision that faces each and every one of us. In the Statement which the noble Baroness repeated, there was the comment that this is not just a theoretical question but a real decision about people’s lives. We entirely concur with that statement.

The British people deserve a proper debate ahead of 23 June. My party has set out its position clearly and with conviction. We look forward to making the case for a stronger, open and confident Britain remaining as an engaged, challenging and leading member of the EU.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. At the outset, I declare my registered interest as a member of the board of Britain Stronger in Europe. I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that twice in her remarks she talked about four months being a long time. A number of us in your Lordships’ House who are veterans of three and a half years on the Scottish referendum would think four months a relative relief.

Those of us on these Benches very much welcome the Prime Minister’s successful renegotiations in Europe last week. The hard work that he put in, not only last week but in the weeks leading up to it, was very evident and it is fair to say that what he came away with exceeded many people’s initial expectations. We also welcome the willingness of other EU member states to work with the United Kingdom to reach this compromise. That demonstrates the degree of good will towards the United Kingdom from other EU Governments, and their commitment to maintaining British membership. I was delighted yesterday to hear the Prime Minister setting out, at long last, the strategic case for the United Kingdom continuing its membership of the European Union. It was very welcome, too, that the Prime Minister took the opportunity in his Statement to knock on the head the fanciful idea that, in the event of an out vote, there could be a second renegotiation and a second referendum.

The referendum vote in June will be of the utmost significance. It will settle not only Britain’s relations with Europe, but our place in the world. We very much believe that the United Kingdom will derive strength from being seen as a team player and engaged in international affairs. It is an illusion of sovereignty to suggest that, if we come out, we will somehow get sovereignty back. Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union. We are united in our belief that the United Kingdom is better when it is united with our colleagues in Europe. In an uncertain world of challenges and threats, I also believe that Europe is better and stronger for having the United Kingdom in it as a member state.

We have spoken from these Benches on a number of occasions about how we will use the campaign to speak about the positive case for Britain remaining within the EU. In the EU, Britain can thrive. Together, we will be a stronger and more prosperous nation, securing jobs and creating opportunity for our children and grandchildren. We have created together the world’s largest free trade area, we have delivered peace, and we have given the British people the opportunity to live, work and travel freely. History shows that Britain is better when it is united with our European partners. Together, we are stronger in the fight against the global problems that do not stop at borders. We can combat international crime, fight climate change, and together provide hope and opportunity for the future.

It is worth reflecting for a moment on the creation of the European Union and its lasting legacy. After decades of brutal conflict on the continent, European nations came together in co-operation. To this day, neighbours and allies support each other in what remains the world’s most successful project in peace. We remain stronger together in continuing the fight against terrorists who despise our liberal and modern way of life. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House take the opportunity to repudiate the alarmist comments made by her colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when he said that remaining in the EU exposes Britain to a Paris-style terrorist attack? Does she agree that it is only by working in co-operation with our international friends and neighbours that we can combat such threats to our security?

Britain is already stronger and better off trading and working with Europe. We are part of the world’s largest single market, allowing British businesses to grow and prosper. Our people have more opportunities to work, travel and learn than ever before. Staying in the EU gives our children and grandchildren greater prospects, and the best chance to succeed. Does the noble Baroness share my concerns, therefore, at the dramatic fall in sterling today—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—which we believe was driven in great part by fear of Brexit? Does she agree that the threat of leaving the EU is already costing British businesses and that it would be much worse for British exporters if we were to withdraw from the world’s biggest single market? Can the noble Baroness indicate when we will get the Government’s report on EU membership under Section 7 of the European Referendum Act that Parliament passed towards the end of last year?

This country’s place in the world depends on our getting on well with our neighbours, who share our values and interests. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that this referendum is about the kind of country we want to leave to our children and grandchildren, and about how we think of ourselves as a country? Does she agree that issues such as climate change and the natural environment are better tackled when we come together to think about the world we want to leave to future generations?

There has been speculation about a statement or an initiative on sovereignty, which was lacking from the Prime Minister’s Statement today. Before going down that particular road—it may just have been a ruse to try to bring Boris on board—will the noble Baroness reflect that in fact further piecemeal constitutional meddling of that kind may end up with consequences more damaging than the ones they seek to resolve? Will she give the House an indication of the Government’s thinking on that?

Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that this is, indeed, a once-in-a-generation decision and that there is only one opportunity to show that the United Kingdom is not a country that is isolated and sidelined but one that is open, outward-facing and proud of its place in the international community, and that an out vote means taking the United Kingdom back and an in vote means taking the United Kingdom forward?

European Union: United Kingdom Renegotiation

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I also thank the Government Chief Whip for extending the time for Back-Bench contributions. I know that the noble Lord understands the need for that and also for a more substantial debate on this matter in the near future.

Let me make it clear at the outset that we broadly welcome the Statement. I readily confess to some degree of relief that the Prime Minister is finally making at least some progress on his aim of seeking a new relationship with the European Union. I do not think I am alone in finding that the Prime Minister’s rhetoric has been, perhaps, the opposite of what one would normally expect from a good negotiator. This is not a game. This is not an issue in which internal party political divisions should have any role at all. The only objective must be the national interest: an interest that brings jobs, investment, prosperity and a continued influence in the world; greater protections for British workers and increased opportunities for our businesses; and that keeps us safer, both at home and abroad. What has been outlined so far appears to be a step in the right direction. However, as I think the Leader conceded, it is more of an agreement to agree than a detailed and finalised deal, but it is none the less welcome and we look forward to further clarification and expansion on the detail of how the proposed negotiation will work in practice.

We on these Benches welcome that important and hard-fought advances such as employment rights and improved environmental protections have not been negotiated away. They are tangible benefits for British citizens and it is right that they are protected. Whatever the future arrangements, I hope that the Prime Minister will ensure that British workers are never left behind in standards and rights at work.

I want to be clear that my party will campaign to keep the UK in the European Union, not least because we believe it is increasingly impossible for countries to be fortresses in our interconnected world. Many of the most serious challenges, including crime, terrorism and climate change, affect all countries and are best met by co-ordinated European and worldwide action.

Many noble Lords will recall the hugely informative debates we had on the coalition Government’s bizarre hokey-cokey of opting out then opting back in again on crime and criminal justice measures. It was clear then, and the Government had to concede, that meeting the challenges of serious and organised crime—drug trafficking, fraud, child abuse and paedophilia, and people trafficking—could effectively be tackled only through the EU. I remain of the view that one of the strongest cases for the European Union is the effectiveness of our co-operation on serious crime. The threats and challenges we face will not go away by voting to leave. That established co-operation means that we are better able to detect crime, bring criminals to justice and, therefore, protect our citizens.

It also illustrates one of the failures of politicians, and others, on this issue. There has been a complete inability to talk about the EU so that people outside Parliament know what we are talking about—even in the Statement today. For most people, an emergency brake is in a car. The language of EU directives, qualified majority voting and other terms that most people never normally use does not begin to explain why our membership is so important. We need to talk about the Europe-wide environmental measures that make our beaches and coastal waters cleaner and safer, about consumer protection to stop customers being ripped off, about rights at work, about jobs, about justice and about catching criminals. These are the issues that really touch people’s lives.

There is a huge challenge for all of us in this House and our colleagues in the other place, as well as our national media and opinion-formers. That challenge is illustrated by what could be described as the more colourful headlines, front pages and commentary that the Prime Minister has faced since his return. This debate is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for many millions of people, each with one equal vote, to have their say about our country’s future place in Europe and the world—although, sadly, not for the 16 and 17 year-olds whose future is dependent on the outcome of that vote. The debate should not be only one of persuasion. It should be one of education and providing straightforward, honest and accurate facts and allowing people to reach their own decisions.

Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the European Union Referendum Bill, your Lordships’ House secured concessions from the Government on the importance of significant information provision in advance of the referendum, including agreement to report back on: the rights of individuals within the UK, including employment rights; the rights of EU citizens living in the UK; social and environmental legislation; law enforcement, security and justice; the effect of withdrawal on Gibraltar; the right to apply for financial support from EU structural funds; and support for agriculture and research—although, sadly, not our call for the Treasury to report on the financial impact of the UK voting to leave. That is such an important issue and I ask the Leader to raise this with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the interests of a balanced and informed debate. If I have one plea for politicians and the media, it is that this debate should provide more light than heat. As Thomas Jefferson said:

“The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate”.

Finally, as my colleague the leader of the Opposition in the other place told MPs yesterday:

“The Labour party is committed to keeping Britain in the European Union because we believe it is the best … framework for European trade and co-operation in the 21st century, and in the best interests of people in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/16; col. 928.]

No doubt, many in your Lordships’ House—on all sides—are of the same view. I trust also that everyone in this House understands that, should the UK vote to leave the EU, our country, our companies, our universities and our people will still have to follow its rules when doing business with its institutions or when travelling to the remaining member states—all without any further say in making those rules.

Reform is a constant process. It is not an event. The most effective way to reform an institution is through patience, explanation, persuasion and the building of alliances—often across and outside the normal political boundaries. That is something that noble Lords understand well.

It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the Leader of the House could today provide some of the detail that so far is missing or set out the timetable in which that will be provided and your Lordships’ House given an opportunity to debate it. The sooner the proposed reforms are agreed and clarified, the sooner we can step up the campaign to keep Britain in Europe and end the damaging uncertainty that has been created around our continued membership.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, like the Leader of the Opposition, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement and also for the arrangements for Back-Benchers to raise questions on this important issue. In his Statement, the Prime Minister said that a full day’s debate would take place following the Statement after the European Council later this month in government time in the other place. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to make a similar commitment with regard to a debate in your Lordships’ House.

The draft plan before us represents meaningful reforms that can strengthen our economic co-operation with Europe, can bring jobs and growth to the United Kingdom and indeed, as the noble Baroness said in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, will provide strong protection for Britain from discrimination and unfair rules and practices. Indeed, the provision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of official currency or legal tender seems to be a particularly strong passage in the texts that have been released.

The Prime Minister referred to the legally binding nature of any agreement. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House amplify that when she responds? Would these agreements be legally binding and come into force when the United Kingdom notified the Council that there had been a decision in the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union?

While we on these Benches were somewhat sceptical of the political motives of the Prime Minister in seeking a referendum, it is nevertheless a reality. My party will use the campaign to deploy a positive case for Britain remaining within the European Union. We stand united against the idea that Britain should be isolated, sidelined or alone. We believe that, together in Europe, the United Kingdom will be a stronger and more thriving nation.

In the European Union, Britain is part of the world’s largest single market, allowing our businesses to grow and prosper. In the European Union, neighbours and allies support each other in what remains the world’s most successful project in peace. In the European Union, our citizens have more opportunities to work, to travel and to learn than ever before, ensuring that our children and grandchildren have ever greater prospects and opportunities. In the European Union, together we can protect the natural environment and tackle climate change more effectively. In the European Union, together we are stronger against terrorism and against those who despise our liberal and modern way of life, and we can together tackle more effectively the criminal gangs who peddle illegal drugs and weapons and engage in human trafficking.

These are important arguments that we need to deploy in the referendum. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House therefore accept that, while the reforms in this particular package are welcome, the referendum debate itself will need to go beyond the details of the renegotiation and take into account the wider benefits of European Union membership and the costs of leaving? Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government’s message during the referendum campaign will not just be about the finer details of this package, but about the further and more important values that are at stake?

In the light of the changes made in your Lordships’ House to the European Union Referendum Bill, will the Government ensure that there is a realistic assessment of what Brexit would look like and its disadvantages for the United Kingdom? Can the noble Baroness assure your Lordships’ House that the reports on the consequences of withdrawal and alternatives to membership will provide a meaningful analysis?

Syria: Foreign Affairs Committee Report

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 26th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the Leader for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, and welcome the publication of the Prime Minister’s response to the Select Committee report. Both are necessary and detailed, and cover a range of issues which all Members of your Lordships’ House will wish to consider and reflect on.

The first duty of any Government is the safety, security and well-being of their citizens. My party does not take an isolationist or non-interventionist position. We have never been reluctant to use force when it has been deemed necessary. I understand and appreciate how difficult it is when making such judgments to ensure that decisions are right and fair and that actions are justified.

Our interventions as the Labour Government in 1999 to protect Muslim Kosovar Albanians from genocide by Milosevic, and in Macedonia in 2001, were central and crucial to the protection of citizens and supporting peace. We used military action in Sierra Leone to bring order and stability, and we still have British citizens there playing a central role in building and maintaining that stability. We have also provided military support in times of humanitarian crisis; for example, fighting Ebola in West Africa.

Your Lordships’ House, Parliament as a whole and, indeed, the general public are convinced of the evil and brutality of ISIL. They are very aware of and well informed of the atrocities. Paris brought it so close to home: not only is ISIL willing to cause death, terror and mayhem—and apparently rejoicing in that—but it has the capacity to do so. If anyone doubts that such attacks will continue, they have only to look at the videos and messages posted online as recently as last night: they are chilling, they are frightening and they must increase our determination to protect our citizens.

Our efforts must focus on a comprehensive strategy to tackle not just the actions of ISIL but the environment which encourages such views to develop, and we have to support the overwhelming majority of Muslims here in the UK who themselves challenge and reject such a violent interpretation of their religion and culture. That is why any strategy to defeat ISIL has to be so much more than military action alone.

As we know, the UK is already engaged militarily, providing intelligence and logistical support to our allies in Syria who are engaged in flying missions. We are directly involved in targeted military bombing in Iraq, and we must judge any proposed extension of UK involvement against the wider support it can gain, against the contribution it will make to the chances of success and against the additional capacity it will create. Proposals that are brought forward must also be judged against how they can contribute to the future transition to peace and stability and to the protection and security of our citizens in the UK.

There are also broader issues. There is not just a war to be won; there is also a peace to be won. The issues raised by the Foreign Affairs Committee focus on extending military operations, and the committee identified seven challenges to the Government that should be addressed before the Prime Minister asks the House of Commons to consider this matter and vote. When the report was published a month ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee was not convinced that the Government would be able to provide convincing answers to the points raised. Of course, we will all want to consider with care the Prime Minister’s answers and the committee’s response.

The conflict in the region is not straightforward. Indeed, as the noble Baroness said, it is highly complex. The civil war in Syria has meant not just the physical collapse of a country but the absolute collapse of society. The skills of, and commitment to peace by, those who have been forced to leave their homeland and become refugees will be needed to build the future. So when the extension of air strikes on strategic targets in Syria is considered, it must be as part of a political, diplomatic, humanitarian and economic strategy. We will seek reassurances that the Government fully understand that, and that they will be engaged in and committed to working closely with countries across the region towards the reconstruction and a peace process. The Vienna talks are vital. Whatever the difficulties, that framework and the bringing together of so many countries provides some movement towards political and diplomatic progress.

I have a few questions for the noble Baroness that I hope she will be able to address. Can she say whether any assessment has been made of the direct threat to British citizens from ISIL here in the UK? Can she be clear about the additional capacity that British participation would bring militarily, given the support that is already being provided? Has any assessment been made of the impact of UK involvement on the success of the objectives of military engagement? Can she also say whether the service Chiefs of Staff have been able to participate directly in the decision-making process by providing expert strategic advice? The noble Baroness will understand the concerns about any possible unintended consequences of increased military action, particularly civilian casualties. Therefore, can she also say something about the impact of military action in terms of civilian casualties in Iraq as a result of UK action?

The Government’s response says that,

“a political solution to the Syria conflict”,

is “finally a realistic prospect” following the establishment of the International Syria Support Group and the Vienna talks. This is going to be a difficult process. The government response rightly states that this issue must not be reduced to a choice between Assad on the one side and ISIL on the other. In repeating the Statement, the noble Baroness was clear about the Government’s opposition to Assad. Can she say something more about the longer-term future of Assad and about how the British Government can achieve our objectives, given the atrocities for which Assad and his Government are responsible? I know where the Government stand on this but I am thinking particularly of how we think we can achieve the objective of removing Assad. Finally, can she say something further about the legal basis for military action following the United Nations Security Council meeting on 20 November?

Today’s Statement will obviously be considered carefully over the coming days before the Prime Minister brings any Motion before the other place. These are not issues on which your Lordships’ House has a vote, but I hope that—and put it to the noble Baroness that—given the military, diplomatic, political and humanitarian experience and wisdom in this House, we will have an opportunity for an early debate in addition to the scheduled debate she referred to. I urge the Prime Minister to consult those in this House whose expertise will be of great value.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition in thanking the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, and thank her also for early sight of the Prime Minister’s response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

From these Benches we unequivocally condemn atrocities perpetrated by ISIL, be they in Paris, Ankara, Sharm el-Sheikh, Tunisia or Beirut, or indeed the day-in, day-out victimisation of people in the Middle East. We have also recognised that in defeating an enemy like ISIL the use of military force will be necessary, and indeed we have supported air strikes in Iraq. But the use of lethal force should never be used simply as a gesture—not even a symbolic gesture. It has to have effect. And to have effect, it must surely be part of a wider strategy, not least on the diplomatic front. So the challenge is not whether the Government have made a case to justify bombing but whether they have a strategy to bring stability to the region and lay the foundations for a peaceful future for Syria.

We have consistently called for a diplomatic effort to put together a wider coalition, including others who have an interest in the defeat of jihadism, notably Russia and Iran. While it is understandable, it is not right either to have a knee-jerk reaction to engage in air strikes in Syria or to avoid being involved in another conflict in the Middle East at all costs. Given the gravity of the question that we are being asked, we will look carefully at the Government’s response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and take a considered response.

In doing so, we will apply five tests to what the Prime Minister has said. First, is military intervention legal? In fairness, the response that we have had today is reassuring on that point. Secondly, is there a wider diplomatic framework, including efforts towards a no-bomb zone to protect civilians? Thirdly, will the UK lead a concerted international effort to stop the funding of jihadi groups within the region? Fourthly, is there a post-ISIL plan for Syria and Iraq? Fifthly, what is the Government’s plan domestically? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could provide the House with further details. What is the Government’s plan for post-conflict reconstruction, especially in terms of the vacuum that would inevitably be created in an immediate post-ISIL Syria? What discussions are the Government having with Turkey about its contribution to the fight against ISIL? Can we be assured that we fully share each other’s objectives?

The document before us helpfully discusses the precision with which on a number of occasions our own military capabilities can add to the current actions. However, as we have seen from recent TV reports, some of those already engaged in the region do not act with the same kind of restraint and precision as we can and would. So if we were to become engaged in military action, what responsibility would we have for the actions of other members of the coalition? Perhaps more importantly, what influence could we bring to bear on other members of the coalition with regard to the restraint and precision with which they would take action?

What pressure is being put on our coalition partners in the Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to rejoin the air strikes, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown asked at Questions? They appear not to have been involved in them for some months. What are the Government doing to ensure that they play their part? I am sure that we agree that ISIL would like nothing better than to be able to frame a narrative that the conflict was one between the crusading West and them as defenders of Islam. We must give the lie to that, and that requires the evident and active involvement of coalition partners from the region itself.

Further, what efforts are being made to stop the funding and supply of resources to ISIL? Do the Government have confidence that some of our coalition partners are doing enough within their own countries to stop the funding of ISIL and other extremist groups? The strategy before us does not seem to address that question. What further steps do the Government intend to take into investigating foreign funding and support of extremist and terrorist groups at home in the United Kingdom?

It is disappointing that the document says nothing about trying to have a no-bomb zone, which would help the refugee and humanitarian situation in the region and beyond. Humanitarian aid alone, while important, cannot stop the flows of people, and there is huge pressure on Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which cannot maintain the numbers in refugee camps within their borders.

Finally, since we cannot separate the domestic and international aspects of the fight against ISIL, will the Leader of the House tell us what steps the Government are taking or intend to take to ensure that, in the event of action, the British Muslim population fully understand and are supportive of the actions that the Government propose?

G20 and the Paris Attacks

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I am sure other noble Lords shared similar emotions to mine as we watched the horror of the attacks in Paris unfold on Friday evening. Such deliberate, calculated evil is almost impossible to comprehend, especially in such a beautiful city, where so many of us will have happy memories and remember good times.

I totally endorse the comments already made about our thoughts and prayers being with those who were murdered and maimed, their friends and their families, but also with the citizens of Paris and the whole of France, whose lives and confidence have changed dramatically as a result of what happened on Friday evening. There can never be any justification for such acts of terror, so we share their hurt, their anger and their resolve. We also share the determination to protect our citizens, and those of other countries, from such attacks. Such violent attacks are totally indiscriminate. Those of all faiths and none can be killed, maimed or lose loved ones, and those of all faiths and none have come together to condemn universally those responsible, without reservation.

I reiterate and reinforce the commitments made by my colleagues in the other place: this is an issue above and beyond any party politics. A Government’s first duty is to the safety, security and well-being of their citizens, and we will work with the Government to fulfil that duty.

The Prime Minister outlined the action that has already been taken with our international allies to tackle those who create death, mayhem and fear. I welcome that he acknowledged, and said that he understands, the concerns raised by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and others about the way forward, and how and whether further military action, such as airstrikes on Syria, should be part of that response. We welcome his commitment to respond personally, as the noble Baroness said.

I know the noble Baroness understands the huge human cost of the conflict in Syria and the necessity for a full, strategic plan to seek a politically sustainable resolution that will bring peace to Syria, and for a longer-term strategic plan to seek to deal with the aftermath. The thousands who have fled their homes include so many of those who will be needed to return to build the peace. The Prime Minister’s comments at the G20 yesterday, when he said:

“I think people want to know that there is a whole plan for the future of Syria”,

and for,

“the future of the region”,

were widely welcomed. To be successful, any plan will need national and international support.

I shall raise specific questions about security here at home. We welcome the additional support and money being made available for security and intelligence. We welcome the announcement of greater resources for tackling cybercrime and terrorism. But when asked, when he made the Statement today in the other place, about the role of community and front-line policing—given the cuts that have been made and are being planned to the “eyes and ears” on the ground—the Prime Minister did not respond.

There are many in your Lordships’ House who, through professional experience, can provide real examples of how community policing is essential and successful in tackling crime and terrorism. On 28 October, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bates, about this very issue. My Question was prompted by those in the most senior roles in counterterrorism in the UK being very clear that community police, through the normal course of their work, pick up intelligence and information that is essential to fighting serious crime and identifying terrorism threats. Of the proposed further cuts in policing, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met commissioner, said:

“I genuinely worry about the safety of London”.

I understand that the noble Baroness is unlikely to answer a question that the Prime Minister failed to, but can she assure your Lordships’ House that she recognises the seriousness of this issue? Will she commit to raise it directly with the Prime Minister and report back to your Lordships’ House?

Those seeking to leave and enter this country, including British citizens, will face increased levels of checks and security at borders. It is right that visitors and refugees fleeing the brutality of ISIL and chaos in the region should be subject to such security, but the noble Baroness will also know of the reductions made in border security staff at ports and airports. What plans are there to ensure that staffing levels will be appropriate to deal with the increased level of security required?

In recent years, the Government have introduced a number of new measures designed to tackle terrorism. One referred to in the Statement, which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I discussed at length in the course of a recent Bill, is about closing down any educational institutions teaching intolerance. Is this commitment and others to be met from existing resources, or will new resources be made available? To what extent is the Treasury involved in such decisions on new powers?

Lastly on security, the Prime Minister said in his responses that all members of the Privy Council can receive security briefings on these issues. The noble Baroness may be aware that I have previously requested such briefings when speaking for the Opposition on security and counterterrorism, but I was not successful in receiving any. The Official Opposition in the other place has welcomed the briefings to date, so will she confirm the Prime Minister’s commitment to briefings for privy counsellors?

I welcome the understandably brief comments at the end of the Statement on the other issues that were raised at the G20. Specifically on global warming, we welcome the fact that the USA and China will join the Paris talks and we look forward to hearing more on that after the conference. However, the noble Baroness also referred to the UK taking the lead on action to tackle corruption in a number of areas. This is essential. I appreciate that there is not enough time today to cover the whole range of issues that this raises, but can she provide further information on the areas and the success of any measures that have been taken? If the noble Baroness is unable to respond today, perhaps she will write with more details.

Finally, in the Statement, the noble Baroness, repeating the Prime Minister, asked the public to be vigilant. We must, of course, do that, but let us also pay tribute to those in the emergency services and the first responders, who never know from day to day what they may have to attend to. It is right that this House should recognise their service.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. On behalf of my noble friends, I join in condemning the atrocities in Paris on Friday evening, and those who perpetrated them. I also offer condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed, those who were injured and those whose lives will have been shattered. I also join the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the emergency services and the ordinary citizens who responded with such evident compassion and help.

I also ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of the suicide bombings in Beirut on Thursday, which killed more than 40 people as they, too, went about their daily lives. It is important to send a signal by showing our solidarity with the people of Beirut, as we do—rightly—with the people of Paris. While ISIL likes to frame the conflict as one between the West and Islam, is not the truth that, day in, day out, ISIL is murdering scores of Muslim believers?

We, too, support what the Government are doing. We accept that the primary duty of any Government is to safeguard their citizens. I welcome the announcement of additional support for the security services in general and for strengthening cybersecurity in particular. I hope the Leader of the House will endorse what the Prime Minister has said in another place about the importance of safeguarding human rights. ISIL detests our diversity, our freedoms and our values; we let it win if we compromise on any of these.

I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said about police funding. Reassurances have been given about the counterterrorism element of police funding. I will not elaborate on what she said because she very clearly and concisely put the point about the importance of community policing and the intelligence-gathering that can be done through it. I repeat her request to the Leader of the House to recognise the strength of feeling on this and to undertake to take the matter up with the Prime Minister.

It would be very easy, in the aftermath of such outrages, to make knee-jerk, rather than properly considered, responses. I therefore welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says that he will respond personally to the report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on military intervention in Syria. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that many questions and concerns have been raised—including some from these Benches—about the wisdom of joining in airstrikes and adding our explosives to the tons that have already been dropped on Syria. Specifically, the Prime Minister, in articulating some of these concerns, asked what difference action by the UK would make. Would it make the situation worse? How does the recent Russian action affect the situation? How, above all, would a decision by Britain to join strikes against ISIL in Syria fit into a comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and a diplomatic strategy for bringing the war in Syria to an end?

He went on to say:

“I understand those concerns, and they must be answered. I believe that they can be answered”.

I do not expect the noble Baroness to give us the answers today, but will she give us some indication of when those questions are likely to be answered? When the Prime Minister says that he will set out a comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and our vision for a more stable and peaceful Middle East, will he also be consulting our allies before he makes that announcement on his strategy? It is important that we reflect on the allies. He has said that progress has been made in Vienna to deliver transition in Syria, but we are entitled to ask some questions about the nature of the international coalition. It is important that it is international. We have called in the past for engagement with Russia and Iran but clearly, too, there are a number of different countries and partners—such as the Sunni monarchies in the Gulf and Turkey—that do not all share the same priorities and objectives. Trying to pull together that coalition is clearly a complex matter. What specific steps are the United Kingdom Government taking to make sure that when these talks take place and a coalition is being put together, everyone is pulling in the same direction?

At home, the Statement recognises the importance of engaging with the Muslim communities. Britain’s diverse Muslim communities are affected by conflict and they are as well aware as anyone of the efforts being made by those who would pervert Islam to try to sow poison in those communities. We need an active dialogue with the leaders of our Muslim communities on an appropriate response. When she held office, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, did sterling work in taking this forward and I would welcome reassurances that the level of work and engagement that she undertook continues to be undertaken by Ministers.

Finally, the Statement also referred to climate change. Not surprisingly, given the enormity of what happened on Friday, it has been somewhat overlooked but it will be in Paris next month that people gather again to discuss climate change. The Secretary of State at DECC is reported to have indicated recently that the forecast is that we will manage only 11.5% of energy from renewables by 2020, rather than the EU obligation of 15%. Can the Minister confirm this and, if it is indeed the case, will she not take the opportunity that this House has provided by taking out the clause that would accelerate the ending of the renewables obligation for onshore wind? Perhaps she could reflect again on that and just quietly drop it.

Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for repeating the Prime Minister’s statement, which raises the most serious issues of humanity, moral obligations and national security. I would first like to ask about the refugee crisis. I think it fair to say that, until recently, many people were not even aware of the scale of the terror, the crisis and fear facing millions who have been forced to flee Syria. They are not people who want to leave their homes or their country. They are people from all walks of life, forced out in fear of their lives and those of their families. This is a defining moment for our country and for the Government.

The body of a child washed up on a beach has shocked, upset and horrified everyone, but such deaths of those abused by traffickers in seeking sanctuary is not new and has been debated in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. We must be strong, confident and proud in reaching out to those seeking refuge on our shores.

Among the Syrian children whom we will now take in will be the future hospital consultants at our bedsides, the entrepreneurs who will build our economy and the professors in our universities. They will also be among the strongest upholders of British values, because that has always been the story of refugees to this country, whether it was the Jewish children of the Kindertransport, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, or the Asian families whom I knew when I was younger, driven out of east Africa more than 20 years ago, or Sierra Leoneans fleeing a brutal civil war. The Prime Minister said last week that it would not help to take more refugees because it would not solve the problems in Syria, but that is a false choice. Helping those Jewish children was not part of our efforts to end the Second World War; helping east Asian families did not bring down the brutal dictatorships; but it was the right thing to do. It was a natural, human response.

We welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that our country will provide sanctuary to 20,000 refugees. I appreciate that it will be over this Parliament, but can the noble Baroness reassure me on the need for urgency, because people are losing their lives today? Can I suggest that it would be helpful now to convene local authority leaders from all over the country to discuss what they are prepared for, what they are able to do to settle those refugees into their areas, and the regional and local distribution to ensure that all areas can play their part—rural as well as urban, towns as well as cities? Many local authorities have already indicated that they are keen to step forward and play their part, which is greatly to their credit. They will need reassurances on additional resources, given the level of cuts they have already faced.

The Government have said that they plan to use the international aid budget for this purpose. Why did they not just use the reserves? Ensuring that refugees can be welcomed, supported and integrated is an issue not just for local government or the Home Office but for transport, education, health, business, tourism and, as we have heard, the devolved authorities. It is an issue also for churches, community groups and so many individuals who have cried out for action from the Government. Beyond what the Prime Minister has told the other place, can the noble Baroness tell us what discussions are planned to guarantee a nationwide, cross-government strategy that will co-ordinate the efforts of those who want to help and have asked the Government to help?

We support aid to existing refugee camps. Does the noble Baroness accept that desperate conditions in those camps have contributed to far too many people risking their lives trying to bring their families to Europe, and that this reinforces the need for greater co-operation across the EU and with the United Nations?

I turn to counterterrorism, because the scale of the threat posed by ISIL is clear. We have witnessed its brutal torture and murder of British citizens abroad and the sickening attacks that it has inspired and sought to organise here at home. The security services, the Armed Forces and our police do immensely important work to try to keep us safe. It is a difficult and dangerous task, and we are grateful to them for their efforts. This is the first time that Parliament has heard of the specific operation on 21 August, when the Government authorised the targeting and killing of a British citizen in Syria, a country where our use of military force is not authorised. We understand that a meeting of senior members of the National Security Council agreed that, should the right opportunity arise, the military should take action, as the noble Baroness said in the Statement. The Prime Minister said that the action was legally justifiable under the doctrine of national self-defence because, first, the man was planning and directing armed attacks in the UK; secondly, there was no other way of stopping him; and, thirdly, the action was necessary and proportionate. The evidence on each of these points is crucial to the justification for the action. Is it significant that the Attorney-General did not authorise this specific action but confirmed that,

“there was a legal basis”,

for it? Was the Attorney-General’s advice given or confirmed in writing, and will it be published? The Statement informs us that the Defence Secretary “authorised the operation”. Why was it not the Prime Minister himself who gave the authorisation?

I want to ask the noble Baroness about the specific target of this attack, although I understand that there may be things she cannot disclose to the House. Inasmuch as she can, can she say what it was about this individual and his action that singled him out, given some of the other reports we have had? Did he represent an ongoing threat, or was the threat based on a specific act that he was plotting? Does she accept that there is a need for independent scrutiny of government action, perhaps by the CT reviewer and the Intelligence and Security Committee? Can she tell me whether they have been asked to look at this?

We are already engaged in the use of force against ISIL in Iraq. However, it is vital that the UK continue to play its part in international efforts to combat ISIL across the region. What is clear from the Statement is that, if the Prime Minister is to propose to join coalition strikes in Syria, he will return to the House of Commons for a vote on authorisation. Although your Lordships’ House will not have a vote, it may be helpful to reiterate the position as set out by the acting Labour Party leader and shadow Secretary of State for Defence on 2 July. She made it clear when she said that ISIL,

“brutalise people, they murder people, and they are horrifically oppressive”.

We will carefully consider any proposals in relation to military action in Syria that the Government bring forward, but we all need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our objective of defeating ISIL, the nature of any action and its objectives, and the legal basis. Potential action must command the support of other nations in the region, including Iraq and the coalition already taking action in Syria.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and thank her for ensuring that there is additional time for questions from Back-Benchers today, given the level of interest in this issue. We look forward to her response.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement on these very profound and serious issues. I also endorse what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said—we appreciate the fact that there will be an extended period for Back-Bench questions.

Probably nothing is more important than the Government’s primary responsibility of security of the realm and its citizens. The Prime Minister acknowledges that in his Statement. Clearly, we do not have the evidence, nor would it be appropriate to share that evidence publicly, and therefore we must accept the judgment of the Prime Minster in responding to perhaps one of the most serious calls that has been made on him. However, it would be interesting to know whether this is a matter that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at.

There is also reference in the Statement to the legal basis. Having worked closely as a law officer with the present Attorney-General, I know that his judgment would be made with considerable rigorous legal diligence and bringing to bear his considerable personal and professional integrity. I do not call for the publication of law officers’ advice; that is not something that, as a former officer, I would readily do. However, the noble Baroness will remember that before the House debated chemical weapon use by the Syrian regime and a possible UK government response, and before we debated last year the position on military action in Iraq against ISIL, the Government published on each occasion a statement setting out the Government’s legal position. If it is felt possible to elaborate on what was said in the Statement by a similar note, I think that we would find that very helpful.

The images of migration that we have seen on our screens and in our newspapers over recent days have certainly touched our common humanity. There has been an outpouring of the view that we must welcome refugees, and that is one that we certainly endorse. The Statement says that,

“the whole country has been deeply moved by the heart-breaking images we have seen over the past few days”.

However, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us whether any of those travelling across Europe at the moment will be accommodated in any way by what was set out in the Statement? We have heard of 20,000 refugees—said very loudly; “over five years” is probably said more sotto voce—but these are people in camps in countries bordering Syria. That is not to dismiss what is being done in that regard, and it is welcome in as far as it goes. However, what the people in this country have been crying out about are the scenes on our television screens of people walking across Europe, fleeing terror and destitution. Yet can the Minister point to one sentence in this Statement that indicates that for those people there is some glimmer of hope that the United Kingdom will be a welcome haven?

We have a common problem and it requires a common response. There are problems in the Mediterranean, on Europe’s borders and in coming across Europe and we should be promoting a common European response. The European Union system has its failings. The Dublin system is not by any stretch of the imagination perfect, but by our stand-offish stance we seem to have forfeited any real or moral authority in being able to give the lead in trying to improve or work out a more coherent European approach to this. Will the Government commit themselves to taking a more active role in co-operating with our European partners, as well as in participating in European Union efforts on relocation?

With regard to those who are coming, we welcome the steps have been taken. Many local authorities have indicated a willingness to take refugees. The Leader of the Opposition asked what would be done to bring these local authorities together, and it would be useful to know what consultations had already taken place. What consideration has been given as to whether there should be a dispersal programme or whether it is better to keep communities together for mutual support? I do not pretend that I have the answer to that, but real issues are involved. What has been done to ensure that there are interpretation services, counselling and support services for English as a second language?

We have heard about the international aid budget being used for the first year to support local authorities, but surely in a situation such as this there is something in reserve that we could use. The Statement itself refers to holding “larger sums in reserve”. Has this been taken from the overseas aid budget for future years or has a separate reserve been taken up?

The Statement says that,

“we will ensure that vulnerable children, including orphans, will be a priority”.

Just before we went into recess, there was a report about 600 young Afghans who had arrived in the United Kingdom as unaccompanied children who were deported after their 18th birthdays because their temporary leave to remain had expired. Many had already established strong roots in the communities where they were living. When we hear about the fact that we will give priority to vulnerable children including orphans, can we have some reassurance from the Government that they will not be summarily sent back after their 18th birthdays?

We will not resolve the Syrian refugee crisis unless there is a wider resolution to the Syrian problem. What steps have the Government taken to try to promote broader engagement with countries that might not at first instance appear likely to help, such as Russia and Iran, whose engagement will be necessary if we are to get a long-term lasting diplomatic settlement and tackle some of the root causes?

There is an immediate crisis on our doorstep. There are 2 million refugees in Turkey, 1.4 million in Jordan, and over 1 million in Lebanon. According to the UNHCR, there are 60 million displaced people worldwide, 46 million of whom are assisted and protected by the UNHCR. Developing countries host 86% of the world’s refugees. While we have an immediate problem, there is a much wider global problem. We have to play our part in the funding that we have given to the UNHCR but we should be trying our best to engage more countries, such as the Gulf states and the United States of America. Are we in a position to give some leadership to look to the future and tackle the global problems that will exist? We will return time and again to this issue, I suspect, because of its global nature.

The Prime Minister said earlier this week that Britain is a moral country. I believe that. I believe from what we have seen from communities and people across the country that we are a moral country, but I rather fear that this Statement falls short of a moral response.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement—and what a Statement. This is an issue of major constitutional significance. Action to ensure that the voice of English Members of Parliament is heard loud and clear has to be addressed. Indeed we recognise that, with the deepening of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the need to ensure that the views of English MPs are heard is clearly important. Both the McKay commission and the former Leader of the House of Commons, William Hague, in his Command Paper reported on this issue. But what is proposed by the Government today goes far beyond what has previously been considered and reported to Parliament. These are far more wide-reaching changes, with far deeper implications, but with no proper analysis of how they will work in practice. I find some irony in the opening lines of the Statement describing the Government as both Conservative and unionist. The credibility of claims to be unionist is fading fast.

We could be forgiven for thinking that on an issue of such constitutional importance, on detail that has never even been seen, let alone considered or debated, before today, and on an issue that has such profound implications for how Parliament operates, there would be an opportunity to wisely consider legislation. Should there not be a Green Paper, a White Paper, or possibly even a Bill that would be debated in both Houses—proper effective scrutiny to ensure that any proposals not only address the fundamental principles but, equally importantly, how this could work in practice? But no; this issue, if the Government get their way, will be done and dusted within the next couple of weeks, with no consultation or any scrutinising debate in your Lordships’ House. How? This will be done merely by amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The Government have today published 20 pages of amendments to the Standing Orders of the other place. The implications of these changes are hugely significant. Given that, the noble Baroness has to address the question of why there has been no consultation or expert scrutiny outside the immediate narrow circle of the Government. Can she tell me when such constitutional proposals have been dealt with merely by amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons? Twice in the Statement she referred to making a start on the process. This is not just a start. It will be done, dusted and finished within two weeks? With the Government’s obvious fear of any genuine scrutiny in what most of us consider would be the normal, most sensible and practical way in which to make such significant changes, the noble Baroness will have to convince your Lordships’ House that this does not have the whiff of political expediency about it.

We will all want to reflect further on the detail, given that many of the specific proposals are new and have not been considered previously. For Bills that the House of Commons Speaker certifies as England-only in their entirety, the proposals appear to be fairly clear. However, today’s Statement goes much further than that. It outlines a process of sorts where a Bill contains some proposals that are considered to be either Welsh or English. There is not time today to go into all the complexities and complications of how that would work in practice, but it is sufficient to say that there will most certainly be complexities, complications and, of course, potential for chaos. Legislation rarely divides itself neatly into geographical areas. So if the Government are no longer talking about individual Bills but apparently individual clauses in Bills, this surely creates significant scope for additional complexities—and indeed risk.

With the proposals being published only this morning, the full implications of how this will affect the work of your Lordships’ House cannot yet be fully clear. In this Chamber we press votes only when necessary. We try to effect change by working with the Government with debate, discussion and presentation of the facts. However, on issues that will be defined as English, an amendment passed by this House will be subject effectively to a double lock. Will that mean the Government will be less willing to engage on English-only issues, because in this Parliament, and generally, the other place has a majority of Conservative MPs in England, so that whatever we say or do, they could vote your Lordships’ House down?

The Statement refers to using a procedure to identify English parts of a Bill as similar to that used for certifying financial privilege. Many noble Lords will recall that Peers from across the House have had several heated exchanges over the years with the Government in recent years over their refusal to engage with amendments passed by this House and ask the Commons to reconsider—and the issue raised has been financial privilege. Does the noble Baroness have any concerns about how these proposals will affect your Lordships’ House? Unless the Government already have a blueprint or precedent of how it can be made to work in practice, should not some thought and debate have gone into these proposals?

When William Hague presented his Command Paper to Parliament, he clearly did not envisage such proposals as those being brought before us. He was clear that there were a number of serious issues to be addressed, consulted on and decisions taken. Today’s Statement bypasses any such process. Mr Hague considered how a constitutional convention could be established and the kind of issues that could be addressed. The noble Baroness would have heard in Questions today the calls from right across this breadth of your Lordships’ House on how a constitutional convention could assist the Government, Parliament and the country. Laws rushed in rarely get it right.

Finally, we have concerns at the way in which this has been announced, and that has been reflected in other measures brought before us. This has been done without consultation or apparent thought for any possible unintended consequences. It is hardly reflective of the significance of the Government’s proposals. Yesterday, I spoke in your Lordships’ House of our concerns about the Government’s approach to the Childcare Bill and our recognition of the wider implications of the Government’s approach. The Constitution Committee, even since the beginning of this Session, has described a trend since the last Parliament,

“towards the introduction of vaguely worded legislation that leaves much to the discretion of ministers”.

This, the committee states,

“increases the power of the Executive at the expense of Parliament”.

On this issue, we are told that an assessment will be conducted in 12 months’ time by the Procedure Committee in the House of Commons. But what about your Lordships’ House? Again I have to ask the noble Baroness: has she given any thought to the implications for this Chamber? Will we get any opportunity to assess any impact that it may have had on the way in which we work? We have to do better than this. If we do not do it properly, the potential risks are enormous.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. We very much welcome the fact that it is being repeated in our House, given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, it clearly raises wider issues that go far beyond the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The Statement was right to reflect on the long history of this issue, the so-called West Lothian question, and there is general agreement that we are beyond the stage where the best way to answer that question is not to ask it. There is an issue there that needs to be addressed. This is the Government's attempt to give a clear and comprehensive answer to the “English question”. The Prime Minister, when he first mentioned this on the morning after the referendum—when I very much regret that he switched mode from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to leader of the Conservative Party—made the comparison between the position of Members of the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish devolved issues, and English MPs. But, of course, Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected by a system of proportional representation. I am not holding my breath in the expectation that the Government will ensure that any committee of the House of Commons will also be convened on a proportional basis. We have already seen at the outset a breakdown between the comparisons that were being made.

The Statement boldly claims:

“There will be no changes to procedures in the House of Lords”.

I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Is the Leader of the House absolutely sure about that? For example, the new procedures in the Commons may well affect the overall management of the parliamentary business timetable. Ping-pong may well have to be a more measured process where an English-only or English and Welsh-only Bill, particular clauses or amendments are concerned. Will she join me, at an appropriate point, in asking the Procedure Committee of your Lordships’ House to look at any implications of the changes to the Standing Orders of the other place? In addition, when your Lordships’ House amends a hitherto English-only Bill to affect Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland constituents, how will the Commons deal with that when the Bill returns here?

There is also the issue of defining an English-only Bill or provision. I recall the Bill that introduced top-up tuition fees for English universities being taken through the other place. It is often held up as an example of a decision being swayed only by the votes of Scottish MPs. I was the Higher Education Minister in Scotland at the time, and I had to bring in legislation in the Scottish Parliament months later to address the consequences of that Commons vote. It is not always easy to identify a Bill with impact only in England, or only in England and Wales.

The trial period for the 2015-16 Session is welcome. Will the review then examine the provision’s success or failure? What happens if there has been only limited or no experience of its operation? The “double majority” and “English veto” introduce significant new constitutional departures, and it is important that we examine these in some detail. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, taking the comparable position—putting England in the same position as Scotland—Members of the Scottish Parliament do not have the last word if Westminster chooses to override it. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that Westminster has not lost the power to legislate in regard of Scotland. However, what is being proposed here is in effect an English veto, by a Committee comprised solely of English MPs, and that is not Parliament. Parliament’s rights are being inhibited.

The question we must ask is, if what is sauce for the English goose is sauce for the Scottish gander, should the Scottish Parliament be able to veto any provision in a UK Bill that relates to devolved matters in Scotland, in the same way that this English Committee can veto any matters relating to England? When we go down that road we open up a very interesting set of issues—which may well take us toward federalism, which I would not object to. Again, however, has this been fully thought through? I hope that the Leader of the House can answer that.

The Statement refers to making a real start on the task of how, when and in what format Ministers intend to take this forward. Will there be an opportunity for this House to have a much wider debate on these issues, and in particular how they will affect proceedings in your Lordships’ House?

Childcare Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House prior to Committee but I had given notice to the Government that I would be speaking on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It is unusual when a Minister moves a Bill to be taken in Committee that he makes such a lengthy statement and I think it is an indication of the concern that has been expressed around your Lordships’ House that he has chosen to do so today. It is helpful to a degree and I am grateful to him for doing that. Perhaps we would not have had that statement today had it not been for the report from the two committees and our intention to speak today prior to Committee.

This is an important Bill, and we all want to ensure that there is proper and effective consideration of it. However, the way in which the Government have brought forward the Bill has serious implications for how we as a House consider legislation and fulfil our constitutional obligation as a revising Chamber. We cannot revise that which is not there. The primary role of your Lordships’ House is effective scrutiny. That Ministers accept so many amendments in your Lordships’ House, and propose others following our debates, is evidence that this role is valued by Governments in improving legislation.

At Second Reading, concerns were raised about the lack of detail in the Bill from all sides of the House, including from noble Lords on the Government Benches. Since that debate, both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have reported. The Constitution Committee today says that this is, “a particularly egregious example” of the kind of legislation coming forward from government, and,

“an example of a continuing trend of constitutional concern to which we draw the attention of the House”.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report published on Friday, agreed with many of the concerns that were raised at Second Reading and said that it was:

“Unable to understand why the Bill has been presented in a skeleton form only”.

Rarely has this House seen such stark criticism of a Government’s failure to provide the information needed to allow proper consideration of legislation at the start of a Bill for Second Reading, or indeed for Committee. The Delegated Powers Committee rejected the Government’s bizarre assertion in their report that,

“too much detail on the face of the Bill risks obscuring the principal duties and powers from Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Surely it is the purpose of this House to examine the detail of a Bill. The committee also rejected the notion that regulations can be published at a later date to deal with what the Government referred to as,

“operational, administrative and technical details”.

The committee has been very clear that the use of regulations in this way is “inappropriately wide”, “flawed”, “vague” and that more detail is essential, otherwise,

“the House will have insufficient information … for a properly informed debate”.

Most damning of all, the committee also rejected,

“the Government's attempt to dignify their approach to delegation by referring to a need to consult”.

I think we heard from the Minister’s statement that the committee is highly regarded by your Lordships’ House and by Governments, who rarely fail to give effect to its recommendations. This is not at all a party-political matter—far from it. The committee is cross-party, and we on these Benches support the aims of the Bill. However, for this House to do its job it must have more than the bones of a policy to scrutinise. Our concerns, as the Government will understand, are wider than the Bill. The fact that the Minister has been brought to the House to make quite an unusual statement before the start of Committee today, as welcome as that is, is an indication that the information to date is completely inadequate. Therefore, with the wider concerns that no Government should consider this to be an appropriate approach to legislation or business in your Lordships’ House, I would be grateful if he can clarify some points.

The Minister said that there have been discussions among the usual channels, and the Report stage will not come forward before October. I will press him a bit further, as I was not 100% clear about that from the other comments he made. We are looking for guarantees and assurances on just three points about information being available, not by a specific date but prior to consideration on Report. The Minister may have addressed those points in his comments, but I will be grateful if he could confirm, first, that the committee’s report is followed up by the Government and effect given to its recommendations to amend the Bill. He said that he would take consideration and take note, but I was not sure if he said that he would bring forward amendments as the committee recommended. Secondly, the draft regulations that were provided for consideration must also be available prior to Report. Thirdly, the most crucial piece of information we require is that the financial report, which is the basis on which this policy will succeed or fail, will be made available before Report.

We do not in any way want to delay consideration in Committee, but we recognise—I think the Minister has gone some way towards recognising it today—that without this information, despite the best efforts of noble Lords who will take part in this debate, scrutiny will be inadequate. That information is essential for Report, otherwise we could not consider the Bill effectively. Finally, on behalf of the whole House, can we have a categorical assurance from the Government that this will not be their approach to any future legislation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, further to the comments and concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I also thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position when he moved that the House should go into Committee. It is helpful that he indicated that Report stage will not be until October, but, like the noble Baroness, I was not entirely sure what he was saying in terms of a commitment to amendments. We will therefore reserve our position with regard to anything that may come forward from the Government after they have given consideration to the many concerns expressed not only in your Lordships’ House but also, and particularly, in the committee reports that have been referred to.

This legislation has the hallmark of a party policy announcement during a general election, with the Government now desperately trying to figure out what it means and how to put it together. The comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee —which, having recently been in government, I can attest is a committee that Ministers take very seriously indeed—are some of the strongest that I can recall. The noble Baroness said, quite rightly, that it is a cross-party committee chaired by a member of the governing party. When the committee makes comments such as:

“In our view, the Government's stated approach to delegation is flawed. While the Bill may contain a legislative framework, it contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague ‘mission statement’ in clause 1(1)”,

it is a strong condemnation which I think shows that the Government have not given the matter adequate thought.

My real concern is that this is not the only Bill where the Government have singularly failed to make a clear case for the policy that they are advancing. People have been watching the proceedings on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. That is a policy that also generally commands support but, nevertheless, we have seen in that case, too, the Government seeking to make policy on the hoof and pass through the revising Chamber legislation that fails to stand up to the most basic test of scrutiny.

I suggest to the Minister that—while it may be past praying for these Bills as they were introduced—tools such as pre-legislative scrutiny might be used more regularly when the Government want to do something that is, at the outset, somewhat unclear regarding the detail of how they wish to proceed. They might reflect on the failure to use the mechanisms available to them for this Bill and ensure that such measures will be taken, where appropriate, in the future.

The Minister said that there had been agreement to make progress. My noble friend Lady Pinnock will indicate today in Committee that we do not want to see this Bill delayed; we want the Government to get their act together and make reasonable progress with a measure that commands, I think, a fair degree of support. Primarily, our position is that we want reassurance that, in the future, this House will not be frustrated in its fundamental role of effective scrutiny because the Bills presented to it have not been properly thought through.

Tunisia and European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. As the news came through on Friday lunchtime, it became almost too difficult to comprehend both the magnitude and the nature of the events as they unfolded in Sousse. Families and friends on holiday, relaxing and enjoying glorious weather and local hospitality, were thrown into murder and mayhem. I do not think any of us will ever forget the heartbreaking sight of sun loungers being used to stretcher the dead and the injured. With 18 British citizens confirmed dead and the death toll of British and other nationalities likely to rise, and with others seriously injured, the horror and fear of that day will never be erased from the memories of those who have survived. As we think of the pain and distress of families trying to find and identify loved ones we can only try to understand what they must be going through.

I concur with and support the comments of thanks to all those—the FCO staff, our police and other agencies and the locals in Sousse—who are trying their best to give both the practical and the emotional support that is needed and will be needed for many for months and years to come. The Home Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for the Middle East are in Tunisia today and they will understand the scale of the problem.

I am sure that, like me, the noble Baroness was deeply affected by the interviews with holidaymakers who, while clearly traumatised and visibly upset, said that they wanted to stay on, in recognition of the support that they had from the locals, who had helped them despite their own fears and distress. I understand that the Government are not issuing advice against travelling to Tunisia, but is any advice being provided to those who are booked to go on holiday there over the coming weeks?

Obviously many Tunisians are already worried about their futures, both in terms of security and economically. I know it is early days and I welcome the fact that discussions have been held with Prime Minister Hollande and Chancellor Merkel but have there been any further discussions with the Tunisian Government? I am thinking not just about security issues but also about economic issues, which can have a huge impact on the local economy and the national economy and will raise other issues around security.

At the European Council, security and defence were rightly high on the agenda. It is a stark reminder, as we reflect on the 10th anniversary of 7/7, that this week alone there have been deadly terrorist attacks not only in Tunisia, but also in Kuwait and France. Meanwhile, the death toll in Syria and Iraq continues to rise. The Prime Minister has rightly recognised that this violence stems from an extremist ideology which hijacks and perverts the religion of Islam, and that this must be tackled at home as well as internationally. We must challenge such extremism, whatever its origins, and champion the values of peace, freedom of speech, tolerance and equality.

The noble Baroness may be aware from debates in your Lordships’ House on the then Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that not only must our security forces and police have the resources, the numbers and the appropriate tools to be effective but action must be community-based, and all communities have to engage with government and other public bodies in a climate of trust. She will be aware that so many within the Muslim community are challenging ideological extremism and championing the values that lead to a more tolerant and peaceful society. In their considerations of the way forward, are the Government also giving further thought to how these individuals and communities can be supported in their work?

The noble Baroness will know that your Lordships’ House has been very concerned about migration, as discussed at the European Council, both in tackling the organised criminality that fuels it and the instability in north Africa and the Middle East that leads frightened and vulnerable people to risk their lives and those of their families. One of the conclusions of the European Council meeting is:

“Further to the Commission’s European Agenda on Migration, work should be taken forward on all dimensions of a comprehensive and systemic approach”.

Is she in a position today to explain what that means in practice and what action will be taken? The same document refers to,

“the reinforcement of the management of the Union’s external borders”.

What contribution did the UK make to that discussion, given the cuts that we have seen in our UK Border Force?

Finally, on Britain’s negotiations with Europe, can the noble Baroness inform your Lordships’ House whether there will be any treaty changes before the referendum takes place? I understand the Prime Minister’s political difficulties and the sensitivities around this but it is a really important issue. How long was he given to make his case at the summit? Perhaps she can help me: we are not clear at this stage what he is negotiating for. There is even confusion among those he is negotiating with about what he is negotiating for. British citizens, who are going to be asked to vote in a referendum, are also unclear what he is negotiating for. The Prime Minister said in his Statement that this was the first stage, “to kick off the technical work” between now and December. What exactly does that mean and what steps will be taken to keep the public informed?

It is a fact of geography that we are an island nation but all these issues impact on the lives of British citizens. Whether it is terrorism in Tunisia, refugees in the Mediterranean or the economy in Greece, these problems connect us all, and if we are to genuinely address them, we must do it together.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I certainly join her and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing on behalf of these Benches our condolences to those families who have lost loved ones through the senseless and brutal terrorist attack in Tunisia. Our heartfelt thoughts are with those who were injured in the attack and are seeking as best they can to recover from those injuries.

Like the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, I think it is important to pay tribute to the heroic members of staff who went to the assistance of those who had been injured, and the holidaymakers who helped. As was acknowledged by the Prime Minister, there has been a considerable immediate response by Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, consular officials, the police and the Red Cross. These are all very welcome.

The Leader of the Opposition also reflected on those who have expressed the view that they wish to stay on holiday in Tunisia. I certainly heard one of them on the “Today” programme this morning. I cannot help but reflect that it is the resilience of ordinary people to terrorism that will ultimately undermine the hate of terrorist organisations.

The Government have talked about a “full spectrum” of measures to support Tunisia and to address the consequences of the appalling events of last Friday. In his Statement, the Prime Minister referred to working with President Hollande of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Michel of Belgium to help Tunisia strengthen security. That is a particularly welcome example of proper co-operation within Europe to help Tunisia. As well as shedding some light on what kind of help is in mind, perhaps the Leader of the House could also acknowledge that in addition to security measures, wider economic support will clearly have to be given to nurture what is a fledgling democracy. There are historic ties between our two countries. If democracy is to take root and flourish, it is very important that we not only give economic help—given the inevitable damage there will be to the tourist trade—but help where we can to support the institutional arrangements in Tunisia. Will the Leader of the House also update the House on what influence the Government are bringing to bear on those countries in the Middle East with which we have good working relations in order to undermine sources of funding to ISIL?

I heard the Prime Minister reported in the press today talking about the values of democracy, justice, freedom and tolerance. It will be these values that will prevail. I certainly wish to endorse that but there is an age-old balance to be struck between security and these values and freedoms that we cherish. Can I therefore have a reassurance from the Leader of the House that, in addressing the necessary measures, it will also be important not to undermine those values which we think are so important in winning the battle against the intolerance of extremism?

To return to the EU Council meeting, we have heard about the dynamics of the meeting. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked just how long the Prime Minister had to make his case. At the end of an eight-page communiqué issued after the meeting, there are two—or, rather, one and a half lines—that say:

“The UK Prime Minister set out his plans for an (in/out) referendum in the UK. The European Council agreed to revert to the matter in December”.

It has been reported that this was done during what in other circumstances might be described as a pit stop. Some colour on how the Prime Minister presented his case would be very welcome.

The Prime Minister’s Statement talks about both reform and renegotiation. If there is to be renegotiation of the treaty and there is treaty change, it will almost inevitably require referendums in France, Ireland and Denmark. Can the Leader of the House perhaps clarify whether the Prime Minister is expecting treaty change? Will the referendum which we are having here be contingent on those treaty changes having been approved in the referendums of those EU countries which require them under their own constitutions? Or is it just the case that the Prime Minister is not very clear at this stage whether he wants reform or renegotiation and is hedging his bets?

With regard to migrants, do the Government accept that many of those crossing the Mediterranean are fleeing war and persecution in places such as Syria and Eritrea and are forced to undertake dangerous journeys due to a lack of safe and legal routes to find protection? A key part of the response to the crisis must be to offer refugees safe routes into the EU so that they no longer have to make such dangerous journeys or have to use the appalling means of people smugglers. Given that there are now 20 million refugees worldwide, I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that to resettle just 20,000 must only be a starting point. She talked about the Prime Minister making further commitments in Bratislava recently. By one estimate, we have so far resettled 187 Syrians. There are estimates of nearly 4 million Syrian refugees, most living in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Can she indicate, in the light of what the Prime Minister committed to in Bratislava, what numbers we expect to see as an increase?

Finally, I acknowledge that the United Kingdom did have and has exercised a legal right not to take part in this resettlement—the opt-out. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain to your Lordships the moral case for that course of action.

Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential and Saving Provisions) Order 2015

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, this draft order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. In summary, it proposes to do three things. Before explaining them in some—I am afraid—unavoidable detail, I would summarise them thus. First, we propose to amend Section 44 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 for the rest of the United Kingdom, with a related saving provision. Secondly, we propose to amend the definition of “child” for the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to the amended Section 44. Thirdly, we wish to make a minor corrective amendment to the definition of “secure accommodation” in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for the rest of the United Kingdom.

On the first of those, Section 44 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which I shall refer to as the 1995 Act, makes provision to prohibit the publication of proceedings at children’s hearings and certain related proceedings before a sheriff. Section 44 was repealed, as it extends to Scotland, by the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and replaced for cases going forward under that Act by a similar provision made in Section 182 of the 2011 Act. However, it is now clear that Section 44 is still needed to ensure that it continues to be an offence for a person to publish relevant information in relation to historic children’s hearings cases dealt with under the 1995 Act, and cases which began under the 1995 Act system and continue to proceed under that Act by virtue of the transitional arrangements.

The draft order is made in consequence of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act and which now reverses for Scotland the unintended repeal of Section 44 of the 1995 Act. I wish to reassure the Committee that while it is evident that the repeal of Section 44 was an error, no child’s welfare was jeopardised by it as the repeal was not commenced when the rest of the 2011 Act was commenced—the error having been identified before the commencement order. The 2014 Act also amends Section 44 for Scotland so that, going forward, it applies only to exclusion order proceedings under Section 76 of the 1995 Act. This is required as those proceedings remain under the 1995 Act and are not covered by the 2011 Act.

Given the United Kingdom extent of Section 44 of the 1995 Act, the draft order is required to give effect in the rest of the United Kingdom—that is, outwith Scotland—to both the amended version of Section 44, to restrict its future application to exclusion order proceedings under Section 76 of the 1995 Act, and to save the former version of Section 44 for both historic and ongoing children’s cases under the 1995 Act.

The second matter proposed is a related amendment to the definition of a child in Section 93(2) of the 1995 Act. Section 52(b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 made a change to the definition of child in Section 93(2) for the purposes of Section 44 of the 1995 Act, so that it was extended from persons under the age of 16 years to persons under the age of 18. However, that change was not extended to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Just as the draft order seeks to bring the existing parallel texts of Section 44 into line, it seeks to have the same definition of child for Section 44 purposes for all jurisdictions.

Thirdly, the draft order also corrects a minor error made by the Section 104 order made in consequence of the 2011 Act. The previous Section 104 order amended Section 44(11) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by substituting the definition of “secure accommodation” with a new definition that took into account the most up-to-date statutory cross-references for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the substituted definition contains an undefined reference to the “2000 Act”. The 2014 Act corrects this for Scotland by clarifying that the reference is to the Care Standards Act 2000. The draft order makes the same clarifications for the other jurisdictions.

This order again demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I can confidently say that this will be the last such order in this Parliament, so it may be for the interest of the Committee to note that 45 orders have been made under the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2012 in this Parliament, since May 2010. In your Lordships’ House, 27 of these have been subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. There was an extra one in the other place which related to bonds, and therefore did not require to be affirmed by your Lordships’ House, and 17 of them were subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is indicative of the way in which the devolution settlement is flexible, and indeed of the commitment on the part of the Government to work to ensure that legislation passed in Scotland is applicable in other parts of the United Kingdom and that the devolution settlement works.

With that, I thank the officials in the Scotland Office, in various departmental offices and, not least, in my own office of the Advocate-General, for all the work they have put into these, as well as officials in the Scottish Government, because it requires a lot of co-ordination to get these orders to be brought forward and there has been a lot of co-operation here. I also thank the noble Baroness—I think this is the second time she has done a Scotland Act order—and her other colleagues, not least the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who I saw up until just a moment ago was engaged in the Chamber on the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill. I appreciate the constructive co-operation they have given, and with those words I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanations, which are helpful. We support what seems to be the tidying up and correcting of some anomalies in the legislation. I also thank him for his generous comments. I know that he will have been somewhat surprised to see me here again today, having been expecting my noble friend Lord McAvoy, who discovered at the last minute that he was unable to be in two places at once. His skills extend some distance, but he could not quite achieve that. I will pass on the noble and learned Lord’s comments to him, and I know that he will welcome them. He has always found the Minister to be very co-operative and willing to engage in discussion of issues, which is appreciated. Again, the Minister will be surprised to see me—this is the second order I have done. My link is that I have a Scottish mother and I spent a lot of my childhood in Scotland; that alone does not qualify me, but I hope that it helps.

I have a couple of questions on this. I appreciate that Section 44 was repealed in error and that this is a step to correct that—to which we give our full support. When was it recognised that the mistake had been made? Was the issue ever raised in debates as the Bill was going through? The comments the noble and learned Lord made were helpful when he said that the repeal was not commenced, so no child had suffered as a result of that. That is clear, and it is helpful to have that information. However, for it not to be commenced, it must have been recognised very soon afterwards at least that there was a problem and that it should not have been repealed. Perhaps the Minister can help us by saying when that came to light; that is the only question we have on that. Overall, we support the order before us today.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments. I, too, know the tremendous talents of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, but being in two places at once probably defeats him.

The noble Baroness asked when it was recognised that a mistake had been made. Clearly, it was not recognised during the passage of the Bill, otherwise up until the final stage 3 in the Scottish Parliament it would have been possible to move an amendment. However, it was recognised before the Act was commenced in 2013. The error was noticed between the passage of the 2011 legislation and its commencement: therefore, when the commencement was done, it did not commence the repeal provision. When the Section 104 order, which was consequential to the 2011 Act, was brought before this Parliament, the error had been noted by then, so in no way did we seek to extend the appeal provisions to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I repeat the assurance that because of that and because of the lack of commencement, no child has had their interest jeopardised.

Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2015

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation, which I found extremely helpful. I was struggling with the copyright changes and it is helpful to understand why they were brought forward.

I have a few comments and only a couple of questions. My understanding is that the order is purely consequential; there does not appear to be any new policy development coming through. However, what impact will it have, if any, on the development of offshore wind facilities in Scotland? Will it have a substantial impact on it?

In article 4 of the order, subsection (4) of proposed new Section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989 states:

“An application under this section must be made within the period of 6 weeks beginning with the date on which the decision to which the application relates is taken”.

Is six weeks the normal period of time, or was it chosen as the most reasonable period of time to allow for an application made under that section?

Again in article 4 of the order, subsection (2)(b) of proposed new Section 36D states, as one of the conditions that has to be met for a court to grant permission for an application to succeed, the court would have to be satisfied that,

“the application has a real prospect of success”.

That also appears as one of the conditions in proposed new paragraph 5C(2)(b) of Schedule 8 to that Act on page 4. Is it normal legislative language that the court should grant permission only if there is a real prospect of success? I am not sure whether I have seen that language; I have seen “reasonable” but I am not sure that I have seen “real”.

Could the Minister also clarify what the language in proposed new paragraph 5C(2)(a) means. It states that the court must be satisfied that,

“the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application” .

I am unclear exactly what that means.

From what I have seen I think we can support the order. However, those points of clarification would be helpful.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her general support of this order. It is consequential, and it is neutral in terms of whether it will give rise to more applications for offshore wind turbines. However, in the regimes that are in currently in place, the Scottish Parliament can competently legislate for the inshore marine area but not the offshore marine area. This order is to ensure that there is consistency between the two regimes. It simplifies matters by giving direct access to the Inner House of the Court of Session—the equivalent to the English Court of Appeal—rather than having to work up through the sheriff court and subsequent appeals, as was the case previously.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the period of six weeks was normal. I rather suspect that it replicates the arrangements already in place. As to having a sufficient interest in the subject matter, it is normal, especially in more recent times, that there should be some interest or title to sue. I have to be careful about the use of that term of art. However, not just anyone can come off the street and raise an issue. There has to be some nexus between the aggrieved person and the proposal under challenge.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thought my asking a question might allow for further enlightenment when I saw the Minister seeking advice.

If someone does not have sufficient interest, why would they make an application? It seems to be a given. I do not understand why a person would make such an application to the court if they did not have any interest in it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

They might just have a remote interest and generally be interested. For the sake of argument, let us say that the development was somewhere off the east coast of Scotland and this was a person who was just generally interested in wind farm developments and was living in a stately pile in Argyll. You would not actually say that there was a sufficient interest for them to merit a title to raise an action. I am told that the six weeks replicates what was under the 2014 Act. That is certainly my understanding; if that is not the case, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.

I will also have to check up—as we are introducing this measure, as it were, at the behest of the Scottish Government—as to whether the term, the “real prospect of success”, is normal. I know that there have been substantial reforms of the Scottish civil jurisdiction in very recent times and much of it is still to be implemented, but I will write to her and confirm whether that is a new term of art or something that goes back into the mists of time. The general point is that we are giving effect to something the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for under the 2014 Act, to ensure that there is consistency between what it can legislate for and what it can not.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I rise briefly to comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has done a service to your Lordships’ House because she has given the Minister the opportunity to think again and to take advice from some of the best legal minds that the country has. I hope that he will take that opportunity.

I am not a lawyer, but one thing that strikes me is the issue of fairness. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the point when she used a football analogy—not something that I would normally do in any event whatever. My noble friend Lord Bach laughs, because he knows my loathing of the obsession with football. But the idea that the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should depend on the consent of one of the parties to the appeal is something that offends a great many noble Lords and their sense of justice and fairness.

My only question to the noble Baroness, which I asked her when I saw that she had raised this matter, was whether the Government had ever raised any concerns and whether this proposal would make it more difficult for them, given their problems in deporting foreign criminals. She was able to assure me that it has never been raised by the Government as causing any concern whatever. I think that the Minister should take the opportunity that has been presented to look at this again. The noble Baroness says that the amendment is not perfect, but it does not need to be perfect to take it away and give some further consideration to what has given a lot of concern to noble Lords across the House.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for introducing this amendment, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, has given rise to many learned contributions in the course of debate. As has been indicated, the amendment would place the tribunal in a position of the primary decision-maker; it would allow matters to be considered and decided by the tribunal without the Secretary of State having considered and decided them.

The tribunal exists to consider appeals against the refusal of an application by the Secretary of State. That is why the Bill provides that the tribunal may not consider matters that have not first been considered by the Secretary of State unless the Secretary of State consents to it doing so. Picking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, nothing in the proposal in any way reflects on the work that has been done by the tribunal. Indeed, the point he made from experience about it being more appropriate than the cases that went to court is in no way a reflection on the tribunal.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights stated in its report that the provision relating to the Secretary of State’s consent may not be compatible with the principles of equality of arms, right of access to a court and the separation of powers because it allows one of the parties to an appeal, the Secretary of State, to determine the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Of course, ultimately Parliament sets the jurisdiction of the parameters within which the tribunal will operate.

However, the principal reason why the Government have proposed this measure is that we do not believe it is right for the tribunal to be the primary decision-maker. I certainly will reflect on the points made on that principle. I noted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that it was more practical for the tribunal to deal with this matter although, technically, the decision-making body was the Secretary of State. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made the point that the primary decision-maker in these matters is the Secretary of State. Therefore, I do not think it is such a clear question of principle as perhaps has been suggested. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, maintained that there were compelling practical reasons. However, the primary decision-maker is, indeed, the Secretary of State. The role of the Secretary of State—

Female Genital Mutilation

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 20th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right: the Crown Prosecution Service can take only cases referred to it by the police. In turn, the police require co-operation and engagement on the part of those involved in schools, education, the health service, including GPs, and, indeed, the communities themselves. That is why there is a range of activities across government, agencies and the third sector to try to raise awareness and improve lines of communication so that cases can be reported with more confidence.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister’s answers are very clear, and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is clear that legislation alone has not been an adequate deterrent. However, the French system works particularly well, whereby young girls who present to hospital are examined to see whether they are victims of FGM. We would not necessarily want to go down that route but, given that it has been successful, will the noble and learned Lord take on board the comments made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but also look at other ways of addressing this issue, including involving hospitals and other agencies which could bring evidence to the attention of the CPS to ensure that we get a prosecution, as that will be the only genuine deterrent that will really make a difference?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions France. My understanding is that there is no specific crime of female genital mutilation in France. Nevertheless, I think that other issues are involved there which are somewhat different. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the Crown Prosecution Service is looking at experience in different jurisdictions to try to get information on best practice. With regard to hospitals, which she mentioned, as from next month there is intended to be a reporting requirement from hospitals of cases which they discover, and a database will be built up. It is important to remind those involved that there is a legal obligation on NHS staff to safeguard children and young people and that, if they identify someone they consider to be at risk, or who has already undergone FGM, they must respond appropriately by involving the social services, which, in turn, can involve the police.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I share that difficulty. However, what the Bill does has quite significant implications. If I take the example of somebody who is employing an individual whose leave is revoked and who then appeals, the employer has the opportunity to continue to employ that person quite legally. What is being proposed here seems to make the employer commit an offence, because from the moment that leave is revoked, even if the individual is appealing against it, they are no longer allowed to employ that person. What I come back to on a number of areas in the Bill is the issue of unintended consequences—not thinking through from point A to point B. I may have it completely wrong, and I am happy if I have, but I would like some clarification on that point.

On the other two points, the Minister will be aware of how concerned we are about the Government’s proposals on appeals and administrative reviews. I fail to understand why the Government do not want to have the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration reviewing decisions taken in this case. The noble Baroness asked him to confirm that. An explanation would be quite helpful. The same is true on Amendment 87ZF.

As with so many proposals the Government bring forward, I would like to understand the evidence behind the decisions being taken and an assurance that they understand and know the consequences, including the unintended consequences, of such measures.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment and confessing, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to having difficulty getting her head around some of this. Having had this landed on me very recently, I have similar issues.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It makes no difference. We spent weeks on this.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am advised that it is not correct that this Bill means that leave does not continue where an application has been made in time. I think there is a double negative in there. My understanding is that Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 provides that where someone makes an application for further leave while they have existing leave and that the existing leave expires before the application for further leave is decided, their existing leave is extended on the same terms until that further application is decided and any appeal against its refusal is no longer pending. That is the existing position. Section 3D of the 1971 Act makes the same provision where someone has existing leave which is revoked, extending leave while they can appeal against the revocation. Schedule 9 to this Bill amends Sections 3C and 3D so that they extend leave also while an administrative review can be brought or is pending. I hope that is helpful. No doubt the noble Baronesses will want to consider it. I think that is the accurate position.

Nothing in the Bill prevents people making protection or human rights claims. We are committed to protecting such fundamental rights but equally, as has been explained on numerous occasions in Committee, we also seek to prevent abuse of the system and to create an improved process. Our concern is that the amendment that my noble friend has moved would undermine both these aims.

Extending leave because a protection or human rights claim has been made following an unsuccessful administrative review would create a strong incentive to make such claims. This would undermine the greater efficiency of the appeals framework in this Bill. There would be an advantage in making a protection or human rights claim just before leave extended under Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 expired, even after an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal has been decided. This would create a sequential process where the further claim and any appeal are considered after the other claim has been decided rather than at the same time. It would mean that leave is extended on current conditions for a worker, even when that worker has first sought an extension of leave as a worker and then decides he no longer wants to be in the UK to work but rather wishes to claim asylum. We do not believe that that consequential inconsistency is right.

Inserting new Section 3F into the Immigration Act 1971, as proposed by Amendment 87ZA, would create duplication. Existing Section 3D of the 1971 Act already provides that where leave is revoked, the leave will continue while any appeal against revocation is brought.

I wish to make the important point that, as I said at the outset, there is nothing in the Bill that seeks to stop or prevent people making protection or human rights claims. The Home Secretary will consider and decide any human rights claim made to her and will not remove any person while that claim remains undecided, irrespective of whether they have leave. I hope that is a reassurance that there will not be a removal while a claim remains undecided.

Amendment 87ZE queries the necessity of a consequential appeals amendment. We believe that the consequential amendment is necessary. Schedule 9 repeals the provision establishing a monitor for entry clearance cases with a limited right of appeal. This monitor role is now performed by the independent chief inspector under Section 48 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. However, the Bill provides that there will no longer be any entry clearance cases with a limited right of appeal, and therefore Amendment 87ZE would retain an otherwise redundant provision.

With regard to Amendment 87ZF, the Bill simplifies the appeals framework and removes “not in accordance with the law” and “different exercise of discretion” as grounds on which appeals can be brought. Amendment 87ZF would reinstate these as reasons for allowing an appeal, although they are not grounds on which an appeal can be brought. Noble Lords will recall from when we debated Clause 11 that the grounds of appeal under that clause are that a decision breaches the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention to those entitled to humanitarian protection, or is unlawful under the Human Rights Act. These are the relevant grounds for challenging refusals of protection or human rights claims, and, in considering them, the tribunal is considering whether the decision was in accordance with the law. That is the important point in the appeal. Similarly, the UK’s obligations to asylum seekers entitled to humanitarian protection or under the Human Rights Act are not discretionary. There is therefore no exercise of discretion for the tribunal to consider in those appeals that come before it.

I hope that in the light of this explanation and these reassurances, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an indication of the discontent with Clause 11 that this is the second debate we have had on it. We had an interesting and lengthy debate on Clause 11 on Monday in relation to the principle of the Government’s proposals, and on our amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Noble Lords may recall our strong opposition to the Government’s proposals to remove appeals in the way they are seeking to do. I will not repeat all the arguments that I made on Monday, other than where they are relevant to this amendment. However, for the convenience of the Committee, my comments are recorded at cols. 1178-81 of Monday’s Hansard.

Originally, Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was grouped with others on appeals, including a not dissimilar one from myself, Amendment 27, which in some ways is like a sunrise clause to review and improve the current position before any further moves are taken to change the system to administrative review, although we were more specific as regards using the expertise of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. That is not particularly significant at this stage; both amendments were tabled in response to the existing problems in the system, whereby a very high proportion of the decisions appealed succeed, and an even higher proportion of those are down to casework errors. Therefore, I have no difficulty whatever in supporting the principle of this amendment, although I had hoped that the noble Baroness would support the principle of my amendment when I spoke to it on Monday evening. I recall that no noble Lords present commented on our amendments in that debate other than the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, perhaps because she has degrouped her amendment today as she wants a separate debate on it, even though the principle involved is very similar.

I repeat the broader point that we made on Monday and invite the noble Baroness to comment on our very real and genuine concerns about, not just the detail, but the principle of the Government’s proposals. We can all sign up to a process that gives timely, accurate decisions, and a swift process to address any errors. I do not think there is any dissent around those principles. However, if we take this clause in context, that is not what it does.

On Monday, we also moved a Motion that this clause does not stand part of the Bill. That device is often used to give your Lordships’ House the opportunity to have a broader debate around the principles of an issue. However, I also made it clear that removing the clause entirely would be our preference given the current position and the quality of decisions that are taken. Failing that, our Amendment 27 addressed exactly the same principle as that in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, today. I also spoke to our Amendments 28 and 29 regarding an impact assessment and a review.

Our concerns about this clause and the proposal for administrative review go deep and are not confined to any individual group who would be affected—a lot of the debate on Monday evening centred on students—as this goes wider and would affect everybody who applies for review. The right to appeal is a fundamental principle of British law. As I say, we support a process that gives timely, accurate decisions, and a swift process to address any errors. We believe that such a decision should be challengeable and that recourse should be available.

However, as I explained on Monday and as other noble Lords have said today, the necessity for appeals is even more essential when we know how flawed the current system is. It is well documented that the department is already struggling to deliver a quality service and that there are huge casework backlogs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred. I provided details of the backlog of shocking cases regarding the length of time for which people are waiting for decisions to be made. More important is the quality of decision-making. The figures reveal that 32% of deportation decisions, 49% of managed migration decisions relating to work and students and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. Despite the fact, rather surprisingly, that there are no official data from the Government, a Home Office sampling exercise revealed that 60% of the volume of appeals allowed are due to caseworking errors. That means that almost 30% of all appeals—60% of the 49%—are allowed due to caseworking errors.

When so many decisions are found to be flawed, should we really be trying to remove the current routes for appeal and replace them with administrative reviews? I asked the Minister when the sampling exercise was undertaken and over what period of time. I know that he could not reply on Monday. If he is able to do so today or write to me, it would be helpful.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

I think that I did reply, if the noble Baroness looks at the Official Report. I said that it was between April and June 2013.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is really helpful and I apologise. I shall reread Hansard. I am sure that I did not doze off at that point.

As other noble Lords have said, we should focus on improving the efficiency of those initial decisions and making sure there is little need for appeals in the first place, because that is what will create confidence in the system, which itself will reduce the number of appeals. I am raising these points again now because it cannot be right that the Home Office’s response to its own inefficiency is simply to stop people challenging this inefficiency. I know the Minister pointed to an administrative review, but we have heard strong arguments today and previously that that is not the way forward. He said that the person reviewing the decision will not be the person who made the original decision but a cohort of immigration staff drawn from those who already make decisions. However, my understanding is that the Home Office already has a system whereby, in some cases, senior staff already review certain decisions. I cannot, therefore, see how an administrative review would be particularly significant if a number of decisions are currently overseen and reviewed by senior staff. Given the very high proportion of appeals allowed, which in most cases result from caseworking errors, it is clear that this problem with the quality of decision-making has to be addressed. Should that not be looked at by someone who is completely independent for there to be a real confidence in the system?

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of the Government’s reliance on judicial reviews as recourse. A number of noble Lords today and previously have raised concerns about the cost. Not only do judicial reviews cost more than appeals but costs can be sought from the other party, and damages may be claimed but the Government have to recognise—indeed, they do so in their assessments—that the number of judicial reviews is likely to increase. The noble and learned Lord will be aware of the comments by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government’s proposals on judicial reviews do not take into account the committee’s comments and do not look at how,

“the Government’s other proposals to reform both legal aid and judicial review itself”,

impact on the ability to seek judicial review.

I can understand why the noble Baroness has brought forward her proposal but I do not really understand why it had to be a stand-alone debate, considering that we had a similar debate on Monday, when her points could have been made. I see that the noble and learned Lord agrees. However, there is a strong case to oppose this clause as a whole, and I see this amendment, which is similar in principle to our proposal on Monday, as a fallback position and not the solution. I also hope that the Minister will recognise that there are great concerns about the principle and implementation of the Government’s proposals, and will look at them again, given that there have now been two lengthy debates on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for tabling this amendment. She described it as being a self-standing amendment outwith Clause 11. However, it would delay the commencement of Clause 11 until such time as an instrument which provided for the conduct of administrative review had been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The proposed new clause also seeks to include within that instrument provision for procedures for administrative review to be agreed by independent persons, for oversight of those reviews by an independent person and for that independent person to report to Parliament. The proposed new clause also provides that Clause 11 should lapse after five years unless an order for it to continue in force is laid and not annulled by either House of Parliament.

The process governing administrative review will be set out in the Immigration Rules. There is no power in this Bill to make an order that will set out the administrative review procedure. Furthermore, as I have said, the administrative review procedure will be set out in the Immigration Rules prepared under the power in Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. The procedure under that Act provides that the Immigration Rules are laid before Parliament. Either House may seek a debate on those rules and pass a resolution disapproving of the changes proposed. Such a resolution would require the Secretary of State to lay further rules within 40 days. This procedure provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the process for administrative review, so there will be an opportunity for your Lordships’ House, if it so wishes, to scrutinise the process for administrative review, and indeed there will be an opportunity for Parliament to seek changes to that process. Therefore, I believe that it is unnecessary to seek an amendment to the Bill that provides for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the rules governing the administrative review process. The process for scrutinising the Immigration Rules already provides for that.

However, I fully accept that there are concerns about the requirements relating to the administrative review process. Those concerns were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in our debates on Monday and are indicated by the new clause proposed by my noble friend and in the comments of a number of other of my noble friends. The safeguards sought are that the administrative review procedure should be agreed with an independent person, that there should be oversight of reviews by an independent person and that that independent person should report to Parliament.

It is our view that the administrative review procedure is best developed and finalised by those who will operate it. That does not mean that the process is being developed behind closed doors. As I think was acknowledged by my noble friend in moving her amendment, before Committee stage in the other place we published a statement of intent on administrative review setting out the details of the procedure, and it is that procedure which has come under scrutiny in this proposed new clause.

I can confirm that administrative reviews will be undertaken by Home Office staff who will be independent of the original decision-maker and entirely separate from the initial decision-maker’s line management chain. We intend to establish a separate administrative review function for in-country migration casework. This means that those undertaking the reviews will be separate from those taking the decisions under review. We expect some of our most experienced staff to be among those undertaking administrative reviews. That does not mean that the initial decision-making will be left to inexperienced staff. I agreed entirely with my noble friend Lord Avebury when he said that the important thing is to get these decisions right in the first place. I could not agree more. It is worth noting that only 10% of decisions taken in-country are refused and therefore only a proportionate number of experienced caseworkers will be redeployed to review work from initial decision-making.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quite properly said that, of the cumulative figure of 60% from the sample, 30% of refusals are due to that kind of administrative error. However, it is also important to recognise that, in terms of the totality of decisions taken in this field, that amounts to something like only 3% of all decisions taken. Of course, that presumes that every decision on granting an application is correct—we tend not to have appeals against incorrect grantings—but that puts it into some kind of perspective. Although 30% is a high figure, I am not running away from the fact that 60% came as a surprise, and it is important that we bear down on and reduce that figure.

The point of arguing for an administrative review is that, as the noble Baroness pointed out from that sample, there have been caseworking errors. It is better that those on the receiving end of the errors are able to get them corrected more quickly and we are serious about meeting the 28-day target. Indeed, it would be far less costly to do so through an administrative review than through the whole panoply of an appeal.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In the information that I have, a number of these decisions are reviewed later by a senior officer. If some of those are found to be incorrect, it would indicate that the review process is not as good as the Minister thinks. Does he know how many decisions ultimately appealed and won were reviewed by a senior officer as well as the initial decision-taker?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am afraid that I do not have a figure for that further subcategory. If it exists, I will make sure that I inform the noble Baroness and others who have taken part in this debate, and will put a copy in the Library. That certainly could help to inform the debate as I am sure this issue may well arise later in our deliberations. All staff undertaking administrative reviews will receive full training in all routes and categories before they commence their work as part of the review team. I believe that the statement of intent indicated that it is intended to have a separate dedicated team of reviewers in each specialist area. Regular reports on the performance of the administrative review process as a whole will be sent to senior management. We will establish feedback mechanisms to ensure that lessons learnt are fed back to case workers.

I think I indicated in our debate on Monday that, within a year of the administrative review process being established, the Home Secretary will ask the independent chief inspector to include a review of the administrative review process in his inspection plan. Again, it is important to remember that the procedure will be set out in rules that Parliament can scrutinise. As I have said, we have committed to an independent oversight by the chief inspector in the public statement of intent that I have just read out. He has the power to undertake an inspection off his own bat and may do so if there are concerns about the administrative review process. His reports are published and Parliament may hold the Government to account in respect of those reports by means of questions and debates. Having to meet these additional requirements may also, if we were to go down the road proposed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, delay the commencement of Clause 11. She quite properly said that there might be certain attractions in having two systems running in parallel, although I suspect that that would be a bureaucratic nightmare and would not properly serve the interests of anyone, least of all the applicants.

The delay in commencement is undesirable because it would delay migrants who would benefit from these changes, which would provide faster and cheaper resolution of caseworking errors. This delay could arise because the Home Office needs to identify an independent person who could take on the role envisaged in this amendment. This would also add an administrative layer to the development and operation of the administrative review. It is envisaged that the chief inspector would take on this role, a point that I already have made. We intend to benefit appellants and those who will no longer have a right of appeal under Clause 11. My noble friend Lady Hamwee proposes that it should lapse in five years unless there is parliamentary approval for it to continue in force, which I feel would not be of benefit.

Clause 11 fundamentally reforms appeal rights. It is a reform that is needed to simplify an overcomplex framework and to provide a faster and cheaper remedy for caseworking errors. However, because this reform is fundamental, reversing the change after five years could cause even further upheaval. The changes made to the appeals process and the court system would need to be undone. That could come not only at cost but also at the expense of considerable uncertainty.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee also made reference to the administrative review system that is already operating overseas. Some 90% of these reviews have been completed within the target of 28 days for the quarter ending June 2013. The proposed process for in-country, which we are debating here, mirrors the approach taken overseas. My noble friend also made the point that we are asking people to reverse the decision of their work colleagues and, as she quite properly put it, to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State. She mentioned the figures, including that in entry clearance cases in 2012 for operating overseas the initial decision was overturned in 21% of cases. I sometimes think that in this area you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. The figure of 21% is a sizeable number, which suggests that those who are doing the review are not necessarily intimidated by having to overturn the Secretary of State’s decision. Equally, one might say that 21% is far too high and that the figure should be lower, in which case they may say that they were frightened. The point is that the system that has been operating overseas has had 90% of cases completed within the target of 28 days. It shows that those who are doing the reviews are not scared off or hesitant in overturning decisions when mistakes have been made.

I recognise that there are concerns and I suspect we will return to this and that amendments will be tabled on Report, which will offer us a chance to reflect further on the points that have been made both today and on Monday. However, I believe that what we are putting in place will bring considerable simplification and lead to quicker and cheaper decisions. Therefore, for the reasons I have given on some of the detail but also because of the delays that could take place, the fact that there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to scrutinise the rules that will be put in place and because the chief inspector will be able to conduct his own review, I invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as I understand Clause 12, it is all about dealing with appeals and provides a power for the Secretary of State to certify that to require an appellant who is liable to deportation to leave the UK before their appeal is determined would not cause irreversible harm, in which case that person can appeal only from outside the UK. We do not oppose the clause as a whole but these amendments are very useful in trying to probe the intention and practicalities. I have a few questions for the Minister.

I read Hansard from the other place, where questions were raised by my colleague David Hanson. I do not really feel that all the answers given fully addressed the questions to my satisfaction. It would be useful if the noble Lord could help address those. My understanding is that when the Bill was first introduced into the Commons it referred only to foreign criminals, but was then later amended to include all those liable to deportation. Mark Harper, who was then but is no longer the Minister, explained that this included,

“individuals who were being deported from the UK on the ground that their presence would not be conducive to the public good”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 5/11/13; col. 205.]

That was not in the Bill originally: it was introduced at a later stage.

When the then Minister was pressed on this, he gave a couple of examples such as a gang member or a member of a serious organised crime syndicate. I would not expect the Minister here to give an exhaustive list, and I am not asking for one, but the clause gives considerable discretion to the Home Secretary, or any future Home Secretary, who can determine who is deported under that definition. I should just like to probe further to get more information from the Minister about how that would apply and who it would apply to, but also the grounds on which, and how, the Home Secretary would make that judgment.

That is a very important point; there is a lack of clarity as the Bill stands. At the time, the Minister said that the numbers would be very small, but if the Government bring forward a clause such as this, they must have a reason for doing so. I should expect them to have some idea of the kind of number—I would not for a moment expect an exact number—of cases they expect the provision to apply to. I would like to know the reasons why this was brought forward in the first place and why the change was made from criminals to those who would not be conducive to the public good.

Another issue that has been raised is about the family members of those who have not been convicted of a crime but who have been deported under the clause. The Minister in the Commons said that he would write on that issue. He may have written to colleagues in the other place, but I have not seen his response. On removals, I would like to know the position of family members. The point has already been made about children, but there will be other vulnerable family members. What will be the position of family members, including vulnerable ones? What information will they be given? What happens if the person has been deported and then returns to the UK when they win their appeal? Indeed, will they be allowed to return to the UK if they win their appeal, or will they have to make a separate visa application to return?

I find a fair bit of uncertainty in the clause, and we lack information as to exactly how it will work. I should be grateful for further clarification from the Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I again thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment and raising the issues which arise under Clause 12.

At present, all appeals where there is a human rights claim suspend deportation unless the claim can be certified as clearly unfounded. The powers introduced by Clause 12(3) mean that those facing deportation, including foreign criminals, may be deported, and their appeal heard while they are out of the country, if the Secretary of State certifies that that would not breach the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. This is intended to build on the Crime and Courts Act 2013, where the Government made similar provisions for out-of-country appeals in national security deportations. The serious irreversible harm test is one used by the European Court of Human Rights when it decides whether an individual deportation must be suspended, and also in its rulings on what types of claim must be granted an in-country appeal. Amendment 31 would limit the scope of the power to those who are being deported who do not have a child in the United Kingdom, while Amendment 31A would remove the power entirely from what would become Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

I reassure the Committee that the clause will impact only on a very small cohort of cases—those whose actions and behaviour is non-conducive to the public good—and that in limiting the power to deportation cases, the Government are acting in a proportionate way, and not going as far as European Court of Human Rights cases allow. I assure the Committee that by framing the provision in this way, an arguable asylum claim would never qualify for certification under the power. The Secretary of State cannot use the new power where there is an arguable risk of a breach of Article 2 or Article 3 of the European convention.

Equally, the drafting of the Bill means that this power will not be available for those whom the Government are seeking administratively to remove for the purposes of immigration control—such as illegal entry or overstaying a visa, although ECHR case law would in fact have allowed such an approach.

A deliberate decision has been taken to make the power available only for a small cohort of cases where the individual’s actions—the action of the person for whom certification for deportation is relevant—the vast majority of whom will be convicted criminals. I will come on to the point raised by the noble Baroness about others. This applies if the individual’s actions mean that the Secretary of State considers that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. Perhaps I may illustrate the size of the issue for the Committee. According to Ministry of Justice figures, in 2012-13 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal received 1,800 appeals against deportation, which included a number of miscellaneous appeals. This change would have impacted on less than 2% of the appeals that the tribunal received that year.

The Government would not seek to remove family members of those whom we are seeking to deport if they have immigration status in the UK in their own right; for example, if they are an EEA national exercising treaty rights or individuals with indefinite leave to remain, or have valid leave as a student. Even in the rare cases where the Government seek to deport family members along with the principal, for example because their status in the UK is based solely on their relationship with the deportee, this clause does not allow the appeals of dependants to be certified: they will be suspensive. The power is also a permissive one in that the Secretary of State may certify appeals but is not required to. This will allow cases to be considered on their individual facts and ensure that the Government complies with their duty to consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in immigration decisions.

The noble Baroness asked what would happen if a person wins their appeal. If an individual wins an appeal from abroad, the UK Government will facilitate their re-entry into the United Kingdom.

In summary, the power will be used only where an individual’s own conduct, such as criminality, leads the Secretary of State to consider that their presence is not conducive to the public good. The clause is limited and tightly defined to ensure that only those who have caused or are trying to cause harm are deported from the country quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is one of three groups of amendments around Article 8 that we have tabled to Clause 14. I wish to make a couple of brief comments. I want to put on record, and make very clear, that we fully support Article 8. We understand that it is not an absolute right. It is a qualified right and those qualifications also have to be understood. Any interference with that right has to be within those qualifications. However, we share concerns about how Article 8, and those qualifications, have been interpreted in some cases involving foreign criminals convicted in the UK and then put up for deportation. There are problems with criminals who we cannot deport who have committed serious crimes, and where Article 8 has been considered to be used inappropriately, and where the question has to be asked whether the qualifications have been fully considered. The balance is one to be reached by the courts in individual cases, but we consider it right that Parliament should set out how qualified rights should be balanced in different areas.

There is wider concern about the Government’s failure to deport foreign criminals and the gap between the inflammatory rhetoric used on some occasions with regard to immigration issues and the reality of those issues. Since the Home Secretary took office, the number of foreign criminals being released into the community has gone up and the number of people removed from our country for breaking the rules has gone down by 13% in the past three years. I say to the Minister that it is important for the Government to get the basics right before looking at new areas—for example, ensuring that we have the right staff and the right number of staff in place to deal with these issues.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I was relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he was slightly confused about a contradiction that appears to have arisen in this context. I am a non-lawyer and I was confused as well. I was relieved to hear that lawyers can also be confused about the Government’s intentions in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a very powerful speech and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on it.

I welcomed the comments of the then Minister, Mark Harper, to the JCHR about the Government’s responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was absolute confirmation that the best interests of the child will be considered. However, other comments have been made that appear to qualify that. That would seem to undermine the concept that the best interests of the child will be considered. I do not mean to be facetious when I say that it sounds as if the best interests of some children will be considered. I do not understand the contradiction between what is in the Bill and the very welcome comments made by the former Minister that the Government will always consider the best interests of the child. How does that conflict, confirm, or work with what is in Clause 14? Confirmation from the noble and learned Lord that the best interests of the child will be considered would be very welcome.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing this amendment, and thank those who have raised very important points in relation to children and the best interests of the child.

I crave the indulgence of your Lordships’ House to take a few moments, before I reflect on the specific amendments, to set out briefly what was in the Government’s mind in bringing forward this clause, and how we expect it to operate and what it is expected to achieve. I do so to set it in context for this and the next two groups of amendments.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the right to respect for private and family life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, it is a qualified right. The individual’s right under Article 8(1) can be outweighed by measures necessary for and proportionate to the legitimate aims under Article 8(2), including protecting the public by deporting foreign criminals and safeguarding the United Kingdom’s economic well-being by controlling immigration.

There is a clear public interest in these aims. These are also matters of public policy which we believe is the responsibility of government to determine, subject to the views of Parliament. Clause 14 will make clear what Parliament thinks is in the public interest in terms of controlling immigration and protecting the public where Article 8 is engaged in an immigration case. It is for Parliament to decide what the public interest requires. It is then for the courts to have due regard to that when considering the proportionality of any interference in the exercise of an individual’s right under Article 8. We believe that is the right approach and that is reflected in how Clause 14 has been framed.

The Committee will recall our debates on the new Immigration Rules on family and private life which were implemented on 9 July 2012. The Immigration Rules, laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State under Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, are a statement of the normal practice to be followed by the Secretary of State’s caseworkers in making immigration decisions under the statutory framework that Parliament has provided. It is in the interests of a clear, consistent and transparent immigration system in which applicants and the public can have confidence that these rules should enable the Secretary of State’s caseworkers to decide individual cases lawfully and in accordance with the Government’s immigration policy. The courts have agreed the importance of having such a set of rules —for example, in the decision of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House in the case of Huang.

The key test that both the Secretary of State and the courts apply in assessing the Article 8 compatibility of a decision is whether it is proportionate. However, in immigration decisions engaging Article 8, the courts, prior to the July 2012 rule changes, were unable to give proper weight to the Government’s and Parliament’s view of the public interest because the Immigration Rules did not adequately reflect Parliament’s view on how the balance should be struck between the individual right to respect for private and family life and the need for effective immigration control to protect the public and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

I shall provide a bit of history. When the Human Rights Act 1998 was commenced in 2000, the rules were amended to require all Home Office staff to carry out their duties in compliance with its provisions, but there was no substantive change to the family or private life part of the rules to reflect how individual rights and the public interest should be balanced. There was no attempt thereafter to align the rules with developments in case law, such as the decisions of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House in the cases of EB (Kosovo) and Chikwamba. Instead, previous Secretaries of State asserted that if a court thought that the rules produced disproportionate results in a particular case, the court should itself decide the proportionate outcome on the facts before it. This approach meant that the courts could not give due weight to the Government’s and Parliament’s view of the public interest under Article 8, as the courts did not know what that view was. It also did not properly reflect the responsibility of the Government and Parliament for determining the public policy framework under which immigration decisions should be taken. Indeed, as I have already said, it left the courts to develop public policy themselves through case law on issues such as the appropriate level of maintenance for family migrants. We do not believe that that was conducive to clear, consistent and transparent decision-making by the Secretary of State’s caseworkers.

It was against that background that on 9 July 2012 the Government implemented major reforms of the Immigration Rules relating to private and family life. The new rules filled the public policy vacuum that had been inherited by setting out the position of the Government on proportionality under Article 8, in the light of existing case law and of evidence such as the report of the independent Migration Advisory Committee on the appropriate level of the minimum income threshold for sponsoring family migrants. The new rules were debated and approved by the House of Commons on 19 June 2012 and were debated by this House on 23 October 2012, following which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, withdrew her Motion of Regret. The new rules set out how the balance should be struck in Article 8 cases between an individual’s rights and the public interest. They provide clear instructions for the Secretary of State’s caseworkers on the approach they must normally take, and they therefore provide the basis for a clear, consistent and transparent decision-making process. The new rules also form the basis for the assessment by the courts of the proportionality under Article 8 of immigration decisions. The Court of Appeal has endorsed the lawfulness of such an approach in the case of MF (Nigeria).

The courts have a clear and proper constitutional role in reviewing the proportionality of measures passed by Parliament and of the executive decisions made under them, and must ultimately decide on what is a proportionate interference under Article 8. I should stress that Clause 14 does not seek to change this proper judicial function. However, it is right that the Secretary of State should expect the courts to give proper weight to the view endorsed by Parliament on how, broadly, public policy considerations are to be weighed against individual family and private life rights when assessing Article 8 in any individual case. The courts themselves have underlined the importance of the view of Parliament on such matters and have confirmed that they will defer to that view where it is known.

However, some judges have since given only limited deference to the new rules, and say that they represent only a weak form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Upper Tribunal has said that,

“Whilst it is open to Parliament to change the law by primary legislation unless and until it does so these”—

previous—

“decisions are binding ... and will be followed”.

I hope that I will not embarrass the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, by quoting him. He said in the case of MS v the Home Secretary in the Extra Division of the Inner House last year:

“The rules are not a statute but merely a statement by the executive of how it intends to exercise powers conferred by statute. Consequently the application of the rules in individual cases is potentially subject to judicial review. Nevertheless, the new rules have been debated in Parliament, which confers a certain degree of democratic approval. Moreover, they are instructions put forward by the minister in a democratically elected government who is charged by statute with the administration of the immigration system. To that extent, too, the rules can be said to result from democratic processes. These are factors which must be given some weight when a court considers the application of the rules, although they cannot be conclusive because the rules do not have the force of statute”.

By bringing forward Clause 14 we seek to invite Parliament to give the status of statute to the rules, which are set out substantially in the same terms as the Immigration Rules that your Lordships’ House debated in October 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I hesitate to engage in this Celtic discussion. I am half Scottish, which might help, and I recently visited Patagonia. All the people in the Welsh community I met there also spoke English, curiously, otherwise we would not have been able to communicate with them.

The amendments highlight something on which I need clarification. This is not the normal legal language that we see in legislation; it seems to be more a statement of fact or opinion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made a powerful point when he said that financial independence was not related to language. I am curious about the evidence base for the statement in the Bill. To be better integrated into society is easier to understand, but is being less of a burden on the taxpayer automatically the case? On what evidence did the Government base that before bringing it forward?

The provisions are confusing because this is not the usual legislative language that we see in Bills such as this. Is there any concern that the courts will not understand how to interpret the decisions that they are making? I am curious about what guidance the Government will provide relating to this specific part of new Section 117B(2).

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, for this amendment and I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts for his spirited endorsement of it. I readily appreciate the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord about the provision made by Clause 14 on the public interest in migrants being able to speak English and also in being largely independent. We believe that these are important elements of the provision made by Clause 14 as to the public interest in controlling immigration to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom under the qualified right to respect of private and family life under ECHR Article 8.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said she thought that the language was not normal for legislation—it might actually be simpler in parts than in some legislation we have grappled with. The reason for that is one that I articulated when I set the scene. With Clause 14, we have basically sought to put in statute the Immigration Rules, which were debated and have been in place since 2012. In some places, the language is not in the usual statutory form because it has been substantially carried through from the Immigration Rules. That also answers the question of whether the courts will have difficulty interpreting it because of that. I do not believe that they should, because they have been interpreting these rules since the middle of 2012. The point is that they will now have, if Parliament so decides, the full force of statute rather than simply being rules. That also answers the point raised by the noble and learned Lord as to whether we had considered Welsh and Gaelic prior to bringing this clause forward. The answer is no, we did not, as this was being lifted from rules that were already there, which stipulated English.

As has been made clear, Amendments 34 and 35 propose allowing a migrant to rely on their ability to speak Welsh or Gaelic, instead of English, when applying for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on Article 8 grounds. I want to make it very clear that I am not a Welsh or Gaelic speaker but that the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, was brought forward by an Administration in which I was the Deputy First Minister. I do not think anyone can challenge my support for the Gaelic language. As my noble friend Lord Roberts knows, I have a strong affinity with my Celtic colleagues in Wales and have had very many enjoyable Welsh evenings at our party conferences, when the songs have been well sung in Welsh and English.

We believe that a command of English is essential in helping migrants integrate into the life of the UK as a whole and in improving their employment prospects. That is the case even if a migrant is living in a Welsh-speaking or Gaelic-speaking community. Indeed, the possible consequence of the amendments is that if someone were able to meet a test in Welsh, for example, along with all the other tests, they could get entry into the United Kingdom. Having done that, they might choose to not go anywhere near a small village in Carmarthen or Carnarvon but instead go to Newcastle upon Tyne, despite not really having a word of English.

We do not doubt that Welsh and Gaelic speakers would contribute to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, but migrants to the UK should be able to speak English to a basic level when they apply to come or remain here. Speaking English is necessary to ensure that a migrant is able to integrate and play a full part in our society. The ability to speak English also reduces the burden on the taxpayer arising from the cost to public services of translating information or guidance into other languages. We do not believe that the inclusion of the Welsh and Gaelic languages in Clause 14 would support that objective. It would not reflect the public interest in reducing taxpayer burdens and promoting integration.

I also ask the House to consider some practical issues involved in making such provision. First, there is no infrastructure to support the testing of ability in these languages on a global basis, even I think in Patagonia —the noble Baroness may know whether we have a consulate there. Secondly, the demand is likely to be very low. There have been no requests for testing in Welsh or Gaelic as an alternative to English since the introduction in November 2010 of an English language requirement for spouses and partners applying to enter or remain in the UK. Thirdly, in view of the likely low demand, the setting up and maintenance of a secure and reliable global network of test providers would be unlikely to be commercially viable. If commercial providers were not willing to offer tests, it would fall to the Home Office to set up the required infrastructure in the United Kingdom and overseas. This would represent a significant and disproportionate cost to the taxpayer.

Amendment 36 seeks to amend the drafting of the integration aspect of the public interest in migrants being able to speak English. It clearly is in the public interest for a migrant seeking to enter or remain in the UK to be able to speak English. Parliament has already approved this for spouses and partners, for example as part of the family Immigration Rules. English language skills play an important part in a person’s successful integration into society and help migrants access employment opportunities and contribute to the wider society. However, although in some cases it may be true that migrants who can speak English are likely to be able to integrate, their ability to integrate does not rest solely on their ability to speak English. None the less, there can be no doubt that the ability to speak English will mean migrants are better able to integrate into British society. I therefore suggest that the intention here is better reflected in the current wording of Clause 14.

Amendment 37 seeks to remove the promotion of integration as a factor in the provision made by Clause 14 as to the public interest in migrants being financially independent in immigration cases which engage Article 8. Those who choose to establish their family life in the UK by sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any dependent non-EEA national children to settle here should have the financial means to support themselves and their families for the long term without needing to rely on public funds. This safeguards the United Kingdom’s economic well-being by preventing burdens on the taxpayer. In addition, being financially independent also helps ensure that a migrant is able to integrate and play a full part in our society.

It is important, for example in facilitating community involvement, that migrants should be able to use local shops, local services and public transport in an ordinary, everyday way that is not inhibited by a lack of funds. The same applies to adult education resources, such as English language classes, for which a fee may be charged. This is consistent with available evidence on effective integration, which shows that the level of migrant household income is an important factor.

The OECD report, Settling In: OECD Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2012 has shown a clear connection between effective integration and the level of migrant household income. The report states that household income and wealth have been shown to be important for a broad range of socioeconomic outcomes, in areas as diverse as health, education and civic participation. The report also found that having insufficient income may hamper migrants’ ability to function as autonomous citizens, which may have consequences for social cohesion. The report underlines the importance of migrants having access to sufficient funds to enable them to participate in the life of their local community. Despite declaring that I support the promulgation of the Welsh and Gaelic languages, I think it would be inappropriate in this context, and in the light of these points I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.