Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support the intention expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5(1) seeks to put into effect the removal of any person who arrives in the UK other than through a safe route even though, as we have already debated at length, safe routes are virtually non-existent for the vast majority of people coming to this country from Afghanistan, Sudan or Eritrea, for example.

Amendments 27 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, dealt with two of my major concerns about Clause 5, but there are other concerns. Amendments already tabled and some of those debated seek to protect victims of modern slavery and trafficking, as well as children. If this House approves those amendments, which I expect we shall, Clause 5 would contradict them. I will speak as briefly as I can. For example, Clause 5(1)(a) requires that the Secretary of State must ensure the person is removed, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable after the person’s entry”

to the UK. Subsection (4) restricts that requirement if the person has made a protection or human rights claim, but only if the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional circumstances which prevent the person’s removal. Newly arrived people with no knowledge of the language or systems of the UK would need assistance for any such claim, and the Bill restricts access to assistance. Under Clause 5, therefore, a person is likely to be removed before they have had a chance to make a protection or human rights claim. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has argued, it should not be possible for the Secretary of State to counter a protection or human rights claim, if one has been made, with a subjective power to determine that there are not “exceptional circumstances”. The inclusion of Clause 5 in the Bill would undoubtedly enhance the risks to victims of modern slavery or trafficking and to children, along with all others seeking asylum in the UK. I hope the Minister will agree that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister, in relation to Schedule 1 and Clause 6. I have four concerns about these provisions.

First, I do not understand the rationale for the list in Schedule 1 and I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain it. It seems to me that, of the 57 countries listed, with only two do we have any form of removal agreement: Rwanda and Albania. Does it concern the Government, as it concerns me, that we are setting out a list of destinations without having any international agreement underpinning it in relation to particular countries?

Secondly, some countries among the 57 listed in Schedule 1 are not party to the refugee convention, so they are in no way bound by the same commitments on the treatment of asylum seekers that bind us. Are the Government concerned about that? I am concerned about it, and I am inclined to think that they should be.

Thirdly, it is not clear to me that all the countries of the 57 in Schedule 1 have any kind of asylum system or procedure. I am not sure that all these countries recognise the concept of asylum in law. Can the Government assure me that I am wrong, and that although some of these countries are not party to the refugee convention—that is a fact—they all have working asylum systems? If not, are the Government not concerned about that? I think we should be concerned about it.

Fourthly, we must ask the Minister to construe the language “in general”, which occurs twice in Clause 6(1). The Secretary of State may add to the list in Schedule 1 if he is satisfied that

“there is in general in”

the country in question

“no serious risk of persecution”.

How are we meant to construe “in general”? I do not think it is the kind of language that should be on the statute book.

The second occurrence in the clause is that the removal of persons to a country to be added to the list is possible only if it would not “in general” contravene the human rights convention and our obligations under it. Hold on: pacta sunt servanda. It is not a question of whether “in general” there is a contravention of the human rights convention—there is or there is not. If sending somebody to one of these 57 countries would be a breach of our obligations under the human rights convention in any way, it does not matter if the Government think that “in general” it is all right. The language “in general” should not be here, both on constitutional and legal grounds and on grounds of pacta sunt servanda. If it would breach in any way our commitments under the convention—I believe it would —we should not add the territory in question to the list in Schedule 1.

My last point is also a question about how we should construe the language. Clause 6 talks not just about countries or territories that could be added but about parts of a country or territory. The noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench spoke eloquently about India when we last discussed this, and I have been thinking about what he said. If I were a serving diplomat, I do not know how I would persuade any country—particularly India, but any country—to accept an international agreement with the United Kingdom in which it accepted that parts of its country were unsafe for an asylum seeker. I do not see how any self-respecting country such as India could possibly accept an agreement including a restriction to a part of its territory where an asylum seeker might be sent. We need the Minister to explain to us how we are meant to construe, in Clause 6(1), “in general” and

“part of a country or territory”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept the point my noble friend makes and thank him for it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble and learned Lord is so reassuring, and his manner is so friendly, that one is tempted to believe that this might all be as good as he says. On the two-part process, he says that the list sets out possible destinations, but that the Secretary of State would make a judgment about the individual and whether the individual should not be sent to a particular country for reasons particular to the individual. If it were the noble and learned Lord making these decisions, I would be very reassured; unfortunately, it is the Home Secretary.

I am sorry to press the Minister but he has not really answered my question. He says that the list is based on history, but in the past we have not sent people compulsorily to go through an asylum process in another country—so there is something new here. Further, we have not been sending people to countries where there is no asylum process but we are insisting that they must seek asylum there. I do not think the noble and learned Lord has addressed that point.

I would also be grateful if the Minister would construe for us the language in the first paragraph of Clause 6, which addresses “in general” and “a part”. I have not heard his answer to my question as to why it is all right that a country should not in general contravene the human rights convention—implying that if in particular it does, we do not care—and, secondly, why it refers to part of a country or territory. I do not understand how we can get an international agreement with a counterpart. If I am a negotiator, how do I persuade him to accept that there are parts of his country that are unsafe and parts of his country that are safe? Surely the agreement has to be with the other country in respect of the full territory of the other country, not in respect of part of the territory.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the latter point, I repeat the point I made on Monday that this is precautionary. There is no reason to deprive oneself of the possibility of providing for “a part”. With an enormous country such as India, it may be that up in Nagaland or somewhere there are some disturbances, but that does not prevent us saying that India is a safe country. That is the Government’s answer to the first point.

Our answer to the second point is that the words “in general” have—I am open to correction and I will correct myself if I am wrong—stood for 20 years on the statute book without difficulty and do not preclude, in an individual case, an application being made to oppose removal on the grounds of irreparable harm. It is the combination of a general view that the country is safe with the possibility of individual protection. Those are essentially the answers I gave on Monday.

I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point that this is new, but, for the reasons I have tried to explain, it is a workable and, I submit, balanced approach to a very difficult problem which the Bill is trying to solve.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and indeed all those in this group have to be right. The idea of offshoring is immoral and it would not be in line with the traditions of this country. It is also impractical; for one thing, it would be horrendously expensive, as the Australian experience shows. Offshoring in Australia has proved as damaging to its exchequer as to the reputation of Australia. Of course, that is not what the high commissioner said. I used to be a diplomat and one tends not to say that sort of thing about one’s own country when on diplomatic duty.

However, the real and biggest reason I am against this provision is that it is illegal. It is a clear breach of the refugee convention. We had this argument before, so I can do it in shorthand: there is no provision in the refugee convention that fits with proposed new subsection (2B)(b) of Schedule 3, which is at line 20, where a safe country is defined as

“a place from which a person will not be removed elsewhere other than in accordance with the Refugee Convention”.

The refugee convention, however, says nothing about removal to third countries, safe or not. It says that a refugee is a refugee in a place when he says he cannot go home, because he will not be protected at home and would like to ask for the protection of the host state in the country where he is. That is what the refugee convention says. It says nothing about how he got there, nothing about a “first safe country” and nothing at all about exporting him somewhere else, so the language of new subsection (2B) in Schedule 3 is a misreading of that convention.

Of course, we know that the Government are deliberately misreading the refugee convention. I still think it would assist our debates greatly if the Government would change their mind and let us see the legal advice which has caused them to take the eccentric view that they take of the convention, and hence to propose Clause 11 and all that follows.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly and for the first time in this debate, provoked into doing so by what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. It is fundamentally wrong to legislate in a way that obliges you to break international law. It is very simple, but that is it. We do not have islands around our shores where we can gather together vast groups of potential refugees and asylum seekers.

The other day I was reading a review of a book, which has just come out, about the Isle of Man in the Second World War. There was of course great panic about people of German origin—although most of the poor people were of Jewish origin as well—domiciled in this country. They were rounded up and taken there. There are some fairly inspiring stories but also some very depressing stories. We have to tread exceptionally carefully here. We have gone on a lot about global Britain, but if I am to be proud of global Britain, I want to be proud of a country that is upholding the highest international standards.

Although I take on board what my noble friend Lord Horam said a few moments ago—he made a gently forceful speech that deserves consideration—I just cannot for the life of me think that to herd people into encampments in Rwanda and other far distant places is anything other than a repudiation of our standards as a great country. It would be fundamentally wrong for us to go along this line. Treat thy neighbour as thyself. There is a lot of wisdom in the 10 commandments. A bishop should really be saying this rather than me, but I really believe that it is essential that whatever we do is consistent with our record as the great nation that abolished slavery throughout its dominions and before that abolished the slave trade. There were battles in Parliament for both, but my parliamentary hero is William Wilberforce and I do not want to see his reputation traduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not confusing at all, because Clause 31(2) establishes the facts, and that is all a balance of probabilities. Then, in Clause 31(4), the decision-maker turns to questions of the future. It is at that stage that the reasonable likelihood test is the appropriate test, because the decision-maker is looking to assess what might happen in the future. That is why we have a lower test at that stage. It is quite usual in law to have different stages of a test and different levels of probability at each.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser? What is the problem that we are trying to solve here? Who is pressing for this change? The Law Societies have advised against it. It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to make the task of determining whether the fear exists and is well-founded more complicated and more likely to result in the answer, “No, let’s send him back.” That seems to be what is driving this. I remind him that, in late July and early August, Hazaras from Afghanistan—asylum seekers here—were still receiving letters of rejection, telling them that they were not at risk if they were sent back to Kabul.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the question. What is driving it, as I said a few moments ago, is the attempt to have a consistent and clear approach to decision-making. When you have a single test with different elements, and it is all under “a reasonable likelihood”, it is then that you are more likely to have inconsistent decision-making—I will not use the word “mishmash”. What you are doing here is really two things, and Clause 31 sets them out clearly. You are first saying, “Are you who you say you are?” and “Did you, in fact, fear such persecution?” Those are factual questions, decided on the balance of probabilities. Then the question is: “Is there a reasonable likelihood that, if you were returned, you would be persecuted?” That is a question of reasonable likelihood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I really do not want to get into a procedural battle. I was trying to be both helpful to the Committee, given the time and pressure, and respectful, I hope, to the noble and right reverend Lord. I reiterate the offer, which I think is appropriate.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick? It was rather a flippant answer that he gave—that everybody would be interpreting the convention according to their rights. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, meant: what would be the practical effect? What would happen to the 26 million refugees in the world, three-quarters of whom are in countries contiguous to the one in which they had their citizenship? Would all countries agree, if they introduced this “first safe country” rule, that all refugees had to stay in these contiguous countries—in these encampments in Jordan, Syria, Turkey and so on—and that nobody could move on, under the refugee convention, to another country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will not repeat myself—well, I am going to repeat myself just briefly. If the Government saw refugees as human beings, they would already have written these amendments into the Bill. We are pushing at a closed door at the moment. We should be taking more refugees and creating more safe routes.

I have a word of warning, which is that there will be many climate—ecological—emergencies over the next decade or so and, given that we have contributed a large part of the world’s accumulated CO₂ emissions, we have to understand that we have a moral duty to take our share of climate refugees. It is already happening. There are parts of Africa that are now almost uninhabitable because of climate change, and other places will shortly follow. We have to understand that refugees are not a temporary problem but a permanent problem, and there will be a lot more. If we prepare well and put the programmes and the funding in place, we can cope and do it well. However, while the Government treat refugees as criminals and unwanted people, I am afraid that I see this simply as another reason why the Government have to go.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I think the noble Baroness’s warning is very well taken.

I support Amendments 118, 119A and 119B, but I want particularly to speak in favour of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. The noble Lord and I have done business together for a long time—the past is another country, and it was in fact in another country—and it is a pleasure to be supporting his amendment. I should also say that I am very grateful to the Minister for the letter that she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with a number of useful factual points in it. I am very grateful for my copy today.

It seems to me that the amendment raises two questions: why should one set a number, and why 10,000? Why should one set a number? I am a trustee of the Refugee Council and I have spent some time trying to work out why so many of the Afghan refugees who came here last summer are still in temporary bridging accommodation. I have not quite got to the bottom of it, but it seems to me that the problem is not ill will or lack of intention. I do not criticise the Government. It is a problem with local authorities that arises from the squeeze on their budgets and lack of certainty over financing. The attraction of setting a minimum number is the certainty of having a number in the public expenditure survey—a number negotiated with the Treasury. The Treasury would need to ensure that local authorities were equipped with the money to pay for at least that level.

There seems to be no shortage of willingness in local authorities; it is a shortage of funding in local authorities. When you look at the huge number of local authorities—nearly 300—which came in under the Syrian refugee scheme, it seems to me that what is needed is the certainty that enables one to plan ahead for financing and finding accommodation. So I think setting a number is a good idea and I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for that reason.

Is 10,000 the right number? There are 28 million refugees in the world; it does not seem a very high number. Canada is taking 35,000 Afghans in this calendar year. The population of Canada is just over half the population of the United Kingdom. Comparing us with Europeans, we are number 21 out of 42—bang in the middle of the pack. With our tradition of a presence around the world, that seems to be quite low.

On the other hand, it is probably more than the hotchpotch of present schemes will bring in. It probably would be an increase, but I cannot say for sure because, as the Minister says in the enclosure to her letter today, rather surprisingly, 11 months in, it is still too soon to produce any statistics on how many people are coming in under the resettlement scheme that started in March last year. We do not know how many we are taking now, so we do not know whether this would be an increase. I suspect it would be, but I suspect that overall refugee numbers coming to this country would drop over time. I think this is the answer to the channel problem; 26,000 people came across the channel last year. If there were safe routes—and here is a safe, reliable route—fewer people would try to come unofficially. Fewer people would get killed trying to come into the country.

So I think that, although the number of official refugees would probably go up if we set a 10,000 minimum, the total number of refugees coming here would probably go down. I cannot prove it but that is my instinct. It seems to me that so strong is the incentive to find safe routes that this is a very good way of going about it, so I support the amendment.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am going to make a short speech about how the Government want to have their cake and eat it. One minute the EU is a place where there are lots of freedoms and protections for its citizens, and the next minute it is terribly repressive and we want to get out. Essentially, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but my feeling about these amendments is that that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is right and that the best answer is to strike out the clause.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am so sorry but would the noble Lord remove his mask for a moment so we could better hear his wisdom?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Was everything I said even more incomprehensible than usual? Basically, I am saying that we can amend and improve this a bit, but it would be much better to get rid of it.

I also have one point of detail. I am struck by the double reference to the definition of a safe third country, which I believe is irrelevant because the refugee convention says what it says. The definition is that a safe third country

“is one from which a person will not be sent to another State … otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention”

and that is repeated later. Of course, there is absolutely nothing in the refugee convention about sending somebody to a safe third country, or sending somebody to any country, except there is the firm ban on refoulement, that is, sending somebody back to the country where he had the justified fear of persecution. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has that phrase in his amendment. He is thinking about refoulement, but the Government, when they put it in the Bill, are not thinking just about refoulement. They are thinking about their doctrine of having to seek asylum in the first safe country. They are thinking about their strange reading of Article 31 of the refugee convention. They are not letting Article 1 speak for itself, and their reading of the convention is a quite different one, as was explained by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton, Lord Brown and Lord Clarke, with a different definition from the one that has become the jurisprudence of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am not disagreeing with the need to have formal arrangements in place to return people. On that we are at one.

We also acknowledge that it might not always be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to all claimants who have travelled via or have a connection to a safe country. The provisions as drafted already have flexibility that allows us to consider if an individual has exceptional circumstances to warrant consideration of their asylum claim through the UK asylum system. That includes consideration of the best interests of any children affected.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

How does case-by-case work? If we are not going to have agreements and the Minister says it is much better to do it case by case, how does that work? The diplomatic post in the capital in question goes in and says, “We have Mr X in an accommodation centre in Kent. We’d like to send him to you because we think he has a connection to you and we don’t want to let him have asylum here.” What happens if the country in question says, “Well, if he’s with you, he’s your problem”? Do we just put him on a plane and tell him to take his chances at the other end, or are we negotiating his terms of entry into the third country?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think it is both. We need to assess people on a case-by-case basis and we need to have return agreements in place. It is not an either/or. I fully acknowledge the need to have return agreements in place. We could not return someone to a country that said it would not accept them; that simply would not be on. That underlines the need to have formal return agreements in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I was going to go on to say that if no agreement is possible within a reasonable period, the individual’s asylum claim will be considered in the UK, but I am not disagreeing with the point that return agreements need to be in place. I think I have made that quite clear. Similarly, this is a global challenge, so every nation in the world has to be mindful of the fact that they will be in similar positions as the months and years go on.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

No other country is in this position because other countries believe that the refugee convention means what it says. I am uneasy, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, must be right, but what makes this particularly peculiar is that we are considering inadmissibility here. Suppose there were an agreement in place. Suppose we were handling a case—the Minister says that it is best done case by case—but we have not done anything except say, “This is inadmissible.” We do not know anything about this chap. He has not had an appeal turned down and has not been categorised in group 1 or group 2; he has simply been declared inadmissible. What does the diplomatic post in the intended recipient country have to go on?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Surely the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right: there is no realistic possibility. The Minister keeps “not confirming” that there are no return arrangements in place yet; she lives in hope, but the reality is that there are none and it seems unlikely that there will be any in the near future. I know there are hopes for one with France after the presidential election; well, good luck with that.

The Government wanted Brexit, they got Brexit done and Brexit meant that we no longer enjoy the Dublin regulation. Realistically, the countries that she is talking about sending people back to are mainly EU countries. Frankly, the chances of having a readmission agreement with the EU are for the birds, so we are going to be seeking bilateral agreements—and none is in prospect. So Clause 15 is indeed basically window-dressing.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned that apparently 6,500 cases have been declared inadmissible. All we do by kicking the can down the road is create more people waiting, more people demoralised and more work for the Home Office. It is all completely unrealistic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

That is a very good point. I think we talked about this the other day, in terms of returns. We actually took far more than we returned under Dublin. At this juncture, I would say that we do not need formal agreements in place.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble Baroness should be careful. I quite agree that it was an interesting point, but it is a point that works for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, not for the Minister. While there was a Dublin agreement and only 10%—I do not vouch for the figure, but the noble Lord, Lord Green, may be right—what do we expect to happen when there is no agreement? Do the Government expect a higher acceptance rate from the French and Germans when there is no agreement, when they are declaring the guy inadmissible?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not know if the noble Lord heard my last point, but we do not necessarily need formal return agreements in place. We can do returns without formal agreements. The point about Dublin is that the formal arrangements that were in place did not necessarily work. It is important to try both—formal and informal, diplomatic and otherwise. It works both ways and, as I said, this is a global challenge. It is not that it is not an EU problem either.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I am a trustee of the Refugee Council, which tries to help those who get here having escaped famine, war or oppression. I am also a strong supporter of Médecins Sans Frontières, which does such wonderful work in the field of conflict, looking after the people who cannot get out, who are trapped. Nobody tells me that I have to choose between one and the other. Philosophers define a false dichotomy as a fallacy based on the exclusion of one available premise. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, knows how much I admire her campaign for improved and more palliative care. I strongly support it. I am a supporter of my local hospice; my support has roots in family experience rather similar to that described so movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I do not see why I have to choose between improving palliative care and helping those who, while aware of how palliative care might help them, still have a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to bring the curtain down and end their suffering.

Without the legal option that the Bill would provide, we are stuck with the sadness of surreptitious suicide preparations—shocking to family and friends if they succeed, all too often traumatic and tragic if they are bodged and fail. The safeguards in the Bill are stringent and the consultations it mandates might dissuade many, but where their decision is voluntary, clear, settled and informed, it should surely be determinate.

The key, as I see it, is respect for the autonomy of the individual and here I fear I have to part company with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I think the key is not imposing one’s views on those who do not share them. I could cite Mill, Bentham, Voltaire or Hume but I will spare the House. I will quote only Stephen Sedley in his Doran Lecture this year. He said:

“Nobody … doubts the importance and worth of palliative care, or the entitlement of individuals to hold whatever belief they choose about suffering, even if it consigns them to a lingering death. What they do not have is a right to force it on others.”


I agree. I do not think we should have the right to limit the options at life’s end so I hope the House will reject the false dichotomies and support the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Being privileged, as I am, to sit behind the heirs and disciples of Thatcher, I have been thinking about how she would have reacted to this White Paper and this debate. When she sent me to be her negotiator in Brussels, her instructions were quite simple: find out what the children are doing and tell them to stop it. She was clear that we should be in every room, playing a central part, with a seat at the table and banging the table. She was certainly not sentimental, but she knew what solidarity meant. She was extremely generous to González because she understood how important EU accession was for the consolidation of democracy in Spain, so she sided with Kohl—not her natural instinct—and against Giscard to ensure that Spain got into the club. She never forgot that in the Falklands crisis when Reagan wobbled, Mitterrand was the first foreign head of government to ring and promise full support, which he delivered. In her Bruges speech, which is well-remembered throughout central Europe now, she said that she was convinced that the great cities of central Europe would again escape from the iron curtain and enjoy membership of the community of western democracies and the four freedoms that go with it. What she would do, were she here now, is only speculation. I suspect that she would be bustling over to Brussels to sort out this Schengen nonsense and to do something about Syria—and deal with the 10 million displaced people and 5 million refugees. I do not think she would be glorying in standing aside and not being involved. Although it was ruthlessly unsentimental and not always fun, she felt that we should have a seat at the table and felt a sense of solidarity. Sometimes these days I miss that.

Speaking late in the debate has the disadvantage that all the points one wanted to make have already been made by one’s own side, but it does permit one to comment on points made by the other side. I dare to venture a comment on points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson of Blaby and Lord Howard of Lympne—and possibly their disciple, the Diogenes of Swindon, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. This is on the theme of Thatcher’s heirs.

I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who put up with me as his Private Secretary for far too long, and who was excessively polite about a document I drafted for him, which—to put it mildly—did not advance his career. But today Homer may have nodded. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, claimed that the White Paper which we are debating contained a major lacuna because it did not refer to the sentence of page 12 of the European Council conclusions text, which states that,

“Member states not participating in the further deepening of economic monetary union will not create obstacles to but will facilitate such further deepening while this process will, conversely, respect the rights and competences of the non-participating Member States”.

I think he may have missed paragraph 2.12 in the White Paper, which seems to me to summarise fairly that sentence.

On the substantive point, I am surprised: the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, like the current Chancellor, has always argued with ruthless logic—inexorable logic—that the eurozone, in order to survive, needs to deepen and strengthen. So why is he complaining when in this text member states not participating in the further deepening of economic and monetary union will not create obstacles to a process which he believes is in their interest and in ours?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

If the noble Lord will allow me, he has made two mistakes, not one. In the first place, it is in the interest of the peoples of Europe not to try to make a success of the eurozone and monetary union, but to abandon it. It has been a complete disaster; it will be in the interests of the people of Europe to abandon it. Secondly, I said that “facilitating the deepening” means that if they think that further powers should go from the member states, including the United Kingdom, to the centre in order to facilitate a further deepening, we are obliged to go along with that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

On the second point, I have to correct the noble Lord. The sentence is clearly about further integration inside the eurozone without additional powers being passed by member states outside the eurozone. On the first point, I can only apologise. I had myself thought that the former Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, agreed with the present Chancellor that it was in the interests of the UK that the eurozone market should not collapse and that it was in the interests of the UK economy that these arrangements should survive. That is the policy of this Government. I had thought it was a policy supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.

The exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, did not quite bring out the fact that of course we could trade with other third countries on WTO terms. The terms that we trade on now, which have been secured by the EU, are much better than WTO terms, because they have been secured using the muscle of a market of 500 million people. That is a fairly fundamental point. The key point on trade is that if we leave, we lose.

The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, on the other hand, did seem to contain a lacuna, which I greatly welcomed; this time he did not advance what I call the Maurice Sendak theory. The Sendak argument—I call it that in tribute to that great literary work, Where the Wild Things Are—is one that the noble Lord has advanced in public several times; I heard him explaining it on the radio the other day. I think it is a view held by Mr Cummings—not the cartoonist but the conspirator. The argument is that if the nation votes to leave on 23 June, we should not leave but should stay firmly where we are, saying and doing nothing, not invoking Article 50, and the wild things will all come rushing to us as supplicants, saying, to quote from the great book:

“Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”

This is a theory that Mr Boris Johnson advanced a few months ago and then resiled from a few months ago, and then advanced again a fortnight ago and then resiled from this week; his bicycle wobbles but he remains vertical. Sadly, the wild things are fiction. The fact is that the other member states are fed up with us. To them, this week’s European Council on the refugee crisis is much more important than was the Council, and the conclusions, that we are debating now.

It is surreal that any UK Government could decide not to act on a no referendum. It is even more surreal that the French press, which believes that Mr Cameron got away with murder, could agree that in the event of a no, murder should be followed by massacre.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

The noble Lord says that the French Government are furious at what the Prime Minister got away with, but the French Foreign Minister is on the record as saying that the Prime Minister achieved nothing of substance.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Lord for his helpful intervention. I believe that if we were to say no, our decision would be greeted with regret in most EU capitals, but that regret would be accompanied by some relief that all the contingency concessions made to Mr Cameron would automatically fall away—and they would; that is what the European Council’s conclusions text says.

The different argument that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, advanced today is one that I have to take much more seriously. This time it is the rest of the world that comes as supplicants, rather than the EU 27, to a self-confident UK freed of the shackles of the European Union, bestriding the world, trading on our own terms and striking new alliances. The Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Japanese and Indian Governments have all made clear that they believe it is in their interests and ours that we stay, not go. That is the view of the US Administration, the Government in Beijing and the G20. I do not believe that the rest of the world is waiting to do business with us on our terms.

Despite reservations about the strategy that the Government have followed, I have to say that I warmly endorse and welcome the conclusions of their White Paper: we are better off, safer and stronger in the EU. That is certainly true.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. We worked together extremely closely in Brussels. He was never my Private Secretary, and I think I am a bit relieved that he was not. We were on the same side—at least I think we were, most of the time. I always used to rely on the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to tell me what the mind-set was of those against whom I was negotiating and he had very good judgment. However, I was rather surprised today when he whispered in my ear, “I am very pleased you haven’t made up your mind about whether we should remain in the European Union”.

He had a bit of a point in that I have found this quite a difficult decision. Some people may not believe that, but it is a very momentous decision. It is a great change in British policy over 40 years and, of course, it is an extremely difficult decision to be in argument with colleagues and close friends.

I have never before argued that we should leave the European Union. I have been accused of arguing that. I know that one should never refer to one’s own speeches, but in 1994 I made a speech in which I was accused of advocating withdrawal. What I actually said in 1994—and it caused a bit of a storm at the time—was that the EU was becoming such a political union that the time would come when we would have to choose between being part of that political union or going on our own way. I think that was, probably quite by chance, what happened subsequently. Europe integrated more and more and had a different vision of its future from what we had.

Taking a longer view of our relationship with Europe; it has never been a comfortable one. It has been awkward all along. We had to get out of Schengen; it was not comfortable for us. We had to get out of the single currency; it did not fit our ambitions for Europe. Our great contribution to Europe was supposed to be the single market and the acceptance of qualified majority voting. Well, yes, up to a point, although there has been an awful lot of argument over whether Lady Thatcher would have been in favour of remaining in the EU or coming out. The one thing I do know about Mrs Thatcher is that she bitterly regretted the introduction of qualified majority voting. She felt she was misled and that it was a great step in the wrong direction.

Some people think we have not been constructive enough in our attitude to Europe. I know Tony Blair would not object to my revealing a private conversation. I remember having a conversation with him on a train going to Darlington. We were discussing his approach to Europe. He said, “The answer to Europe is to be constructive. Get in there, be positive, agree with them and they will all come round to our way of thinking”. I am afraid I said to him, “I have seen that movie several times and it always had the same ending”. It did not work for Tony Blair either.

We have heard today arguments about the pooling of sovereignty—there is nothing at stake, it is just the pooling of sovereignty and this is very similar to NATO. NATO is a military alliance, which is quite different from transferring law-making powers to a body whose law is superior to your own domestic law. Not for nothing did Elmar Brok, a leading member of the European Parliament and a close ally of Mrs Merkel, describe the European Union as “a state under construction”.

I think many people have become disillusioned in Britain because of the sleight of hand with which that objective has been concealed; the way in which the constitutional treaty became the treaty of Lisbon; the way in which countries have been asked to vote several times when they voted the wrong way in referenda. It is for all those reasons that disillusionment has set in in Britain. Many people such as myself believe that it would be far better to have a relationship based on economics alone.

Many people have argued in this debate that for us to sell to the single market of Europe we have to be part of it. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—I agree I did not put it very well or clearly but I think it is an important point—that the United States has Europe as its main trading partner. Since 2011, the United States has sold more in goods than the UK has. It is not a member and it does not have any say in the rules, but it does not find that a huge obstacle. Services are also extremely important, because people say the future is services. They say that the British economy is strong in services and indeed it is, but the United States exported to the European Union over $200 billion worth of services whereas the United Kingdom only exported less than £100 million of services. That, I suggest, makes a very strong dent in the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, can deal with that in her reply. She did not reply very well before, but we will listen to her when she replies to that argument.

My noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Tugendhat asked the question that is asked all the time. They say that we who are sympathetic to departure from the EU never spell out the exact terms on which we would have a trade relationship with Europe. I am not sure exactly what detail they want us to go into. Obviously nobody can say what the tariff on this or that, on shoes or clothes, will be. The question ought to be: is there a deal available or is there not? Is there a negotiated free trade deal available or not? My noble friend Lord Howard quoted what Jacques Delors said—that the British are probably interested only in an economic relationship with the European Union and, therefore, if they wish to leave, we should give them an economic relationship and a free trade area.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I must counter the noble Lord. I think that the quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was completely accurate. What Delors said was that you can have an EEA, which is what the Norwegians have, or you can have a free trade agreement, which is what a lot of countries round the world have, but you cannot have access to the single market.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

That was not what Delors said at all. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howard will not mind me revealing that he took the quotation from material that I supplied to him. That was not remotely what Delors said. I further inform the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, if I may, that Jacques Delors said it several years ago, and, much more recently, Mr Schauble, the German Finance Minister, and, I believe, the Economic Minister of Germany, both stated that a free trade agreement with Britain would be not just desirable but, from a German point of view, necessary. That is a very important point. However, my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones poured cold water on the argument that it matters enormously to the people in Europe to have an agreement. It matters to them as much as it matters to us. It is not a question of surpluses or deficits; the German manufacturers want to know exactly on what terms they could sell into the UK market just as we would need to know on what terms we could sell into the German market. It is a question of mutual need.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

It was proportionately exactly the same as it would be in Britain. There are about 5 million Scottish voters and in the UK there are 60 million voters. The noble Baroness is probably better at maths than I am, but if we know that it is 1.5 million for the UK then we can work out what that would be as a percentage of the 5 million voters in Scotland.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I can tell the noble Baroness that the number in Scotland was 121,497.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

What a great relief—no need for me to use my maths.

We have to understand that this is not a static process but a rolling register. Let us not forget also that the timetable for the referendum was not one of our making. During the discussion on the Private Member’s Bill, we warned the Government of the difficulties of holding a referendum in 2017 due to French and German elections and the UK presidency. It is the Government who have backed themselves into a corner and are trapped in a very narrow window for when they can realistically hold a referendum. That is a situation that we did not create.

We believe that the Prime Minister would like to go for an early referendum vote, but he cannot put the referendum wheels in motion until he has finished the negotiation on UK membership, and that has only just started. It is clear that member states will be distracted by the rather more urgent task of keeping their citizens safe. So the probability of us coming to any agreement in December is, I suggest, extremely thin.

We know that the Government have agreed to a four-month minimum period from setting the date in regulations to the vote. Therefore, if the electoral registration officials could get started as soon as Royal Assent were granted, that would allow them plenty of time to get ready for September.

It is also worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noble Lords have previously supported a similar amendment on reducing the voting age to 16 in the context of the local government Bill before the summer. The principle of changing the franchise for the European referendum from the Westminster franchise has already been breached. The Government have allowed Peers, residents of Gibraltar and Commonwealth citizens of Gibraltar to have the right to vote.

I urge the Minister to take note of the strength of feeling on this issue, not just in this House but in the country more generally. I respectfully suggest that it is time to allow these young people—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Do you know what? I have often had difficulty getting people in Scotland to accept some of my arguments, and that is not just limited to 16 year-olds.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am very concerned about the public image of the Conservative Party in Scotland after the tartan obscurantism of two or three noble Lords sitting close to me. It is important to remember the official position of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Ms Ruth Davidson, the leader of that Conservative Party, is strongly in favour of this amendment. She argues:

“We deem 16 year olds adult enough to join the army … get married, leave home and work full-time. The evidence of the referendum suggests that, clearly, they are old enough to vote too”.

That was the deduction I drew from the Scottish referendum. It had lots of very unpleasant aspects but the one really good thing was the engagement of so many young people in politics. They got interested and involved. That is a strong argument for this amendment. There is a small Scottish argument for it as well. The question that flummoxed the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I thought also sort of flummoxed the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is: how do you explain to the Scots young people that Holyrood was prepared to give them a vote but Westminster is not? I think we all know what deduction Scots young people would draw from that, and it is unhelpful to those of us like me who favour the union.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to participate in this debate but the arguments I have heard are interesting and in some cases bizarre. I have just come back from Paris and the reaction of people, including young people, to the terrible atrocities there has in my view a bearing on what I want to say. The arguments we have heard are quite interesting to a historian—namely, that some people in our society need protection, perhaps because of their immaturity or lack of public awareness. To my mind, many of them had a strong ring of the arguments presented strongly in this House against giving the franchise to women a long time ago, and many of the same patronising and ill-informed observations about categories of our society have re-emerged.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes an entirely false point. The argument that I advanced in relation to an earlier group of amendments had nothing to do with mental capacity. In fact, I eschewed any reliance on mental capacity. I simply said that we draw an arbitrary line where adolescents are concerned—whether it is 16 or 18—and part of informing ourselves whether it is appropriate that they should vote involves looking at the development of the adolescent mind, without impugning in any way their capacity. I hope that I have made that position clear. As regards the capacity of those who are disfranchised by the current state of affairs, I do not at all wish to impugn their capacity or the level of their information or their ability to take a decision.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I quite agree with him about the difficulties of drawing a line. Why draw a line, then, at 15 years?

[Lord Faulks]

Fifteen years is the line drawn by a previous Government, who thought that was a reasonable assessment of somebody who had a sufficient or recent connection with the country. Any line, whether it is 16 years or 14 years, is going to be arbitrary. Sympathetic though the Government are to the general tone of these amendments, for the reasons I have given I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and of course I bow to his incredible knowledge of the workings not just of Europe but of the United Nations. Nevertheless, part of the treaty of the European Union has conditions asking all the contracting states, the members of the union, to concert with the EU high representative. That is not the position that we had 20 years ago, and it shows the inexorable move to the EU wanting to take more and more power. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I see this as quite a difficult amendment because it asks the Government to speculate. The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, introduced a moment ago asks the Government to give information; this one is asking them to predict the future course of the European Union. Down the years men have dreamt dreams and had visions, and an awful lot of it has not happened.

The direction is not all one way. If the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, looks very carefully at the draft constitutional treaty that was rejected by the French, for example, he will discover that it does not include any aspiration to ever-closer union. Does he really think that the French are about to give up their seat in the IMF or on the United Nations Security Council? Many think that there should be reform of the Security Council but the day that the French give up their seat, flying pigs will be seen over Whitehall.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, that is the one safeguard we may have: the French will always want to retain their seat on the Security Council. I think that we can detect that the day the French wish to give that up, we can rest assured that the whole EU foreign policy will be dictated by the Élysée Palace. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is no more speculative to ask the Government to report on what is in my amendment than it is to ask them to report on, as subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause states,

“the rights, following withdrawal, of United Kingdom citizens living in another country”.

We have no idea what those rights may be. I do not think there is any EU law at the moment that says that the moment Britain or any other country withdraws, citizens living in that country will be immediately expelled or that conditions X, Y or Z would apply. It would be negotiated.

[Lord Blencathra]

I agree entirely with my noble friend. And it is one thing for a treaty to say something, but we know how the European Court interprets treaties—towards ever-closer union. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord is very generous. Actually, the Government could publish what the effect would be on citizens’ rights of our leaving the European Union. It is completely clear what their rights would be: they would no longer be EU citizens. Therefore, British citizens resident abroad would no longer benefit from the right of being EU citizens. Similarly, of course, citizens from other EU countries in this country would no longer benefit from any rights that we chose not to confer on them. It would be for the Government to say what would be conferred. The principles of the negotiation with the EU—which would be with the EU collectively, not with individual member states—would be international law, not EU law, and reciprocity. It would be reasonable for the Government to tell us what they would be trying to secure for British citizens in EU countries in the knowledge that exactly the same rights, under reciprocity, would have to be granted to EU citizens living in our country.

[Lord Blencathra]

I think I detected a slight change in the noble Lord’s argument as he was talking. Of course, the Government could easily say that if we leave the EU we will no longer be EU citizens and 56 million people will say, “So what? What are the consequences of that?”. The noble Lord went on to say that the Government could then spell out what they would aim to achieve in any renegotiation of people’s rights, but that is speculative. That is the point I am making. Of course we can say that people will no longer be EU citizens, but we have no idea, if we were to stay in or leave the European Union, exactly what the rights negotiated by the British Government and EU countries would be. I do not want to get bogged down. I have perhaps given way too much to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, because I really like his accent.

Where the EU has a position under European law, we are under an obligation to co-operate with it and support it. For years we have watched the EU desperately trying to take over the negotiating positions of member states in all international fora. That is a trend. It has taken our place at the World Trade Organization. The result is that we have free trade agreements with little countries but nothing with the big power blocs that matter—nothing with the ASEAN countries, nothing with Japan, nothing with India, nothing with the Gulf Cooperation Council and nothing yet with the USA, although we are apparently close. These are all things that the UK could have negotiated years ago on its own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

How kind of the noble Lord. Nothing was further from my mind than interrupting him in any way. I would like to get back to his Mystic Meg argument, which I am still trying to work out; my mind is very slow in these matters. That argument depends on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, would be asking the OBR to forecast the future course of the world economy, the European economy and the UK economy if we came out or if we stayed in. I do not think that that is the case. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, asks that the OBR consider what would have changed—what the effect would be of coming out.

I myself would be happy to add to that, although I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, would, the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seems to be perfectly reasonable. I follow his argument about staying in or coming out. The important bit would be: what would be different if we came out? The consequences of the differences is what one would be asking for. The Governor of the Bank of England addressed this question the other day, talking about what would have been different if we had not been in the single market for financial services. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I would be happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but I do not understand the Mystic Meg argument, advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that somehow we are asking the impossible.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. The amendment refers to the,

“report on the effect of the United Kingdom economy of withdrawal from the European Union”.

In order to do that one would need to take a view on what is going to happen to the euro and if there is someone in the Office for Budget Responsibility who knows the answer to that question, I have to tell them they could be a billionaire tomorrow.

Of course no one knows what is going to happen to the euro. I agree the probability is that it is not going to survive unless there is very substantial further integration within the European Union but no one knows to what extent that will be possible. For example one can look at the attitudes towards the problem of mass economic migration into the European Union and the chaos which the members of the European Union are in at the moment and their inability to agree. Does anyone in the Office for Budget Responsibility know how to predict the outcome of that matter?

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is expert at dealing with the European Union. I can remember as a Minister arriving at meetings and he had already prepared the compromise that we would accept and the press release which announced a great victory by Ministers over the European Union to be released before we had even got off the plane. I know that he believes very much in the opportunities for flexibility in matters of wording but the wording on this amendment is asking the Office for Budget Responsibility to do the impossible—to tell the future. In so doing they will almost certainly get it wrong, like the Bank of England and everyone else who tries to tell the future, and that will damage their constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Baroness is now pulling my leg if she thinks that that argument has any substance. I am simply making the point that the whole thrust of the argument that we have had in terms of producing reports from those who wish us to stay in the European Union have been about “hanging on to nurse for fear of something worse”.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has noticed but the fact is that we are in the European Union now, so the question for the electorate is, “Shall we leave?”. The argument that he is just making would be very good if we were not in the European Union and the question was, “Shall we join?”. Then I would be required to try to demonstrate to him that there would be benefits. However, the question for this referendum is, “Shall we stay or shall we leave?”. That is the issue.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord about what the issue is. I will not repeat the same arguments, because I can see that the Whip is beginning to twitch and is thinking about the dinner hour.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend is absolutely right, but even the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, could not keep a straight face. He said that his tongue was in his check. I do not know where his tongue was, but certainly the arguments coming from it were not very persuasive.

I actually got up to speak in favour of the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Flight. Perhaps we have taken up a lot of time unnecessarily, because I assume that my noble friend the Minister is going to accept the amendment. Clearly, there can be no arguments against accepting it. The Government have given undertakings that they will not bounce us into a referendum campaign, and what better opportunity is there than this to put them on the face of the Bill? Ministers have already given those undertakings, so they must be government policy. The amendment is in order, so I expect that my noble friend will say that she accepts it. Therefore, I will not delay the Committee by making the arguments for it.

However, I would like to mention our experience. When I referred to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as my friend, I was referring to him as a fellow unionist—as unionists campaigning in the referendum in Scotland. Then, we started off with about 28% of the vote in favour of independence and ended with 45% in favour of it. We allowed the Scottish Government to decide the length and date of the campaign, as well as the question, and that was a huge mistake. As a result, following that referendum people like me are going around saying, “Well, it wasn’t actually a fair contest because the rules were set by one of the participants”. I do not know what the Government’s position will be after these negotiations, but it is very important that we have notice of the campaign; otherwise, we will have a sort of “neverendum” starting now, with the possibility of the Government jumping us into a short campaign, which would mean that it would not be possible to get across these arguments.

The Government have said that they will do nothing of the sort, which is why I expect they will accept this amendment. However, I want to make the point that it would also be entirely consistent with the policy of the Government—both as a coalition Government and as a Conservative Government—who gave us the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I was against that Act, but the Government’s argument was that it was completely unfair to allow a Prime Minister to have the patronage of deciding the date of the election and that people should know what the position was. Therefore, if we accepted the amendment of my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Flight, we would know that we had at least a 10-week period in which to campaign, and I think that that would be seen as fair.

Yesterday we did not accept the advice of the Electoral Commission on the grounds that its role was to advise, and I thought that the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Bridges was absolutely persuasive. However, I cannot think of a single argument that one could deploy against taking the advice of the Electoral Commission to accept the Government’s undertaking. That leaves one argument. When I was a Minister and I was absolutely desperate to find an argument to support not agreeing to an amendment for which the arguments were overwhelming, I would say, “It’s not necessary to put it on the face of the Bill because the Government have already given this undertaking”. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend and I hope that she is not going to deploy that argument, for there is nothing to be lost by accepting my noble friends’ amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am going to disappoint the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Forsyth. The sad fact is that I find myself in agreement with them. I do not agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said this afternoon. Indeed, I had to wait until close to the end of this, his second Second Reading speech, to find the point at which I agreed. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and I agree with his amendment. I, too, have a worry about timetables and I, too, know what the Government’s assurance has been. Since that assurance has been given, why should it not be in the Bill? My particular worries about purdah are not exactly the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but we will discover that when we come to later amendments. However, it seems to me that Amendment 1 has to be correct, and I hope that the Government will buy it.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, provoked a lively debate on Amendment 2, and we should be grateful to him. However, it seems absolutely clear to me that the Bill should not be amended as he proposes. We are operating on the basis of the Conservative Party manifesto, which the country voted for. It is clear that the referendum must happen by the end of 2017. For us to play with the idea of an extension would be extraordinarily dangerous.

As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, took the opportunity of pointing out, it is the case that it is not possible on that timescale to secure treaty change. When the strategy was first unveiled, in the Bloomberg speech, there was time for the five stages that treaty change must go through; the final stage being national ratification, in some countries by referendum. It would have been possible then, but it is not possible now—we all know that. Therefore, the point about honesty was a little overdone, because the country is well aware that a treaty change is not securable on that timescale. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was only teasing, and we should move on now from this second Second Reading and get back to the detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I support Amendment 1 and oppose Amendment 2.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, there is a long tradition in this House that is always deplored: the debate on the first group of amendments to a Bill should not be another Second Reading—but we always do it.

I do not know whether it will please the Minister or not, but I want to ask a very genuine, simple, short, Committee stage question. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, with his tongue in his cheek, suggested that the referendum might be as late as 2019. I do not agree with that, for pretty well all the reasons that have been stated around the Committee. If we are to have this thing, we need to have it as quickly as possible, otherwise it will poison the whole process of British government and politics for another two years. We really do not want that.

Clause 1(3) says that the referendum must not be on 5 May 2016 or 4 May 2017. These, of course, are the ordinary days of local elections in those years. As I said at Second Reading, I very much approve of that. The Bill says that the referendum cannot take place on local election day. What it does not say is that local election day could not be moved to take place on the same day as referendum day. If the negotiations are quicker and more successful than perhaps people expect, it might be that the referendum could be in May or early June next year, but if they drag on and on for much longer than people hope, it could be in the spring of 2017. There would then be a real temptation, I suspect, in at least parts of the Government, to combine the polls. I am asking for a commitment from the Minister that that cannot happen. Will she explain to me why, in the absence of this prohibition in the Bill, it cannot happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I greatly admire her linguistic skills but I want to be quite sure where her loyalties lie. Will she please confirm that the translation she is recommending, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, does not change the question to be one about the independence of the Principality of Wales?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I assure the noble Lord that if that were the question the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was suggesting, I would not be supporting him.

I think the Minister should look at this, go back to the Electoral Commission and make sure that it really has tested the wording with Welsh speakers in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I apologise that I only half agree with the noble Lord. Years ago, I said that we should address this issue in the wider sense. Indeed, it is one of the arguments for the constitutional convention that many on this side of the House now support.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Those who are 16 are not allowed to buy cigarettes or buy a drink, but they are not being told that they will never be allowed to buy cigarettes or buy a drink. After the referendum, if we decide to leave the European Union, that is it—we would leave. They would then never have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to be in the European Union. It seems to me that the analogy does not work; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to have that additional support from the Cross Benches.

I was about to go back very briefly to the other, very comparable, situation that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to. We have to take into account the practical example of the Scottish independence referendum.

I have to confess that, until now, many of us on this side of the House—certainly those of us on the Liberal Democrat benches—have theoretically had to argue this case. We do not have to do that any longer. We know now, from the Scottish independence referendum campaign, that young people in Scotland took this issue very seriously. They were very well-informed and registered in much greater numbers than opponents ever thought that they would: 109,593 young people in this age group registered and 75% of them voted. That is more than the next cohort up, where people tend to go away from home—off to new jobs or university— and lose touch with the electoral process. Only 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted, and 72% of 25 to 34 year-olds voted. Young people debated the issues with great intelligence and personal integrity, ignoring vested interests. Indeed, they were rather more balanced in the outcome, as far as we can detect, than middle-aged men, who were actually taken in by some of the myths of the separatists.

Here, then, is the practical example. What is so important about this is that it demonstrates that, when young people are asked what they think about a longer-term issue of such huge importance to the country and to them, they take it very seriously. Some Members of your Lordships’ House who go on behalf of the Lord Speaker to sixth forms very often find that that age group is rather better informed, and perhaps more mature in their views, than some 60 and 70 year-olds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard]

I accept the noble Baroness’s point of view. I understand, and agree with her, that young people today show a much greater level of maturity than they did a decade or two ago. This is a gradual process, which I welcome, and it is right that from time to time we should consider what the age of majority should be. But we should consider it in the round, as it affects the age at which young people should be regarded as full citizens. I also agree with the noble Baroness that it is demeaning to refer to 16 and 17 year-olds as children, so I am with her on very much, but this is not the right time to make a piecemeal change.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I would add a footnote to the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Perhaps the Scots are getting more than their fair crack of the whip in this debate, so I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was right to say that it was the SNP which gave the Scottish 16 and 17 year-olds the vote in the independence referendum. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was also right, as was the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the door was opened for them by the previous Government. But the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is correct: the 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland all know that it was Edinburgh which gave them the vote. If the next thing they hear is that London will not give them the vote in the next referendum, it is an amazingly strong court-card to hand to the SNP.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I hear people saying that we should not make piecemeal changes. The Committee should read Clause 2, to which we are debating an amendment, because it makes piecemeal changes. There are several lines which refer to allowing Peers to vote in this referendum—800 of us. A number of further lines then spend a lot of time on Gibraltar— all 22,000 of them—and then the Irish and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar. I have been unable to discover how many there are of those, but I think there are probably around 100. These are piecemeal changes.

The problem was raised by a number of people at Second Reading that this referendum will be an exceptional vote. There is therefore a case for looking exceptionally at who should vote, whether it is in this set of amendments or in the following three groups, which we will be discussing later on tonight. The question is really: for this very important vote, which will affect the future of this country for the next 40 years, what are the appropriate changes that we wish to make in the electoral system? Clause 2 as it stands offers a number of changes. The question is what other changes we might wish to make for this vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, perhaps I might respond to the point made about the position in Scotland. I am really very surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, advancing a naked party-political reason for operating in this way on a matter such as the franchise. He basically said that it would be in the interests of unionists to alter the franchise in a way which may or may not be desirable, and which has not been considered in the round, because otherwise the SNP would be able to make political capital. That is not a reason for doing so.

Whether this is about 18 year-olds or 16 year-olds voting, I do not think that they would vote on whether or not we should remain in the European Union because their younger brothers or sisters were not given the vote. They are probably mature enough to reach a different view. I would also point out that the SNP did not win 95% of the seats and 50% of the vote in Scotland because of the concern amongst youngsters that they did not get the vote in the general election but had it in the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is normally absolutely as sharp as a tack, but perhaps getting involved in this rough trade of politics is tainting him in a way which I would never have thought possible.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is shocked and disappointed. I merely made the point, which I will repeat in case it was not fully understood, that if this amendment is not accepted the perception in Scotland will be that, while Edinburgh gives the 16 and 17 year- olds the vote, London does not. It seems to me that that perception would be correct and could be damaging. When I say damaging, I confess that I am a unionist. I do not think that I am making a party-political point but I am a unionist, as is the noble Lord, and I hope that we can agree on something.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, this has been a long debate and a fascinating discussion. It has been interesting to see that people on all sides of the Chamber have taken such an interest in this subject.

Last week, I went to see the film “Suffragette”, which was a stark reminder of how those women had to take on some of the kind of arguments that we have heard tonight. It is worth noting that, along with the fact that many of us have been very disappointed that young people’s participation in the general election, which has been low in the past, is declining. There are two questions we need to ask: is it a good idea and is it a good idea to do it in this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

Of course, it was not until 1969, in the Representation of the People Act, that the age was reduced from 21 to 18. It is not the case that young people have changed that radically—notwithstanding the speed of communication, about which we have heard so much.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

On that point, what conclusion would he draw? It was reduced from 21 to 18. What is the magic about 18? It used to be 21. What about driving licences? What about the age of consent? Surely there is a wide range of ages; there is no one particular age at which it can be said that everything has now moved from childhood to adulthood across the board. The question is: in this referendum, which is likely to be generational, why should we cut these young people out?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

It is very tempting to hypothesise in the face of that invitation, but I am afraid it is an invitation that I am going to decline.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I congratulate the Minister on an absolutely brilliant speech, of the kind that I used to try to write—a mandarin speech. All the phrases were there: “a dangerous precedent”; “not the right time”, and “unforeseen consequences”. When all failed at the Treasury, I used to resort to, “beyond the ambit of the vote”, which nobody understood, not even me. It was brilliant, but one thing that I thought was missing was the answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hannay, that we were not trying to alter the arrangements for elections. We were talking only of a one-off referendum. That seems to be quite a strong point. Will the Minister touch on that?

[Lord Faulks]

Of course, the noble Lord will recall that we had a referendum relatively recently, in 2011, about a change in the voting system—to introduce the alternative vote—which was on the Westminster model. The argument was very much, “Well, this is inevitable” or “This is a slippery slope”, to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and that, by accepting the validity of the argument on the European referendum, it must follow, as night follows day, that we would then proceed to change the Westminster franchise. By accepting that argument, we would be reversing into an inevitable change in the Westminster franchise. There might or might not be an argument for doing that, but that is an argument that ought to take place in the fullness of time, with all available evidence, once all the matters that we have gone into and wanted to consider were available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I concede very happily that the noble Lord has introduced an amendment, the effect of which—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

It is normally the case that we switch sides in debates here. We use alternative sides, I think.

There is no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment restores symmetry and what I called earlier on, in a different context, coherence. He invited me in advance, in the course of the previous debate, to agree to it and to support it. I could not possibly support it. I have no idea whether the noble Lord realises this—I hope he does not realise it because he did not mention it—but his amendment would have the most perniciously destructive effect on our relations with the Republic of Ireland. It would be a breach of the arrangements we have had in place with the Republic of Ireland since 1921, since the time of the treaty, and it would be an explicit breach of the Belfast agreement, which lays down that all citizens of Northern Ireland, who are British citizens, of course, and British subjects, can enjoy full civil rights whether they declare themselves to be Irish or British. This would have a devastating effect. If the noble Lord wants to restore symmetry and coherence, he needs to do what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and turn the thing around, enfranchise EU citizens who are resident in this country and put them on the same footing as citizens of Commonwealth countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I want to give tentative support at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Green, and his amendments. Some of us argued in the previous group that there is no justification for non-British citizens, such as EU citizens, to vote in a British national referendum. Indeed, I think that is the Government’s position. All logic, therefore, would suggest that other people who do not have British nationality should not be permitted to vote either. I understand that there are about 3.4 million Commonwealth, Irish and British Overseas Territories citizens in the UK with a right to vote. However, about 1.8 million of these are British citizens and have British nationality. I have no problem with that whatever; indeed, I warmly welcome it. If more people who came to live in this country took British nationality it would possibility reduce some of our other integration problems. To me it is quite simple—maybe noble Lords would say simplistic: if you live here and do not have British nationality then you should have no right to vote in British national elections on a national referendum.

We know how this has come about with the Commonwealth. Many of the Commonwealth voting rights were granted a bit shambolically and haphazardly as Britain decolonised and withdrew from Empire. We understand that. It is a legacy of imperial times and should have no place in our democracy today. We cannot justify a Commonwealth citizen with no connection to the UK, arriving in the UK, registering straightaway and getting a right to vote a few weeks later. No other country in the world does that except ours.

I am now going to make a slightly contrary argument and this is why I say my support is tentative. I think the Government have probably got the right policy in sticking with the electoral roll they suggested. However, and it is slightly hypothetical, if by the end of this process, after ping-pong with the other place we end up with 16 year-olds and EU citizens allowed to vote, it would be outrageous then to allow Commonwealth citizens who are not British nationals to vote. That would be perceived by the British public as really stacking the election. If the 16 year-old vote goes through and is accepted it would then mean that young Commonwealth citizens aged 16 arriving in the UK could quickly register and vote.

I go back to the point that has been made a few times in this House tonight by me—I apologise for making it again—and my noble friends. We want this referendum to be seen as valid, fair and with no jiggery-pokery. If the result is close at a few hundred thousand or a million, then people in this country will look for scapegoats and will blame the various foreigners or young people who have been allowed to vote. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is not in his place. He was right to raise the spectre of racism. In the last year because of immigration, asylum and the huge movement of people around Europe we have seen more antagonism in this country towards foreigners than ever before—people perceived as coming here from Europe without any right to do so or the fear of a “swarm”. If the message goes out after this referendum that young people from Europe or Commonwealth countries who are not British citizens had the right to vote and that vote is close I am afraid we will have more trouble than we bargained for. It is not a risk worth taking. If we stick with a voting age of 18 and the current electoral register I think that is a workable solution. That is why my support for removing the Commonwealth citizens who are not British nationals is only tentative at this stage.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I can remember the days when the Conservative Party was a very strong believer in the Commonwealth and I rather wish that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was here to join us and give us his views. I am in favour of maintaining Commonwealth ties. My father-in-law, a New Zealand Rhodes scholar, came here as a young man, spent 70 years here, wore the King’s uniform in the war, paid his taxes and never failed to vote. He voted in the 1975 referendum. I would think it a pity if people of that kind were denied a vote in this referendum.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whom I have known for 50 years and regard as a close friend, is completely wrong on this issue. It is uncomfortable to be caught between the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Green of Deddington, but we are a rough lot in the Foreign Office and I have learned to put up with it. In my view, there is a very serious immigration issue in this country but the issue is how best to integrate immigrant communities, and that is not best pursued by curtailing their rights.

The strongest argument against the amendment is the Irish one. We all know the long, sad history and the importance—and futility—of the settlement. I think that it would be most unwise to think of reopening that issue now, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Green, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Green, who made a compelling case. I thought that what we were discussing was not the future of the Commonwealth, our relations with the Commonwealth or our relations with Ireland but how we would give the British people an opportunity to decide whether their future was in the European Union. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is rightly arguing that British citizens and no one else should be the people to make that decision.

I must congratulate the noble Lord. It is the first time that I can remember in 30 years when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has been reduced to total silence. He was stopped in mid-sentence when it was pointed out to him that in Irish referendums British citizens do not have a vote. If I had been living in Dublin, I certainly would not have expected to have a say—

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

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the content of the Government’s Motion. It seems a very long time ago that in July 2013, with the co-operation of my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord McNally, we agreed a Motion that endorsed the decision to rejoin the 35 measures. Tonight’s Motion reiterates that and is all the more welcome for it. I am sorry that it has taken so long. In all the debates we have had we were told that time was not a problem, but we are now 13 days—unlucky for some—before 1 December, and we have ended up taking matters to the wire. That I very much regret. At this time of the evening, I think noble Lords will not wish me to say any more about the issues other than that I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said about the procedures.

I have one question for the Minister. The other place was told, if I correctly interpret its proceedings last Monday—both from reading and viewing them—that the vote was merely to approve the statutory instruments necessary for the implementation of the 10 or 11 of the 35 measures, but that a positive vote would be indicative of support for the measures, including the important and controversial European arrest warrant, and that the Government could proceed with that without any further formalities or legislation. Is that the case? Do the Government consider that, subject to the vote here tonight, nothing further needs to be done in Parliament before the formal notification to the Council and our opt-in to the 35? Can we be assured that, whatever further debates are held on the issue in another place—I understand this week—the matter will be considered concluded and a done deal when we rise this evening?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, will ask a question of the Minister, which arises from the remarkable filibuster of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, inquired whether it would be possible for a member state of the European Union to conclude a treaty with the European Union. I will ask a different question. If it did, would the European Union involvement mean that the involvement of the European Court of Justice was automatic, and hence that the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to his problem—which is the involvement of the European Court of Justice—would in itself bring in the European Court of Justice very much quicker?

I do not wish to heap coals of fire on the Minister’s head—we come to bury Protocol 36, not to praise it, and the Minister is not only a learned but an honourable man. Therefore I do not want to say how much I share the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on grounds of procedure, and I do not want to say how, if he chose to press his amendment, I would willingly vote for it. It is very unfair on the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that having himself repeated Mrs May’s commitment to a full debate and a vote in this House he is put in the position of having to dishonour his commitment. He is an honourable man—Brutus is an honourable man—and certainly I do not wish to bury him.

The only corner of this House so far, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, that is not backing the Government in what they propose to do, asks a question about the extradition—civis romanus sum—of the British citizen exported abroad to vile conditions in a foreign dungeon. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 105 people extradited from this country on murder charges under the European arrest warrant since 2009 were British citizens? I believe that the number is extremely small. Do we want to keep these people on our streets? Do we want to keep them in our jails? Why do we not send them back to face trial in their own countries? The civis romanus sum point is a good one—and I understand what is being said by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke—but it is a very small point against the fact that bringing back murderers and rapists from abroad for trial in this country and sending abroad for trial foreign citizens in this country wanted in their countries for these crimes is clearly the right thing to do.

I believe that if we did not opt back into the European arrest warrant, we would be faced with negotiating a tangle of bilateral agreements. Of course it could be done, but it takes time. I know a little bit about these things. We should remember how long the UK-US agreement took and how controversial its terms were in the end. We should remember how, in some quarters, it is still controversial. It is not easy to do these things, and we would have to do them extraordinarily fast. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we have two weeks to go. If we do not opt back in again, the whole structure falls. We would then either be stuck with his course of trying to negotiate in a hurry an agreement with the EU as a block, or the EU as such—and the Minister will tell us whether that would be effective in achieving the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—or we would have to negotiate a very large number of bilateral treaties with people who would be pretty discontented with us because we would be causing them quite unnecessary confusion and wasting time.

Therefore, I strongly support the Government on the substance and, because I am being brief and I do not want to cause any embarrassment at all to the Minister, I will not say how appalling I think the procedure has been.