European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

That of course is what Article 50 was about but it is also true that, during the election and during the referendum campaign, many commitments were made over and over again that we would honour the result of the referendum.

The most objectionable part of the original amendment, Grieve mark I, was the use of the word “direction”. To my mind, it obviously was impractical for Parliament to direct the Government in every aspect of the negotiation if there were a situation in which there was no deal. It is one thing for Parliament to direct our own Government as to what they can accept or propose, but what it has no control over is what the other side will accept. Therefore, by saying that Parliament would direct the negotiations, we would be forcing the negotiators to go to the other side with a list of things that we knew it would be able to accept, and, as I say, all flexibility would be removed from the negotiations.

Then we have the question: if Parliament is going to be directed, how will it be directed? There are 650 different Members of Parliament—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I would like to make a little progress, if I may. How would the will of Parliament be determined? It would be determined through political parties in the normal way, put down in the form of Motions in the House of Commons. I put it to the House that, really, this long and convoluted procedure would have little difference from the way Parliament would behave without this amendment being put in place at all.

Subject to the clarification from the Leader of the House about the Motion being justiciable and the reasons why we want it to be unamendable, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the Government and urge the House to reject that put forward by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.

European Council

Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords—

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I know that the noble Lord made the point about acting together, but I do not think that it really answers the point made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. These lists are highly selective. In the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, all right, some items stand on their own, but let us take paragraph (e) in Amendment 24C, which covers,

“law enforcement, security and justice in the United Kingdom and in the devolved jurisdictions”.

Of course there will be arguments both ways. One noble Baroness referred to the European arrest warrant as though that were self-evidently all in one direction, but a published analysis of it might give rise to a lot of argument about the rights of people who are wrongly prosecuted, or of the innocent who are extradited.

Many people have anxieties about the whole theory of parity of esteem of the justice systems of different countries in the EU. Can anyone really say that the justice systems of Bulgaria or Romania are equal to ours—that we have as much confidence in them as we do in our own UK system—and that therefore there should be automaticity of extradition? I say that because the idea that these things can be reduced to simple formulae, to black and white or to one particular viewpoint is not correct.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I remind the noble Lord that both Houses of Parliament recently voted for resolutions which stated that the European arrest warrant was in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Presumably it is reasonable, therefore, that it should be stated in a government report that it would cease to apply to us if we left the European Union.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Yes, Parliament has voted for it—but if we are having a referendum, everything is up for argument. The public have been given the right to dispute and to vote. Equally, paragraph (f) of the noble Lord’s amendment refers to,

“those regions of the United Kingdom that qualify for structural funds”.

I imagine that that would have a big impact in certain regions of the north of England, but other people in the south might attach equal importance to the fact that we did not have to make a budget contribution across the exchanges any longer.

The point that I am trying to make is that these things cannot all be reduced to black and white. The truth is grey: there is no such thing as complete impartiality in all these arguments. That comes back to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who quite rightly and with tremendous force reminded the House that we may be in danger of overstepping the mark. As I think he was hinting—although he had the graciousness not to say so—I suspect that a lot of these amendments are being put forward for rather self-interested motives from the side that people find themselves on in this argument.

So rather than seeking after some elusive impartiality that does not exist, let both sides slog it out in argument. Let the Government, as they have said, publish a White Paper saying what they think is the result of the negotiations and why they think we should stay in, if that is what they think—and they probably will—but let us not go beyond that into an area that is highly disputable. Each side can put its case best, rather than the Government trying to argue a case that they are fundamentally opposed to.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the latest amendments that he has tabled, which met very clearly points made by me and others in the debate on Report. I hope that he will not feel the need to answer too clearly the question put to him. In the professional field in which I practised for many years, clarifications were what you called changes of substance that you did not wish the Opposition to be able to say was a change of substance.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has been absolutely showered with garlands and bouquets. I am sure they are extremely well deserved and I am very reluctant to strike a discordant note—and I will not. However, I wish to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the guidance notes. Everyone is talking about academic freedom but in the Bill it is not just about academic freedom; it is also about freedom of speech on campuses and meetings held in universities. I am concerned about this because recently a degree of intolerance has sometimes been shown, with people trying to ban meetings in universities. Therefore, I have been a little worried about some of the things in the guidance notes.

The Minister will recall that I was puzzled, as was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, by his concept of non-violent extremism. I was not altogether convinced by the Minister’s reply as to what that meant. However, what really alarmed me was the substance of the guidance notes. I come to this very fresh, compared to people who have been looking at this for a long time. I drew attention to this business of having to give advance notice of what your speech was going to be about, and rating speakers from seven to 10—or one to 10—on how much risk there was of them causing a disturbance on campus. How do we rate David Irving or Marine Le Pen? These are very difficult judgments to make.

I went through a number of the provisions. In reply, the Minister just said, “Some people made a lot of fun of the guidance notes”. He did not answer any of the points. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, a lot of this is pretty unworkable. It reminds me, as I think it reminded the noble Lord, a little of some regulation put forward by the FSA and the FCA. There is a lot of box-ticking in this.

I am sure that the concessions the Minister has made on academic freedom are very important. I am sure that they have satisfied a lot of people. That is thoroughly to be welcomed, but I very much hope that the points made about the guidance notes will be taken into account in any reconsideration of them.

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

Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Lamont of Lerwick

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.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and many of the arguments which have already been deployed in support of it. However, in connection with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, of course it would have been possible to put forward an amendment which would require the Government now to say what they would do in the context of a no vote in the referendum—but that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, is suggesting. He is suggesting merely that the Government of the day should be required to provide this information to the electorate ahead of the referendum, which seems to me a totally reasonable thing to do.

It does not involve holding up the Bill or preventing a Bill that provides the basis for an eventual “in or out” referendum going on to the statute book. However, it does say that, before such a referendum can be held, the electorate must be aware of what the choice they are making implies, because a referendum vote is a very stark choice between one option and another. The other option, which would be to leave the European Union, would have very serious consequences. Is it not totally reasonable to require that those consequences are brought to the attention of the electorate before they are asked to vote? If that logic is correct, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, will—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, and with the point that has been made widely, that all the information on both sides should be put forward in a referendum, but I do not see why that should be in this Bill, which is about the mechanism of a referendum. I remind the noble Lord that the Prime Minister said that he himself favours continued membership of the EU. If the Prime Minister recommends continued membership of the EU, is it conceivable that he will not spell out the advantages of being a member of the EU before a referendum is held? He is bound to do that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am sure the noble Lord is right, but the extent to which the Prime Minister carries his party with him seems to be in a little more doubt today than it was a few days ago. As I say, I am sure that the noble Lord is correct, but the amendment would require the Government of the day—that Government may well not be the present Prime Minister’s Government—to provide, at the time a referendum is held, and in advance of it, certain kinds of information that are not called for in the Bill as it stands. I happen to think that this falls fairly and squarely in what I would call in the argot the “Cormack category”—that is, a provision that will improve the Bill. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, will accept the amendment. I do not think that there is any ambiguity in it at all. Therefore, I hope very much that it will be endorsed.