European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I know the noble Lord’s experience of these matters so he is probably well ahead of me on this, but perhaps I can remind him that in 2006 and 2007 Germany and Finland swapped presidency dates to avoid national elections in each, so it can be done.

I was also asked a pertinent question by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I honestly think these so-called precedents which she has brought to the House to show it can be done ignore one really rather important point. She is probably in a similar position to the Prime Minister—that nothing is excluded as far as his own position in the campaign is concerned—but what is surely totally excluded is that, in the middle of our presidency, the Prime Minister of this country should campaign to leave the European Union.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

We have not reached that point yet, since this is merely the first clause of a Bill trying to deliver the ability to hold a referendum, but these are all serious points. Noble Lords are pointing out that any decision about setting a date must take into account all the circumstances under which a referendum would be expected to operate. The Government would have to take a decision about which date to recommend to Parliament; it would then be for Parliament to consider that and to set their view.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out that in the past there has been at least one occurrence of local election dates being moved. Amendments were agreed in another place to rule out those May dates in 2016 and 2017 specifically to ensure that the referendum does not clash with known local government dates. There is certainly no expectation that local government dates should be moved. That is not our plan and we do not see that happening. However, without wishing ill on any Member of any party in the other place, if there had to be a completely unforeseen parliamentary by-election or local government by-election and it was decided that a by-election might be held on the same day as the referendum, I think the House might consider that to be rather a different matter, but we have no plan to move other elections to combine them with the referendum.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton has moved his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has spoken to his. At this stage, I say formally to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that I hope he may see fit not to move his amendment when it is called from the list, and I invite my noble friend Lord Hamilton to withdraw his Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I was interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Flight. It is interesting that the Electoral Commission did not support the amendment; I thought that perhaps it was because the status quo should go first and a departure from the status quo should come second but, as my noble friend Lord Flight remarked, normally in a referendum the change that you seek comes first and the present position—the status quo—comes second. I am not clear which is right, so I think that probably my noble friend Lord Hamilton is right in saying that alphabetical order should prevail.

I am not going to enter into the debate on the intricacies of the Welsh language, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I am perfectly happy to accept that what he says is correct. But I was clearly struck by the fact that he is one of those noble Lords who will campaign to remain a member of the European Union—and, I would like to say, to remain a member on the present basis, whatever the Prime Minister is able or unable to negotiate.

He also remarked in quite strong terms that leaving the European Union would be extremely detrimental to investment. It is not possible to know that without knowing the basis on which the United Kingdom might cease to be a member of the European Union—I would rather say, might cease to be a “full member” of the European Union. Ideally, I think that the Prime Minister should work for a trading relationship with the European Union, which could well be as a trading member of the European Union. So I do not really like the referendum questions—“remain” or “leave” the European Union—because “leave” sounds like a tugboat will come and attach a tow rope to our little island and tow us off into the Indian Ocean or somewhere where we might enjoy better weather. The reality is that we cannot leave the European Union in a geographical sense because we are adjacent to core eurozone members.

I would like to see the Prime Minister achieve substantial and significant reforms to our basis of membership, which may well mean that we cease to be a member on the current basis. The relationship with the other members of the European Union might be some kind of associate status or a reformed EEA or a reformed EFTA. I therefore take issue with the noble Lord’s strong comment that it would be detrimental to investment if we were to leave the European Union.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I was startled to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, give as a reason the way in which names are produced. It is entirely true that it normal practice to use alphabetical order for names and for names of countries, but it is not so for verbs—and these are two verbs. So I do not think this has any validity. The Electoral Commission wants the wording in the Bill for the very simple reason that it put it forward. It would be a bit startling if it now found that it had put forward the wrong wording. It has not; it has put forward the right wording, and the Government, who did not start with this wording, moved to the Electoral Commission’s wording in the other place—and I honestly suggest that that is the best place to stand.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I am rather new to the process of legislation. This is the first time that I have been involved in the passage of a Bill. Until the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke, I was thinking that perhaps I had slipped back to Second Reading, even though we are on the second group of amendments. I am slightly puzzled by hearing a whole set of reasons from people who are in favour of leaving or remaining. I hope that my intervention will be wholly objective. I do not claim that my Welsh is up to knowing whether “aros” is the right word, but will the Minister confirm that the Government have checked the translation, in addition to the work done by the Electoral Commission?

In response to Amendments 3 and 4, I find it bizarre that we are discussing whether “leave” or “remain” should be in alphabetical order. This is not an election between people; it is a referendum on a question. The Electoral Commission has undertaken a lot of consultation, we have been extensively briefed and the other place was extensively briefed. The Government have taken the Electoral Commission’s wording, and I suggest that these amendments are not helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

I also thank the noble Baroness for her intervention but this is a Bill not about extending the franchise but about a European referendum. I intend to vote yes in this referendum unless some dreadful tragedy happens in the renegotiation. I am not persuaded that extending the vote is part of the purpose of this Bill. It is as simple as that. It will lead to a lot of problems. It may be within the noble Lord’s prerogative, as he appears to be responding to this amendment, so I ask him to raise with his colleagues the need for a fundamental look at the electoral system in this country.

I was recently monitoring an election in a place called Kyrgyzstan, on the border with China. It has introduced biometric testing for being on the electoral register. I learnt when I was there that Mr Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, believes that this is a way of having votes without fraud. There are all sorts of ideas out there and I believe that these amendments, which I might be prepared to support in a Bill extending the franchise, are none the less not right for this particular Bill. I ask the noble Lord to communicate to his colleagues the desirability of a look at the way in which the franchise works. It seems to me odd, and has done for a long time, that people can pay tax and not have a vote, and people can pay no tax at all, can be living in, for instance, Brussels with highly paid jobs for many years, and according to some noble Lords be completely out of touch with reality and the world, yet they can vote in a UK election.

I suggest that we need a fundamental look at the franchise. I have steered three children successfully through the gap from 16 to 18—they are now well beyond it—and they vote for a variety of parties. I look round and see that all three of the major parties represented in this House have had votes from our family in the recent past, so they are certainly capable of making up their minds. I end where I began: I do not think this Bill is the place to extend the franchise.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, my name is on an amendment similar to the one introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I agree with him in saying that the amendments seek to achieve the same objective by the same method.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Earl has made some very moving points about various aspects of the vulnerability of young people, but does he not accept that the matter we are debating now, which is whether or not they should have a vote in one referendum between now and the end of 2017, does not really link up with all those issues of contagion that he has referred to in other contexts? I understand perfectly well why it might be wrong to put 16 year-olds into flats of their own and give them a lot of money. Fortunately, it is a criminal offence to give somebody money to vote, so that will not happen. Perhaps he might consider whether the parallels apply across the whole board that he has sketched in with such passion.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I regret that I was not able to speak at Second Reading—what I have said is probably more of a Second Reading speech—but I have been involved in a lot of other business in the House.

My understanding is that the noble Lord is very clear in his mind that his intention with this amendment is to change the franchise specifically for this particular occasion. But I regret to say, and I have followed this debate about lowering the franchise several times, that my sense is that there is a large body of Members of your Lordships’ House who wish to expand the franchise much more widely and see this occasion as an important opportunity to proceed with that. One has heard many references this afternoon to the Scottish referendum as a justification for acting in this way. I think I have spoken long enough. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

It is not a question of cutting people out, it is a question of deciding, on all the evidence, with careful consideration of what we know about what most young people of a certain age can or cannot do, and coming to a consistent view. The view has been taken that the age should be 18. Why should we change it simply to deal with this particular opportunity to vote?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Perhaps the noble Lord could help a little on this. He is advancing, as always, a highly sophisticated presentation of a totally negative point of view on giving the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, but he is a member of a Government who held the door open to give Scots 16 and 17 year-olds the vote. Where were all those arguments then? Lying on the floor, I suppose.

[Lord Faulks]

Although it is tempting to go down that route and describe the cause or causes of the door being open—I was not in any position to argue that matter then—I think that we should return to the basic fact that, after careful consideration, 18 was considered the right age. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is quite right: there is an element of arbitrariness about whatever age you choose. The question is: is it an age which has, by and large, received approval and consent? Yes it is. Of course that does not mean that this is the last word on the subject; people will differ about these things. There will be people who think that 21 was the right age and it should never have been lowered to 18.

Noble Lords will know that the power to determine the voting age for Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Parliament decided to lower the voting age to 16 for those elections. The Government have responded to requests to increase the powers of the devolved Administrations and will soon devolve similar powers to the Welsh Assembly.

Devolution, by its very nature, gives rise to the possibility of different laws applying in different parts of the United Kingdom. It does not mean that we must harmonise our differences. The fact that people may do certain things in Scotland aged 16—get married without parental consent, formally change their name, access their birth records if adopted—does not mean that the same rules must or should apply across the United Kingdom. One of the advantages of devolution is the capacity of different parts of the United Kingdom to make these choices.

More specifically, what about the precedent set by the Scottish independence referendum? The decision was made by the Scottish Parliament that whoever opened the door would decide on the franchise. It is right that decisions about the franchise for elections and referendums that affect the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are made by this Parliament. As I said, decisions of the Scottish Parliament do not and should not prevent Parliament from taking a different decision.

The Government do not think that this is the right vehicle, as my noble friend Lord Higgins pointed out so cogently. Any change to the entitlement to vote must to be considered properly and fully in specific legislation. I gave some examples where the law places restrictions on 16 and 17 year-olds. Any proposal to lower the voting age must be carefully examined in that overall context.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

10: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, after “at” insert—
“(i) ”

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, which is relatively incomprehensible if you look at it, and others in the same group is to provide that the electorate for the referendum should include EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom, the sort of electorate who vote in local elections in this country and in European parliamentary elections. It has an innovation on that, which is designed to meet the concerns of those who feel that it would be wrong for European Union citizens living in this country for a very short time to have the vote, as they would under the arrangements for local and European parliamentary elections. Therefore, it requires five years’ residence here before EU citizens could vote in the referendum.

This is not an attempt to change the franchise for a parliamentary election in this country. I am sure that the Minister will tell us about how this is unprecedented in any other member state and so on. One of the points about precedents which the noble Lord missed when he was telling us about how few countries have the vote for 16 and 17 year-olds is that no other member state of the European Union has ever held a referendum to leave the European Union. When they have held referendums or their parliamentary elections, they were about things infinitely less consequential for the future of the country than this vote will be for us, so I do not think that any of those analogies are particularly helpful but, in any case, I insist that there is not the slightest attempt here to create a precedent for our parliamentary elections. This is purely and simply for this referendum.

What is the basis for it? It is quite simple: if you are a European Union citizen and you have lived here for five years, you are almost certainly employed and you are paying taxes, so you are fulfilling all the “no taxation without representation” basic criteria. You are also someone whose status in this country will be radically affected by the outcome of the referendum because all sorts of rights that you enjoy now under the European treaties will be removed if we vote to leave and negotiate under Article 50 of the treaty to withdraw. These people would be critically affected by this decision and, to my mind, to not give them the vote on it would be a considerable inequity because it could affect them and their children, and if they have been here for five years many of them are probably going to be here for even longer. The case for giving them a vote is compelling and that is why I and other noble Lords have put down these amendments. Since the night is wearing on I will not weary anyone with a longer speech than that explanation and I hope very much that there will be—as there has been in the signatories to this amendment—cross-party and no-party support for an approach of this sort. I beg to move.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I suggest that there are two rather key points that the noble Lord has not addressed. One is that no other country in the European Union grants a vote in a referendum to foreign citizens, even EU citizens. The fact that most other referenda are on rather smaller issues strengthens the case against giving a vote to EU citizens in Britain on an issue of major importance. Secondly, on a point of fact, the number of EU citizens of voting age in this country is of the order of 2.7 million. The noble Lord has taken out those who have been here less than five years, so you are talking about 1.9 million people. These estimates are based on the Labour Force Survey, so they are not precise but you are talking about the order of 2 million voters. The likelihood surely is—particularly on the arguments the noble Lord has made—that these people will vote for the UK to stay in the European Union. What is going to be the impact on the public of knowing that this change has been made for this purpose? It will be seen as an attempt to swing the vote in favour of staying in the Union with the use of foreign votes.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

We are in a rather peculiar situation. The noble Lord intervened in my speech and is now making a speech all of his own.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

No, I have finished.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Okay, I think the noble Lord was intervening in my speech and, if he had listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard that I most particularly noted that the parallels with other members are not very apt because nobody has ever voted to leave the European Union—nobody has ever voted in a referendum whose outcome, if it went in favour of leaving, would deprive a large number of people in the country of their rights under EU law. I covered that. I know that earlier in this debate we forswore use of words such as xenophobia but I have to say that some of the arguments he advanced in his brief intervention were, let us say, rather close to the line.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and, indeed, I put my name to one of the amendments. I will just add two points. I believe that it is right to enable these citizens of other member states to have a vote in this referendum precisely because their very being in this country is linked to membership of the European Union. If it were not for the freedom of movement within the European Union they would not be working here, contributing to our economy and helping build our society. Therefore, it is right that they have a vote. I also ask the Minister: in his view, what would happen to these citizens if we were to leave the European Union? Would they have to leave? One does not know. We have to have answers to these questions at some stage before we progress much further along the referendum line. If they did have to leave, this country would miss out a great deal by losing their contribution to our society and, most especially, their contribution to our economy. We are all familiar with the phrase “no taxation without representation”; they are paying taxes and therefore they should be enabled to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, we have been discussing virtually all day how we are going to try to make this referendum fair. We want to keep the playing field as level as we possibly can. Enfranchising 1.9 million people of European nationality is a blatant opportunity to try to swing the vote in favour of staying in the EU. Of course, so much is going wrong for all these people who want us to stay in the EU. Let us face it: the EU is imploding as we watch and one crisis follows another. It is going to be quite tricky for anybody who wants us to stay in the EU to win this referendum. Therefore, I agree that those people who do want to stay in have got to try every trick in the book to try to swing it in their direction. However, let us see this for what it is: this is a referendum for the British people to decide whether or not they want to stay in the EU. This is not a decision for foreigners who happen to be living in this country.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, before him, used the argument of whether we would all be supporting this if these people were all going to vote no. I am afraid that his question reveals his own motive—to stop these people getting the vote just because they might vote yes.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is actually putting this amendment forward because he has no intention to increase the franchise of people who will vote for his position, which is to stay in the EU. Come on—let us see this for what it is: this is trying to slant things rapidly in the direction of those who want us to stay in the EU. It is absolutely blatantly obvious that that is what it is all about. For anybody to pretend anything different is absolutely ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

The noble Lord is little premature. If he is still here in half an hour, he may hear my speech supporting the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, as he seeks to remove Commonwealth and Irish citizens from the register. I hope that the noble Lord will be here to support that amendment.

I was concluding by saying that the vote on Maastricht would have been a devastating change to the EU. I had no idea what the consequences would be. Denmark would not have been thrown out, of course, although I heard one EU commissioner at the time saying that it would be if it did not comply. That noble Lord is no longer with us.

When the Irish voted against Lisbon, again that was mega bomb under the EU and the Irish again had to vote until it came up with the right conclusions. I speculate, if Ireland had not voted again on the Lisbon treaty, would the treaty have gone ahead or would Ireland have been put into a second-class category? I do not know but it was a mega decision that Ireland and Denmark took, so I do not think that we can say that this referendum that we are having in Britain is more important than some other European referenda.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

This situation is completely different. In the case of the Danish and Irish referendums, had those negative results been upheld, the only consequence would be that a treaty called Maastricht or Lisbon would not have come into force. Nobody would have had any rights, privileges or advantages removed from them. The whole of the European Union would merely have stayed where it was.

The noble Lord is quite right in saying that Denmark and Ireland would not have been chucked out. At that time there was no machinery to do that. There was not even a withdraw clause, but it would not have happened. The point is very simple. The result would have simply been—as was the case in the vote on the constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands—to negate something that might have come into effect had it been ratified. This is completely different. Here, you are taking away various important rights and privileges that European citizens here have as a result of our membership of the European Union. You are depriving them of those things. It is honestly not like for like.

[Lord Blencathra]

I do not accept that if there is a decision to leave we will be taking away some fundamental rights from European citizens who are living in this country and that they should therefore have a right to vote in the referendum to protect those rights. On Report we may have a list of what those rights may be. I can understand the noble Lord’s point that there is a difference in quality or perhaps in quantity in these referenda, but I do not accept that the referenda in Denmark and Ireland were of a vastly different magnitude to this one. We could not vote in the Danish referendum and rightly so. I did not want the right to vote in the Danish and Irish referenda, and I do not see how this referendum is so different that other non-British nationals should have the right to vote in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I fear that in order to get a really adequate answer, the noble Baroness may have to regroup her amendment. I endeavoured to say that what might happen to EU nationals was a matter of hypothesis which I fear that the Government are not prepared to go into at this stage.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the Minister for having responded in such a thoughtful way to this amendment, although I have to say that in earlier parts of his statement, I thought he was tempted back again to the reductio ad absurdum he employed on the previous group of amendments. However, we moved on to better ground and he addressed some of the arguments very well. He was very careful, though some others in this debate have been less careful, not to predict that we would know who voted in which way in the referendum, and be able to say, “It was the foreigners that did it”. Other Members of this House seem not to know that we have a secret ballot, but we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Okay. The hour is late, and I shall be extremely brief; I think that I can do this in five minutes or so. Let me set out very briefly the reasoning behind my amendments to Clause 2. Your Lordships will be well aware that the franchise in the referendum Bill is based on that which applies to general elections and is the same as for those. As such, it includes Commonwealth and Irish citizens, whether or not they have become British citizens. That is the point. It is nothing to do with racism and nothing to do with xenophobia: it is a question of who is a British citizen. My amendments are intended to base the franchise on that very concept, because a referendum is not comparable to an ordinary general election, which can be reversed five years later.

I believe that only those who have become British citizens should be permitted to vote. It is interesting that this point about the franchise appears to have been waved through in the other place. There was no discussion of it, and certainly no vote on it. We have, as I mentioned, a total of 3 million Commonwealth citizens in this country, of whom 1.8 million are British and will get the vote and 1.2 million are not British, and, I suggest, should not get the vote. I would add to that the 340,000 Irish citizens for the same reason. Of course they can become British citizens—there is no reason why they should not—but, until they do, I do not believe that they should have the vote.

The reason for the present franchise is largely historical, but the opposition Benches might like to recall that in 2007 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made a report at the request of the then Labour Government on the UK citizenship law. He was a former Attorney-General, and he concluded in respect of the Westminster franchise:

“Ultimately, it is right in principle not to give the right to vote to citizens of other countries living in the UK until they become UK citizens”.

That was a Labour Attorney-General, and no action was taken by the Labour Government. I have been in touch with the noble and learned Lord because I was quoting from his report, and he replied that he could not be here tonight but authorised me to say that he supports the amendments I have tabled. There are three essential reasons for this—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I think the noble Lord is doing a little selective quotation from the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who in his report said that the franchise should not be removed from anyone who has it. Would the noble Lord like perhaps to enlighten the House to that bit of the report?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The quote was precise. The proposal was that it should be phased out, if that is what you mean—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

What I am asking is what you mean.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Well, what the noble and learned Lord said is that it should be phased out. His view was clearly, as in the bit that I quoted, that those who are not British citizens should not continue to have the vote.

Of the three reasons, the first is the importance of the decision for Britain’s long-term future—that is obvious. Secondly, there is the issue of reciprocity, since no EU Government permits British citizens to vote in their general elections, let alone in a referendum, and no Commonwealth country, except New Zealand, permits foreign citizens to vote in referenda. Thirdly, and lastly, there is the need for clarity. This proposal would remove the anomaly that citizens in Malta and Cyprus, as has been mentioned, can vote not as EU citizens but as Commonwealth citizens. With this amendment, they would not vote as either.

There is a further anomaly in that Commonwealth citizens are able to vote very shortly after they arrive in Britain. For example, a Commonwealth student could be on the electoral register in a matter of weeks. There are no formal checks on his or her nationality, or even on his or her right to be in Britain. An electoral registration officer has the right to ask further questions if he believes that that is justified and he needs it before making a determination. However, in practice, it very seldom happens because of the risk of appearing to discriminate. So that of itself amounts to a significant loophole, which is surely unacceptable in a matter of such importance. I should mention in passing that Gibraltarians are not affected because they are British citizens under the British Nationality Act and therefore will get the vote in any case.

There has been some discussion as to whether the various groups proposed for the vote are likely to affect the outcome. As far as I know, there has not been any effective polling to tell us how these people might vote, or how many of them would do so. I suggest that that is a further reason to have the franchise on a clear and defensible criterion.

I close by pointing to the need that is bound to arise for reconciliation. As noble Lords will have noticed this evening, there are certain differences between Members of this House, and of course there are very strong differences in the public. Sadly, one side in this argument will have to face a future for this country which is deeply unwelcome to it. That makes it even more important that arrangements for this historic referendum should be above reproach, as the Minister said, in respect of the question, which I think is now settled, of the franchise, which we are debating today and involves millions of voters, and in the use of government resources, which we will discuss later in this Bill.

As the Minister said, any suspicion that the franchise has been manipulated to achieve a particular result would be deeply harmful for many years to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also said. That is why we need a crystal-clear principle for this franchise, and I suggest it should be the following: only British citizens, of whatever origin—it is not a question of xenophobia or racism—should decide Britain’s future. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord has not dealt with the fundamental point, which is that we do not have a vote in Irish referendums. I have an Irish son-in-law, and I will ask him, but I would be very surprised if people on either side of the border in Ireland lie awake at night worrying about whether or not they might have a vote on the decision that Britain has to take as to whether or not it wishes to remain part of the European Union. That is a pretty poor argument, given that we are concerned here with enabling the British people—British citizens—to decide the future of their country in a referendum in a way that is seen to be fair and equitable.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I honestly think that the noble Lord is treating in a very light-hearted fashion an extremely serious matter. I have had quite a lot of dealings with the Irish dimension in the context of the Government’s repatriation of some justice and home affairs legislation. If the noble Lord does not think that people are losing sleep on both sides of the border about the possibility that Britain might not be in the European Union, I am sorry, but he has not been reading very much. They are losing a great deal of sleep about that. If that were to result in the reinstallation of border controls, for both people and goods, the results could be pretty disastrous. A lot of sleep is being lost. If we were to move in the direction that this amendment proposes, it would merely increase the agitation.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is interesting that the noble Lord is anticipating that we are going to leave the European Union. I did not say that they were not losing sleep over whether or not we would leave the European Union; I said that I doubt they are losing sleep over not having a vote in the British referendum, which is an entirely different point. I am by no means making light of our relationship with Ireland; I think it is very important. However, what people in Ireland are losing sleep over is the amount of money and the destruction that their membership of the euro has cost them. But that is a debate for another day.

The hour is late. I support the noble Lord, Lord Green, and think that the oblique nature of the attacks on his arguments, rather than dealing with the substance of the amendments, indicates that this is a matter that we should return to at a later stage in the Bill.

Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for introducing this Motion, albeit that he did so at a somewhat galloping pace, which is perhaps not surprising after the marathon that he has already performed today. I agree with the criticisms of the procedures made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, although, unlike him, I have some wider reservations about the whole 35 measures that the Government propose to opt into.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, talked about the procedure in this House and in the Commons. Of course, a very important point in the other place was that a specific vote was promised on the issue of the arrest warrant. That is an extremely important point. In November 2013 the House of Commons European Security Committee concluded that the vote on opting back in,

“should ensure there is a genuine opportunity for the House to determine the measures the Government intends to rejoin. To consider the 35 measures as a ‘block opt-in’, subject to one motion, would be seriously to misconceive the individual significance of some of the measures … We ask the Government to reflect this by … tabling separate motions for each of the measures in which it wishes to opt back in”.

That was in paragraphs 571 to 574 of the report.

It was a great pity that there was not a specific debate on the arrest warrant as it was impossible for Members of the House of Commons to talk about individual cases as they affected individuals. When one Member of Parliament, Mr Wiggin, attempted to do that, to give an illustration of what this meant for one of his constituents, he was told by the Speaker that he could not go on describing that and that it was out of order.

My second important point is that the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons concluded that the opt-out, combined with the Government’s proposals for opting back into certain laws, represented no significant repatriation of powers from the EU. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee thought that it could result in a net flow of powers to the EU, given the introduction of full European Court of Justice jurisdiction. This is because of the relative impact of the laws the Government wish to back into, measured against the lesser importance of many of the other measures under the opt-out.

Another important question is whether we have legally binding agreements, treaties or co-operation. In their command paper of July 2013, the Government said that, in some cases, there was no need for legally binding agreements for practical co-operation to take place with other EU countries to tackle cross-border crime. In the case of some of the 35 EU laws which the Government propose to opt back into, the need for binding law is highly questionable. For example, do we really need to have supranational measures to deal with the exchange of information between member states to police international football matches? The Government also said that, where a binding agreement is needed, an alternative to opting back into EU legislation—which is irreversible and entails full ECJ jurisdiction—is a bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU as a whole. This could apply to extradition.

A fundamental problem with opting back into these EU laws with full ECJ jurisdiction was expressed by the Government in 2012 in response to the European Committee of this House. They stated:

“The practical effect of the ECJ gaining full jurisdiction in this area after the transitional period from 1 December 2014 is that the ECJ may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended. This concern is compounded by the fact that the ECJ has previously ruled in the area of Justice and Home Affairs in unexpected and unhelpful ways from a UK perspective”.

Those are not my words but the words of the Government, and we should take them extremely seriously.

Instead of opting back into the legislation, an alternative would be a new bilateral treaty on the matters in question. This would have the following advantages. The UK would negotiate as a sovereign state regarding the relevant matters. A UK-EU bilateral treaty would enable the UK to avoid coming under the jurisdiction of the ECJ; we could apply different rules and safeguards for British citizens. It would also allow us to withdraw from it if it began operating against the national interest; it would not be frozen in aspic for ever.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has quoted extensively from the committees in another place and from evidence given by Ministers but he has not seen fit to refer once to the two reports made to this House. Could he come on to those, because they answer every single point he has made?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord can, I am sure, speak and answer my points. I have not yet finished my speech: I have quite a few more points to make. I know that the committee in this place went in a completely different direction from those in the House of Commons. I confess that I found those in the House of Commons more persuasive than the committee in this House. However, it is, as always, open to the noble Lord to speak and I am sure he will do so as persuasively and charmingly tonight as he always does.

Pursuing the point about a bilateral treaty between ourselves and the EU, there is a precedent for this. Denmark has its own opt-out on justice and home affairs and concluded three treaties with the EC prior to the Lisbon treaty. The point is often made that the three EU-Denmark treaties under the provision are subject to the ECJ. That is true, but it does not follow that a UK-EU agreement would have to be: it depends entirely on what we say. It depends what the Government negotiate. A UK-EU treaty could provide an alternative dispute mechanism as the EU has some treaties with various other countries. Of course, I accept that a treaty would take time, but the EU treaty—specifically Article 10(4) of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions—allows the Council on a proposal from the Commission to agree to transitional arrangements in the light of the opt-out. The UK could ask for the relevant pieces of the EU legislation, such as the arrest warrant, to continue to apply for a period of time that allowed for the conclusion of a replacement bilateral treaty. That would not entail opting back in—which is, as I say, irreversible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is not unusual to refer to the Companion on the general principles of conduct of the House. We have had the Modern Slavery Bill and the Statement today, which were expected to conclude earlier than they did. I am just giving guidance.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness’s response, but she is aware that someone from her Front Bench spoke for a pretty lengthy time at the beginning of this debate, and now she is asking everyone else to take a lot less time. I think it would be best if we got on with it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that it would be a good idea to get on with things. I am simply giving guidance from the Companion, rather than dictating to anyone that they curtail their remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and I will certainly follow his recommendation to be very brief. He is of course absolutely right to say that on constitutional grounds, extradition should be a matter for our own courts and not for the European Court of Justice. No matter how the Government try to play this and finesse it, the fact is that through this measure of opting in we are handing over the rights of extradition from our own courts to the European Court of Justice.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made the point that we would be handing our citizens over to very different systems of justice. For example, there would be no habeas corpus, no protection from trial in absentia, no right to silence and no requirement for prima facie evidence to justify extradition. This is a major transfer of power that really cannot be justified by anything that I have heard so far, certainly not to satisfy the Government’s rather rushed timetable. As someone said, the Government have now had more than four years to consider this matter and here we are, only two weeks from the deadline with the Government still trying to push it through.

Neither is this all justified on the grounds of satisfying police leaders, who claim that they need these powers to protect the public from dangerous criminals. Like the Government, the police always want more powers. Some noble Lords will remember when they wanted the power to detain suspects for 90 days. After a very long debate, led by the Liberal Democrat Benches, this House denied the police those powers that they asked for. I do not think that the ceiling fell in after that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Perhaps the noble Lord would take into account the fact that the police are not asking for more powers. They are asking to not have fewer powers.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I will accept that distinction but our joining the ECJ will in fact give them more powers—and the police always want more powers, as I have said.

I must remind noble Lords that far from being an efficient tool of justice, the European arrest warrant has been, in many cases, the cause of serious injustice. There was the case which the noble Lord mentioned, which I will not go into, of Andrew Symeou. He also mentioned Fair Trials International, which has brought to my attention one of the cases that it mentions. It is of an Italian, Mr Edmond Arapi, who was subject to extradition from Britain to serve 16 years in a prison for a murder in a city in which he never committed the crime and had never visited. The murder was committed on a day when he was actually at work in the UK. What Mr Arapi said was—this was reported by Fair Trials International, so I presume it is correct:

“I had overwhelming evidence that I could not have committed the crime yet they didn’t care. All they cared about was following the procedures of the arrest warrant, and I spent six weeks in jail as a result”.

I really do not think that that is the EU arrest warrant working as perfectly as the noble Lord on the Labour Benches said. It is yet another reason why we should not go back into this extraordinary arrangement and not give our powers away like this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because I like to be brief. I rise to speak because I have the good fortune to be chairman of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Extradition Law, which is looking at extradition law in a wide context and which is due to report in March. We did, however, because of the very considerable political controversy surrounding the question of whether or not we should opt back in to the European arrest warrant, produce an interim report which was published last Monday. It was based on a debate between my noble friend Lady Ludford and the honourable Member for North East Somerset, who was standing at the Bar a few minutes ago. It was also informed by all the evidence we had earlier heard about extradition more generally. We did it in the expectation that it would help your Lordships and in the hope that it might help Members of the other place.

The conclusion we reached in paragraph 20 of the report was that:

“On the basis of the evidence we have received, there is no convincing case for disagreeing with the conclusions previously reached by the European Union Committee that”,

basically, we should opt back in. The consequences of that conclusion are that the majority of the committee believed that we should opt back in and a minority believed that there was not enough evidence to form a proper view. It is very interesting, and also very significant, that since that date we have had evidence submitted to the committee by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—I hope that I have pronounced that properly. Having made it clear that the decision as to whether or not to opt back in is a matter for Parliament and not for him, he said:

“Had I been able to do so, I would have expressed the view that all of the evidence I have seen would lead me to a conclusion similar to that in paragraph 20 of your report”—

that is to say, what I have just read out to your Lordships and the conclusion as reached by the European Union Committee. I must confess, and I hope that it will not upset my noble friend Lord Lamont too much, that I find the authority of the Lord Chief Justice a bit more persuasive and authoritative than his views.

My noble friend raised a number of serious points, but if he had heard the evidence and seen the transcripts of the evidence that our committee received, I am sure he would agree with me that much of the concern that he expressed has, in fact, now become misplaced. We have seen an evolution in the way in which the courts deal with matters of extradition which goes to remedy a number of the shortcomings that I think it is agreed by everyone, not least by the Lord Chief Justice, were there in years gone by. I believe that it is dangerous to extrapolate from past cases what is actually happening now.

Something that I think was very telling about the inquiry that we conducted was that we tried to find a respected and regular practitioner at the extradition Bar who worked in the courts in this area and who advocated this country not opting back in, but we could not find such a person. That does not mean that they may not exist, but we were unable to identify them. If we do not opt back in, I believe that we shall be creating a judicial no man’s land in which for years, not months, there will be no proper legal regime covering the kind of problems that are increasingly prevalent in the world in which we live, where movement, legal or illegal, is ever more prevalent.

Concerns have rightly been expressed about miscarriages of justice, but let us be clear about this: that is a phenomenon that, regretfully and to our national shame, is not unknown in this country. It does not follow that our courts are necessarily not going to carry out miscarriages of justice, although obviously we try not to do it. To suggest that somehow all foreign courts are therefore not going to deliver justice is not true. What we have to do is try to ensure that the system works in the interests of justice as best it can.

As I have already explained, I and the committee believe that the more recent modifications to the modus operandi of the extradition process here in Britain both materially make our system better and what is more—this is important bearing in mind the point that was raised earlier—are compatible with EU law if we opt back in. Most of the objections to our opting back in to the European arrest warrant are matters of constitutional principle, not constitutional propriety, and fundamentally are not based on a concern for justice. I believe that if we do not opt back in, it will be bad for justice, for law and order and for UK citizens.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I think that tonight’s debate marks the final parliamentary chapter in this tangled tale of Britain’s block opt-out from pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs legislation, and of its aim to rejoin those 35 significant measures. Your Lordships’ House has been closely involved in this matter from the very start. It has been a tangled tale over the past two years, and I suspect that some Members may be heartily sick of a process that has involved two weighty reports from your Lordships’ Select Committee, three full-scale debates and any amount of behind-the-scenes work and consultation. Dry, complex and technical though the process may have been, however, it concerns matters that are crucial to Britain’s ability to maintain our own internal security and to combat effectively the continuously rising tide of international cross-border crime. Whether you are talking about drugs, human trafficking, money laundering, cybercrime, terrorism or child pornography, all these matters are assisted by those 35 measures.

The role that your Lordships’ House has played in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and holding the Government to account has been an exemplary one, and I pay tribute to those others, along with myself, who participated in it and to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who led our efforts. We should register tonight that the processes in this House have worked well. It is not part of our duty to intrude on the private grief of another place; suffice it to say that the processes there seem to be a good deal suboptimal.

We are in a totally different position, as the Minister said when he opened the debate, because when we debated and approved the triggering of the block opt-out we also approved the reintroduction of the 35 measures. We decided that in July 2013. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others will forgive me for pointing out that pretty well everyone who has criticised the line that the Government are now taking failed to speak in any of those debates.

Now we are where we are. I welcome the fact that the Government adjusted their Motion for tonight’s debate to take into account the fact that the 35 measures needed to be explicitly referred to. It was, I think, a bit of a mistake not to have done that in the other place. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government in the measures they now wish to rejoin. I equally have no hesitation whatever in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in the criticism that he has made of the processes that have led us here.

I find it saddening that these European debates descend so much into what I can only describe as ideology, and are not enough concentrated on the substance of the matter—about which the evidence taken by the committee that I and others served on was pretty conclusive. It is a pity. Europe is not religion, it is politics; and in politics you have to make compromises. In this case, I believe that the Government have reached a very satisfactory compromise.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, accuses some of us of religious fervour, I have to say to him: “Da che pulpito vien la predica?”. From what pulpit comes the sermon? As noble Lords have said, as part of the block opt-in we are talking about tonight, we are looking at the European arrest warrant. The overriding objection to the European arrest warrant can be simply put. It allows the extradition, pretrial detention, trial, sentencing and imprisonment of British citizens in inferior foreign jurisdictions under the final jurisdiction of the inferior Luxembourg court. Trial by jury largely disappears in these cases and so does habeas corpus. Under Napoleonic law, the investigator and the judge are often the same person. There have already been several famous miscarriages of justice and I have no doubt that there will be more, whatever tinkering takes places with the system. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and others have mentioned some of those cases.

When I say that we are dealing with inferior foreign jurisdictions, I mean that we do so under the final auspices of, believe it or not, that engine of the treaties, the European court of so-called justice in Luxembourg, which is not a court of law at all—it is the engine of the treaties. It has to find in favour of ever closer union because that is what its instructions are from the treaties. When I say that we are dealing with inferior foreign jurisdictions, let me give you the example of just one of them—my beloved Italy. In Italy, pretrial detainees make up around 40% of the prison population. In this country, it is around 15%. Court processes in Italy last an average of 116 months. In the UK, it is an average of six months, rising to 10 at the Crown Court. In Italy, the maximum pretrial detention is 18 months. In England and Wales, this is set at six months, but a recent report found that our average was 13 weeks.

Under English and Welsh law, there is a presumption in favour of releasing the defendant pending trial. In Italy, circumstantial evidence is enough for a judge to order a pretrial detention. In Italy, a pretrial detention is decided not in open court but by a judge in chambers, possibly by the same chap who investigated the case in the first place. The defendant has no right to take part in the decision-making process and is not represented by a lawyer.

I hope that that is enough for Italy. Then there is Greece, that cradle of the Symeou case. I could go on about other EU jurisdictions, but I hope that I have said enough to make my point. No amount of convenience can override the principle that we should not be sending our citizens into these rotten systems, unless our courts are satisfied that the evidence which sends them there is sufficient.

There is only one advantage in going ahead with the European arrest warrant and these opt-ins. They will move the United Kingdom even further along the road to leaving the failed project that is the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

We consider that the safeguard should be capable of answering that particular problem. The important issue is whether there is an unnecessary delay. It will be appropriate to look at the particular facts of the case and for the judge responding to the warrant to decide whether he or she is satisfied about the arrangements. That, I suggest, is an answer, and unfortunate cases such as that of Andrew Symeou, which I accept was an egregious example of the European arrest warrant not working satisfactorily, should be avoided.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Before the Minister moves on from this point, does he not agree that it is perhaps a pity that our debate tonight has not mentioned explicitly one really crucial dimension for this country, which is the Anglo-Irish dimension? It is a very important one. All of us who have taken evidence on this matter are perfectly clear that the European arrest warrant has enabled the depoliticisation of extradition proceedings between the two parts of the island of Ireland. That has been of enormous benefit to both of them. If we were to junk the European arrest warrant, the Irish have no substitute to put in its place because they removed the Council of Europe convention when they transposed the arrest warrant into their legislation. Therefore, we would risk falling back into the worst turmoil of politicised extradition proceedings, often for enormously serious crimes.

EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I apologise for remaining on my feet, but as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, I chaired the committee that wrote the report to which the Government have not found it in their wisdom to refer in this Statement.

One consequence of the Statement, which I thank the Minister for repeating, is that the committees which have worked together on this issue will now reopen the inquiry and provide the House with a second report before any final vote is taken. Does the Minister agree that this Statement makes, frankly, a pretty good mockery of the Government’s undertaking to engage with Parliament on this issue? The original decision was announced in Rio de Janeiro, rather further away than the studios of the “Today” programme, which is the normal distance from Westminster at which such things are said. That was followed up by a Statement in the House which preceded any consultation with this House, with the other place, with the devolved parliaments and with the professions.

Now we have a Statement that simply ignores the views of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, which was supported by members of all three parties and of none and which came to the conclusion that the Government had not at all made a convincing case for triggering the block opt-out. That they do not even find room in the Statement to refer to that report is perhaps to be explained by the fact that the Government’s response to it is now two weeks overdue, and we have not yet seen it.

Can the Minister confirm that a second vote will be taken in this House, as in the other place, before any final decisions are reached, and that that debate and the vote will be taken in the light of the Government’s success in negotiating with the Commission and the Council on the measures that they wish to rejoin? Will the Government provide both Houses with a report on those negotiations well in advance of the second vote? Frankly, it is pretty odd to ask both Houses to vote on a 159-page White Paper within about a week.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on the point about the committee’s report, we will respond to that in due course. I hope that as we move forward we do not get bogged down in the niceties of protocol. The report from the noble Lord’s committee was influential in the discussions that have taken place. This is a little bit like a game of three-dimensional chess. In reaching decisions, the Government are trying to keep both Houses informed and to keep relations and channels open to the Commission and to member states. I hope Members of the House will understand that the issues covered by the 2014 decision are numerous and complex. We have been conscious of the need to ensure that any information we provide is as accurate and as informative as it can be.

Members of the House will be aware that the document today with its five explanatory memorandums is a measure of that commitment to put the information before the House as quickly and as fully as possible. Of course, I think it is implicit in everything that has been said that a second vote will be taken when the outcome of these negotiations are known. Common sense dictates that this will not be finessed through or carried through with smoke and mirrors. Both Houses, with all their experience and expertise, will demand the full facts on which they will base that second decision.

EU Treaties: Justice and Home Affairs Opt-Outs

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is explanation in itself of why the Government are taking such care and time to look at matters that he himself has acknowledged relate very much to national security and the national interest. That is precisely why the Government are taking their time in making these decisions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Government have already overrun the two-month period in which they are meant to respond to reports from your Lordships’ committees —in this case, the European Union Select Committee? If he does, can he say when they are going to respond? Will he perhaps reflect on the possibility that the national interest might be served best by following the advice given by the committee: namely, that there was no convincing case for triggering the opt-out at all?

EU: European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for that intervention. I think he would agree that things have moved on from Maastricht, not least in a matter that I think the noble Lord, Lord Reid, referred to—that many of the challenges that we face in these areas are transnational and international. That is why, while looking at the issues with an eye to subsidiarity and the responsibilities of the nation states, we also have to look at them from the realities of the much more international, transnational and global operation of many of the criminal forces that we are trying to counteract. That is why I rely on proper evidence-based examination of the decisions that we are taking forward.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the thanks for the Statement today would be a great deal more sincere if it was not such a sham? It is a sham because the Prime Minister has stated categorically that he will opt out—no ifs and buts and nothing about reinserting those measures we choose. He has ridden roughshod over the undertakings that were given in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and in the other place by the Minister for Europe that before the Government came to any conclusions at all on this matter they would consult very fully. The warm words he said about consultation today are, frankly, not very comforting. I can only repeat the words of the chairman of the EU Select Committee of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, when he wrote to the Home Secretary after the Prime Minister’s statement expressing his dismay. Does the noble Lord agree that it would be completely unthinkable to put the matter for decision to the two Houses until we are absolutely clear what the whole of the reinsertion or reapplication package is? We will not be able to judge what the consequences of the Government’s actions are unless we know not only that they are going to opt but what they are going to opt back into.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is being unduly cynical about the approach being taken—or let us say pessimistic. When the Home Secretary of the day makes a considered Statement of government policy and I repeat it from this Dispatch Box in this House, we are asking noble Lords and Members in the other place to believe that the Government have not made a final decision on this matter. They have adopted a process which will enable us properly to look at the issues before us. I take note of the noble Lord’s point that the opt-out/opt-in decision is part of a single picture, and I shall certainly draw my colleagues’ attention to the fact that somebody with his long experience of negotiations of this kind is giving what I consider to be wise advice.

EU: Personal Data

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I am participating in this debate in my capacity as chair of the European Union Committee’s Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, which has scrutinised the measure now before your Lordships. As to the substance covered by the draft EU directive in question, the committee supports the Government’s decision not to opt out for reasons with which I will not weary the House because the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has just most eloquently described them.

The directive covers the processing of personal data for the purposes of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and forms part of a package, together with a data protection regulation covering the general and commercial processing of personal data by public and private bodies. The directive is intended to replace the 2008 framework decision, which was adopted under the old third pillar procedures established under the Maastricht treaty before these were superseded by the treaty of Lisbon. In plain language, that is to say that the UK had agreed to that earlier decision, which required unanimity to agree to it in order to be adopted, and is covered by it whether or not we opt out of the new directive.

When adopted, the new directive will apply significantly stricter rules on data protection, which we welcomed in my committee, in contrast to the relatively weak provisions in the framework decision. There is, of course, a down-side risk about which the Minister spoke. This enhanced protection could place an additional burden on businesses and public authorities. Therefore, like the Government we attach importance to an appropriate balance being struck in this matter. With that in mind, we would urge the Government to focus on, and to play an active role in, achieving that balance during the negotiations which are now to take place.

We have noted that in addition to this package a variety of different EU measures remain in force under Title V of the treaty, which contain distinct and separate data protection provisions. Perhaps the noble Lord would agree that to enact the directive in its current form, which would not bring these existing measures within its scope, would be to miss an opportunity of achieving a more coherent, overall approach. Perhaps he could say a word about that. That sort of opportunity might not recur for many years. It would be interesting to know whether the Government will be addressing this matter in the negotiations.

The directive is currently in the form proposed by the Commission and is likely to be the subject of prolonged negotiations in the Council, which was confirmed by the noble Lord in his introductory remarks. Those negotiations are already under way. We endorse the Government’s view that the best way for the UK to shape and improve the directive is by playing a full part in the negotiations, which the decision not to opt out allows us to do. The committee I chair is keeping the directive under scrutiny and we expect to receive updates of the negotiations from the Government in due course. When appropriate, we will intervene with our views on those updates.

Having addressed the substance of the directive, I would now like to turn to the procedural concerns that have been raised regarding the handling of the directive by the Government in this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the handling and welcome what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about it himself. It has not been ideal, as the Minister frankly conceded in his letter of 28 May to the chair of the EU Select Committee in response to our warning that the Ashton and Lidington undertakings were not in this case being properly implemented. It is a bit more serious than the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested in his opening remarks, because it was an absolutely integral part of the votes in this House to ratify the Lisbon treaty, so it is a fairly important point. But I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that mistakes were made on this occasion.

The Motion refers to the Schengen protocol, the effect of which is that the UK is deemed to be participating in any measures which build on those parts of the Schengen acquis in which it already takes part unless, within three months of the measure’s publication, it notifies the Council that it wishes to opt out. If it does not do so then, it becomes automatically bound by the measure, if adopted, and will participate in its negotiations.

During debates in this House on the ratification on the Lisbon treaty, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, gave an undertaking to take the views of this House into account on reaching a final decision on whether the United Kingdom should opt in to justice and home affairs measures. On behalf of the coalition Government, David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, reaffirmed the undertaking and extended it to cover opt-out decisions under the Schengen protocol, which is the one that we are talking about tonight. Since then, the latter circumstance has not arisen until now and the Motion before your Lordships' House is thus the first of its kind.

While we have already welcomed the Government’s intention to participate in the directive, given their view that the potential for an opt-out applied, it was regrettable that they did not raise the issue in the Explanatory Memorandum of 13 February. Indeed, we have yet to receive an satisfactory explanation as to why they actually considered that the Schengen opt-out applied in this instance at all, but that is a fairly abstruse legal point and I do not wish to labour it now, because the Government have decided that it applies and have gone through the decision-making process in the way described.

It was also regrettable that time was not found to debate the draft directive before prorogation, as it was in the Commons on 24 April. As a result, the Ashton and Lidington undertakings have not been fully respected since the three-month period for an opt-out decision expired on 14 May. I understand that discussions are under way between the Government and both Houses to ensure that circumstances such as this do not arise again. In those circumstances, my committee would consider that the Motion to Regret tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is disproportionate and we would frankly not support it.

As your Lordships will already be aware, following the response of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who asked an Oral Question this afternoon, before June 2014 the House will need to return to this complex area in a significant way when the question arises of whether the UK should exercise its right to opt out of approximately 130 measures relating to police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters under Protocol 36 of the Lisbon treaty. I would be delighted to respond to the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in the activities of the EU Select Committee, about which he is not always that polite. On this occasion, he seems to be interested in how we do our work. I can enlighten him, although it is all on the EU Select Committee’s website, including the Home Secretary’s reply on the list of 133 measures. It is all there and, if the noble Lord wishes to look on the website, he will find it.

The list of those measures that will be covered by Protocol 36 was provided as a result of an initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who chairs the twin committee to the one that I chair, which deals with justice. He raised the issue through the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and we got the answer with the list, which was helpful. When the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, asked his Question this afternoon, we got a little further, because we got a useful Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as well as a confirmation of the complex arrangements for consulting the European scrutiny committees and various other committees of both Houses before the Government came to any conclusion about the block opt-in or opt-out of 2014. That was extremely helpful, and I welcome the fact that that enlightenment has been given. I add only that we are still not very far down the road to understanding how procedures will work. These are completely unprecedented procedures, with votes in both Houses and the consultation of the various committees, and I hope that the Minister and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will at some stage—although we are not very close to that yet—throw some light on how that process will be covered.

I add, for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that as soon as we got the letter from the Home Secretary with the 133 measures, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I put our heads together with the then chairman of the EU Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and concluded that it would be necessary for the committee to write a report to the House before the block opt-out came before the House. That has been decided; it is on our forward programme, and I think that we will start taking evidence on it early in 2013 after we have concluded, in my committee, the report that we are doing at the moment on migration and mobility. That should give us plenty of time, and I hope that we will get the report out before the end of this Session—that is, mid-2013. That should give us plenty of time to provide the House with the kind of evidentiary basis that it ought to have before it has to take a decision on this matter. It will of course include the Government’s views on the matter, but they will give evidence in that inquiry.

I hope that that is useful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. It may even convince him that the EU Select Committee occasionally serves a useful purpose. Anyway, I do not want to go on any longer. It is late as it is and I have gone on rather too long. I hope very much that the noble Lord will not persist in his Motion of Regret. For my part, on behalf of my committee, I support the Government’s decision in substance.

Bribery Act 2010

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to bring the Bribery Act 2010 into force.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to the implementation of the Bribery Act. We are urgently working on the guidance to commercial organisations to make it practical and useful for legitimate business and trade. After the guidance is published, there will be a three-month notice period before full implementation of the Act.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for making my thanks for that not very satisfactory Answer fairly perfunctory. The fact is that the Act should be in force by now. Does he not agree that those who have been campaigning so vociferously against the entry into force of the Act have done Britain’s industry no favours whatever by suggesting that it can export successfully only by the use of these dubious practices? Does he not also agree that suggestions that this piece of legislation was rushed through Parliament before the election are a travesty, considering that the matter was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny for a lengthy period in a committee of both Houses?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s last point: the legislation was subject to very careful scrutiny. Since coming to office, we have also subjected the Act to a wide range of consultations aimed at making sure that the Act, which passed both Houses with all-party support, was fully understood and could be implemented fully. I take the noble Lord’s point, as I think that the Government do, that any suggestion that British industry can only make advances in overseas trade by bribery does unjust damage to our reputation as a fair-trading nation.

EU: Police and Justice

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, yes it is. That is why we are following the pattern, as the noble Lord said, of looking at these matters in a pragmatic and practical way, with a mind to defending essential British interests and making sure that our judicial system is protected while also ensuring that we retain the many benefits of cross-border and EU co-operation referred to by my noble friend Lord Thomas.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Does the Minister agree that it would be a little odd to suggest that we should give up the right to decide whether to opt in? Will he confirm that the Government would opt into an EU measure only when they considered it to be in Britain’s national interests? Does he not think that to be able to opt in only after the matter has been negotiated by everyone else and not by us would be the least good way in which to bring our influence to bear?

[Lord McNally]

Again, I agree. The practical way in which we have operated since coming into office is to look at the merits of the case, to put our decision before the two Select Committees of both Houses and to listen to their advice. It makes no sense at all to have knee-jerk reactions or to play to various galleries. We are looking at these matters in Britain’s interests, consulting as far and wide as we can and listening to Parliament. That is the best way in which to get the best decisions.

Referendums: Constitution Committee Report

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, no one could possibly suggest that this debate, and the report on referendums in the UK that we are considering, are not topical and urgent. For that reason, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Constitution Committee under its two successive chairmen, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. In this Session of Parliament, we are being asked by the coalition Government to approve two major pieces of constitutional legislation that provide for the holding of referendums—legislation on the UK method of voting and that dealing with further transfers of powers to the European Union. By the time this Session is over, we may well have taken two major steps towards embedding referendums in our constitutional practice. As this report recognises, that could have seriously negative consequences, as well as some, at least, of the advantages that their protagonists will advance. Today’s debate provides an opportunity to go in some depth into the wider arguments for and against the use of referendums, which should assist our future debates on the specific measures being put forward.

My main criticism of this otherwise excellent report is that it confines its scope to referendums in this country, although there is the odd reference to the use of referendums elsewhere—in Switzerland, for example. In this debate, many of the participants have ranged much more widely, and they have been right to do so. Limiting the report damagingly narrows the field of inquiry and excludes a number of examples that could usefully underpin the arguments deployed for and against—mainly against—the use of referendums. Is it not relevant, for example, that the German constitution makes no provision at all for holding referendums in the light of that country’s disastrous experience with plebiscitary democracy in the inter-war period? Should we not be paying some attention to France’s experience, in the referendum that General de Gaulle lost and the EU referendum of 2005 on the constitutional treaty? Both were simply votes about individuals. They were nothing whatever to do with the subject on the order paper. The loss of the constitutional treaty was merely a reaction to the unpopularity of President Chirac. Then there is the recent Turkish example mentioned by a previous speaker. All the evidence points towards the vote having been more about the AK Party’s popularity and a precursor of next year’s general election than a considered view of the actual constitutional changes being proposed. One might also cite the Greek Cypriot referendum of 2004, when the country’s president exhorted his people to vote no to emulate the heroic Greek response to Mussolini’s ultimatum in 1940. That list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates just how real are what the report calls the “significant drawbacks” to having referendums.

The main thrust of the significant drawbacks is to undermine the crucial contention by the supporters of referendums that they are in some way a superior form of democracy—a test superior to the system of representative parliamentary democracy, for which our ancestors fought and in some cases died. But how on earth can referendums seriously be considered as a superior form of democracy if fewer people turn out to vote than in general elections, if their votes are cast without fully addressing the issues at stake and if, indeed, they are cast more to register a view on the Government of the day who are asking the question than to provide an answer to the question itself? But if the superior test criterion cannot be answered convincingly, what are you left with? It is just another electoral gimmick with uncertain consequences for our constitutional evolution and, possibly, damaging side effects. That is the sort of analysis that would get any new medical prescription banned or at least substantially delayed.

So much for the significant drawback side of the ledger. How about the plus side of it? Many considerations on that side seem to teeter between the threadbare and the counterintuitive. Can it realistically be maintained that a referendum settles a contentious issue once and for all? The 1975 referendum on our European membership certainly did not do that. Within a few years of that decisive two-thirds/one-third vote, one of our two main parties was campaigning to withdraw. Did the referendum vote on Scottish devolution deter the Scottish National Party from pressing for independence? Evidently not. Should the vote in next year’s proposed referendum on our voting system produce a very low turnout, as it quite possibly may do, will that not feed the controversy rather than settle it?

Then there is the argument that frequent use of referendums and our system of representative parliamentary democracy can happily live side by side, indeed can strengthen each other. I find that totally unconvincing. Once we start to make regular use of referendums, there will be demands for more of them. More single-issue causes will demand that they, too, should have their day in court. We can already see that in the Welsh claims that their future is more important and more worthy of referendum treatment than our adjustments to EU treaty law; such demands will become steadily more difficult to resist. Little by little, the legitimacy of the system of representative parliamentary democracy will be challenged and leached away. Is that something we can happily contemplate?

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of these concerns when he replies. He and I voted in the same Lobby when we resisted the demand for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, so I imagine that he is not totally insensitive to them. These concerns are, in any case at least, nothing to do with the subject matter of next year's referendum on the voting system. I will vote yes, for the alternative vote—although I would like it to be made properly proportional—but how much better if that were to be done by an Act of Parliament, just as every change to the franchise, from the Great Reform Act 1832 onwards, was carried forward.