Article 50
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
There is no lack of respect for Parliament; quite the contrary. As to the comment that I appeared to make a joke, the noble Baroness will appreciate that I was simply reading out the Statement that was in the House of Commons. If noble Lords found it amusing, that was a matter for them, not any intention on my part. As to the question of sovereignty, there is a distinction drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as the noble Baroness may remember, between parliamentary sovereignty and political sovereignty in the Diceyean sense. The Government took the view that it is plainly desirable that Parliament should be involved. Whether there is a strict requirement in law may be a matter that courts will decide in due course.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we all wish the present Prime Minister well in the next phase of his interesting career, whatever he may choose that to be. Does my noble friend recall that the present Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that, in his view, Article 50 should be triggered without delay following the referendum result? Surely that is sensible given that delay, and the consequent uncertainty, can only be bad for British business and the British economy. Does he not agree that the same applies to the negotiations themselves? They should not take too long, and they can be speeded up by avoiding the nonsense of seeking some special trade agreement with the European Union, which it is clearly not prepared to give—for reasons I fully understand—although it might string us along. Finally, will he not also agree that the same thing applies to the rest of the paraphernalia of the negotiations, which I have not got time to go into now? We need to concentrate on how we are going to conduct ourselves after the Brexit. That is what is most important.
Lord Faulks
As for the question of speed, of course, once we trigger the Article 50 process, there is a period of two years which follows—
Lord Faulks
Up to two years is the maximum, as my noble friend quite rightly says. It will be a matter for those conducting the negotiation as to the appropriate speed, although speed should not be the dominant factor. What should be the dominant factor is the best deal that we can obtain for this country. Simply trying to accelerate the process might, depending on how the negotiations continue, be the enemy of that result. We should leave it to the new Prime Minister and those negotiating with her to obtain the best deal for the United Kingdom.
EU Referendum and EU Reform (EUC Report)
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, alongside The EU referendum and EU reform report, the House will also be debating my committee’s report, The Process of Withdrawing from the European Union, and the report from the Science and Technology Committee on EU Membership and UK Science, to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will speak. Our committees have a history of harmonious collaboration on European matters, and I had the privilege, a generation ago, of serving on a research council under the noble Earl’s chairmanship. I look forward to his contribution with anticipation. I record on behalf of the committee our thanks to its impeccable staff and to all our many correspondents and contributors.
I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate these reports before 23 June—referendum day. The process that has led up to that momentous decision has, of course, been a continuing preoccupation of the EU Committee. At the end of the previous Parliament, we reported on the coalition Government’s balance of competences review, highlighting in particular the Government’s failure to provide an overarching summary of their findings; a summary that might have driven, or at least influenced, proposals for EU reform. Then, last July, we published a short report warning the incoming Government of the need to approach their negotiations inclusively, and in particular to have regard to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The problems we explored in these two reports were never fully tackled and have played into the end game on which we now report.
Before I delve further, I should emphasise, or re-emphasise, our committee’s settled view that it is not for us to take a view on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU. That critical decision is for the British people next week. Our remit is to scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government and to interrogate the approach which—in distinction from that of the political campaigners on both sides of the campaign—they are adopting in presenting their official case for remaining in the EU.
That is the basis for our current report on EU reform in which we analyse the process whereby the Government decided on their four negotiating “baskets” of sovereignty, fairness for the eurozone’s ins and outs, migration and competitiveness. These negotiating objectives were not confirmed for several months following the publication of our report in July 2015. Perhaps it was only pressure from Europe that crystallised them in the form of a letter from the Prime Minister to President Tusk last November.
Chapters 2 and 3 of our report dissect the rather opaque process that led to the publication of this letter. It is history now, and I shall not dwell further on it. It was the so-called “new settlement for the United Kingdom”, agreed by the European Council last February, that in effect fired the starting gun for the referendum campaign. Chapter 4 of our report analyses in some detail this new settlement, in which the Government sought to achieve their reform objectives.
In broad terms, we found that some concrete progress had been made, reflecting perhaps a welcome degree of realism in the approach of all parties. The new settlement takes the form of an international law decision. Given the known difficulties of treaty change, and the explicit buy-in of all member states and the European institutions to this process, we accept this as a realistic and viable approach to delivering commitments to reform.
If the UK votes to remain, we will need to pursue further our detailed scrutiny of these provisions; if we opt to leave, the deal automatically falls away. The assurances received on the UK opt-out from the commitment in the treaty to ever closer union, whatever their intrinsic merits, appear to signal conclusively an end to any ratchet process leading towards greater centralisation. We concurred with the Foreign Secretary, who told us in evidence that we have “reached the high-water mark” and the intense involvement in our national life which,
“irritates so many people in this country, is a thing of the past”.
Under the same sovereignty heading, the new settlement also sets out an enhanced role for national parliaments by means of a so-called red card—that is, power for a 55% majority of national parliaments, acting collectively, to stop an unwelcome proposal. We have no objection in principle to this, but I remind noble Lords that my committee has also consistently argued for what I have called a “forward gear”, involving positive upstream engagement with European policymaking, whether it is better regulation, simplification of laws or more widely. Hence, in conjunction with a number of other national parliament chambers, we as a committee pioneered last year the first European green card on food waste.
On the crucial but legally and technically complex issue of fairness between eurozone and non-euro states, we see the terms of the new settlement as providing welcome clarity and assurance that the interests of both groups will be safeguarded. We are also not alone among member states in wanting a more competitive Europe, and we have the European Commission as allies in this. We welcome the agreement to press for better regulation, including an annual progress report, and the intention to reduce administrative burdens, particularly on SMEs, as well as to press forward an active and ambitious trade policy. We have of course heard similar aspirations in the past and we shall have to hold the European institutions to account for them.
The final main “basket” of the negotiations relates to migration, or free movement. Self-evidently, this is the one with the greatest political salience. The analysis in the report speaks for itself, and, in light of more recent controversy, I do not intend to rehearse it now.
I turn to our short report on the process of withdrawing from the EU. This was based primarily on evidence provided by two experienced and expert lawyers, Sir David Edward and Derek Wyatt QC, supplemented by our excellent internal committee legal advisers. The report is largely self-explanatory, but if I may summarise, our key finding is that Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty provides the only means of withdrawal consistent with EU and international law. Withdrawal is final only once a withdrawal agreement enters into force, so a member state that had given a notification under Article 50 would be legally empowered to reverse that decision before this stage.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
I was slightly puzzled when the noble Lord said that Article 50 was the only means. Is he saying that the 1975 referendum, when the Lisbon treaty and Article 50 did not exist, was a complete fraud because we could not have left anyway?
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, provisions in the Vienna convention on treaties would enable a member state to withdraw from any international obligation by consent of the parties involved. As the noble Lord rightly said, the Lisbon treaty followed long after the 1975 referendum, in which we probably both participated. In order to be consistent with European and international law—which, of course, are obligations for Ministers as well—the treaty confines any action to the terms of Article 50, under which it would have to be carried out. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Notwithstanding this legal argument, which I have some diffidence in opining, it has not escaped us that there would of course be political consequences on both sides of the argument in doing so. On the practicalities, the process of negotiating withdrawal would be complex, involving, among others, vital issues of trade policy and complex issues of rights acquired by individuals, as well as the need to review our existing body of law. It can be done, but it will take time—probably several years—to complete.
European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, in well over 40 years as a Member of one House or another of this Parliament of ours, I have never before known such a blatant campaigning document—not least one that is so economical with the truth—masquerade as a Government White Paper. The title itself, I have to say, is a lie—The Best of Both Worlds: The United Kingdom’s Special Status in a Reformed European Union. The European Union has manifestly not been reformed, and, such is the nature of the beast, is almost certainly unreformable. Britain’s so-called special status may well, should we remain in the European Union, prove to be not the best but the worst of both worlds. It is certainly very much worse than being outside the European Union.
Those of us who wish to leave the EU are asked to say what our alternative is to our membership, so I will answer that question. The alternative to being a member of the European Union is not being a member of the European Union. It may come as a great shock to the little Europeans in our midst, but most of the world, including significantly the fastest-growing countries in the world, are not in the European Union. As one who for a number of years had responsibility for the conduct of economic policy in this country, I have little doubt that we would prosper more if we were not a member of the European Union.
As for the contents of the White Paper, there is one curious and significant omission. It fails to mention the single most important feature of the Brussels agreement of 19 February—namely, the declaration:
“Member States not participating in the further deepening of the economic and monetary union will not create obstacles to but facilitate such further deepening”.
Thus, at a stroke, we have given up our ability to veto a further transfer of powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union—should we remain in the European Union—that it believes is necessary for further economic integration. Not so much White Paper as white flag. Moreover, it completely undermines the claim in the White Paper that more powers cannot be transferred from the United Kingdom to the European Union without the United Kingdom agreeing.
What then of the exit mechanism in the welcome event of the referendum being won by the leavers? There is much talk of having to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and of the process taking up to 10 years or even more. This is balderdash. If it requires Article 50 to leave the EU, the 1975 referendum would have been a fraud as the Lisbon treaty dates back only to 2007. Article 50 refers to the EU’s recommended procedure for negotiating the nature of the relationship of a member that has left the EU with the surviving European Union.
As the Prime Minister has frequently pointed out, Parliament is sovereign and we can at any time leave the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act 1972, which makes UK law subordinate to European law. Indeed, Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty states:
“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.
In the case of the United Kingdom, our only constitutional requirement is the repeal of the 1972 Act.
Among the many grossly misleading scare stories peddled by the Government—whose only argument, I regret, is Project Fear, with nothing positive at all—is that we would have to renegotiate all our trade agreements with countries outside the European Union. The plain truth is that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. The great bulk of our trade with the rest of the world is regulated by our membership of the WTO and would remain wholly unchanged.
Lord Mandelson
Does the noble Lord accept that 60% of British exports are covered by the free trade agreements negotiated and won by the European Union on our behalf—60%?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The great majority of the agreements we are party to through the WTO and its predecessor, GATT, were concluded before 1995, when, at that time, the European Union or its predecessor was not even a member of the WTO or GATT.
As for the argument that you need to be a member of the so-called single market to trade with the single market, that is an equal nonsense. Indeed, exports into the single market from countries outside it have, for many years now, grown much faster than UK exports to the single market. After all, the weighted average of the European Union’s common external tariff is only 3.6%. The prospect of our not being able to secure a far better free trade agreement than little Switzerland is minimal.
Certainly the future is uncertain. That, after all, is its nature. But the uncertainty surrounding Britain’s future within the European Union, should we decide to stay, is far more worrying than regaining our freedom. The EU’s blundering route to political union—for that is what it is all about; that is the purpose of the whole enterprise—will continue and, even though we have secured an opt-out from political union, we will remain shackled to it: a sort of colonial status.
This referendum debate is not primarily about economics. It is about whether we in this country wish to take control of our own affairs and to be a self-governing democracy with a global rather than a merely European perspective.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could I press him to spell out what his alternative is? He is the chairman of one of the leave organisations. He always raises a laugh—I have had the privilege of hearing it several times now—when he says that the alternative to being in is being out. But what does that freedom consist of? What kind of deal would he conclude?
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 Faulks
With great respect to my noble friend, I am not sure that going over the entire jurisprudence of the European court would help, either at this time of night or at all, in terms of answering this fundamental question. We, the Government, submit that the answer is clear: this is a binding agreement.
May I also advance the argument that we are better off in the EU? The Government believe that the UK will be better off. The Government’s long-term economic plan is delivering economic security for families and businesses, underpinned by sound public finances. We plan to do this by investing in the UK’s future, addressing the productivity challenge and rebalancing the economy towards trade and investment. With turbulence in the global economy, membership of the EU supports this plan by giving British business access to the free-trade single market, and dozens of trade deals across the world.
Through our EU membership, we already have trading agreements with more than 50 countries. Concluding all the trade deals currently under way could ultimately be worth more than £20 billion a year to the United Kingdom GDP. Once these deals are completed, around three-quarters of UK exports to non-EU countries would be covered by an EU-negotiated free-trade agreement. Of course, we could make other deals—whether we could make them on better terms must be seriously in doubt. This Government’s deal keeps the EU moving firmly in the right direction and hard-wires competitiveness.
Would we be safer in the EU? The Government believe that we would. Our EU membership allows the UK to work closely with other countries to fight cross-border crime and terrorism, giving us strength in numbers in a dangerous world. Our new settlement reiterates that the responsibility for national security rests solely with national Governments and that EU institutions will fully respect the national security interests of member states.
The Government believe that the UK will be stronger in the EU because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping to make the big decisions that affect us. Membership of the EU, like our membership of NATO and the UN, amplifies the UK’s power and influence on the world stage. At a time when we are, as many noble Lords have pointed out, faced with an increasing range of serious threats, co-operation at an international level is more important than ever.
This is a significant package of measures, delivering changes that are substantial, legally binding and irreversible in the sense that they can be changed only if all 28 member states agree. Of course it will not solve all the problems with the EU. In that sense, it should be seen as an important step on the road to EU reform —a point made by my noble friend Lord Howell, in his thoughtful speech—rather than the destination.
As to leaving the EU, noble Lords will be aware of the discussion elsewhere about a vote to leave being a means of securing further concessions in the renegotiation process, ahead of a second vote. That appears to have been briefly the view of the Mayor of London and is still the view of Mr Dominic Cummings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, asked if there was any contingency planning for Brexit. The Civil Service is working full-time to support the Government’s position, and the Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU. I want to be very clear on behalf of the Government: a vote to leave is exactly that—a vote to leave. The Government cannot ignore the democratic decision that will be made on 23 June; there is no option on the ballot paper to have a second renegotiation or to hold a second referendum. The Prime Minister has been explicit that a vote to leave would trigger Article 50 of the treaty. It would begin the process of a British exit from the EU.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
On the point that the Minister has just made, it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether Article 50 is invoked in the event of a referendum for leaving; it is a matter for Cabinet. The Cabinet will have to have before it papers setting out all the various options, and it will be for Cabinet to decide which of those options it wants to pick up.
Lord Faulks
Whatever the process, it is clear that Article 50 will have to be adopted. The EU treaties, which the UK is signed up to, set out a legal process for EU member states to leave. My noble friend Lord Lawson suggests that we can simply ignore that process by repealing domestic legislation in the form of the European Communities Act, which is the piece of legislation that incorporated the treaty into our domestic law, but if we simply did that and ignored the UK’s international obligations, we would be violating the rule of law. It would hardly be a good way to begin a negotiation with 27 other member states to get a good deal for Britain by breaking international law.
The public would expect that if we were to leave, we would do so, as we have traditionally done, in accordance with the law and following the terms of the treaties. A vote to leave would start the clock on a two-year period to negotiate the arrangements for the UK’s exit. I should also be clear about what would happen if that deal to leave was not done within two years. Our current access to the single market would cease immediately after two years and our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse.
The Government have made our position clear: the UK’s national interest—the interests of every individual, family, business, community and nation within our United Kingdom—will be best served by our country remaining part of a reformed EU. There was almost total agreement across the House today that we should let the British people have their say on 23 June. Clearly, then, there is no reason to wait. Let us give each side time to make their case, then let us put the question to the British people. Let us settle this issue for a generation, and let us vote to remain.
There is a Motion to approve the statutory instrument before the whole House. I beg to move.
British Bill of Rights
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
As I indicated to the House and the noble Lord, it is not our intention to withdraw from the ECHR, although, as the Secretary of State said, we cannot rule it out absolutely. We are confident that we can realign our relationship with the Strasbourg court in a satisfactory way, which means we comply with our international obligations and bring some common sense back to the business of human rights.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this country’s proud record of respecting human rights goes back well before the creation of the Strasbourg court? As far as courts are concerned, does he also agree that the membership of our Supreme Court is at least as distinguished as the membership of the Strasbourg court and that some would say more so?
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to my noble friend. He is, of course, absolutely right that this Parliament and our courts have always been astute at protecting human rights. We had human rights long before 1998, when the Human Rights Act was brought into force. Our Supreme Court will continue to protect them. Our Supreme Court has the admiration of the whole country. The Strasbourg court has judges of, I have to say, varying quality.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
That is simply not true. I have worked with the Electoral Commission over the years and there is good evidence that, once you start voting, you tend to continue to vote. The cohort that is missing out at the moment is very much the 18 to 24 year-olds. The turnout for them was down to 54%—it dropped dramatically. Therefore, the noble Lord is simply wrong on that point.
I wonder whether the Minister has come armed with the same wholly inadequate response that was employed in Committee, when I moved a similar amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, then extracted a very short quote from the advice given by the Electoral Commission:
“The Commission’s view is that any changes to the franchise for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union should be clear in sufficient time to enable all those who are eligible, to register and participate in the referendum”.
Today we have some additional advice from the Electoral Commission:
“Recent media reports have indicated that the Commission believes there must be 12 months between legislation passing through Parliament to change the franchise and the first electoral event to which this applies. This is not the case”.
It then says, in heavy type:
“The Commission has been consistently clear that a change to the franchise is a matter for Parliament, and that we will advise on the practical implications of any such change”.
I hope that the Minister will not now pray in aid the commission.
I have worked with the Electoral Commission for some years, and it is very careful in the words that it uses in advising Parliament. It is responsible to us—to Parliament, not to government—and its advice is to Parliament. It is a statutory commission, with very considerable responsibility. Noble Lords should note that clarity of intention is what it is worrying about, not whether Royal Assent has actually been granted. It can start preparing for this change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned earlier. In other words, this is an argument not for doing nothing with this change to the franchise, but for getting on with it as soon as possible.
On the evening before the day in Committee to which I referred, the Minister’s ministerial colleague systematically rubbished the Electoral Commission and all the advice given to us, in the context of the Government’s acceleration of the electoral registration change. We should be absolutely clear now that there is no practical objection to this extension of the franchise, assuming that the referendum is not held before June 2016. For all the other reasons that have already been explained in Committee and today, it is very unlikely that the Government would contemplate a referendum before that date. Six months is acknowledged to be an adequate minimum period for the preparatory work, based on the Scottish experience. So for Ministers to drag their feet while so many in both Houses are urging them to recognise the strength of the case would be irresponsible, frankly. Indeed, trying to postpone it for as long as possible in the hope that that will make the change more problematic would be a failure of good governance.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
What the noble Lord is saying, as others have said, is that the decision to reduce the voting age for the Scottish referendum is a precedent that has to be followed for all elections of all kinds. That makes it a very important matter indeed, which clearly the Westminster Parliament as a whole needs to pronounce on. Can he remind us by what majority the Westminster Parliament decided that this should happen in Scotland?
Lord Tyler
My Lords, it did not—but I quoted specifically the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who identified precisely that the Cabinet of the previous Government actually agreed with that change.
I am not arguing today for the extension of the franchise in all parts of our electoral system. That is not what is on the Order Paper. What we are debating is very specific. I have an expert witness—I will come to him in a moment—who says that this is an exceptional circumstance in which it should be done.
I simply do not understand on what basis the Government, without a principled or practical objection, are continuing to resist—assuming that they are.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, I am not suggesting we ignore it but I am suggesting that we analyse it and possibly take it with a pinch of salt.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
Does my noble friend not agree that the position of the United States seems clear? There is a great deal of anti-Americanism in many parts of the European Union, including in France, where I live. The Americans see us as the most pro-American member of the European Union, therefore they are desperately keen that we should remain within it. If I were an American, I think I would take the same view but it does not mean that, because it is in the interests of the United States, it is necessarily the right thing for this country.
Lord Blencathra
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. He has considerable experience in these matters and I agree with him entirely.
To conclude, we need the Government’s forecasts of the competitive position of the UK if we stay in, tied to a European economy that is becoming progressively uncompetitive in world markets. We know Herr Juncker wants more Europe and more of the social dimension, as he said to the European Parliament. That would be all very well if the USA, China and the Asian economies were also awarding themselves more pensions, more paternity leave, shorter working weeks, higher pay and more social benefits, but they are not and Europe is in slow decline against their economies.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
I am sure that the noble Lord will be here. He has already displayed the sort of longevity that we expect in this House. Indeed, it may not be known to Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House that we currently have 14 years’ greater longevity than the average citizen in the United Kingdom, which says something about the way in which we are looked after in this place—it may also say something about the intellectual stimulus that we occasionally have in this place. However, I agree with the noble Lord; I referred to that particular Member of the other House, who spoke very eloquently on this point.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
The noble Lord seems to be advancing two propositions, both of which I find puzzling. The first is that those of us in this Chamber have no concern for the future of our country after we are dead. I do not believe that that is the case at all. The second proposition is that 17 year-olds are somehow of a different generation from 18 year-olds. I do not understand that either.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I have not actually come to my own views on this subject. I have simply been reporting the views of the noble Lord’s colleagues in both this and the other House. If, for example, he has an objection to the views of my local Member of Parliament—a Conservative: Mr Neil Carmichael—I suggest that he take it up with him. All I am trying to suggest is that it is now the common experience and approach that young people are mature, well-informed and ready to take this particular step on this particular issue. This is widely accepted in all parts of your Lordships’ House—and, I suggest, in the other House.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will forgive me if I do not follow up his remarks on the important issue of human rights, because we have limited time and I would like to focus on the issue of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, made an excellent maiden speech. As the responsible Minister, he has a hard road to hoe in our debates on this issue, as he will increasingly find—I am sure he is expecting this—and I wish him the best of luck. We have been very privileged. I have been a Member of this House for nearly a quarter of a century, but I cannot remember three more distinguished maiden speeches than those we have heard today.
As far as Scotland is concerned, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am a committed supporter of the union. I am a unionist on the grounds of history and of sentiment, and indeed for hard-headed defence considerations—but not at any price. The question before us is this: what form of constitutional settlement should we seek in the light of last year’s referendum and the promises made at that time, followed by the sweeping success of the SNP in last month’s general election?
In my judgment, the Smith commission did as good a job as it could in the wholly inadequate time available to it, but its work was far too hurried and the outcome inevitably defective. In any event, it has been rejected by Scotland’s triumphant First Minister, so it is a case of back to the drawing board. Moreover, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has insisted, fairness to England must be an integral part of the new constitutional settlement, and this was outwith the terms of reference of the Smith commission. I join those on all sides of the House today who have called for the setting up of a full-blooded constitutional settlement covering both of these interlocking dimensions, but not all the other important constitutional issues that will be raised in this debate. That would cause inordinate delay and time is not on our side.
Among the most important issues to be decided is the degree and nature of Scottish fiscal autonomy. The Smith commission recommended a significantly increased degree of fiscal autonomy, and since the election, the Prime Minister has hinted that this might be taken slightly further. But fiscal autonomy has two meanings. The first essentially concerns the freedom to decide whether Scotland is to be a high tax and high public spending economy or a low tax and low public spending economy. That is fair enough, but the second meaning of fiscal autonomy concerns the freedom to borrow, and this raises very big issues indeed which have scarcely been addressed at all. The Smith commission decided that Scotland should have increased borrowing powers for certain specified purposes, subject to Treasury approval, but that merely raises the issue without settling it.
It is no accident that in a number of developed federal constitutions, the subordinate Governments are granted a high degree of fiscal autonomy in the first sense, subject to an overriding balanced budget constraint. The precise nature of the borrowing constraint and the method of its implementation has to be a central pillar of any new constitutional settlement. For a Scottish Government would be borrowing in sterling, the currency not of Scotland but of the United Kingdom as a whole, yet that discipline seems to be far from the present thinking of the SNP, which presents itself as a means of escaping from what it calls “austerity”. And austerity is all about borrowing—to be precise, the means of reducing and eventually eliminating the budget deficit. We have only to look across the Channel at the travails of the eurozone in general and Greece in particular to see the centrality of the problem of separate national authorities borrowing within a common currency area. As I well recall, we in this country faced the issue to a lesser but still serious extent with Liverpool’s excessive and irresponsible spending and borrowing in the 1980s. The position of Scotland, of course, is hugely more important and more serious, and so far has scarcely been addressed at all.
The other major issue for a Scottish constitutional settlement is, as I have already mentioned, fairness to England. The Government appear to be committed to the EVEL proposal: English votes for English laws. I believe this to be objectionable in principle and unworkable in practice. It is objectionable in principle because those of us who wish to preserve the union cannot wish to see the Westminster Parliament composed of two separate classes of MP with separate voting rights. It is unworkable in practice for reasons well explained by, among others, the Prime Minister’s old politics tutor, Professor Bogdanor, in an article in the Guardian last September. Unlike most of what appears in the Guardian, it is well worth reading. In a nutshell, the proposal—which so far as I am aware has understandably never been attempted in any other serious democracy—would make effective and coherent government impossible. It would, incidentally, also lend itself to gaming: a Government dependent for their existence on the support of Scottish Members would have little trouble in ensuring that all their legislation had a Scottish dimension.
The only workable solution, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth has already pointed out, is that which was adopted a little under a century ago when southern Ireland seceded and Northern Ireland was given a high degree of home rule under the Stormont Parliament—accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of Ulster Members of Parliament. A marked reduction in the number of Scottish MPs may lack the theoretical logic of the EVEL proposal, but it avoids the divisiveness of two classes of Westminster Members and is eminently workable, as the Northern Irish precedent has shown. It is essential that it is seriously considered by the much-needed constitutional convention.
I have one final and more fundamental point. The outstanding success of the SNP in last month’s general election reflects a number of factors, but most obviously a reawakening of the sentiment of Scottish nationalism. I have never been among those who decry nationalism. It is true that there have been occasions in history—never, happily, in this country—when terrible things have been done in its name, and that is equally true, as indeed we are vividly reminded today, of religion. But that is not widely considered a reason for abandoning all religion. Nationalism is important because people need a sense of togetherness and belonging, and because democracy is unworkable without it; for it is the nation which constitutes the demos. The union will not be saved without a reawakening of British nationalism.
Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I chair the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, and I want to start by thanking the Minister for acknowledging the work done by the EU Select Committee and the Home Affairs Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee was previously chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who made a great contribution in bringing some clarity to a complex issue and enabling us to have some calm debate. It is a pity that those reports have not been referred to.
I will say just two things at the outset. First, I entirely support the Government in their intention to opt back into the 35 measures. Indeed, I wish that they had gone further and opted back into a number of other measures, as advised by the Home Affairs and Justice Sub-Committees jointly in two reports in 2013. I am particularly disappointed that the Government have not sought to rejoin measures to combat racism and xenophobia, the European judicial network and the European probation order. I do not find their explanations for not seeking to join them very convincing, because I do not think that they have given significant consideration to the substantive and reputational damage of not seeking to rejoin them. So be it.
Secondly, I entirely share the dismay expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, about the failure of Ministers to abide by the undertakings that they have time and again given to the House that they would allow a full debate on these issues. The process by which Ministers have sought parliamentary approval of these very important matters brings them little credit.
I want to confine my comments mainly to the point of view of the sub-committee charged with the scrutiny of such measures. In the 15 years since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, all of these measures dealing with home affairs, together with those on data protection, have, prior to their adoption, been scrutinised by the Home Affairs Sub-Committee. A number of these measures have also been the subject of inquiries by the Home Affairs Committee.
I illustrate this by looking at the example of Europol. The list of 35 measures includes the 2009 Council decision establishing Europol. Europol has been the subject of eight inquiries and reports by the European Union Committee. The first five of them pre-date July 1999, when Europol was still being set up and before it began operations. The last major report on Europol, published in 2008, was into the draft Council decision under which Europol is now constituted. Last year the sub-committee, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, reported on the draft regulation which will replace the Council decision and recommended that the Government should opt into that regulation. This advice, sadly, was not followed.
We continue to hold the matter under scrutiny and have expressed our concerns about a number of issues, not least about the opportunity which, under the treaties, your Lordships’ House will have to take part in parliamentary scrutiny of Europol. In other words, we are trying to ensure that this Parliament, and Parliaments of other member states, have as effective a part to play as the European Parliament, and are not subordinated to it.
Scrutiny can be conducted only with the full co-operation of government and the timely provision of Explanatory Memorandums. Within the next three weeks, four decisions must be adopted if the Government are to be able to opt back into the 35 measures. Two of these are Council decisions which must be adopted next week, since they come into force on 1 December. One of them extends the application of these 35 measures by a further week, to give the institutions time to consider and agree the United Kingdom’s application to opt in, for you cannot opt into something before your opt-out has taken effect. So these two decisions are vital, and so is our scrutiny of them. Yet that scrutiny is wholly frustrated by our not receiving in reasonable time the Explanatory Memorandum that is essential for our scrutiny.
In the first week of December, the Council will—I hope—adopt the decision finally authorising the United Kingdom to rejoin six Schengen measures. The Commission will be adopting a similar decision in relation to the remaining 29 measures. These decisions could hardly be more important but we have not yet seen them in draft, we have not received Explanatory Memorandums about them, Ministers have not written to us with details, and it is only this evening that we heard that the reservations have been removed. We do not know whether the Commission will be satisfied that the draft regulations we are considering tonight are sufficient to transpose into United Kingdom law the measures which have not so far been transposed.
The Government's involvement of Parliament in the process has fallen short of the ideal and is inexcusable. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with these issues and to reassure the House that, in the final lap, the Government will attempt to redeem themselves.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I sense the mood of the House, so I shall be very brief indeed. Who knows, maybe it will set an example to others—but I am not holding my breath.
I shall focus exclusively on the issue of the European arrest warrant, which is at the heart of this matter. There is no dispute whatever that mutual extradition arrangements between us and our friends across the Channel are vital. The issue is that identified by my noble friend Lord Lamont of whether we would do better to rejoin the European arrest warrant—to opt back into it—or to negotiate bilaterally with the other member countries of the European Union, or the European Union as a bloc.
I have no doubt that on economic grounds alone, this country would be far better off outside the European Union. If that were the case, as I hope it will be in due course, then of course we will negotiate such bilateral agreements, as we have done with most of the other countries in the world. Some of those agreements are not so satisfactory but others are perfectly satisfactory, so that is what we would do. The question, as my noble friend, for whom I have very high regard, said, is whether we can do that while remaining within the European Union. My belief is that that is not an option and that—I may be mistaken—so long as we remain within the European Union, we have to opt back in to the European arrest warrant if we want mutual extradition arrangements, which are essential.
Can my noble friend Lord Faulks, who is an outstanding legal brain and knows everything far better than anybody else in this august House, say clearly and categorically whether the alternative proposed by my noble friend Lord Lamont is an option? If it is an option, why did the Government reject it or is it, as I sadly believe, not an option? I look forward to his reply.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and I will certainly follow his recommendation to be very brief. He is of course absolutely right to say that on constitutional grounds, extradition should be a matter for our own courts and not for the European Court of Justice. No matter how the Government try to play this and finesse it, the fact is that through this measure of opting in we are handing over the rights of extradition from our own courts to the European Court of Justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made the point that we would be handing our citizens over to very different systems of justice. For example, there would be no habeas corpus, no protection from trial in absentia, no right to silence and no requirement for prima facie evidence to justify extradition. This is a major transfer of power that really cannot be justified by anything that I have heard so far, certainly not to satisfy the Government’s rather rushed timetable. As someone said, the Government have now had more than four years to consider this matter and here we are, only two weeks from the deadline with the Government still trying to push it through.
Neither is this all justified on the grounds of satisfying police leaders, who claim that they need these powers to protect the public from dangerous criminals. Like the Government, the police always want more powers. Some noble Lords will remember when they wanted the power to detain suspects for 90 days. After a very long debate, led by the Liberal Democrat Benches, this House denied the police those powers that they asked for. I do not think that the ceiling fell in after that.
Political and Constitutional Reform
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
The point is that once we have got to a system of fixed-term Parliaments, to prevent the Government of the day engineering an early dissolution for their own short-term political advantage, they would therefore need a two-thirds majority—something that no Government in the UK have had since the war. As I said in my opening response to the noble Baroness, it is belt and braces against what we are trying to get away from. We are trying to move to the stability of a fixed-term Parliament and away from Governments of the day using early elections for short-term advantage.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, given the profundity of the constitutional changes that will be incorporated in this Bill, can my noble friend give an undertaking that in no circumstances would the Parliament Act be invoked in order to secure its passage?
Lord McNally
I do not think that we go into things like that at this stage.