Coronavirus Grants: Fraud

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Lord’s question is focused on HMRC, but I can say that the expected losses to error and fraud in 2021 were £5.8 billion, and expected losses for 2021-22 will be published in due course. But a lot of work is going on in terms of recovery, and the expected recovery by HMRC is estimated to be between £1.3 billion and £1.5 billion.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, did the Government anticipate the potential use of existing ready-made off-the-shelf companies as instruments of fraud? Is it yes or no?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I think the answer has to be no. We had to move particularly quickly in very difficult circumstances. Of course, there is always a risk of fraud—all fraud is unacceptable, but there was a risk because we had to move quickly. As I say, there is a lot of work and, particularly from HMRC’s point of view, in the months and years ahead there is big scope to recover.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra [V]]

My Lords, despite his eloquence, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, since I am opposed to Amendment 15.

The Government have repeatedly underlined the point that this is emergency and temporary legislation. It should not be used as a Trojan horse to ban smoking outdoors for the anti-smoking fanatics. Even the Labour Party’s amendment is not as extreme as that and does permit for some consultation. Initially, I did not understand the ambivalence but, as my noble friend Lord Balfe reminded us in the first group of amendments, it is just indulging in rhetoric. Labour says it cannot support the government amendment, but it seems it will not vote against it. It says that they are holding the Government to account and pressing them hard, but it is not voting against it. This is the sort of irresolute, sitting-on-the-fence opposition I would have loved as a former Whip.

At the moment, smokers use outside tables—perfectly correctly, since they are banned from being inside. There is no danger whatever from passive smoking outside. Those who confess to being worried about the public health impacts of smoke inhalation should ban toxic diesel buses, which are far more dangerous than someone having a fag at a pavement table. There are legitimate arguments for and against smoking outside but, if extremists and ASH want to bring forward a ban on smoking outdoors, there must be proper consultation, proper debate and subsequent legislation—not this sneaky back-door attempt.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I mean what I say when I say that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He always speaks in primary colours, so we know exactly what he means. But on this occasion, I am afraid that he and I are, not for the first time, going to disagree with convivial cordiality.

I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has made a considerable effort to come towards those of us who support Amendment 15. I am afraid that I am always suspicious of clauses in statutes—especially for temporary legislation—which are peppered with the word “reasonable”. There are so many “reasonable”s in these amendments that it gives a clue to what is in reality a key to confusion. I believe that Amendment 15, moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and supported by those who signed the amendment with her, does not commit any terrible act which would put any economic interest—including that of the tobacco industry—at any real disadvantage. We need to bear in mind that it applies not to existing open-air spaces outside pubs and restaurants, because they are not newly licensed premises under the Bill, but to licensed sites.

Why is it so important? We are dealing with a double problem: not merely health damage caused by the exhalation of tobacco smoke but the real danger of the exhalation of coronavirus with that tobacco smoke, if the people smoking are suffering from coronavirus or have the necessary symptoms. The draft guidance makes it clear that many of the licensed venues will effectively be largely enclosed and partly covered—[Inaudible].

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to this extremely important amendment. However, I congratulate the Government on their introduction of the bounce-back loans and their enormous efforts to try to help businesses survive this crisis, which was not of their making or anybody else’s.

I am sure that my noble friend is sympathetic to the circumstances that could arise, and hope that she can reassure the House that the intention of this measure is not to change the balance of what is fair in circumstances where debts are being recovered by the lenders of these bounce-back loans. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have only really preserved the regulations relating to default and debt recovery for those loans up to £25,000, and only for micro-businesses. I would appreciate it if my noble friend could help the House in this regard. Restaurant owners and hairdressing salons which are limited companies may find that their equipment is subject to seizure when banks try to recover these bounce-back loans.

The banks do not need to recover the loans—indeed, they have expressed reservations and discomfort about being asked to take these borrowers to court. I believe there will be consultation with Ministers over the summer about how this is going to work. If they have a guarantee, they do not need, in theory, to press too hard to recover the loans. But if there are some attractive assets, it may be tempting for them to do so. I hope the Government will be able to state clearly that they want reasonable debt recovery only, and the intention is not to change the balance of fairness in these circumstances.

Forgive me if I am asking too much at this late stage of the Bill and with the emergency nature of the legislation, but I ask my noble friend to consider whether the Government might accept that they could take the power to make regulations, reapplying the Consumer Credit Act to debt recovery should that prove a popular and necessary measure, or whether they can include the range of £25,000-£50,000 in some other way so that we can avoid the reputational damage that may go along with this. Nevertheless, I welcome the bounce-back loans and I encourage my noble friend to give us some clarification.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, whose amendment this is—and I am very pleased to be a signatory—is a considerable expert on the subjects under discussion, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have enormous respect for them both, and for their skills in this area. I am but a mere lawyer and feel, to an extent, inadequate to parry on the financial details under discussion.

I have spent a lot of my time in recent decades dealing with fraud cases in which people often got themselves into financial difficulty, through no fault of their own, and were then under huge pressure from the banks. We have recently heard cases in which the Post Office prosecuted people who pleaded guilty to criminal offences which they had not committed. We have heard about the remedial action that is having to be taken, very expensively, to put those wrongs right.

The bounce-back loans are of course very welcome, but they bring a whole new cohort of people into, what is for them, often very substantial borrowing. Many of the businesses we are talking about do not have substantial overdrafts in the ordinary run of things. They are able to live on a cash balance, albeit often small, and they do not have to enter into sophisticated agreements with banks. This applies particularly to family businesses, which have either been created recently or are long established. The debt picture and the debt threats for such companies are frighteningly great compared to the time before coronavirus.

Therefore, over the years, there are plenty of examples, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, of banks being sometimes very oppressive towards customers who are put out of business without understanding what redress they may have against those banks. Unfortunately, these provisions remove some of that redress, which they might discover they have against the banks.

In my view, some simple legal remedies with flexibility are needed, so that if, for example, a company defaults on a loan but can demonstrate that, within a couple of years, it can haul itself back to not only profitability but the ability to repay the loan, we would be in a much better position. Surely that would be a far better outcome. The amendment we are considering is one solution to that problem, and that is why I support it.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with whom I have exchanged emails, at her instigation, about this amendment. I said to her yesterday in an email that the Government really should produce some kind of arbitral procedure which would enable loans in the range we are debating to be discussed, a solution to be found that would satisfy the banks in the long term, and the businesses concerned to carry on trading. These loans have of course been introduced in an emergency, but it is actually less of an emergency for the banks than for the people who take out the loans, and about whom we are talking. Unless something better is offered, this amendment would rebalance fairness so that there is a level playing field between the lender and the borrower.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I too support the Bill as an urgent and temporary measure designed to alleviate the effects of Covid-19 and stimulate the planning system. However, can the Minister confirm clearly that these are truly intended to be temporary measures and that standards of good design, particularly for the permanent future, will be maintained and, if at all possible, enhanced? I agree with every word of my noble friend Lord Best about the dangers of relaxing the high standards of planning design that we rightly aspire to. Modern techniques allow the most attractive, low-cost homes to be built at genuinely low cost. There is no need to cut corners.

I have one concern about the Bill, as a resident of the London Borough of Hackney. Our hard-working police force, based at Stoke Newington police station, has faced unacceptable challenge from disorder in the streets and unlawful large-scale drinking. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the changes contained in the Bill simply cannot be the basis of heightening disorder—whether it is by young people or older people, it does not matter. The police should not be required to attend at these scenes; the scenes should not occur.

My third point is about the way in which planning and party politics intersect. When I first became a Member of Parliament, for the beautiful Welsh constituency of Montgomeryshire, Lord Hooson QC, who had been a Member for Montgomeryshire before me and who had led me in a number of planning appeals when I was a young barrister, spoke to me very firmly about planning. He said that there were dangers in planning applications for politicians and political parties. He reminded me that one should never allow one’s political interests to interfere with sound principle. So my final point is to ask the Minister to confirm that it is embarrassing and sometimes unethical for developers to be seen as being too close to political parties, Members of Parliament, Ministers and councillors. Planning is an objective matter—there are rules—and paying large sums of money to have dinner near someone who is thought to have influence should never be acceptable. The lessons of history—some very high-profile cases—tell us that.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

One of the new boys indeed. I hope that, like me, my noble friend Lord King comes here every day and is filled with wonder and a sense of, “How on earth have I managed to get here?” It is a very special place and it is important that in the process of renewal we do not lose what we have.

We are talking not just about the building but about the environment and the immediate environs, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said. I see that park in winter, spring and summer. I see the children in their playgrounds, I see the office workers having their picnics, I see the lovers on the benches behaving quite properly, I see people doing interviews in front of that wonderful view of the tower, and it has enormous value. If we are to have 10 years of construction and disruption in this place, what on earth would possess us to add to that by having another major project, not even on the surface but underground?

We have seen the presentations and sketches of what it would look like and, frankly, I do not think it would enhance the beauty, simplicity and value of that space, which is also very much valued by tourists. I support the amendment but I hope that, at a later stage, we will have one that does more than just make this point in the way that this one does—that we have an amendment that actually makes it clear to those responsible for this project that it is not just about the park; it is about Parliament as a whole and preserving the precious heritage that we are all privileged to have the responsibility for.

I welcome and totally support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. My noble friend is rightly keen to argue that we want a very successful Holocaust memorial project. I think the venue that he described would be a far better one; it would involve less controversy and, I venture to suggest, it would be possible to achieve rather more quickly than will be the case given the controversy and the difficulties that we have. I support the amendment.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment that was moved so clearly and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I agree entirely with the other things that have been said so far.

Over a mere 36 years in association with this Palace, I have quite often gone into those gardens for moments of deliberation and relaxation. The reason why I do so is that they contain one of the most wonderful public sculptures in the world, “The Burghers of Calais”. It is a much better location for that casting of the statue than you find, for example, in Calais. It is a sculpture of international moment and very much part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. With the other two memorials that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to, there seems to be quite enough for small gardens of that size, particularly when there is another site for the Holocaust memorial available for sure on the much more capacious site of the Imperial War Museum—I will speak about that in a moment.

I am very committed to the erection of a Holocaust memorial. My sister Renata and I share a father but not a mother. We do not share a mother because her mother died in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944. A framed copy of her death certificate hangs on the wall of my sister’s house in the Midlands. It does not tell the entire truth. It says she died of smallpox, when she was almost certainly murdered because she had smallpox. These events are very important to us as a family. We believe Renata’s and my paternal grandparents died in Auschwitz-Birkenau. We do not know exactly how, but it was probably by being taken straight from the train to the gas ovens.

I suspect that many people in your Lordships’ House have been to Auschwitz-Birkenau. I am afraid once was enough for me—I shall not go again. Anybody who has been there will realise how momentous, vile and treacherous those events were and what effect they have on those families, whether they be religious or secular—I am not a religious person at all. This is the history of many people in this country and indeed quite a lot of people in your Lordships’ House and the other place.

I regard this memorial as an absolute necessity, but what does it need? I have been to Holocaust memorials around the world when I have been able to. Yad Vashem is an extraordinary memorial, set in a great space. Last year, I went to the new Holocaust memorial in Warsaw, Poland. Poland has a mixed reputation for its attitude to Jews, even since the Second World War. However, if your Lordships have not been there, I have to tell you that the new memorial in Warsaw is a sensational place. It dominates a big square. You can walk around it and through it; you can go to restaurants in the streets around it. The whole of that area has been created and recreated to accommodate that memorial.

In my view, a memorial to the Holocaust needs room to view, room to breathe, room to reflect and room to police. The site for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens certainly does not have the room to police. The road between Lambeth Bridge and the Palace of Westminster is often closed to traffic when important events are taking place here, or on the not insignificant number of occasions when there is a suspicion of a raised terrorist threat level. It would be a sitting target for terrorists and would not be difficult to access. It would not be possible to create a ring of steel around it, which can be done on a big site in a careful, considerate and not particularly obvious way.

A memorial such as this should have space—as at Auschwitz, which is on a huge site—for coaches to bring and set down older schoolchildren who are learning about modern history, including the history of the Holocaust. There should be space for them to be corralled in an appropriate way, with time to listen to their teachers. They should be able to see the light of day. I do not understand the desire for an underground memorial. To be able to understand what happened to these people, you need light. The children’s memorial at Yad Vashem, which is a hall of mirrors with candles, is based on seeing light, not being in a subterranean space. I say to your Lordships, with the feeling I hope I have shown, because I believe in this proposition—

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

In a moment—this is not the appropriate place. I venture that anyone who has great experience in local government, such as the noble Lord who I am about to give way to, should be of a similar view.

[Lord Pickles]

I was merely going to point out to the noble Lord that the memorial is indeed on the surface. The learning centre is below ground. It is important for us to be accurate in our objections.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Part of the memorial—the visible part—is on the surface; the rest is underground. Yes it is a learning centre, but if one goes to look at other monuments with learning centres, they are not concealed below the ground. I do not know of any other Holocaust memorial—

[Lord Pickles]

Berlin!

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am not going to give way again; the noble Lord can make a speech if he wants to. This is not the House of Commons. In my view, the placing of the learning centre underground compounds the points I am trying to make. This site could be put on a much bigger estate. It could be more open, visible and more easily policed. Those are the main reasons why I support the amendment.

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, a lot has been said and I agree with such obvious and logical reasons that have been given. It is very difficult not to, but I want to add my views. I was brought up a Hindu—am I not allowed to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to bring us back to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment. I have great respect for my noble friend, who sits beside me and advises me on the procedures of this House; perhaps he is not doing such a great job, but I thank him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about some Holocaust memorials that he has been to, but for me the most iconic one is the one right in the centre of Berlin. If your Lordships have not been to that one, I urge you to go because the memorial is all above ground, while its learning centre is entirely underground.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I have been to the site in Berlin. Does the noble Lord not agree that it is on a much bigger footprint than is postulated for Victoria Tower Gardens? It is a rectangular site, occupying a great space, which is very different from what is proposed here.

[Lord Polak]

I will come on to the actual footprint of the site in a minute, if I may.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the issue of security. I just pose the question: what does it say about our society that a Holocaust memorial is deemed a security risk? That is the sort of society we now live in, which is very concerning to me. I also take issue a little with noble Lords using this sort of amendment to the Bill to raise objections to the establishment of the memorial on that site. I know that I am northern and I like people to be straightforward. If this amendment were about just objecting to the site of a memorial, I would have preferred its wording to be clear and unequivocal in saying so. I do not know of any Jewish communal event or building that has been stopped or withdrawn because of security concerns. Thank God that in this country, measures are always put in place by successive Governments and successive leaders of the police, whether it be the Met Police here or the police in Manchester and other areas. They have always shown support and understanding by working closely with the CST—the Community Security Trust.

This reminds me of when I was the education director of the Board of Deputies back in the 1980s. I remember questioning the then president of the board, Lord Janner—he was not Lord Janner then but was subsequently made a Peer. I asked him what would happen if somebody were to daub the stone in the Dell in Hyde Park? What would happen if somebody came and put something on it, a swastika or whatever? I remember that his words to me were: “Stuart, you’ll roll up your sleeves and we’ll clean it up”. Those are important words, because it would be a great shame and sadness if a memorial such as this did not happen because we were worried that it could cause problems. I am not an expert, but surely Westminster is a heavily policed part of town, so why would a memorial at this site be an additional risk to the place we are in?

I do not want to pre-empt the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but I hope a memorial in the learning centre will stand next to Parliament as a reminder to all throughout the nation of our responsibility to remain vigilant against intolerance and bigotry. Setting history’s worst example of the disintegration of democratic values against the greatest emblem of Britain’s aspirations for democracy will stand as a permanent reminder of the responsibility of citizens and politicians, in a democracy, to be vigilant and responsive whenever and wherever those values are threatened. The trustees have ensured, and will ensure, that all precautions are met and the relevant people consulted.

The memorial will require just 7.5% of Victoria Tower Gardens—that leaves 92.5% untouched— and, as a result, the drainage, planting and gardens will be improved. Existing paths will be replaced, the playgrounds enhanced and there will be a new café. There will be many reasons to love the park. Members of the public should be able to go about their daily lives and that includes visiting all high-profile places in Westminster.

--- Later in debate ---

“We look at the threats, we mitigate as best we can and then we lead our lives as we have every right to do. Police and Government and everyone else takes exactly the same approach. Further to the above, I dislike, on a point of principle, the notion that anti-Jewish terrorism means that we cannot have Jewish things in public as easily as we can have other things. Then there is the fact that the memorial would be in such a heavily policed part of town anyway. I’m not entirely sure why the memorial would be at such additional risk, relative to other parts of Westminster, so as to render it unfeasible on security grounds, whereas everything else in Westminster is basically fine and within acceptable risk levels”.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am listening to the noble Lord’s cogent speech with great interest. Should he not have started by declaring his interest as co-chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation Advisory Board?

[Lord Pickles]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I apologise to the House; I forgot that I was in the Lords, not the Commons. I should say that I am co-chair of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation and vice-president of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust; I am also on the commission for Auschwitz, the concentration camp in Poland. All those posts are unpaid. I also attend other events. If I have left anything out, I apologise to the noble Lord.

Why this location? We have heard suggestions from other noble Lords as to why it is appropriate. There are two reasons. First, we want the people who have visited the learning centre, and listened to the lessons of the Holocaust and the genocide, to leave, look towards the Victoria and Elizabeth Towers and these two Chambers, and recognise that Parliament is the final bastion—the final protection against tyranny. Secondly, we want people working in this Chamber and in the other place to understand that they always have a choice: they can protect or they can oppress. It was a compliant legislature that introduced the Nuremberg laws. I look forward, in the not-too-distant future, to taking my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other Members on an exclusive guided tour of the new memorial. When it is finished, I am sure that the honourable gentleman will feel that we have done him and this place proud.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the great achievement of Europe in the last 72 years has been to change the pattern of history—from constant wars, pogroms and the like to peace throughout western and central Europe. I want to start with a plea to Ministers that when they start on the difficult negotiation that will be triggered in March, they should not for one moment lose sight of the importance of sustaining peace and security in Europe. To me that is far more important than the single market or the customs union, for our very survival depends on it.

I am one of the lucky ones. My father, who was born in 1904, was first a refugee in 1915 when he was evacuated from his native eastern Poland as the Russians laid a scorched earth policy across the territory. He spent three years as a refugee in Vienna. He next was a refugee on 20 June 1940, when a collier carried him from La Rochelle ultimately to Glasgow where he became a refugee in the United Kingdom and remained for the rest of his life.

My mother was a refugee. She defected from her job in the Polish foreign service in 1946 to come to Britain and marry my father. So I have had the great good fortune of my family being treated with great generosity by the United Kingdom—a refugee family which, I hope, has given good service to this country throughout the couple of generations that have followed.

Even before we were members of the European Union—and I do not suggest that our membership is a key to the peace and security of Europe—we helped to establish those institutions, the European Coal and Steel Community and the EEC, which gave Europe the stability that it has had up to this time. I do not think for one moment that we should lose sight of that.

I turn to the technicalities of the Bill. My view has been stated by many others of the 56 noble Lords who have spoken in the debate before me, not least by my noble friend Lord Hannay. I believe that the plebiscite—the referendum—changes the dynamics by which we consider the Bill. We do not just have a Bill, we also have a plebiscite. My judgment is that it would be irresponsible, and even unconstitutional, of the House to refuse a Second Reading. If we refuse a Second Reading, or insist on any significant amendments, we will be creating a turmoil and a challenge between the public and Parliament that will bring it into even greater disrepute than it is already. That is this chapter. In this chapter, we have to allow the Bill to go through, if necessary unamended.

Then comes the next chapter. The Government have given a welcome undertaking,

“that both Houses of Parliament would be given a vote on the withdrawal arrangements and the UK’s future relationship with the European Union before any agreement was concluded”.

That is a direct quotation from a document issued by the Library of the House. I would love to see more clarity as to what it means.

More importantly, if, when Article 50 has been triggered and the negotiations completed, it is the opinion of Parliament that the arrangements are disproportionately adverse to the national interest, that is no longer the responsibility of the referendum of last June. Nor should we ask for a further referendum, which sounds to me awfully like liking punishment and wanting more. If we judge as a Parliament in both Houses that the arrangements agreed are to the detriment of the national interest compared with the alternatives, or if they endanger security in Europe, at that point we will be properly informed as to what has been discussed. We will be properly informed as to what has been provisionally agreed, and we will then be exercising our constitutional role, if it be the case that what is agreed is unsatisfactory, in rejecting it. That seems the correct constitutional analysis.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. On matters European, she brings to this House both knowledge and wisdom. She may also still be the most popular Conservative in Liverpool—admittedly a relatively small cohort but still a great distinction.

I wish to headline my comments with a question. Where does Parliament stand in all this? I propose to address some of the comments raised by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and others earlier in the debate, but I want to focus on the process that follows the referendum, especially the role of both Houses of Parliament. In that context, we in this House are entitled to assume that Her Majesty’s Government have assessed the legal and constitutional consequences, and I believe that in the closing of this debate we are entitled to hear what advice the Government have been given about those consequences. I will not hold my breath but it will be astounding if they have not been analysed properly.

What concerns me, among other things, is the relationship between democracy and democracy. We do not legislate by referendum but it is part of our democracy. I suggest to your Lordships that, in adopting one expression of our democracy—the occasional referendum—we should not supplant another, permanent element, which is the deliberative democracy we have in Parliament.

I wanted, and voted, to remain but I recognise that we must respect the result of the referendum. However, that does not mean that we slavishly leave the European Union whatever the terms may be. I suggest to your Lordships that the clear duty of the Government and of both Houses is to attempt in good faith to give effect to the will of the majority expressed in the referendum. However, I also suggest that it is absolutely clear, as a matter of law, that Parliament would not be bound to give effect to the referendum if the only terms on which the UK could leave the European Union were shown to be seriously damaging to the national interest. Indeed, I cannot believe that the leave campaign wanted to damage the national interest.

To put it another way, I invite the noble Baroness, in responding to this debate, to confirm the following: that, despite the referendum result, if empirical analysis of negotiations shows that the disadvantages faced by the United Kingdom on leaving the European Union are disproportionately damaging to the national interest compared with the advantages of remaining, Parliament will properly have the right to show its will accordingly. I believe that the answer to that must be, “Yes. Parliament would have that right”, but we are entitled to know the Government’s view.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Will the noble Lord—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Perhaps I may be forgiven. I turn now to some narrower legal issues. I ask the noble Baroness, in responding to the debate, to explain the effect, if any, of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. As I understand that section, if the trigger to leave the European Union, as seems to be agreed, is the Article 50 process, that process falls squarely within Section 2, and I shall explain in a sentence what that means. To pull the trigger of Article 50, Section 2(2) requires the Government, at the very least, to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament to a requisite statutory instrument. If that is so, does not Parliament have a legitimate expectation that considerable detail of the proposed terms of exit from the European Union will be disclosed as part of the relevant statutory instrument, or at least in the Explanatory Notes, and that it will therefore be a transparent part of the proposed Article 50 process?

Do the Minister and the Government agree that the ultimate decision to leave after the Article 50 process has been completed is one for which legislation is required and for which, therefore, the views of both Houses of Parliament are necessary? At the very least, even if legislation is not required, can the noble Baroness agree in due course that for so momentous a decision as leaving the European Union, which I suggest—I hope without extravagance—is comparable to a decision to be involved in a war in some part of the world, the Government should accept that a fully informed decision must be required of Parliament, or at least of the House of Commons, the elected House? In sum, I am saying that we need to know the legal position. This House and the other place need to understand the legal rules behind this process. An attempt was made to explain them in a paper published a couple of months ago but a host of questions have arisen ever since.

Finally, I ask the Minister to explain how this House and the other place are to be informed on a real-time basis of the work of the team led by Oliver Letwin MP, as announced by the Prime Minister. We have an excellent House of Lords committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, who spoke earlier, but that is surely only part of the picture. Would it not be sensible for a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to be established for the specific purpose of providing scrutiny of this most important process?

A complex historic process has been commenced by what I regard as a simplistic binary question. Many untruths and half-truths were told during the referendum campaign, possibly by both sides. Now, we need confirmation that, in contrast, the parliamentary part of the process will be legal, decent, honest and, if truthful is too much to ask for, at least reasonably well informed. Pericles, one of the great originators of democracy, said:

“Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it”.

I suggest to your Lordships that Parliament should be allowed to judge this issue in an informed way—not one that is slavish to the referendum—before a final conclusion is reached.

G20 and the Paris Attacks

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, we published the counter-extremism strategy in October. It is very important to stress that it is about supporting mainstream and inclusive Muslimist voices, and showing that we actively back them. There are four strands to our counter-extremism strategy, and building cohesion among communities and ensuring that we take steps to prevent the radicalisation that is such a serious threat is very much part of that.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government consider expediting the enactment of the Investigatory Powers Bill, perhaps with a sunset clause and detailed post-legislative scrutiny, to ensure that the security services have the proportionate facilities they need, and to enable an informed judgment to be made of the provisions in action?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I know that the noble Lord and many others in this House are concerned, and rightly so, to ensure that our security services and counterterrorism measures are adequate for the threat we face. If there was any suggestion that that was not the case, clearly, we would want to look at that and take the necessary steps. The Investigatory Powers Bill, which is about to receive pre-legislative scrutiny, is landmark legislation that futureproofs the existing legislation, which gives the powers the security services need at this time. So while the noble Lord makes some interesting points, what is important is that that Bill receives the proper scrutiny that Parliament expects it to receive. However, at the same time, I assure the noble Lord and the House that, if there is anything the security services do not have now that they need to do their work, we will review that legislation and reconsider our approach to it.

Iraq

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I am privileged to follow the noble and learned Lord’s reassurance on the international legal issues, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I, too, support the decision to obtain a parliamentary mandate for air strikes against ISIL in Iraq. The holocaust that ISIL has started has shocked the world.

What I want to say has not yet been said in this debate: it is incumbent on this House and the other place to support the service chiefs who will now have to conduct the military campaign. What has been started is a military campaign and they must be allowed to conduct it with the usual military control techniques and to the highest military standards.

In doing so, they and we are entitled to expect regional allies to put in ground troops, for aerial might alone can cause severe damage but will not totally destroy. For example, aerial strikes will not take survivors as prisoners to render them ineffective or bring war criminals to justice. That means that we must be prepared to train ground forces—those of Iraq and possibly other allied countries—and avoid the debacle of the weakness of the forces of Mr Maliki’s discredited Government as they collapsed under the approach of ISIL. Somebody’s boots on the ground will be a requirement for success and there will have to be boots in both Iraq and Syria.

However, in allying with other countries, we must be careful about some. The influence of Iran, particularly its Quds forces, on the Maliki Government has been extensive and has diminished the protection of minorities in Iraq. I suggest to the Minister that if we sup with Iran, there should be a long spoon at the table.

In addition to air power, can we be assured by the Government that we will also deploy our own Special Forces, who have skills beyond those of any other country in the world; that we will deploy our own intelligence services’ formidable capability alongside those of, especially, the United States and France; and that the effective use of military command and control will be able to function with as little unnecessary political and juridical inhibition as possible? We must recognise, too—must we not?— that the borders between Iraq and Syria are long and, in many places, arbitrary and artificial. Hot pursuit should be recognised as an appropriate measure, whether from land or air. If there is a large-scale transfer of assets by ISIL from Iraq to Syria, we must be able to consider immediately whether today’s decision should be varied. I have seen the limited legal advice issued by the Government this morning and I regret very much that it does not deal with or anticipate those issues.

Finally, I turn very briefly to terrorism within the UK. It is self-evident that there is a real threat that a violent jihadist supporting ISIL, if he has safety and the means, will make as sophisticated an attack in the United Kingdom as he can muster and that, in the medium term at least, this threat will endure. The waging of an aerial war abroad will raise the potential for a terrorist reaction at home. I therefore urge the Government to listen to those of us who call for the public to be protected, in the short-term at least, by strengthened but proportionate counterterrorism measures. I also urge an increased focus on the Prevent strand of counterterrorism policy in terms of both funding and deployment. Partnership with Muslim communities to make Prevent more effective can make a substantial contribution to the safety of our citizens—including, of course, British Muslims.

Woolwich and the EU Council

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I certainly agree with the common-sense point that the noble Baroness makes, and I am sure that everyone would agree. On her first point, the particular Council meeting talked about tax, but I will make sure that my colleagues who deal with these things day to day have heard the noble Baroness’s remarks about employment rights and the rest of it.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, as part of our memorial to the late Drummer Rigby, will my noble friend assure the House that the Government remain committed to the “Prevent” strand of counterterrorism policy, and that they will ensure that it is not deprived of funding, as it has been in the past two years? Further, will he give an assurance on behalf of the whole Government that the communications data issue will be reconsidered on the merits, on the evidence and on a multipartisan basis, and on no other foundation?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am aware of my noble friend’s strong views on the communications data point. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, we need to look at these issues extremely carefully, in a sensitive way but bearing in mind those facts of the sort to which my noble friend refers. On his first point, it is clearly the case that the “Prevent” strand of work that the Government carry out is extremely important. It has been successful in many ways. We will step up the focus of the Government’s work on addressing radicalisation, and we will obviously need to make sure that the agencies charged with that work are adequately funded.

Phone Hacking

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is too early to come to any definitive view but, of course, as the reports are made they will be taken seriously. If there is any action to be taken at that time and it is appropriate to do so, then we shall do so.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, given that anyone who knows or has encountered Lord Justice Leveson knows that he will dig deep and report robustly, can we take it that the helpful enthusiasm of Select Committees in another place will now recede a little into the background, so the time taken up in dealing with those Select Committees can be used in the inquiries by Lord Justice Leveson and by the very reputable deputy assistant commissioner, Sue Akers?