Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, Her Majesty bequeaths to our country and people continuity, certainty and the strengths embedded in the timeless traditions of our constitutional monarchy. She has been our country’s chief and greatest diplomat, smoothing the path for politicians and officials with charm, wisdom, grace and memorable humour. Her Majesty imbued a lifetime of service and deep consideration with unwavering appreciation to her realms and territories, to the countries of the Commonwealth and far beyond, carrying her values, her profound sense of duty and her love.
As we enter this extended period of mourning heavy with grief, there is, however, a silver lining evident beyond the clouds, the most significant being her heir, our King. I venture with humility that the tribute that we offer to Her Majesty is to thank her for her tireless dedication and to work to ensure that her legacy endures for centuries to come.
In doing so I pay tribute to the King’s already formidable achievements. His honed skills with well-respected guidance on climate change, organic farming, the built environment and multi-faith issues—often ahead of his time—are always useful and relevant. However, particular attention must be given to assuring the continuity of our United Kingdom by listening and learning, and that the legacy of the Commonwealth evolves and modernises to ensure its continued relevance and place in the world. The King shares that resolve, I believe, by promoting the dignity of all peoples and beliefs, respect for their cultures and heritage, support for those less privileged and dialogue for greater understanding of seemingly intractable problems.
A new monarch, a new Government, a united people, an appropriate place in the world and the opportunity of a new beginning for a renewed United Kingdom—that is a good place to be. God save the King and the Queen Consort.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard from all the excellent tributes that have been made, Her late Majesty’s dedication and commitment to public service cannot be met by anyone else. However, her service was not just to public and government institutions but to civil society, which is such an important part of our free and democratic life.
Her late Majesty was rightly respected for her almost complete avoidance of party-political controversy during her long reign. As I remarked in the debate to mark the Platinum Jubilee, this was all the more remarkable given that she is from a trade unionist background. Her mother and father were honorary bummarees—porters at Smithfield meat market—and therefore members of my union, the Transport and General Workers’ Union, now called Unite. When I mentioned this fact to a noble friend recently, they asked whether Their late Majesties had kept up their membership. I must admit that, to avoid any change of heart, we gave them free life membership.
Crown Dependencies: Contributions
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a constitutional responsibility to represent the Crown dependencies internationally. We discharge that responsibility irrespective of cost. As I said, however, the Crown dependencies have been making voluntary contributions since 1987. As these are general contributions in recognition of our overall responsibilities and it is in our interest to represent the whole British family internationally, they are not intended to reflect the exact costs of defending the Crown dependencies or representing them internationally. We are satisfied with the current arrangements.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, during the debate on sanctions regulations in February I asked how we would ensure that sanctions apply in full to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The Minister’s response was that the Government were
“lending technical support to the overseas territories”.—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col GC 22.]
What has the outcome of that “technical support” been? Is the Minister in a position to confirm the full application of sanctions within the Crown dependencies?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as sanctions are a tool of foreign policy, it is government policy for UK sanctions measures to be given effect in the Crown dependencies to make those sanctions as effective as possible. The Crown dependencies apply UK sanctions, including, for example, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 and the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021. The FCDO and Her Majesty’s Treasury ensure robust implementation of sanctions. There is considerable sanctions-related engagement with the Crown dependencies, including meetings and webinars, to make sure that all the sanctions legislation is properly applied throughout the Crown dependencies.
Article 50
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer to an Urgent Question. Last week, we had two days of debate and a QSD on the referendum outcome in which we sought to better understand what will happen next. The result of the referendum is of course clear and must be respected, but as we heard in the other place, it is about not if but how the will of the people is delivered. Whatever version of Brexit we eventually end up with, surely Parliament must be totally engaged in the determination.
Last week, the Minister said that it is for the next Prime Minister to decide when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU. We now know who, but when will we know how? The question for all noble Lords in this House is about the process of parliamentary engagement before the triggering of Article 50. What is the Minister’s estimate for meeting the commitment to consult the devolved powers? It will be a lengthy consultation process, bearing in mind the risks, but will it also involve the wider community, including employers and trade unions? If the principle is that Parliament will be engaged, will the Minister please give us more details about what that precisely means?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord asks a number of questions, including some that were posed, as he quite rightly said, to my noble friend Lady Anelay last week during the debate. I can of course advance the position somewhat from the answer that she gave last week, in that we know, as the noble Lord said, who the next Prime Minister is—and I understand that she will become the Prime Minister on Wednesday evening. There is at least some progress there, which I am sure will provide some confidence that the process will be decided rather sooner than might have been the position had there been a contested election for the Conservative leadership.
As to his question in respect of the devolved nations, I know that there have already been preliminary discussions with the various parts of the United Kingdom and their representative Assemblies and Parliament. That will continue, and he is quite right that Brexit, however it finally comes into being, should involve all of the United Kingdom and as many parts—and representative parts of the United Kingdom—as possible.
As to the question of Parliament’s involvement, I fear I can go no further than my noble friend did. It is the Government’s view—as I indicated in the Statement—that the prerogative power does not require parliamentary involvement, but the current Prime Minister made it clear that Parliament will be involved. How and when Parliament will be involved will be a question for the new Prime Minister when she has considered the best way forward.
EU Referendum and EU Reform (EUC Report)
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank your Lordships’ EU Committee for its excellent reports, and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. The reports have focused on key issues arising from the Government’s negotiations and have addressed that vital question of plan B. Since their publication, events have overtaken us. With just seven days left, the shape of the campaign has been pretty well determined. As the committee demanded of the Government, I shall today focus on a positive vision for a reformed EU. However, there is no disguising what the committee highlighted and has been confirmed by the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England and many economists a vote leave will lead to a lengthy period of uncertainty while any future relationship with the EU is concluded, causing a serious shock to the UK economy.
The Brexit campaign cannot sweep away the effects of this period of limbo, as my noble friend Lord Liddle called it, nor can it dodge any longer the questions about what alternatives to membership may look like. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage will take us back to a future reminiscent of the 1980s, when unemployment was said to be a “price worth paying” and things such as paid leave, health and safety and equality rights were considered red tape holding back progress.
However, as we have heard in this debate, the EU is not just about economic security; it is about a vision of a continent where co-operation overcomes conflict. As a nation, we have a moral and practical interest in preventing conflict, stopping terrorism, supporting the poorest in the world and halting climate change. Britain leads in Europe on these issues and, in turn, Europe helps to lead the world. Those who advocate that Britain should turn its back on the European Union have a very heavy responsibility to prove their case.
As the committee reminded us, the Government were clear throughout the negotiations that their support for continuing EU membership would depend on reaching a successful outcome. Yet the referendum question makes no reference to the “new settlement”. The simple truth is that this is not a referendum on David Cameron’s reforms; it is on weighing up the benefits of membership of the EU overall.
Nor is reform just about what Britain asks for now, as we have heard in this debate; it is a constant process of trying to make Europe more effective in generating jobs, investment, growth and security, and our influence in the world. Labour has an alternative agenda for progressive change in the EU: to strengthen workers’ rights in a real social Europe; to put jobs and sustainable growth at the heart of European economic policy; to democratise EU institutions; and to halt the pressure to privatise public services. It is a vision of a real social Europe, one which protects the “going rate” for skilled workers, prevents the undercutting of wages and directs EU funding to places where the pressures are greatest.
As Jeremy Corbyn has argued, the only way to secure these changes will be to remain in the EU. I am confident that the public will trust the Labour movement to stand up for working people rather than the likes of Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson. As we have read in the reports and heard in the debate, what progress we have made on reform will be lost if we vote to leave. Instead, we will be left with just two years in which to negotiate not only a new trading relationship with the European Union but also with the 53 other countries with which we currently have trade agreements because we are members of the European Union. We would be entering a negotiating process where EU member states would retain significant control despite the Commission having responsibility for its conduct. As the committee pointed out, there is the potential for some countries vetoing certain elements of the agreement to secure better deals on others. That is what negotiation is about, and if you think that can be conducted quickly, you are living on a different planet from me. In effect, nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
One of the most important aspects of the withdrawal negotiations would be determining the acquired rights of the 2 million or so UK citizens living in other member states and, equally, of EU citizens living in the UK. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, for many people, immigration is the issue in this referendum. They feel that our country has become too crowded, that our services are under pressure, that we are losing our identity and that leaving the European Union would restore control over these things. We have an obligation to be honest with one another about the nature of the world in which we live and the changes that have happened—and will happen whichever way people vote on 23 June. Immigration into Britain will continue whether we stay or go, as the leave campaign has now admitted. Immigration brings challenges to the UK, which is why Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Burnham said last week that we want to see EU protections for people’s wages and a special fund to help the most affected communities. But being in Europe helps Britain to control immigration so that it works for us. For example, it helped us to persuade France to move Britain’s border from Dover to Calais. Leaving would put that at risk.
Anyone who thinks that voting leave will solve problems—such as the shortage of housing and the crisis in the NHS—in time will be bitterly disappointed. As we have heard in this debate, failure to prioritise those issues is the fault of government, not Europe.
What is plan B if the UK votes to leave? Will the Minister address how the Government plan to deal with the fundamental issues raised by the committee? What alternative arrangements are considered for the UK’s Council presidency in the second half of 2017? What oversight will the UK Parliament have over the negotiations on withdrawal and the new relationship beyond existing ratification procedures? What is the Minister’s assessment of the timeframe to disentangle EU law from domestic law and how this may impact on the devolved nations? Does the Minister agree that it may be necessary in the national interest to maintain a significant amount of EU law in force in national law?
As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the excellent report by our Science and Technology Committee makes a number of interesting points about the situation facing UK science if there were to be a Brexit. For example, it stresses that the UK is one of the world’s leading scientific nations, in terms of both fundamental and applied research, and that we have retained this leading position in the face of growing competition from around the world. It also says that the overwhelming balance of opinion made known to the committee from the UK science community valued greatly the UK’s membership of the European Union.
That point was made effectively by Sir Paul Nurse in his article in the current New Statesman edited by Gordon Brown—I strongly recommend that issue to all noble Lords. Sir Paul highlighted the recent survey in the science journal Nature, which showed that 83% of UK scientists want Britain to stay in the EU—a much higher proportion than in the general population. That is because science flourishes in environments that pool intelligence, minimise barriers and are open to exchange and collaboration. The EU helps to provide such an environment, and scientists value it. There is no doubt that some will see no problems if the UK leaves the EU, but as Sir Paul says,
“the great majority of scientists”,
support remain. He goes on:
“In contrast, hardly any accomplished scientists are arguing that leaving the EU would be good for UK science”.
Does the Minister agree with Sir Paul when he says that superb science is one of the UK’s biggest assets, one that makes all our lives better? Over recent decades, the EU has played a critical role in helping UK science. What is good for science is good for the UK, and what is good for UK science is staying in the European Union.
In conclusion, I turn to my noble friend Lord Howarth and quote what I read in yesterday’s FT, which summed up the position in which we now find ourselves. It states that,
“the continent’s present troubles should serve as a reminder of its capacity for self-harm. The rise of populism, drawing from the well of economic and social discontent, carries disturbing echoes of the 1930s. A confident Britain would see this as a moment to lead rather than leave”.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Will the noble Lord explain the difference between populism and democracy?
Lord Collins of Highbury
Democracy is David Cameron and populism is Boris—what is his name?—Johnson.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith on raising his excellent report. It will help us in future debates because not only did he touch on this subject, but he went through all the definitions of citizenship. The issue has arisen over a number of years because there was a separation between being a British passport holder and having the right to reside in Britain. That complication grew historically from our imperial past. The issue here is that we have a report that recommends something in principle that most of us would agree with but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, that is not what this amendment is attempting to do. In his report, my noble and learned friend made it clear that there should be transitional arrangements. Simply put, people residing here should not have the vote taken away. This amendment will, in effect, say to people who reside here and have the right to vote here that they will no longer have the right to vote in a referendum because of the date of the referendum. We cannot accept this amendment, even though there may be principles in it that are worth consideration, because it would be wrong. Someone mentioned extending the franchise. This is about not extending the franchise but taking it away from people who already have it. That is why we cannot possibly support it.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate. This is the first of a number of amendments concerned with the franchise, the majority of which are concerned with extending it. This amendment is concerned with restricting the franchise. It was considered in a different form, but it is in principle the same and is about whether Commonwealth citizens should be excluded from the franchise. I take the qualification of the noble Lord, Lord Green, that it would be if those Commonwealth citizens are not British citizens. In this amendment he has specified that should the referendum be held on or after 1 January 2017, Commonwealth citizens who are resident should not be eligible to vote, so if the referendum takes place before then, the existing Westminster franchise should pertain. The amendment would have the same effect for Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar.
Noble Lords will be aware that the franchise for this referendum is based on that used for parliamentary elections, but I reiterate that it includes Commonwealth citizens who are citizens of a country mentioned in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981—there is quite a number of countries—so long as they are resident in the United Kingdom. It is worth emphasising those words. As I have emphasised in previous debates, the Government think this is fair and consistent with the precedents taken from previous referendums. This franchise was used in the alternative vote referendum in 2011, and it is the franchise that was set out in the European Union Act of that year. Noble Lords will remember that a referendum would have been triggered in the event of the transfer of powers or competence to the European Union.
As I have said to the House before, “Commonwealth citizen” is a broad term. It is set out in Section 37 of the British Nationality Act. It includes British citizens as well as those who hold other types of British nationality, including British overseas territories citizens, British subjects and citizens of those countries listed in Schedule 3 to the Act. In order to be entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors, Commonwealth citizens must have leave to enter the UK or to remain under the Immigration Act 1971 or must not require such leave. While in many democratic countries eligibility to vote is based on citizenship, I set out in Committee that it is our historical ties with Commonwealth countries that justify this approach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, addressed your Lordships’ House with reference to his report, which was indeed cited in Committee. He assisted the House by explaining that he was asked to review the difficult question of British citizenship, and that the quotation perfectly reasonably relied upon by the noble Lord, Lord Green, had to be seen in the context of a general review of what it meant to be a citizen and what, if anything, we should do to clarify the nature of citizenship or to record it. It is correct, as was elucidated during his remarks to the House, that he suggested that if the franchise were to be restricted to British citizens then those with an existing right to vote should have that phased out. I respectfully adopt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that what is contained in the amendment is really not a phasing out; it is effectively a guillotine, albeit a somewhat delayed one—a sword of Damocles, as it were.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
It is quite often possible to summarise the general opinion of politics in this country, as a default position, as: “They just shout at each other and they don’t try to find the truth in the public interest”. This will be an historic decision for Britain, and the idea that we will not do our best to find any independent ground to give to the British people is quite extraordinary.
I was the person who, at Second Reading, first made this proposal and started this hare, or bear, running. That was done to meet the argument put forward by noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that we must find out what the consequences would be of being out, because they on their side—and it is true that I am on one side, just as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is on the other side—were saying that there will be absolutely no problem with being out, without any of the downsides; for example, that we will have all the benefits of EFTA. Of course, this weekend we now hear from the Prime Ministers of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and wherever that this is not the case. We have now got into the position where, this bear trap or whatever it is having been opened up, the noble Lord seems to be running away from the argument that his side started about a month ago, which is very interesting.
The only other way in which I guess we could have an independent analysis without it being done by the Office for Budget Responsibility would be to set up some new academic/ex-Whitehall or Civil Service commission, or something like that. It would not be easy to get agreement—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said at the beginning—in that rather heated atmosphere on what such a body should be like. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has doubted that the credentials of the OBR as regards its degree of dispassionate analysis could be bettered. It now has a reputation, with some ex-Treasury officials in it, as a body which does not kowtow to the Treasury, which some people feared. However, it established its own independence and credibility at the same time, not like a parliamentary Select Committee with an eye for newspaper headlines wanting to find something extravagantly newsworthy to say. This is therefore about as good an attempt as will be made.
Finally, we do hear a red herring from time to time, which is of course that after the referendum, if it leads to exit, another negotiation would follow whereby tariffs would not go up against Britain, and that otherwise they would. All these existing problems would suddenly be revealed for analysis when we are out, not before we are out—before we have voted—but when we are going to go out they would have another negotiation. That particular fox, to change the animal metaphor, has been shot dead three times, and I should think it is pretty dead now.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to be very brief. I will start by saying that in the previous debate and at Second Reading my noble friend Lady Morgan made our position of support for the principle of reports and information quite clear. This comes back to the Electoral Commission’s submission that people want more information and informed debate. Clearly, we know that the debate will be focused on those who are committed to remaining in and those committed to leaving. However, the debate today highlights a problem we have with people who take a fixed position. I am one of those who believe that the Prime Minister is intent on negotiating progress within the European Union. I also believe that the European Union is open to constant reform. I do not see the date of the referendum as the date when everything stops, with it simply being a question of deciding, “It’s good now” or “It’s bad now”. The debate on reform is really important, which is why the Office for Budget Responsibility can have an important role to play.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked, “Who are these reports for?”. I could not agree with him more in asking that, but I think that they will make an important contribution and stop the debate deteriorating into one between those who simply want out at any cost and those who simply want in at any cost. The reform agenda must be very much at the forefront of the debate that we will have.
I think that the Office for Budget Responsibility is capable of doing the job. It produces reports on the Budget and is capable of producing a longer-term fiscal sustainability report on future trends and pressures. It is ideally suited to the job and I think that people will want to hear from it. There were debates in the other place about whether the Bank of England should or should not express an opinion. We support the independence of the Bank and it has been doing a good job. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, thinks that the Bank has got it wrong many times and asks, “Why should we listen to it now?”. However, I am also aware that when even a body like the Bank of England reports, the Guardian says that its report shows that the EU provides a dynamic environment for economic growth, whereas the Daily Telegraph said that the report has nothing to do with EU membership. So whatever the OBR produces, I have every confidence that the campaign to remain in the EU will say one thing and that the campaign to take Britain out will say something else. However, the British people deserve to understand the source of the information, which is why we will support both amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in moving Amendment 22, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has enabled the Committee to have a debate which goes to the heart of the question of who should be the author of a report regarding the effect upon the economy of the UK were there to be a decision by the British people at the referendum to leave the EU or remain in the EU. Of course, I notice that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, talks about withdrawal and that my noble friend’s amendment talks about remaining in, but Amendments 22 and 23 together have enabled an overall debate.
The request in both amendments goes beyond the remit of the OBR, which is set out in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. The OBR’s main duty is to monitor the sustainability of the public finances. Its role is to make economic and fiscal forecasts based on the policies that the Government plan to implement. Conducting analysis of hypothetical scenarios for the purpose of a referendum is simply beyond its scope. Indeed, the statutory basis of the OBR forbids it to consider the effects of alternative policies.
It may assist the Committee if at this point I refer briefly to the 2011 Act. The precise language under Section 5(3) is as follows:
“Where any Government policies are relevant to the performance of that duty, the Office … must have regard to those policies, but … may not consider what the effect of any alternative policies would be”.
The point on alternative policies is very clear. In the Government’s view, these amendments would indeed require the OBR to consider alternative policies, as I think has become clear during the debate.
As my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Forsyth alluded to, we should consider a wider point. If the OBR were to report on the economic consequences of UK withdrawal, it would risk pulling the organisation into the political debate—something that the OBR was set up precisely to guard against—which could therefore undermine its reputation as an independent and objective institution.
I understand that the amendment was tabled as a spur to debate and it has helped us in that regard. As I advised noble Lords at the end of the debate on the previous group of amendments, we will now think carefully about the issue of public information and consider what we may be able to bring forward by way of an amendment on Report. At this stage, I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, to withdraw his amendment but, in the first instance, I urge my noble friend Lord Blencathra not to move Amendment 23, which is an amendment to Amendment 22.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I assure noble Lords that I never had an ambition to be Prime Minister. The fact is that Prime Ministers sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes they are badly advised. I think that she was very badly advised to agree to the Single European Act. On behalf of the Labour Party, Donald Bruce—Lord Bruce of Donington—and I sat on that Front Bench opposing the Single European Act. Unfortunately in my view, the Labour Party has changed its view, but it might come back to reality in due course and get on the right trail with this.
I agree entirely with Amendment 1 and, as I said earlier, the noble Lord has raised an important point.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, bearing in mind the contributions that we have had so far, for one moment I thought that I could be tempted to recount my 45 years’ membership of the Labour Party and my journey towards Europe. I will resist that for now, although I might come back to it.
It is important that we address some of the details of Amendment 1. It is fundamentally about a level playing field. I understand that noble Lords opposite are focusing on a level playing field over how the date will be set and the arrangements for purdah, but there is more to a level playing field than simply purdah. The Electoral Commission’s remarks or comments on this amendment are important. These show that in the commission’s experience since 2004, in referring to PPERA and its requirements, campaigners and electoral administrators need time to prepare themselves properly to follow the detailed rules that Parliament has specified. These rules relate to donations, campaign funds and, of course, how a campaign is properly designated.
I had hoped that noble Lords would refer to the ninth report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raises this point quite properly. It says that there is a bit of a problem here with the requirements in the schedules about establishing or designating an appropriate organisation that will come within the terms of PPERA, and with the campaign period of 10 weeks. The issue for me—the Electoral Commission makes this point—is that we will have a much longer campaign than 10 weeks. It has already started: organisations either have been or will be set up in the hope and expectation that they will be the designated organisation. At some point they have to get their act together and ensure that they meet fully the requirements of PPERA.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
A level playing field is devoutly to be sought. We can do as much as we can in Parliament and in this House to ensure that the rules are fair, that the donations question is settled properly and so on. Does my noble friend agree that there will never be an even playing field in this country as long as the press—often the foreign-owned press—is overwhelmingly against Europe?
Lord Collins of Highbury
I agree with my noble friend. One of the problems of PPERA and trying to establish a level playing field in elections generally is our free press, which is very important and which we must defend. We have to consider that the concentration of ownership in our press has distorted its ability to express a range of opinions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I am sorry to interrupt, but he may not recall that during the 1975 referendum the press, other than the Daily Express, was virtually all in favour of remaining in.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I very much recall it, because, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I was secretary of the Spelthorne Get Britain Out campaign, so I was fully aware of what we were up against. I will come on to this on Amendment 2.
I want to focus on specific questions relating to this. Everyone is familiar with the 10-week campaign period and everyone is talking about purdah. However, there is a period before that relating to the operation of PPERA and designated organisations. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee said,
“if as suggested in the memorandum the start date for applications for designation is likely to be earlier than the start date for the referendum period, this will have the knock-on effect of reducing the minimum length for the referendum period”.
In considering the issue raised in these amendments, the committee said:
“We consider that, if the Government intend there to be a minimum of 10 weeks for the referendum period, they cannot rely on the operation of the 2000 Act”—
PPERA—
“to deliver that minimum period. In our view, the 10 week minimum for the referendum period should be specified on the face of the Bill”.
I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Delegated Powers Committee is correct. If it is not, how can she give the guarantees that we all accept have been made? I accept that there is a need to ensure that, when we enter the process of the referendum, there is a proper level playing field which everyone accepts and understands. To do otherwise would undermine the whole process because, as noble Lords have said, whatever we have at the end, we want a settlement. That brings me to my noble friend’s Amendment 2.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I was not implying in any way that health and safety is not important. Indeed, I was a Health and Safety Minister in the Department of Employment for at least a year. The point I was making was that employment rights, when we signed up to them, were subject to unanimity and we had a veto. They were then presented as health and safety in order to get round that and make it possible to change them by qualified majority.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I hear what the noble Lord says but I think these issues will be part of the general debate and I do not want to use these amendments for a broader discussion. The only point I will make, in relation to the debate we had on Amendment 2, is that there is a point in the process of negotiations where people put forward demands that they know full well cannot be achieved. In the Labour movement, we used to call people who made those sorts of propositions Trotskyists. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would be offended, or would think that it was unparliamentary for me to use those terms, but sometimes, I have to confess, he does sound like a little bit of a Trot.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In view of the person who now leads the Labour Party, I suppose I should take that as a compliment.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, there is not much between us. The noble Lord said 1.75 million; I said 1.9 million.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I am tempted to stray on to the next group, which the noble Lord, Lord Green, has mentioned, because there are obviously a lot of issues here about what is citizenship and what is entitlement to vote. Of course, for historical reasons, entitlement to vote in this country is very complex and has developed over a long time. The link between the right to abode in this country and a British passport has been broken. We are changing that situation gradually, but it is very complex.
I have some sympathy with the comments of my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Foulkes because I must declare an interest: I am married to a Spanish citizen who came here to work and has been here for 20 years, and who does participate in civic life in this country. He regularly votes for his local councillor and considers himself an EU citizen. He considers himself part of a European Union and I think the problem we have in terms of this referendum is that it will undoubtedly cause him concern if Britain votes to leave the EU. No longer will he have that common bond; he will be told that he is simply a visitor here.
The noble Lord may raise a question here about residents having the opportunity to apply for citizenship and I will return to that, but I want noble Lords to address a number of questions which I would like the Minister to answer. Whatever conclusion we make, there are nearly 2 million people who have been living in this country and participated in civic society who deserve some clear answers.
When we came to a question about the future of the United Kingdom and a referendum was held in part of the United Kingdom, in Scotland, the decision was taken that the appropriate electorate for that decision was the franchise for the Scottish parliamentary elections—the local government franchise. No one disputed that at the time, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said. Now I think citizens of the European Union—because that is what they are—who work here and have lived here for some time will ask if they vote for British representation—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the point that no one disputed the franchise, I certainly received many, many letters from people who were Scots living in England complaining that they did not have a vote in the Scottish referendum and that people who had come here from other European countries on a short-term basis—shorter than the noble Lord’s partner—perhaps to work for only one or two years did have a vote. It was by no means uncontroversial.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I know it was not uncontroversial because the previous Government conceded a referendum on the future of the United Kingdom where all parts of that United Kingdom would have said that they wanted a say in the future of this United Kingdom. That did not happen. I think that is a legitimate point to make. My husband is not my partner any longer—we have now been able to change that—but he and the 2 million people who came to this country and are here on a certain understanding are going to be faced with the prospect of radical changes in their circumstances without having any say.
I raised the point of Scotland, as did my noble friend Lord Foulkes, but when we come to British representation in the European Parliament, European citizens are entitled to vote for British representation in the European Parliament, not French or Spanish or whatever. My husband does not cast his vote in the European elections in Spain; he casts them here for British representation. They deserve an answer to that question and they deserve to know why you are choosing the Westminster franchise when maybe—as in Scotland or in Wales—the appropriate franchise would be the people who are most affected.
Of course as we come into the other debate on the next group, there is an issue about people who have resided here who can obtain the right to vote and get the Westminster franchise if they become British citizens. In the media last week, there were clear signs that people are concerned about their status changing and are therefore willing to fork out nearly £1,000 to obtain British citizenship. Maybe my husband will make that same decision—partly because he does not have to break his ties with Spain but can obtain dual nationality. That is not the case for everyone.
Lord Green of Deddington
I think it is true to say that, for all EU nationalities, dual citizenship is permitted.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Well then, good, but I still think that people need an answer to that question. People are moving to obtain British citizenship and we have to be clear on the consequences of this.
This debate has been really interesting in highlighting how people see what being a British citizen is about. We will come on to this in the next group, so I do not want to do so now, but if we are to use the Westminster franchise—and there are good reasons for doing so, not least that if people have resided here for longer than five years, they have the opportunity to apply for British citizenship and therefore obtain the vote—we may see a big rush in those circumstances. The Minister has the responsibility for giving a clear reason why those people who have worked and lived in this country for a substantial time will not be able to vote on something which will clearly affect their futures in this country.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, Amendment 10, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and Amendment 13, in their names and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, would extend the franchise to EU citizens who had resided in the United Kingdom for five years or more. Amendment 15, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Davies of Stamford, would also extend the franchise to EU citizens but would not impose a minimum time period for residency in the United Kingdom.
As has been pointed out, many EU citizens have made the United Kingdom their home and made significant contributions to life in this country. No one would wish to deny that but this is of course a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe, so we say that it is right to use the parliamentary franchise as the basis. As my noble friend Lady Anelay explained at Second Reading, we are following the standard practice across Europe. As far as we are aware, no other European member state extends the franchise for referendums to citizens of other states—and there have been many such votes over the last four decades.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke about the exceptional circumstances of this poll. This is an exceptional poll in some respects but it is not the only one with significant constitutional ramifications. Referendums in Europe have dealt with the ratification of EU treaties or the currency that a nation should use. These are not trivial issues, albeit that the noble Lord described them as less consequential. Even so, it is said that this is different as it deals with membership. But there have in effect been other in/out referendums: 17 EU member states held referendums about whether to accede to the European Union. Most recently, the Croatian people were asked in 2012. Others have voted not to, including Norway, while in 2013 the people of San Marino voted not even to apply. So far as we can tell, not a single one of those extended the decision to citizens of other states.
Noble Lords in effect suggested that the franchise should extend to include those EU citizens because they are affected by the results of the vote. This argument has its attractions but I respectfully suggest that it does not withstand careful scrutiny. First, why should this test apply only to EU citizens? Yes, the large French community in Kensington or the Portuguese in Stockwell will be impacted to some extent by the decision, but why should it stop at the United Kingdom borders? Surely Spanish citizens in Madrid would feel the effects of Britain leaving, as would the Maltese in Valetta or the Poles in Warsaw. The United Kingdom is a major global power and the EU is the world’s largest market with a population of over 500 million. If the United Kingdom left, a great many people around Europe would be affected to a greater or lesser extent. That hardly means they should all get a vote. Let me respectfully suggest that it is not enough simply to look at who is affected by a vote in order to decide who should take part. Furthermore, the United Kingdom would feel quite deeply the impact of further enlargement of the European Union. That does not mean that in future United Kingdom citizens should be able to vote in an accession referendum in Turkey or Albania or anywhere else that might join the European Union. We need to start elsewhere. That is why the Government brought forward proposals building on the general election franchise and that is the appropriate starting point for a decision of this kind.
As for the five-year residency threshold, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, propose in Amendment 13 that it should be given to those who have resided in the United Kingdom for five years or more. This is a much more nuanced amendment than the other one. I wholly understand the noble Lord’s intention for this five-year threshold. No doubt many EU citizens who have settled here for many years feel a connection to the United Kingdom and the noble Lord is saying that we should give them a vote in the poll. Of course the longest resident requirement for EU citizens in order to qualify to apply for British citizenship is five years of lawful residence. After being free of immigration time restrictions for 12 months, an EU national can then apply for naturalisation to become a British citizen. So many EU nationals who meet the noble Lord’s threshold will be able, and have chosen, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, to take up British citizenship. I am sure many choose not to but that does not undermine the point that the option is open to them. Secondly, I draw attention to the practicality of identifying those who fall within the threshold. The franchise for local elections does not include any time limits on residency. Implementing such a limit would therefore be much more complex and time-consuming than simply using the local election franchise.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested it is unfair to exclude EU citizens when those from Malta, Cyprus or Ireland are included. I respectfully do not believe there is any actual inconsistency here. The inclusion of these three member states is not related to their position in the European Union. It is because Malta and Cyprus are part of the Commonwealth and there is a history of reciprocal voting rights, as between the United Kingdom and Ireland. The inclusion of Commonwealth and Irish citizens in the Westminster franchise is a long-standing part of the country’s constitution and it reflects the historical ties shared between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. This is a legacy of the Representation of the People Act 1918—the same legislation that extended the vote to women. We could hardly include some Commonwealth citizens and not others in the franchise. Of course there is a requirement of residency; I need hardly say. It would not be right to start unpicking the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
Finally, noble Lords will want to reflect very carefully on how this change would look to the public. I entirely accept the point the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made that this is not intended to affect the Westminster franchise but I return to the point that I made in relation to the first group of amendments, a point also made by my noble friend Lord Ridley. It is of fundamental importance that this vote is not just fair but seen to be fair. To appear, however innocently and whatever the reality behind the reasons, to be altering the franchise to change the result in some way risks undermining the effectiveness of the referendum. No doubt partly for these reasons, the proposals to include EU citizens in the franchise were rejected by large majorities in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether I could help the House with how many EU citizens were actually on the electoral register. The statistic I have is that there are approximately 2.7 million EU-born citizens resident in the United Kingdom. The source for that is the World Bank’s estimate of migrant stocks in 2010, as updated by the UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs in 2013. I will endeavour to answer that question between now and Report; how successful I will be, I am not sure, but I will certainly endeavour to do so.
I was also asked what would be the consequences for EU nationals were the referendum to result in the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. As the House will know, the Government are confident that they will successfully negotiate a change in the relationship with the European Union and that the Prime Minister will then ask the country to confirm that we should remain a member of the European Union—albeit on somewhat changed terms. So what might happen to these EU citizens is entirely a hypothetical question, but noble Lords may well conclude that it is most unlikely that they would simply be cast loose, as it were, as is suggested.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, if noble Lords are concerned that including Commonwealth and Irish citizens will bring the result of the referendum into question, they might then look back to last May and wonder what happened in the general election. Are we questioning the result of the general election because of their involvement in that franchise?
Lord Green of Deddington
Did the noble Lord hear me say earlier that I have a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, which supports my amendment?
Lord Collins of Highbury
I did. I spoke to my noble and learned friend over the weekend and made it clear that we would not support these amendments, for the reasons that I am now stating. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer. Noble Lords have made their points, and the Minister talked about the arrangements since 1918. We have also made the point about the Good Friday agreement and the impact on that. I would be very keen to hear the Minister’s view about the impact on that agreement, and what the amendments might do to it.
I come back to the basic point that we need a debate. I hope that the report by my noble and learned friend will be reopened and reconsidered so that we have a debate. However, my noble and learned friend was not saying that we should take away people’s current entitlement. That is why the amendments cannot be supported.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the purpose of these two amendments is to restrict the franchise for the EU referendum so as to prevent Commonwealth citizens who are the citizens of a country mentioned in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981, and Irish citizens who are resident in the UK, from voting. As the Committee will be aware, this referendum will use the franchise for parliamentary elections, which includes this category of Commonwealth citizens—for example, citizens of Australia, New Zealand, India and Kenya—and Irish citizens who are resident in the UK.
This is fair and consistent with the precedents Parliament has previously agreed. For example, this franchise was used for the UK alternative vote referendum in 2011. It is also the franchise set out in the European Union Act 2011, which some noble Lords may remember, which provided for a referendum in the event of transfer of powers and competencies in certain circumstances. It was initially opposed by the Labour Party, but then, I think, there was a change of heart and Labour decided to support the legislation after it had been passed.
The Representation of the People Act 1983 refers to those entitled to vote at United Kingdom parliamentary elections. They include resident Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland. “Commonwealth citizens” is a wide term. The categories of persons who fall within the definition of “Commonwealth citizens” are set out at Section 37 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Commonwealth citizens include British citizens as well as those with other types of British nationality, including, for example, British Overseas Territories citizens and British subjects, as well as citizens of those countries listed in Schedule 3 to the Act.
The Act also sets out that, in order to be entitled to register to vote, a Commonwealth citizen must either have leave to enter the United Kingdom or to remain under the Immigration Act 1971, or not require such leave. Citizenship of the country of residence is the normal prerequisite for the right to vote in the elections of that country in most democracies. However, the rights of Irish citizens, and this particular category of Commonwealth citizens, in the United Kingdom are slightly different.
The reason for granting Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens the entitlement to vote and stand in United Kingdom parliamentary elections lies, as a number of noble Lords have said, in the historical ties we share—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out. In the past, citizens of Commonwealth countries and Ireland were British subjects. As countries have attained independence, the rules on franchise have been maintained and updated. In the case of Ireland, there is a long-standing agreement of reciprocity of voting rights between the UK and Ireland.
When the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force the then Government gave an undertaking to preserve certain rights of Commonwealth citizens resident here, and this included the right to vote. I should remind the House that at a conference held in 1947, the United Kingdom and the Dominions agreed that each should recognise the others’ freedom to devise their own nationality laws, but that all persons identified by such laws as citizens should continue to hold the common status of British subject. Ireland also took part in that conference and a special status was laid down for the benefit of its citizens.
It was agreed that citizens of one country of the Commonwealth who were resident in another country should, within the limits of the new citizenship system and as far as local conditions allow, be given all the rights possessed by citizens of the country in which they are resident. As I have already pointed out, Malta and Cyprus are EU member states but are also members of the Commonwealth and, if they meet the requirements that apply to Commonwealth citizens, they can vote.
On the occasions when it has considered the issue of Commonwealth and Irish citizens’ voting rights—I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Green, said that it was not considered when the matter went through the other place—Parliament has taken the view that this should not be changed. We say that the referendum is not the place to disturb this franchise. There has been reference to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in 2008 in his citizenship review. I had understood that the passage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Green, suggested that it was right in principle not to give the right to citizens of other countries until they became UK citizens. That ought to be seen in the context of a wider debate about what it means to be a United Kingdom citizen. I am not suggesting that any vote should be taken away from those who already have a vote for those long-historical reasons. However, it is a view that he has extended by saying that he supports the amendment, and perhaps we will hear his views on Report on that matter. He is entitled to have them. There are strong, historic reasons which we say mean that we should maintain a historic connection and a historic franchise.
Suggestions have been made, both inside and outside Parliament, that one franchise or another would influence the vote in this referendum. I entirely agree—at the risk of repetition—with all those who have said, whether fanciful or not, that any suggestion of changing the franchise might be to the effect of altering the result and needs to be avoided. The referendum should command support. I remain of the view that we should maintain our parliamentary franchise for the EU referendum and continue to include Commonwealth citizens of the countries listed in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981 and Irish citizens as part of this.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I obviously have an interest in that I have put my name to Amendment 166ZB. First, I want to state clearly that, as a former full-time trade union official for what is now Unite, on this issue I have had its assistance and that of the solicitors with whom I worked over many years. I want to separate the principle of referral fees from what we have heard in terms of the scandalous behaviour of certain commercial operations, including insurance firms, in road traffic accidents. It is important to do that because, as I said at Second Reading, we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I fear that a lot of deserving people will be adversely affected by these changes.
The consequences will be devastating on working people and their unions. It is important that I set out—I am sorry if I take up a bit of time in doing so—precisely the sort of help and package that most unions offer to their membership. I also draw attention to the Prime Minister’s remarks about the importance of the big society—that is, members helping themselves. We are talking about organisations of members for members who are, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said, regularly supporting their fellow members, very much in an unpaid capacity. No matter how much we have changed things, industrial accidents and diseases are still unfortunately far too common. We should be defending that principle of big society.
As a senior officer in the Transport and General Workers’ Union, I took considerable time in building a relationship with solicitors and in ensuring that we had a clear understanding about the sort of services that solicitors should provide to our members. Referral fees were not about extracting huge sums of money but about ensuring that we could build services for our members. More than 6 million people in the UK, and their families, can take advantage of those services. I was proud to build them.
We talk about representation in personal injury cases but we also provide free wills and free telephone legal advice help. The services go beyond employment matters to consumer rights, neighbour disputes and a whole host of issues and services. There is free personal injury cover for members injured at work, including devastating industrial diseases caused by exposure to asbestos and other dangerous chemicals. We provide free personal injury cover for members’ families if they are injured away from work, criminal law representation for work-related matters and criminal injury representation for members who are assaulted at work. As members of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, that was quite a common occurrence for bus drivers and conductors. I know that we do not have too many conductors now but there is still a huge problem. We do not hear about these issues in the newspapers and we certainly have not heard enough about these issues in this debate.
Representation, legal representation and relationships with solicitors are vital for working people. In an open and transparent way, referral fees have been used to build that relationship and to extend the services provided by specialist law firms. As I have said, that relationship is about building the quality of service. The union is able to monitor and regulate the relationship. Of course, unions are highly regulated and required to register all their finances and services with the certification officer.
This relationship is also able to provide appropriate complaint procedures and mitigation. If there are failures on the part of the solicitor, the union is able to intervene, which takes the burden away from other agencies. It is important that we are able to continue to do that work. The last figures I was able to get hold of were for 2010, when, for example, Unite, UNISON and the GMB’s legal services helped more than 25,000 members to win damages through industrial accidents and personal actions. That figure applies just to cases with damages and ignores the tens of thousands who got other services. When I left Unite, we had established the legal telephone helpline through the introduction of referral fees. Now, 25,000 people ring it every year for advice. I feel like ringing it at the moment because the draught coming through here is potentially hazardous to all our health. I will ring it when we have finished.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I accept that there is no justification for excessive commercial referral fee arrangements, but we could establish criteria for these fees to ensure that they are reasonable in amount and provided wholly or mainly in services rather than in direct financial payments. We have talked about other organisations that are able to build legal services, and I am sure that other noble Lords will refer to campaigning and charitable organisations that rely on these services, particularly for work on industrial diseases. It may be an unintended consequence of this Bill, but that is why I want to stand up and be explicit about and proud of the sort of services that unions have been able to build up and give their members as a consequence of the arrangements they have made in an open and transparent way with solicitors.
I return to the point I made about road traffic offences in my Second Reading speech: this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My noble friend referred to the RTA portal and those arrangements. I wish that the department would not only build on that success, but also examine its impact. Maybe it needs to be improved, but not by introducing a piece of legislation that is going to hurt. After all, the statistics speak for themselves. Figures collected by Datamonitor and the Compensation Recovery Unit reveal that between 2007 and 2011, motor claims increased by 43 per cent to 799,000, but employer liability claims were down by 6.6 per cent to just under 81,500. Are we dealing with like for like here? Let us address the road traffic accident issue—but why damage the interests of ordinary working people? They need their own organisations to defend them, with the support of professional solicitors who those organisations work with and regulate. I ask the Minister to see whether the Government can pay attention when considering these amendments and look at the specifics rather than let them be drowned in the road traffic accident problem, to which I know we have a solution, and on which we could do more.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, this Bill covers a wide range of issues. The only common thread is that they all come under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. However, I detect a more disturbing theme after listening to the debate today, which is that those who are most vulnerable in our society end up paying the price for these changes. Because of the time constraints on us today I have little alternative but to focus on one specific area of the Bill, Part 2, on litigation and the funding of costs.
We often hear, and we have heard today, of the so-called “compensation culture”, fuelled by media stories about individuals receiving large compensation payments, constant adverts in the media offering the promise of a handsome settlement if they claim and businesses fearing litigation and being subject to expensive insurance premiums. However, as many of my noble friends have pointed out today, the noble Lord, Lord Young, noted that the problem is one of perception rather than reality.
In early 2010 Lord Justice Jackson recommended radical changes to the system to address this problem. Unfortunately, the view of many victim support groups is that he relied heavily on information from the liability insurance industry but took very little evidence into account from the claimants’ point of view.
The Government’s subsequent Green Paper, aimed at implementing the Jackson recommendations, reflected this one-sided approach by stating in its introduction:
“we are endeavouring to ensure … that unnecessary or frivolous claims are deterred; and that as a result costs overall become more proportionate”.
Many people suffering from diseases and injuries were naturally outraged at the suggestion that they make frivolous claims or that they should suffer because some people might do so. They feel that they are being denied access to justice because of the actions of others.
In publishing their policy plans following the consultation, the Government continued to ignore practically every submission on behalf of claimants. My fear is that the Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, especially in the light of other developments since the Jackson report was published. I suspect this is why the impact assessment contains so little data in support of their arguments. Past figures are of little use when a fixed capped costs regime, including success fees, operates under the RTA fixed-cost portal. Road traffic claims are 80 per cent of all personal injury claims, so only a tiny proportion of personal injury cases will not be subject to fixed costs. The cases that will be affected are those that are of higher value and greater complexity. This one-size-fits-all approach imposes a form of collective punishment on those who are innocent victims and who are lumped in with trivial claims and dishonest claimants. Personal injury claimants are being used to discipline solicitors to force them to keep down their costs. To impose, as we have heard today, more stress and anxiety on people who suffer serious industrial diseases is simply heartless.
Who saves from these proposals? Clearly the insurance companies do, but whether such savings are passed on in reduced premiums is a moot point, as my noble friend Lord Monks pointed out. Who pays? While the cost of litigation will be reduced, what will the cost to justice and fairness be? One of the many quotations I received that moved me was from someone who through no fault of their own is now suffering from exposure to asbestos. They said:
“How can this be morally correct? To make in my case, the most heartbreaking time of my life and the family, much harder to bear. My case has not reached court yet ... Being diagnosed was a big shock. To then be expected to pay legal costs from any compensation that might be awarded adds yet more worry that is not needed”.
On the question of justice, I think two quotations are incredibly relevant:
“Compensation just means that money worries don't compound a very difficult and upsetting situation. It also acts as a deterrent to those who flout the laws on asbestos”.
“Guilty defendants should pay all the costs making companies now think about health and safety of its employees and the financial implications not only now but in the future”.
This last point is critical when you see that, despite our health and safety laws, many industries have an appalling record for accidents.
Finally, who are the losers? Despite the savings to the insurance industry, the changes will actually cost the taxpayer rather than save any money. In a paper shortly to be published by London Economics, Moritz Godel and Dr Gavan Conlon show that while the direct savings attributable to the Jackson proposals are substantial, estimates based on public data suggest that they will be outweighed by direct and indirect costs resulting in a sizeable net loss to the Exchequer of £70.2 million per year. The main sources of loss are tax and the recovery of payments from public bodies resulting from PI claims. So, on the behalf of the real people behind Britain's dreadful industrial disease and accident statistics, I plead for the Government to think again and put fairness and justice first.