Advertising of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying that I totally share the horror of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the whole House, at the ideas of violence, exploitation—I think that he had in mind living off immoral earnings—intimidation and, although he did not mention it, rape, having sexual intercourse without consent. These are real horrors. We have pretty strong laws against them with pretty strong penalties, but if the noble Lord can make out a case to strengthen the penalties or enforcement, I may well be with him. I do not think that he has made a case that the solution is to criminalise prostitution itself. I am quite certain that he has not made a case that the right way to criminalise prostitution is to do it on the back of this Bill, which is ostensibly about something else.

In my view, legislation should always be open, overt, frank and transparent. It should not be carried surreptitiously, casually on the back of some other Bill. It is very important that the whole House, the other place and the public have a chance to think through the long-term consequences of new legislation, particularly radical legislation of the kind that the noble Lord proposed in his introductory speech, which is criminalising prostitution itself. A lot of perverse consequences would flow from that. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we must be in a position to consider those consequences specifically in relation to the proposal that he has now made to the House to abolish prostitution, not the proposal in the paper that he has put forward, the Bill, which is simply to criminalise advertising for prostitution purposes. There is a lack of frankness in that approach of which I strongly disapprove.

My view about legalising or criminalising prostitution is, above all, based on a fundamental principle, which is that set out so lucidly by JS Mill 150 years ago, which I think is dear to the hearts of everybody who believes in freedom. That is that the state should not restrict the freedom of any citizen except to the extent required to protect the freedom of others. It flows directly from that that acts in private between consenting adults are no concern of the state or of the law. You violate that principle at your peril.

I recognise that virtuous and respectable people, in the interests of reforming society, as they see it, are always trying to encroach on that principle. The worst case was the introduction of the legislation in the 1880s criminalising homosexuality, which continued on our statute book for 80 years. In my view, we should never have violated that principle. I would be against it even if the pragmatic arguments ran in the other direction, but actually, I see several pragmatic arguments which run very much against the idea of criminalising prostitution. In the time I have, I will mention just three.

One is a definitional problem, whether it has to be dealt with by Parliament or by the judiciary in the courts. I fear that it does not sound very romantic or edifying to say so, but I suspect that quite a lot of relationships—far more than we like to think—have some element of material interest in them. It would be extremely difficult to decide whether the material or monetary interest was decisive in one particular case. The law would make an awful fool of itself if it specified that if you hire someone for sex for a night or a weekend, you are committing a criminal offence, but if the relationship, including the financial relationship, continued for months or years, you are not—in other words, that a crime, if continued long enough or repeated frequently enough, ceases to be a crime. That would be a novel jurisprudential notion.

Equally, the law would be pretty stupid if it ended up specifying that if you pay for sex with money—cash or specie—it is a criminal offence, but if you pay by means of a diamond brooch, it is not. The law would be held up to equal ridicule and there would be a considerable sense of injustice if you targeted the poor prostitute and perhaps the relatively poor client of the poor prostitute and left the wealthy man and the successful and wealthy courtesan to enjoy themselves without let or hindrance. That would be a mistake. So the definitional problems are real, and the noble Lord needs to address them, if he wants to take further his project of abolishing prostitution by law.

Then there is the issue of the strain on the criminal justice system and particularly the police. We know that the Government are cutting police numbers in drastic fashion, which I personally think is an utterly irresponsible policy that we and even they will ultimately regret. That aside, can you imagine what would happen if the police had responsibility for chasing up every act or alleged act of prostitution in this country? Here for once I do feel that I am not speaking alone. I should be very unamused if I was told by the police that they did not have time or resources to investigate the burglary of my house because they were launched on a much more exciting case, because Snooks was alleged to be having sex with Fifi and money might be changing hands. We want to think very carefully about that aspect as well.

Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the prohibition effects. We all know what prostitution is conceptually. The exchange of money for sex or sex for money is the confluence of two powerful forces in human nature: the desire for sex and the desire for money. If there are more powerful forces in human nature, I am not quite sure what they are, and if you try to dam the tide against them you may have some very perverse effects. The Americans did that with prohibition, but I fear that the two forces that I have just mentioned may be even more ubiquitous and powerful than the desire for alcohol. So you get the same effects; you create a whole new seam of rich potential profits for criminals involved in the intermediation which obviously would be necessary if you criminalised prostitution. It is quite easy to envisage all sorts of opportunities for criminal activity, racketeering and so forth, such as happened under prohibition.

If you prohibit by law something that has been going on for a long time and for which there is a structural demand and existing supply system—we are told that it is quite pervasive; I have not seen these websites myself but I have heard about them and I gather that there are an awful lot of them—you will force a raft of people overnight to change their habits or give up their livelihoods or become criminals. There are enormous social implications from doing that which have to be thought through. None of this has been thought through on this occasion.

Finally, there is one extraordinary anomaly—an ironic contradiction at the heart of the noble Lord’s Bill. He set out his intention essentially to defend women in this matter, and I have some sympathy with that: but he then brings forward a Bill that criminalises advertising. But advertising is always paid for by the supplier, not the customer, and the suppliers on these occasions are largely women. So the only people who would suffer criminal sanctions as a result of the Bill becoming law, if it ever did, would be the females involved in prostitution, and not the males. That seems to me an extraordinarily perverse outcome, and I hope that the noble Lord will think a little bit further about this Bill before taking it further.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could it be by some unimaginable stretch of the imagination that he has come into the wrong debate? We are not talking about criminalising prostitution—we are talking about advertising.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord’s Bill, as I have just said, talks about advertising—but, as I have also said, it seems not to be his real agenda. He made it clear in his own introductory remarks that what he intended to do was to abolish prostitution, and that this was just one of several legislative instruments that he has had in mind with that particular intention. I do not think that he can get away from the fact that his introductory speech was all about criminalising prostitution and that that was his preferred solution to the problems of violence and exploitation which he started off with.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

The noble Lord reminds me very much of part of the Queen’s speech—I refer to the Queen’s speech in “Hamlet”, when she says:

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord has brought forward a Bill which is a bit of a false prospectus. If he had talked about advertising, we would all understand that we were simply limited to talking about advertising. In actual fact, every economic activity involves advertising, because every supplier has to have some way of communicating with his customers or potential customers. So you could say that if you ban advertising you ban the activity that is advertised, anyway. We did not get into any of that at all, and I think that—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I shall give way in just one second, after I finish my sentence. The noble Lord has brought forward a bill of goods that is not exactly, when you open up the content, what you find on the label outside.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may calm this a little. I have absolutely no intention of supporting the abolition of prostitution for a number of practical reasons. It is one of the oldest businesses in the world, and it is likely to go on regardless of what Parliament might say. I am here today, when I would much rather be at home, to support a Bill which deals exclusively with advertising. I did not really hear a word in what the noble Lord said about advertising and its evils in relation to victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. That is my line, but the noble Lord, for some reason—and I found it very difficult to understand what he was saying—seems to think that support for the Bill is support for the abolition of prostitution. They are separate subjects in today’s debate.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

When I read the Bill, I thought that it was slightly curious because, for the reasons I have just set out, if you succeed in abolishing the right to advertise, you kill the economic activity underlying it—and therefore, surreptitiously, there might be an intention to abolish prostitution, not directly by coming to the House with an explicit Bill to do that but indirectly as a result of the Bill before us.

I have to say in all honesty that the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, confirmed me in my suspicion that that is his long-term agenda—but we shall all have to read Hansard and make our own judgment on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his kind remarks about me. However, I should like to draw attention to the amazing work that has been done by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. A big team has been at work.

It has come through clearly in this debate that advertising facilitates the exploitation in prostitution of people who are trafficked and some who are not. I shall not respond directly to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because they do not relate to this Bill. However, I should like to address briefly one point that he raised. He suggested that my Bill will further criminalise women who are placing adverts. The Bill was drafted with the intention, courtesy of Clause 1, to address those who facilitate and publish the advertising, such as newspapers and website operators. I shall certainly look into the question further and if I receive legal advice that Clause 1 could be interpreted to apply to an individual placing an advert rather than only to the entity publishing it, I shall certainly look into bringing an amendment in Committee.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I was guided in my remarks by the phrase in the first line of the noble Lord’s substantive Bill:

“A person who publishes or causes to be published”.

It seems to me that inevitably the supplier of prostitution services would be causing to be published any advertisements that appeared on her behalf.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

I shall certainly take legal advice about that and see whether we can tighten things up later on.

The Minister referred to the importance of minimising the harm of prostitution and I agree that we want to do all we can to reduce the harm experienced by people in prostitution. Indeed, that is the aim of reducing demand. By addressing the proliferation of advertising and reducing the demand it fuels, we can reduce levels of prostitution and thereby reduce the harm that is caused.

We should of course be working with the police, the courts system, the NHS and social services to try to prosecute those who commit acts of violence against people in prostitution and to help people access support to exit prostitution and build a new life for themselves. However, unless we address the demand, for each person who is assisted out of crisis, another will take their place. We need to look at the bigger picture.

I find myself in a rather difficult position because there is much I would like to respond to but we are out of time. I should like to put on record that I completely reject the suggestion that the Bill is unenforceable or that it will make life more dangerous for people in prostitution. I feel very frustrated that time does not allow me to explain why.

Mediterranean: Migrant Trafficking

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Part of the issue is to deal with the immediate crisis and stop the deaths that are occurring in the Mediterranean, but there is a bigger part, which is how you build stability within these countries so that people do not have to embark on this perilous journey. That is why we are so proud of our overseas aid budget, which of course is the second largest, in cash terms, in the world.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about breaking the link between being picked up in the water and getting permanent access to live in the EU, which is the phrase the Government always use and which the Minister used today, why do the Government not instruct the Royal Navy that when it picks up these poor people, having saved them, to ship them back to Libya or where they come from? If that requires some negotiation in advance with the powers currently controlling the ports of Libya, why are such negotiations not already in progress?

[Lord Bates]

Because we have an agreement with our EU partners that when people are picked up under international maritime rules they will be taken to reception centres in Lampedusa or Italy. That is the current plan.

Terrorist Attack in Paris

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the events in Paris—the public reaction to them throughout Europe has been very moving—have persuaded a very large number of people in this country, including me, to reconsider our previous position and take the view that we ought to go further than the provisions in the Bill and withdraw or cancel the passports held by British subjects who have gone to the Middle East or elsewhere to enlist with al-Qaeda, Islamic State or other jihadist or terrorist organisations? It is often said that withdrawing their passports would be against international law. I think I am right—the Minister will correct me if I am not—that there is no actual convention or explicit treaty which constricts us in this area. What is said to be international law is really just an opinion on the subject. As the Minister has already said, the prime and overriding necessity and priority must be to save British lives. Is there not a real danger that, if hundreds more people in this category come back to this country, the additional strain placed on our security services of monitoring them may be such as to create a significantly enhanced risk of an oversight at some point which could cost a lot of lives?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord’s point about passports is absolutely right. Eight people have had their British citizenship revoked since August 2013. The power already exists, under royal prerogative, to cancel someone’s passport. Those decisions are not taken lightly but the power is there. Whether it needs to be extended is something we will have to keep under continuous review. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will be a key asset in giving us advice on that.

EU: Justice Opt-ins

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I do not have a direct answer on that, but I think that in principle what the noble Lord says is absolutely right. We have made our position clear and argued our case, and have avoided an operational gap by the decision we took on 1 December. Now we ought to get on and make sure that the measures we have opted into work well. However, I will write to him on that point.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the depressing and worrying thing about the noble Lord’s Question that it is so ideological? It implies that when we look at legislation we ought first of all to be concerned about whether it is classified as European or as British legislation, rather than whether it is necessary, fair, reasonable and in the national interest. I think the whole House is united in appreciating the value of the European single market, but we would never have had a single market had we not passed the Single European Act, which I believe the noble Lord may have voted for in his time. Would it not be very reassuring if he could retrieve somehow the open-mindedness and pragmatism of his youth?

[Lord Bates]

I disagree with the presumption that the Question was ideological. This is a matter of practical steps, case by case. That is why we think there is a case, in terms of securing our borders, for the European arrest warrant. We would be part of that. We would also be part of measures to tackle modern-day slavery and of cross-border legislation against cyberattack, but we will not be part of other things. I think that is very practical and pragmatic.

EU: Migration

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

We very much encourage people to come to this country, whether to study or to work. We want to encourage the best and the brightest to come to this country, as well as tourists; there are many people we want to encourage—but there is a difference between that and people who significantly abuse the system in coming here because of benefits.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the very useful statistics on the numbers of EU citizens here as opposed to British citizens living in the EU brought forward by my noble friend Lord Lea—it is about exactly the same—and given the statement the other day by the director-general of the CBI, who does not know of a company in this country that is not in some degree dependent on immigration, will the Government agree that free movement of labour, apart from being a most valuable human right, is actually a factor of considerable economic importance in this country?

[Lord Bates]

We totally agree with that. I have to say that the figures that I have are that there are 2.3 million EU nationals living in the UK and 1.4 million British citizens living in the EU. Those are very important for the success of the single market, which has already been referred to. Of course we welcome people who genuinely want to come here to work, study or visit.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment returns to a point that I raised yesterday at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out in moving his amendment, Clause 1(1) is crucial to the whole scheme in the Bill and it is extremely important to get the language of it right. I will not go back over the points that he was making in general support of that proposition, but it is with a view to trying to get the language right that I have raised this issue again.

The Minister will recall that I was drawing attention to the wording of the judgment in the case that has given rise to all these problems, and I will come back to that in a moment. I note that in his reply to my comment, at col. 664 of yesterday’s Hansard, he said:

“The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, asked why Clause 1(1) does not use the wording of the ECJ judgment. The test in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider”—

personally, I would accept that as an appropriate word—

“whether it is necessary to require a provider to retain data, but also whether it is proportionate for that legitimate aim. This is in accordance with the judgment, which also makes it clear that it is necessary to verify the proportionality of any interference with a person’s rights when requiring the retention of data”.—[Official Report, 16/7/14; col. 664.]

The point that I raised, and to which I return, is that the wording of the judgment is more precisely targeted. The reasons for it are explained in the judgment in a certain amount of detail because they draw attention to the concern that members of the public would have—possibly more by rumour and suspicion than by reality, but concern nevertheless—that their private lives were the subject of constant surveillance. It is for that reason that the court went on to say that it was necessary for,

“clear and precise rules governing the scope and application of the measure in question”,

to be laid down. That was in paragraph 54.

The criticism of the directive was that the “clear and precise rules” that were required were not apparent in that directive. Paragraph 65 is the crucial one. It says:

“It must therefore be held that Directive 2006/24 entails a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with those fundamental rights in the legal order of the EU, without such an interference being precisely circumscribed by provisions”—

the word “provisions” is important—

“to ensure that it is actually limited to what is strictly necessary”.

My amendment picks up two points: the use of the words “objective reasons”, which are in the judgment; and also the phrase “the requirement is strictly” to be added before the word “necessary”. My concern is that, without words that match the judgment, those who seek to criticise or possibly even attack the measure will compare what is in the legislation with what is in the judgment. Lawyers do that all the time. I know that the future of the European courts is perhaps not entirely secure, but the fact is that for the life of this Bill if it becomes an Act, and up until the closure date, both of the European courts are capable of being appealed to. I am quite sure that the last thing the Minister would want is a challenge to this measure on those grounds in those courts.

My amendment is intended to be helpful. I am not trying to undermine the Bill. I am just trying to suggest that the language of it should be more precisely worded. I do not know where the phrase “necessary and proportionate” comes from. The ECJ judgment says that proportionality is part of necessity, so built into the idea of necessity is proportionality. I do not complain about the fact that they are both there—it is a useful combination of words—but it is the other bits, the strict use of this phrase and the need for objective reasons, that are necessary.

If one thinks through the way in which the exercise will be conducted, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State herself will not be taking all these decisions. This formula would, in fact, be instructing those on whom she relies to apply their minds to the requisite standard, and to provide convincing, objective reasons for the measure that is suggested should be taken.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for drawing my attention to an examination of the wording in the draft communications data Bill, as it then was, by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. In paragraphs 62 to 67, there is a discussion about the language. One point that emerges from that discussion, which is very relevant to what I am trying to say, is that the wording is necessary, having regard to the fact that:

“Once a power is on the statute book”—

as this would be—

“it is available to be used, and also to be misused or abused, at any time in the future”.

Undertakings are all very well, as are all the various other protections that the Minister referred to yesterday as part of the United Kingdom’s system; but at the end of the day, it is the wording that directs the nature of the exercise to be carried out by those responsible for doing it that really matters.

That is why, in my experience, these courts are not all that impressed by what we tell them about how our system operates and the number of regulators and investigations that go on to check that everything is being conducted properly. They will look at the language in the statute. That is why it is so important to get the wording right if this measure is to stand up to scrutiny.

It is with that justification that I move this amendment, in the hope that the Minister will give further consideration to it, in the very short time available, to see whether it would not be wise to tighten up the wording. I think that it is in sympathy with what the Minister himself would wish to be done anyway. It is getting the wording on the face of the Act that matters so much. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his amendment. Before doing so, I hope that it may be in order to say a word of appreciation to the Minister—on my behalf, but I dare say that I am speaking also on behalf of others who spoke in yesterday’s Second Reading debate—for obviously having worked late through the night with his officials. He produced a letter to my noble friend Lady Smith, a copy of which we all received this morning. I make that point because—given the circumstances of emergency legislation, which always, quite correctly, arouses scepticism, doubt and worry in people’s minds—it is particularly important that the Minister should give very careful answers to the many points raised in yesterday’s debate.

It would be wrong to say that the Minister has answered in this letter every question that was raised in the course of the debate. Indeed, he has not actually answered every question that was raised by the Constitution Committee’s report. For example, the Constitution Committee pointed out that the Joint Committee had said in 2012 that there was some difficulty or doubt about non-British companies being prepared to continue to co-operate, not so much on the retention of data but on the provision of communications content. The Government might have been advised to address that criticism and could simply have said, “Maybe we got it wrong, in retrospect, and should have taken notice of the Joint Committee’s observation back in 2012, rather than ignoring it”. However, that is just one point. I think that the Government have made an exemplary effort in a very short space of time to deal seriously with the matters that were raised in yesterday’s debate. It would be quite wrong for nobody who asked critical questions yesterday to recognise that effort and to thank the Government for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling his amendment as it gives us a chance to talk about these issues. Perhaps he will not mind if I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and thank him for his kind words about the work that has been done by my officials overnight. They exemplify the sort of support that the Civil Service can give to Ministers. It has been greatly, I hope, to the advantage of noble Lords to have this information available.

I will deal with the issue that the noble Lord raised, which was the point in the Constitution Committee’s report about why we are dealing with these provisions now rather than in 2012. As the Government made clear last week, some companies have already now started to question whether they are under a duty to comply with their obligations under RIPA. The details are obviously sensitive but, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are approaching a cliff edge. A failure to legislate could result in a damaging loss of capability. We were discussing earlier, when I was dealing with the Urgent Notice Question, an area where that capability was necessary. If companies cease to comply, the security agencies will lose the visibility of what targets are saying to each other and in turn could lose the ability to understand the threat that they pose. The Opposition have been briefed in detail on the issue and the Intelligence and Security Committee is well aware of the challenges that we face. Indeed, I happened to meet the chairman of that committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, in the street on my way to work this morning.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I was referring to paragraph 11 of the Constitution Committee’s report, which says:

“It is not clear why these provisions need to be fast-tracked … There is evidence that the Government have known of the problem for some time. The Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill noted in its report (published in December 2012) that ‘many overseas CSPs [communication service providers] refuse to acknowledge the extraterritorial application of RIPA’”.

The point in the committee’s report was simply that the Government could have reacted to the earlier Joint Committee’s suggestion in 2012 that there was a problem here, a lacuna, a danger. The Government have known that for about two years. It would have been more dignified for the Government simply to say, “On this occasion, we missed a trick. We should have responded then. I’m sorry, chaps. There is a serious problem and we have to respond now”. Everybody would understand that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry but I have to ask the noble Lord to read in Hansard what I have just said if he fails to be convinced as to why the Government are legislating now. I will leave it at that because I do not suppose that I will convince him on the principle, whatever I say.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard a number of speeches this evening which, unfortunately, have been dismissive of public concerns about this Bill, but I am glad to say that the general tenor of the debate has been very thoughtful. We have heard some very sophisticated speeches which have engaged with this subject in considerable detail. I pay particular tribute to the speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. There were a large number of questions in those speeches, and I hope the Minister will take time to address those when he sums up and to provide the House with suitable considered answers because I do not think that the public concern in this matter is misplaced.

The concern is probably growing because of the volume of communications and data available. It is certainly growing because of the phenomenon of metadata which has already been dealt with in a number of colleagues’ speeches. The concern has also grown because of a major scandal which, curiously, has not been mentioned. The Snowden revelations revealed that the NSA—it has a symbiotic relationship with GCHQ, as the House will know—was severely in breach of American law. The chief executive of the NSA gave answers which were certainly less than full and frank, to a committee of the US Congress. That sort of incident can only greatly exacerbate public concern. Emergency legislation on such a sensitive matter is a perfect formula for maximising public anxiety. So it is not surprising that there are some very serious questions in people’s minds. It is important that Parliament makes sure that it does its job today, and indeed tomorrow, and makes sure that all the various angles of concern are pursued and addressed and that we get suitable answers from the Government.

I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord West. Having mentioned the NSA, I want to make that clear. I also have had a lot of professional dealings over the years with officials of the three major agencies. I have always found them—and genuinely believe them to be, in their vast majority—people of great professionalism, who are patriotic, extremely well motivated, entirely honest and concerned to obey the law. So I agree with what my noble friend said and I endorse those remarks. However, at the same time, we need to make sure that the legitimate concerns are properly addressed.

We all have to strike a balance this evening in how we decide to deal with this matter. My strong inclination is to support the Government. We have heard the Government say that major criminal prosecutions depend on the continued availability of these powers. We are talking about powers that, in the main, are already in place and with which we are familiar, although there were interesting questions today about surreptitious and covert extension of the powers in the Bill. The Minister, who takes his duties very seriously and for whom the House has the greatest regard, said in his introductory remarks that lives may depend on the continuation of these powers, by virtue of our passing this Bill as rapidly as the Government are asking us to do. For those reasons, it would be difficult to do anything to hold this Bill up. I do not intend to do that. Nevertheless, I look forward with great interest to the answers from the noble Lord.

I want to make three brief points. The first is a repetition of what I said last week when the Statement was made, but the audience is slightly different tonight so I will repeat it. It is clear that we would not have got into this particular mess, and the Government would not have required this emergency legislation, if we had used primary legislation to provide ourselves the original powers. This is not a party political point because it is a point for both Governments. I know very well, and I said last Thursday, that all bureaucracies—it must be true around the world—and all Ministers like to have a quiet life if they can. Their first, instinctive, default reaction is always to try to put any legislation through the secondary process so that the scrutiny will be pretty soft, maybe even perfunctory, and unlikely to be very profound. That sort of behaviour only changes when it is seen to have a cost. On this occasion it does have a cost for the Government so I hope that a lesson will be learnt. When we have legislation that raises important principles, or as in this case, an important conflict of principles between privacy and security, that sort of legislation should always go through the primary legislative process.

My second point deals with timing. I repeat what has already been said by many others. I do not believe for a moment that it was necessary to wait three months after the ECJ judgment to tell Parliament—or anybody at all—that there was a need for new legislation on this matter. The Government, if they had been half-competent, would have known before 8 April that there was a possibility of the ECJ deciding in the sense in which it did, and therefore could have prepared some reaction on a contingency basis. Even without that, by 9 or 10 April, they knew what the position was and they could have taken action accordingly. Silence for three months followed by the demand that Parliament passes something in a week or two, is frankly taking Parliament for granted. I do not think Parliament can or should ever allow itself to be taken for granted. This is a very serious point. The Minister himself is not responsible for this. He has to come to this House to defend the actions, or failure to act, of colleagues. We understand that, but it is important that a message goes back that the Government’s behaviour on this occasion is simply not acceptable.

My third point is this: I have had no collusion with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—I had not the faintest idea what he was going to say. I personally was absolutely horrified that there was no report by the Intelligence and Security Committee available, when we have to take a decision so rapidly on this Bill. I may be wrong, but I thought the whole purpose of the Intelligence and Security Committee was that we had their ears and eyes on our behalf behind the security wall, able to ask questions of the agencies, able with their great experience and knowledge—which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, certainly represents—to weigh the answers, to decide what exactly the threat is, to decide whether the powers that the agencies have are adequate and if not, in what way they need to be supplemented, or whether they are excessive and gold-plated. All these questions are those which the committee is able to reach a judgment on, on our behalf. We could ask the questions but we would not get the answers, whereas the committee can not only ask the questions but can insist on getting the answers.

I was absolutely stunned that there was no report at all. I could not quite believe it. I went to the Printed Paper Office and asked for the committee report—I was told that there was not one. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has told us, the committee did not hear about this until a few hours before the rest of us, and so it is not surprising that it could not produce a report. If it had had two or three months’ warning, which it could easily have had, we could have had a very intelligent and helpful report. It might have helped the Government—I am assuming that the Government are not actually up to some terrible trick and are not deliberately trying to disguise the facts from the public and from Parliament. What an extraordinary. idiotic thing it was, to pre-empt the possibility of such a report being produced in the first place.

As I said, I will be supporting this Bill but I am very concerned about these matters. I think that the whole House is waiting with great interest to hear the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I do not think that the Government consider that that was a satisfactory way to deal with the problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, asked why the Intelligence and Security Committee did not have time to report on the Bill. I note the noble Lord’s concern on that, but I draw his attention to remarks in the Commons yesterday by the chairman of the committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind. He said:

“The Intelligence and Security Committee has considered the Bill, and we have taken evidence from the intelligence agencies on its content. If we were concerned in any way that the Bill simply added to the powers available to the Government and that they were using a fast-track procedure to implement it, we would not be able to recommend its endorsement, but we are satisfied that that is not the case”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/14; col. 725.]

Noble Lords should bear that in mind.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer other people’s questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about Royal Assent; I think that I have dealt with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was particularly concerned about the nature of the matters that we are trying to deal with. There are already a number of reviews in the system, including that to be headed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson. He needs to be given time to conduct that work. I see no point in requiring Parliament to return to those issues almost as soon as we return from the Summer Recess without the benefit of the work that we have set in train. Any such legislation would require an accelerated timetable, and we do not want to be doing that again if we can avoid it. I think all noble Lords will agree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, asked whether David Anderson’s review would cover all use of communications data. Clause 7 makes clear that the review covers the operation and regulation of investigatory powers. That extends to communications data for all purposes under RIPA for which it can be obtained. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, also asked: would the review consider all legislation relating to communications and lawful interception? It does indeed; I have just explained that to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is about to resume her place, as I said in my Second Reading speech, we intend to create a privacy and civil liberties board. The terms of reference can be found on the Home Office website and in the Printed Paper Office. Legislation would be required to establish the board, and we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the detail of the board’s functions then.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlile for the work that he has done in this area; he has been a very important figure in these matters. David Anderson, his successor, has been consulted on the proposals before the announcement was made to Parliament and as they have developed. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate these matters fully when the legislation to create the board is presented.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about US data sharing. He will be aware that the Government have announced the appointment of a senior diplomat to look at the issue of data sharing. That is another feature of the non-legislative part of the announcements made by the Home Secretary in the Statement which I repeated here.

My noble friend Lord Paddick asked: what is the annual transparency report and how does it relate to the internet section of the commissioner’s report? There will be an annual transparency report relating to the exercise of powers under RIPA. It will take advantage of as much detail as possible. There will, of course, be a six-monthly report on the operation of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater asked: will we reform the ISC so that the chairman is drawn from the Opposition? In view of the reforms that we have made in the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Government have no immediate plans to make further changes, but it is a matter that is live and to which Parliament may well wish to return.

I turn to some of the detailed items under data retention types. The regulations made under the Bill will directly replace the data retention regulations of 2009; they will not extend the list of data types being regulated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked about the ECJ judgment on the EU data retention directive. It did not take account of any of the domestic safeguards that we had in place. Many of the ECJ’s concerns were addressed in the UK’s domestic legislation. The difficulty in responding to the judgment was that we had to consider how we implemented some of the safeguards so that it was clear that they were in primary legislation, not the secondary legislation in which we had translated the European directive in the first place.

I have always enjoyed listening to the legal mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, working in its Rolls-Royce fashion. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, also asked: how do the regulations respond to the issue of the ECJ judgment? They will replace the 2009 data retention regulations. In particular, regulations will set out what must be specified in a data retention notice; place requirements on the Secretary of State to keep such notices under review; set out the security requirements that apply; provide that service providers can be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in complying with the requirements; and revoke the 2009 regulations, as they will be redundant.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, asked why Clause 1(1) does not use the wording of the ECJ judgment. The test in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider whether it is necessary to require a provider to retain data, but also whether it is proportionate for that legitimate aim. This is in accordance with the judgment, which also makes it clear that it is necessary to verify the proportionality of any interference with a person’s rights when requiring the retention of data. That is why that particular wording referring to proportionality is used.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised a plethora of issues, if I may refer to them as such. It is vital that future consideration bears in mind the parliamentary inquiry and accordingly, as I have said, it is explicitly referred to in the terms of reference. Local councils will no longer be able to access communications data under these proposals. From the lists that I have seen, the Egg Marketing Inspectorate does not, nor has it ever had, access to communications data under RIPA. Indeed, Defra will also be losing its entitlement to such access in future. We recognise that the list has grown and that it needs to be cut down. The 13 bodies which will have their powers removed are the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Port of Liverpool Police, the Port of Dover Police, the Royal Mail, BIS, Defra, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the Food Standards Agency, the Pensions Regulator and the Charity Commissioners. I should think that noble Lords are amazed that those bodies had access in the first place. This just shows the necessity for reviewing this sort of legislation and working it out on the basis of who actually needs it.

There was some concern over territoriality—a difficult word to say, particularly if one has been sitting here for a few hours. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, raised this, as did my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The Bill clarifies the territorial extent of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: in the absence of explicit extraterritorial jurisdiction, some companies have started to question whether the legislation applies to them. This is nothing new. Jack Straw—who as Home Secretary was responsible for RIPA in the first place—made this clear yesterday in the House of Commons. He stated that the “clear intention” of that Act was to extend extraterritoriality. My noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne quoted Jack Straw to great effect; his was a very effective speech. I am pleased that many noble and noble and learned Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, recognise that this is not an extension of powers.

I have done my best, within the relatively short time that I have had to wind up what has been an extremely useful debate, to reassure noble Lords about this issue. The wider safeguards that sit around the Bill are important and we will have a chance to discuss them at length. However, I am glad that noble Lords have taken account of them in discussing the Bill before us today. We will no doubt be back tomorrow to consider it in Committee. There are wider issues and it is good that they have been raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra.

I welcome this debate, and I would like briefly to reflect on the importance of the issues that we will return to tomorrow. Communications data and interception powers are intrusive. They are rightly subject to very strict safeguards, but they are also of vital importance to the work of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. Without the legislation that we are considering today, those powers would be undermined. Those who mean us harm would be able to evade detection. Put simply, lives would be at risk. These are important issues. That is why this debate has been an important one. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it receive its Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Communications Data and Interception

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. As a former chairman of the Intelligence and Security Select Committee, I know that he—like the noble Lord, Lord West, from his ministerial role—can see inside this problem. I expect and want the House to scrutinise this legislation, because it is right and proper that we do so.

My noble friend is right also to point to the fact that the sunset clause allows an incoming Government only 18 months to put a new communications data Bill on the table if they choose to do so. If I were part of any such Government I would be exhorting prompt action in that area. Clearly, without the legislation that we are now hoping to bring forward, we place ourselves in an extraordinarily difficult position.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, in all the unfortunate circumstances, the Government were quite right to respond to the ECJ decision as they have. However, on the first part of the Statement on the powers that we thought existed to compel private sector organisations to retain communications data, is not the unfortunate position in which the Government now find themselves a result of their tendency—perhaps more than a tendency; sometimes it looks like a default option—always to implement European directives whenever they can by means of secondary rather than primary legislation? It may the tendency of every bureaucracy, and perhaps every Minister, to try to minimise the degree of democratic transparency and parliamentary scrutiny through which they have to go to get legislation on the statute book. However, in the light of experience, do the Government not agree that they have been getting the balance wrong compared to other countries—the Minister cited the Irish and Danish examples—and that that balance needs to be looked at again?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Well, we are now coming forward with primary legislation; I hope that it meets with the noble Lord’s approval. I understand his point exactly, but we are dealing with that problem now. It has been the practice of successive Governments to deal with European directives in this fashion. Perhaps in some areas it may pay us to make exceptions to that, particularly if we think that there are matters that really ought to be brought to the attention of the House through primary legislation.

EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: EUC Reports

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a matter the importance of which goes far beyond the individual sub-committees which have been concerned with these reports, so without any hesitation I feel it right to intervene in this particular debate. I am particularly glad to be here today because I heard in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, what I think was the most devastating account of bad government that I have heard in all my 27 years of service in this place and in the other Chamber. I realise that those 27 years only just pass the halfway point of the career of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.

This is an occasion when the Government would be well advised to listen to what is being said about them. I am sure that the Minister will have listened because I know him very well and he is the sort of person who believes strongly in listening to Parliament and that it is essential for Ministers to do that carefully. I also think I know him well enough to know that he is more than capable when necessary of speaking extremely frankly and effectively in private to his ministerial colleagues. He may well feel the need to do that after this afternoon’s debate. What has been quite extraordinary this afternoon is the complete consensus among all speakers from all sides of the House about the gravity of the situation that has been revealed by the Select Committee’s reports.

That consensus was not in any way detracted from by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who on the whole is always very keen to find a way, if he possibly can, of defending the Government. He made a number of interesting geopolitical observations but he could not find a single defence of the way in which the Government have acted in this matter.

It has not been quoted already so I will read to the House one part of the committee’s criticisms of the way in which the Government have proceeded. I think the whole House will agree that this is parliamentary language, this is measured language, but it is more than justified language. Paragraph 106 of the report dated last October says:

“In our view, this lack of analytical rigour and clarity regarding evidence drawn upon is regrettable. Despite the length of its gestation, Command Paper 8671 showed signs of having been hastily put together. We are disappointed that the Command Paper presented both the 35 measures which the Government intend to rejoin and the 95 they do not intend to rejoin in an unconvincing manner. We regret that the grounds on which the Government made their selection of measures to seek to rejoin were not set out persuasively in the EMs”.

It is very unusual that a committee expresses itself quite as strongly as that. It is quite evident that the Government have done a thoroughly shoddy piece of work.

It is quite extraordinary that there was no consultation or impact assessment on this occasion. Surely consultation and impact assessments are now routinely regarded as essential prerequisites for good legislation in all sophisticated democratic countries. That is true, I am sure, of most if not all of our partners in the EU; it is certainly true in the United States; it is certainly true in the European Commission in its legislative role before it prepares legislative directives. One has to wonder why the Government of this country on this occasion decided simply that they were not required or could be dispensed with.

It is quite clear that there was simply no analysis of the national interest before these decisions were taken about opting out and then opting back in. This whole expensive farce—expensive in terms of not merely the cost over several years of all the negotiations that have been made necessary by this extraordinary decision but the real cost of the uncertainties created, the gaps that occur in capability or in co-operation as we have opted out of something and have not got back a suitable alternative—was gone into in a mood of complete and utter frivolity, without any sense at all of how the national interest was being impacted.

If one reads the individual government excuses for the decisions they have taken to opt out of individual measures, there is not a single occasion where there is an actual concrete argument stating that a specific national interest would be negatively impacted if we remained committed to the original measures in the justice and home affairs deal—not a single one. What actually happens is that on every occasion the Government say either, “Well, we are doing it by some other means”, or, “It does not matter too much”, or, “Maybe there is another way of achieving the same effect if we really try hard”.

I will give the House a flavour of some of that. Under the minimum standard measures, the excuse is that it, “adds little practical value”. The Government do not deny that there may be some practical value. There is no suggestion for a moment that there is any negative value. There is no suggestion that it would be against the national interest to opt in to those measures, but the best the Government can come up with is, “adds little practical value”.

Then, let us take the three Europol council decisions. Following the decision to opt back in to Europol, there was no decision to opt back in to the subsequent European Council decisions. The Government state in their defence:

“The UK has already issued the declaration as required by Article 2 of this measure and has therefore already designated Europol as the central office for combating euro counterfeiting. The measure does not set out any ongoing requirements following the issue of this declaration”.

In other words, there is no cost and no gain. So why waste time? Why waste money? Why waste political good will? Why waste, for that matter, the time of this House, which is just a very small part in this whole sorry exercise? There is no reason whatever. The Government say that the second council decision following the Europol opt-in measure has,

“no material impact on UK participation”

in Europol—again, a complete negative. So it goes on.

Another example, which has already been mentioned, is the racism and xenophobia directive. We were ahead of the game there: I think we may have been the first country to introduce a race relations Act and to subsequently introduce legislation in this country which made an offence of hate crimes. However, we have decided to opt out for the reason that, as the Government put it,

“the UK already meets the requirements of this measure in domestic legislation”.

What an awful pity to take our name away from a convention simply because we are already implementing it. Are we going to do that throughout the whole range of international treaties, so that where we are actually implementing something we take our name off the treaty? What an extraordinary idea. So the sad story proceeds.

What do the Government have to say about the European judicial network? Why do we have to opt out of that? What is the burning national interest that requires us to make an enormous fussation over it? The Government’s answer is that,

“it may be possible to maintain those contacts without formally participating in this Council Decision”.

Why “may” be possible? Why replace the indicative with the subjunctive? Why create an uncertainty where there is now, or could otherwise be, a certainty? It does not make sense at all. Why pay a price for a negative gain? The noble Lord who is sitting on the Front Bench is a logical man and must find it difficult to explain conduct of that kind.

Driving disqualifications have already been mentioned. Here again, it is quite extraordinary. We have got ourselves in a situation where we have said we are going to renegotiate a bilateral deal with the Republic of Ireland, which takes time and uses good will. It is actually a farce, because everybody knows it would be much easier to remain party to the original directive in the first place. If we need to protect British subjects from drivers who have been disqualified in the Republic of Ireland, why do we not need to protect British subjects and residents of this country from drivers who may have been disqualified in France, Belgium, Germany, Spain or any of the other countries from which millions of drivers come here through the Eurotunnel and on the ferries? It does not make the slightest sense.

If anybody had any doubt about the Government’s lack of good faith—I use that serious term advisedly—in this whole matter or that the Government have never actually wanted to look at or make a proper analysis of the national interest before reaching decisions in this area, let me provide absolutely conclusive evidence. The Government have been engaged in an exercise which has been widely promoted as being a great attempt definitively to decide what is the national interest in our relationship with the European Union: where we should better do things on our own and where we can better achieve our national objectives jointly by taking part in EU initiatives or by becoming a party to EU directives. That is called a balance of competences exercise and everybody in this House is extremely familiar with it. The Government, knowing that this particular decision was coming up, deliberately scheduled the examination of the criminal justice and policing aspects of the balance of competences review to start in spring 2014 and to come to an end only in the autumn of 2014—obviously far too late to influence decisions about opting in and opting out over justice and home affairs.

What an extraordinary thing to do. Is that because the Government thought that the whole exercise was a waste of time? Is it because the Government thought that it was not going to be a proper analysis of the national interest and because it, too, was a farce? Or is it because the Government thought that it would be a genuine analysis of the national interest and that it might be embarrassing to have it come out in time to influence a decision on opting in and opting out, because it might well say, “Don’t bother to opt out. There is no reason to opt out; it is not in the national interest to opt out; you’re much better staying 100% in so that you have maximum influence within the institutions and the decision-making structures”? Or is it because it was completely irrelevant and the Government were not interested in the national interest? I feel that that is the only conclusion that we can rationally come to in this House today. All the Government were interested in doing was buying off their Eurosceptics. This has been a party political issue for the Government from day one—100% party political. All they have been concerned about is the minimum price to get the Eurosceptics off their back and how much national interest had to be sacrificed in order to satisfy them. That is what it has been about, and it is about time that somebody honestly faced the facts and was prepared to say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As the noble Lord knows, the Government are exercising an opt-out that was provided for by negotiations by a previous Government. Noble Lords will expect the Government to exercise their discretion in this matter and to seek the endorsement of Parliament, as they have done on this occasion. I make no apology to the noble Lord for the decision that this Government have made. It was a decision that was anticipated by the previous Government in their negotiations.

As I was saying, before I return to the points raised, I confirm that there will be another vote on the package of measures that we will apply to rejoin. It is important that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise this matter fully. I am very happy to commit myself to replying for the Government during that debate later this year.

I start by responding to some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his excellent speech. I could not agree with all that he was saying about the Government’s performance or decision-making or role, but he set out a number of important points that have helped to guide this debate and I am happy to reply to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey addressed the point of whether there are measures that are detrimental to the UK and the UK’s national interest. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, asked if this were the case. That is one way to assess these measures. However, is not the way in which the Government have assessed them. The Government have looked at how each measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure and whether there would be detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. We have considered the impact that the measure has on civil rights and liberties. We believe that the 35 measures that we are seeking to rejoin meet these criteria.

The noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked why the Government have opted in to post-Lisbon measures if we have concerns about European Court of Justice jurisdiction. The Government consider that there is always a risk attached in terms of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. All Governments have faced this when we decide to participate in measures—pre-Lisbon or post-Lisbon. However, in certain cases, it will be in the national interest for the UK to participate in these measures, and the Government will accept that risk, given the wider benefits of the instruments in question.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord keeps on referring to the ECJ as a risk—as a cost, as it were. Is it not the case that it is also in many cases a reassurance and an asset? Over time, is it not the case that we have won far more cases before the ECJ than we have ever lost?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course, but I am just saying that there is an unpredictability about outcomes which all Governments have had to face, and it is a matter that Governments are entitled to weigh in the balance. However, I accept totally that the European Court of Justice also exists to protect things that we consider valuable, too.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the importance of co-operation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If I say that the noble Lord makes an academic point, I do not mean to dismiss it, but it is a point which is based on a theoretical view of jurisprudence. As a non-lawyer I would say that the law can have an unpredictability about it even in such well established legal proceedings as we have in this country. Indeed, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will agree with that analysis.

I was about to talk about our co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. I felt that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made an important point. That is why we have engaged constructively with the Northern Ireland Executive and David Ford throughout this process. That is why we continue to hold productive discussions about these matters at all levels.

The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Davies, and my noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Bridgeman also raised the associated Europol measures. I should like to reiterate our support for Europol on its current terms and our intention to rejoin the main Europol measure. However, we do not believe that we need to rejoin the associated measures to do so. Many of the provisions in these measures are legal padding and duplicate the detailed provisions of the main measure. As a result, these measures have no material impact on UK participation or, for that matter, on any other state. They have no impact on our ability to co-operate with others through Europol.

The noble Lord, Hannay, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, also identified the probation order as one that we should seek to rejoin. The Government’s position on this measure is set out in full in the response to the committee’s report of 31 December. Only 12 member states have implemented this measure and, to the best of our knowledge, it has never been used. As a result, there is no clear understanding as to how this measure will work in practice and thus very little evidence on which to judge its effectiveness. That is why we are not seeking to rejoin this measure.

The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of the European Judicial Network. As the Government set out in the response to the committee’s report, we believe that Eurojust is more effective than the European Judicial Network at bringing people together and ensuring that the right tools such as joint investigating teams are employed. That is why we are seeking to rejoin Eurojust.

A number of noble Lords raised the racism and xenophobia measures. These have also not been joined or opted out of, and we are not seeking to rejoin. Noble Lords know that this is a highly sensitive area. However, we are clear that our efforts—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to our lead in these matters—to tackle racism and xenophobia do not depend on a measure that adds little practical value. The UK will continue to be bound by the International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Government will continue to set a national direction and to work at local level with professionals, the voluntary sector and communities to deal with local issues and priorities.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the convention on driving disqualifications. Let me first address the point about ditching the benefits of working with 26 other member states. Currently, this measure only operates between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, so there are no benefits to ditch. However, there are benefits to the bilateral agreement with Ireland. This will allow us to address some of the weakness of the instrument as it currently exists, which we would otherwise be unable to do.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way a second time. In the light of what he says, would it not be sensible to extend the directive to include the continental countries? There is an enormous amount of motor traffic between us and them in both directions. As I said in my speech, if we want to protect people from disqualified drivers in Ireland, why do we not protect our people from disqualified drivers coming from the continent?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We will be free to do that in the future. I am just reporting the current situation to the House. We have the freedom to do what we will in the future. It is a question of whether we want to be bound by a directive which at the moment is actually not delivering what the noble Lord has suggested.

The noble Lord also asked for an update on our negotiations with the Commission to rejoin measures. I can confirm that these continue at the technical level, and there are a lot of technical discussions involved in these matters. We intend to update Parliament as appropriate, but we must be mindful that this is a negotiation, and thus we cannot prejudice our position in these negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Davies—

EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Well, my Lords, that was the authentic voice of dogmatic anti-Europeanism and Euroscepticism. Clearly, the noble Lord very honestly believes what he said. He is totally entitled to say it and those of us on the other side of the argument can only take comfort from how weak, emotional and, in respect of his remarks about the Select Committee report, footling his arguments were.

I have been enormously struck, as I imagine the whole House has been, by three aspects of the Government’s nature and manner of doing business, which have been thrown into relief by this whole episode. The first is their extraordinary incompetence in evidently not getting any legal advice before they proceeded down this road. Nobody in the private sector would dream of going into a complicated negotiation of a totally new kind, with new risks attached to it, with important partners on an important matter, and not getting appropriate legal advice.

It was quite clear from the embarrassment and evasion of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he was asked the question by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, earlier that he did not have the faintest idea as to whether or not the procedure proposed by the Government risks triggering a referendum under the Government’s own European Union Act. I hope that the Minister will have thought about this and perhaps got some legal advice by the end of the debate, but the Government should have got a definitive opinion from the Attorney-General before they set off down this road in the first place.

[Viscount Eccles]

Perhaps it may be of some help to say that the Minister who is set to reply from the Front Bench was asked that question earlier today and was able to give a very definitive reply, in a meeting to which all the Members of this House were invited, if they wished to attend.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am sure that the Minister is very grateful for the defence which the noble Viscount has just given him. No doubt at the end of proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be able to deal with this matter definitively.

The second aspect of the Government’s conduct that strikes me, and I think would strike anybody, is the extraordinary way in which they have treated Parliament. Not to reply at all to a very weighty document produced by two sub-committees jointly, which is unusual procedure in this country, for three months until a few hours before the relevant debate arises, is either almost unbelievable incompetence or discourtesy to the House that borders, frankly, on insult.

This Government like to say that they wish that national Parliaments had a greater say in matters in the European Union. In future that sort of statement will be treated with ribaldry, as hot air—there is another English word that better describes it but it is probably an unparliamentary word so I certainly will not use it. It is quite clear that on this occasion the Government have provided a really appalling example of cynical and dismissive treatment of their own national Parliament and I hope that no other Government in the Union are tempted to follow them down that very bad path.

The third aspect of the Government’s performance is the one that most attention has quite rightly been focused on—the way in which they reach policy decisions and their policy-making procedures. When I was a Minister and was faced with difficult choices, I would draw up a balance sheet of costs and benefits of any particular measure. I would try to weight them to achieve a balance and use that as an intellectual framework for discussions with officials or, where necessary, with colleagues. I was never conscious that I was doing anything remarkable or unusual; I assumed that most responsible Ministers went through a similar kind of procedure either explicitly or implicitly. Not so this Government.

The Motion mentions national interest, but it is quite clear that national interest has not guided the Government in this matter at all. You might assume that if you have 135 measures and you want to opt out of 100 definitively and opt back in to 35, those 35 were in the national interest and the 100 were not, which is why you want to get rid of them. The Government are even prepared to pay a significant price in terms of uncertainty, use of good will on the continent with their continental and Irish partners, and the administrative cost of going through all sorts of elaborate renegotiations, no doubt having to cope with the lacunae and lapses that arise. They are prepared to do all that in order to save the country from being tied to the 100 measures that they wish to opt out from.

In fact, as has been said this evening, of those 100 measures that the Government do not want to be associated with, not one of them is contrary to the national interest. Some of them are regarded as defunct or unnecessary, in which case they have a neutral significance. They are neither positive nor negative. But some of them are useful, although not dramatically vital in the way that the European arrest warrant or Naples II are really vital to the national interest. However, the Government’s own document, the White Paper—which, believe it or not, I have read through—deals with some of the measures that the Government propose to drop, to opt out of and not to opt back in to. Take, for example, item number 2 on judicial co-operation. The Government’s own document says:

“We judge that non-participation in the network may diminish the ability of the UK to coordinate complex investigations”,

et cetera. So there is a cost to opting out of that, which the Government themselves acknowledge. It is not in the national interest to opt out, it is contrary to the national interest. It is a cost, not a benefit.

The same thing applies, for example, with item number 5 on the exchange of information on drugs. The Government say:

“We judge that there may be a minor reputational risk if the UK does not seek to rejoin this measure”.

It is minor; it is not very important, but it is nevertheless a negative. It is reducing the national interest, not enhancing it, to opt out.

On item number 20 on new synthetic drugs and a warning system, the Government state:

“The UK’s participation in time-sensitive EU wide information about prevalence and harms of new substances enables us to influence EU and Member States’ legal responses, supporting enforcement and judicial co-operation … especially with the role of the internet and use of internal transit countries”.

This is a positive thing that the Government are giving up; it is not negative.

Similarly, on anti-corruption measures at item number 5—they are important, one might suppose—the Government say that given the increasing focus on tackling corruption in public office:

“The costs of membership are minimal and there are some benefits”.

So the Government are again giving up some benefits by their own admission.

Item number 87 is on combating terrorism, which is an important matter. The Government state:

“The offences created by the Decision are a useful standard for terrorist offences and by ensuring other Member States can prosecute relevant terrorist behaviours a more hostile environment for terrorists ought to be created across Europe”.

The Government are again giving up something of positive importance.

On item number 43—the prevention of unauthorised entry, transit and residence—the Government state:

“The framework decision assists with EU-wide enforcement of UK law”.

Surely that is in our national interest.

On item number 66, on the exchange of information and co-operation concerning terrorist offences, the Government state:

“Continuing to share information is therefore important both operationally and in reputational terms”.

And so on and so forth. There is another one on football hooligans, where the Government say that,

“non-participation may result in some increased costs”.

Again they recognise that there are costs, not benefits, in opting out. I could provide many other measures if I had time.

What all this amounts to is simply that, yes, the main national interest in these measures is secured by opting back into the 35 but by opting out of the remaining 100 we do not add to the national interest, we reduce it. In other words, the Government have taken a completely irrational decision. They incur the costs and risks of this complicated process of opting out and opting back in not to protect this country from some problems or costs but to deny it some additional benefits—if not enormous ones. We all know why they have done so: to buy off the Eurosceptics, and the cost of that is quite easily calculated. First, there are the costs and risks associated with the opting back in procedure; secondly, there are the not insubstantial or non-existent benefits—as I have explained—of those measures that we are now definitively opting out of. That is how this Government take their decisions. National interest has been sacrificed for a purely party political agenda. That is a fact and the Government cannot get away from it.