Outcome of the EU Referendum

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am not sure that is quite how I would consider the situation. Clearly what has happened is that this Government believed that the UK should remain in the European Union, and we campaigned for Britain to do so. A decision has been made by the people to leave. The Prime Minister has accepted that decision and said that it has to be for his successor to implement it. That will be the way that we move from here.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, the decision that was taken last week has been widely described as democratic. However, it is not what we in this country have understood to be democracy—at any rate, since the time of Edmund Burke. We believe in a representative system of parliamentary democracy where Members of Parliament are elected as representatives, not as delegates, and therefore can take into account all the arguments and not be misled by the kind of misleading propaganda and lies that we have had in this referendum, which has shown very clearly what the disadvantages of a referendum are.

The fundamental problem with a referendum is that it is the dictatorship of the majority—in this case, a very small majority. It is therefore crucial now that our parliamentary system, in the light of what has been said but taking into account the divisions that are so apparent in society, does all that it can to ensure that the implementation of the result of the referendum takes into account the whole range of opinion across the electorate, not simply of those who happen, by a really rather small majority, to have won the debate.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is right that in moving from here it will be essential that we do so in a way that unites all parts of the country, particularly those who voted a different way.

There is a point about parliamentary democracy that I have not already made: as I have said, this was in our manifesto. We passed an Act of Parliament to bring forward the referendum, and that piece of legislation went through both Houses. We debated the terms of the referendum. This Parliament decided those terms and they were the ones that applied. We must remember that. We have all contributed to the way in which the rules were set and the way that the people of this country then exercised their democratic right to vote in the referendum.

European Union: United Kingdom Renegotiation

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That was an interesting lesson in history, but at the moment we are concentrating on trying to get a better deal for the British people as regards their current membership of Europe, which I will focus my remarks on today.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

Will my noble friend agree that there is an increasing danger—I drew attention to it on Second Reading of what is now the European Union Referendum Act—that voters will express their views as to whether the negotiations have been a success rather than on the more fundamental issues, which will otherwise get crowded out of the debate, and that we will lose the vote in favour of remaining in as a result? Also, should we not be too preoccupied with the rhetoric about ever-closer union when the two main planks of European policy, the euro single currency and free movement of people, are tearing the Union apart? We ought to try to get reform on those matters. However, having said that, the Prime Minister is making progress and I hope it will continue.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comments and his support. I agree that people will consider how to vote based on their view of the success of renegotiation—although I keep having to preface my remarks by saying that the Prime Minister has not yet reached an agreement with Europe; as he said in his Statement, he has not yet ruled anything out as regards the next steps. Notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about a higher level, I am sure that we will see lots of debates about the detail. Some things will be of particular concern to certain people, while for many others there will be an instinctive reaction to the debate rather than attention to the detail, and we will have to cover all people’s interests in this important matter.

Asylum

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, we have time. I suggest that we go first to the Cross Benches, if we go round in order, and then to my noble friend Lord Higgins.

Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As regards the noble Lord’s request for a debate, my noble friend the Chief Whip has already scheduled time for a debate on the humanitarian situation. That is scheduled for a week on Wednesday. Regarding the other points made by the noble Lord, I can only repeat what I said before. This is a policy that the Government have adopted over the last few years. We believe that the contribution we are making to support people in and around that region is significant. It is much greater than any other European country. As far as expanding the refugee programme, the policy remains the same; we are simply expanding it because we see an increased need at this time.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, it is very important that migrants in danger of drowning in the Mediterranean should be rescued. However, at present after being rescued they are then disembarked in the European Union, thereby adding to the number of people coming across the borders. Does my noble friend agree that it is not really compatible with our policy that we should continue to do that, because at the moment the traffickers are able to say, “Don’t worry if the boats look unseaworthy. You’ll be rescued by the navy and taken to your destination anyway”? Therefore, they are encouraged even more to take the risk. More broadly, do we not have a definite interest in the Schengen agreement, which results in the situation in Calais, as has been pointed out? Should we not take a much stronger line in persuading our European partners that they ought—at any rate on a temporary basis—to suspend Schengen because it is not compatible with having external borders that are clearly not effective?

Chilcot Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

I am sorry, but the House is calling for the next question, so I think we should move on.

EU Council

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I have already made it clear that because President Putin has not delivered on his words and we must judge him on his actions, which so far have not met his words, we are strong and united within the European Union and alongside America in our demands of him and in making sure that he meets the terms of the Minsk agreement. We will continue to apply sanctions, which will stay in place until he meets the terms of that agreement.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the reference in the Statement to the Government’s eurozone contingency planning. Could she perhaps elaborate on that? Is it not apparent that despite all the bailouts, concessions and negotiations and so on, there is no way in which Greece will become competitive at the present exchange rate and will at the end of the day need to leave the eurozone? In those circumstances, it is crucial that it should be done in an orderly way, which will be a very difficult task involving exchange controls and so on. It is essential that our Government, because we have an interest in this issue, co-operate to make sure that there are contingency plans for an arrangement whereby Greece can withdraw on an orderly basis.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not share my noble friend’s view that Greece will leave the eurozone. Certainly all efforts are being made by the eurozone’s other members to ensure that Greece remains in the eurozone. It is in everyone’s interests—those of the countries that are part of the eurozone and those of the United Kingdom—that the eurozone continues to operate securely. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister held contingency planning meetings with senior officials none the less because that is the right and prudent action for him to take. We are working on the basis that the eurozone will continue.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Monday 15th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for their support for these amendments. I will respond to some of the questions that were put by my noble friend Lord Higgins. He asked whether those who are currently excluded from a defined benefit scheme would not get access to such a scheme to a greater advancement than anyone else as a result of this review. I can assure him that that is not the case. The purpose of the review is purely to look at the contributions that people made before 2005. The noble Lord asked about the composition of the review. We will publish terms of reference in due course, and at that time we will be able to offer a little more detail.

As to the role of Her Majesty the Queen and the comments of my noble friend Lady Anelay before I moved Third Reading, I do not have a comprehensive response to that question except to say that that was just a formality that is sometimes necessary on the government Chief Whip’s part before a Bill passes on to the Commons. It is all to do with various, specific interests that Her Majesty may have in a piece of legislation. In no way does it pre-empt proper process or the granting of Royal Assent. It is a pure formality and there is nothing unusual in it.

I will respond more broadly to this debate and to those that we have had on the Bill in your Lordships’ House over the past few weeks. At Second Reading, I urged the House to ensure that the protections that allow the church and other faiths to maintain their legitimate belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman should work properly. I also said that this House should debate and scrutinise whether the Bill protects freedom of speech. Your Lordships have done that, and I am grateful to all who have contributed. Those of us who have supported the Bill in principle, and those who have been concerned about protections for those who did not, have together made this an even better Bill.

While the amendments we have made were all tabled by the Government, they have all been inspired by your Lordships and by the debates we have had in this House or through the work done in its committees, particularly the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. During the passage of the Bill through both Houses, the Government have made 23 substantial amendments, 17 of them while the Bill has been in this House. The most significant include the reviews to which we are committed—on civil partnerships, humanist marriages and the equalisation of survivor benefits for same-sex and opposite-sex married couples—as well as the amendment to the Public Order Act, which is a significant protection for freedom of speech.

We have also made amendments on religious protections, in particular one that clarifies the word “compel” in Clause 2. Religious faiths, notably the Catholic Church and others who are neither the Church of England nor the Church in Wales, and who did not wish to opt in to marrying same-sex couples, wanted us to strengthen further the clause in the Bill that states that a person may not be compelled to conduct a marriage of a same-sex couple. This matter was also debated in the Commons and the movers of the amendment there were defeated by 321 votes to 163. Even though the will of the Commons was clear on this point, the Government said that they remained open-minded and would continue to listen. We did so, and were persuaded to come forward with our own amendment on Report. The Bill is now clearer, and says:

“A person may not be compelled by any means (including by the enforcement of a contract or a statutory or other legal requirement)”.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, whom noble Lords will remember was critical of the Bill at Second Reading, commended the amendment, saying that it dealt with concerns about public functions comprehensively. He said:

“I cannot remember seeing in a statute—certainly not in one of this kind—the words ‘by any means’. That is an all-embracing, protective phrase and I commend the Government doubly for such a courageous use of language to achieve one of the protections that they said they wanted to achieve: institutional independence”.—[Official Report, 8/7/13; col. 105.]

[Lord Higgins]

I am sorry to interrupt, but is it not the case that registrars will effectively be compelled, even if they have conscientious objections, to marry same-sex couples?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The amendments to which I am referring concern religious protection. The point that was made during our debate on registrars was that they are public servants, carrying out a public function, and are therefore not in the same position as people of faith as to the requirements if they are conducting a marriage in their own church. They are employed to do a job as public servants.

Our debates have provided evidence to support something else I said at Second Reading. It is possible for us to allow in law something that not everyone agrees with, and to respect our differences of view. In particular, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, about the contrast between our debates and those of the past on previous gay rights legislation. I note, too, what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said when he paid tribute to the way in which we have debated the Bill in your Lordships’ House.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend introduces a new, very complicated matter and I am struggling with the complicated matters in front of me.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am going to conclude very soon. Would my noble friend allow me to make some final remarks?

[Lord Higgins]

This seems to be the appropriate point to interrupt the very clear exposition my noble friend is making. I put this case to her: there is a company that had a final salary scheme for existing members and then, later in time, introduced a defined contribution scheme. The people in the defined contribution scheme cannot get all the benefits in the original scheme. None the less, the people under this retrospective legislation would be able to do so. They would be more privileged than the people in the existing defined contribution scheme.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is an interesting point. My understanding of Amendment 84 is that its proposals would only apply to those who are currently in a defined benefit scheme. This is not about introducing the benefits of a defined benefits scheme to those who are only in a defined contribution scheme. I do not think that what my noble friend is suggesting is what is proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment.

As I have tried to explain, any change to the arrangements set out in the Bill would impose costs on the public purse, which would be considerable. The House should therefore be aware that any change to the position set out in the Bill would have a cost to the public purse, so an amendment to the Bill on this issue would infringe the House of Commons’ financial privilege.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Higgins

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins]

A curious aspect of this debate is that it is assumed that if there is a distinction between two possible definitions, one is necessarily inferior to the other, and that comes out very clearly. Would it meet her point if there was also an amendment which said the status of both forms of marriage is equal?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

If anybody wished to table an amendment and your Lordships wanted to debate it, I would be happy to consider that debate and respond to it. However, the short answer is that it would not be acceptable because we want only one institution of marriage. That is what we are seeking to achieve. We do not want to distinguish between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.