Queen’s Speech

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I propose to speak about Islam and its future in this country. Indeed, I hope that everyone—Muslims and the rest of us—can start talking about Islam without being told that we are Islamophobes stirring up religious hatred. I should make it clear that I am not speaking for UKIP and that I am by no means a Muslim scholar. However, I am advised by three such scholars, one of whom was a sharia court judge for 11 years.

Islam is a vast subject and so, given our time constraint, I refer noble Lords to a debate I had in Grand Committee on 19 November 2013. What I said then has been justified by subsequent events in north Africa and elsewhere, and a few respectable commentators are beginning to suggest that we should be allowed to debate openly the nature of Islam and its likely effect on our future society. For instance, Professor Tom Holland suggested last week that the moral perfection of Mohammed should now be questioned, even if to do so is akin to poking a hornet’s nest with a stick.

It will be common ground in this national debate—if we can get it going—that the vast majority of Muslims live good and peaceful lives. However, when we refer nowadays to extremism, we usually refer to extreme or radical Islam. We do not refer to radical or extreme Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Sikh or any other religion. It is also true that much bloodshed, the dark side of our human nature, has erupted within and through Christianity over the centuries, even if its founder was wholly good. But not now; now that darkness is moving strongly within Islam. If we want to stand up to it, I suggest that we should start by talking about it and trying to understand it.

There are many verses in the Koran which justify jihad, so why do we go on pretending that Islam is a religion of peace? It does not help to reply that there is also much violence in the Bible because that is all confined to the Old Testament and orthodox Jews are not killing tens of thousands of innocent people on the strength of it.

When our leading Muslims do try to prove the peacefulness of the Koran, they are less than reassuring. Last September, 119 British imams wrote to the Independent newspaper to assure us that the decapitation of two of our aid workers in Syria was,

“nowhere justified in the Koran”.

To support this they quoted from sura 5 verse 32 thus:

“Whosoever kills a human being … it is as if he kills the entire human race”.

That sounds peaceful enough until you fill in the dots, which go,

“unless it be for murder, or for spreading mischief in the land”.

So the Koran actually says that you can be killed for spreading mischief in the land, which to the jihadists is simply not being a Muslim or helping the victims of their brutality. Is that the best that 119 of our leading imams can do? The very next verse—sura 5 verse 33 —details the punishment for those who spread mischief in the land, which is,

“execution or crucifixion or the cutting of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land”—

not exactly peaceful stuff.

In 2013, I mentioned the Muslim tenet of abrogation, whereby when there is contradiction in the Koran or in the example of Mohammed, the later verses or actions abrogate or cancel the earlier ones. This is a serious problem for our debate because the Koran and Mohammed became steadily more violent as he went through life and Muslims are enjoined to follow the Koran and Mohammed’s example.

Today I fear I should mention another tenet, al-Hijrah, by which Muslims are instructed gradually to subjugate their host societies to Islam. It comes from Mohammed’s example after he moved from Mecca to Medina in 622. When he had accepted his multifaith hosts’ hospitality for five years, and his new religion had grown sufficiently, he offered them the options of conversion, exile or death. He ordered the deaths of several hundred and Islam went on to conquer most of the known world. So is it not rather worrying that one of the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham is actually called the Al-Hijrah School?

Is it not also worrying that our Muslim population has grown some 75% in the last 10 years, up from 1.6 million to 2.7 million, largely concentrated in a few cities and with a third of it under the age of 15? The Government tolerate sharia law, under which a man can have four wives, many of whom are having disadvantaged children who therefore become food for jihad. If we cannot give them something better to live for, and if present trends continue, I fear that civil unrest lies ahead.

I repeat that a large majority of our Muslim population is indeed mild and peace-loving, but I suggest that they are not doing enough to stand up to their violent co-religionists. And why should they? It would be dangerous, and all they have to do is to proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace which the jihadists misinterpret. So have we become their generous hosts and are they now fellow travellers on their way to al-Hijrah, blindly supported by our well-meaning but ignorant political class?

We must somehow make it worth their while to reform their fearsome religion and we must support them if they try. To this end I have suggested before that the Government should facilitate and support a major Muslim council in this country which could clarify the meaning of Islam here and cast the jihadists out of that new Islam. Without some major initiative of that kind, I fear that the long-term future of our Judaeo-Christian culture looks bleak indeed.

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EUC Report)

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I cannot resist speaking briefly in the gap, because I think this is the first time in 25 years that I am able to congratulate an EU Select Committee on one of its reports, and indeed the Government on their reply.

I also take the opportunity to apologise for scratching last Wednesday 11 March from our debate on the competences review, or balance of power between Brussels and our Government. A long-standing family engagement meant that I could not have stayed to the end—not that I would have asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, any questions. I would just have explained why the whole exercise is pretty much a waste of time that will do little to curb the appetite of the corrupt octopus in Brussels.

I will, however, take this opportunity to say that I am disappointed that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, took the opportunity—at col.748—to criticise me and my views on the European Union in my absence. The richest bit of this criticism was perhaps that the noble Lord opined that Euroscepticism in this country is a belief, a faith, a prejudice. Yet it is surely our Europhiles who demonstrate a disease-like blind faith in the project of European integration, which is failing before our eyes, causing great misery across the continent, and which will continue to do so until it eventually collapses.

This report and the Government are rightly critical of the Commission’s stubbornness in continuing with its plans for a European public prosecutor. I therefore thought that it might be helpful if I put the powers of the unelected Commission on the record, perhaps for the first time, so that people can see what our powerless national Government are up against.

First, the Commission enjoys the monopoly to propose in secret all EU legislation, and thus a large proportion of our national law.

Secondly, its proposals go for still-secret discussion in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives, sometimes described as EU ambassadors—where the bureaucrats from the member states negotiate their national interest, the members of the Commission having sworn allegiance to the EU and not to support any partial national interest. I have never understood how our privy counsellors square their oath of allegiance to Her Majesty with that one. That is their problem, I suppose.

Thirdly, when the proposals emerge from COREPER as pretty much a done deal, they go for ratification to the Council of Ministers from the member states, in still largely clandestine discussion, and to the European Parliament, with its powers of co-decision.

Fourthly, our Parliament can scrutinise the emerging legislation but cannot change it. Indeed, it has never done so, as we see with this proposed public prosecutor.

Fifthly, the Commission then becomes the sole enforcer of all EU law and can impose massive fines for transgression, subject only to the Europhile Luxembourg court.

Sixthly, the Commission manages the EU budget so badly that the EU’s accounts have not been signed off by its internal auditors—there being no external auditor— for the last 19 years. If a public company was in a similar position, its directors would have been in jail many years ago.

Seventhly, the Commission negotiates all our foreign trade arrangements, again badly. Singapore has had free trade agreements with India, China, Japan and the United States for 10 years, but we have none because the Commission is in charge on behalf of all the member states.

I cannot help feeling that if the British people understood the full extent of the unelected Commission’s powers, which I have set out above, and how powerless their Parliament has become in this and other matters, their dislike of our EU membership would increase even further.

I have only one question for the Minister: what happens if the Commission decides to plough on with this proposal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

That very clearly makes the point that we are talking about, and perhaps explains why it has been impossible to find a way forward so far. I would also mention some of the challenges, which may be insurmountable, in trying to progress down this model. The Government are absolutely committed carefully to watching the negotiations and ensuring that our interests are defended.

The noble and learned Lord also asked about shared competence. Ideally member states would retain competence. It is the only way in which they could contain the elements of the Commission’s proposal that they favour. An independent prosecutor would investigate cases inside member states free of bribery and corruption. We believe that that would be the only way in which the EPPO would add any value to the fight against EU fraud. The UK would prefer the EPPO to have as little competence as possible.

In response to a number of questions raised particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, in her introduction, it is worth putting on the record and restating the fact that the UK Government are absolutely committed to the fight against fraud. We certainly cannot envisage any circumstances in which it would be tolerated that the UK could become a safe haven for fraud. We are expressing confidence in our own legal systems and existing cross-border co-operation to ensure that that does not become the case.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

While he is on that subject, can the Minister give noble Lords any estimate of the annual amount of EU fraud across the European Union? Do we have a modern figure for that?

[Lord Bates]

A figure has been mentioned. I am trying to put my hand on it. I wonder whether the noble Lord would accept the Commission’s estimate of the level of fraud. Those of us who are participating in this debate are still trying to recover and see whether we are on the right track when praised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on European matters. It slightly shook our confidence, but we are recovering from that, and I think we are all on the same page here.

The Commission’s estimate of the level of fraud in July 2013 in the impact assessment put EU fraud at not detectable, and therefore unknown, at around £2.55 billion a year. I am reading out this figure and am aware that it is slightly contradictory to say, “not detectable, and therefore unknown”, when the estimate is around £2.55 billion a year. But that is the Commission’s estimate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I could not have put that better myself.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am not quite sure whether the Minister was attempting to answer the question that I put to him, but just to be sure I will repeat it. What happens if the Commission decides to plough on with this proposal? Are we capable of stopping it or must we just live with the muddle, the increase in fraud and the damage that will ensue, thanks to the Commission’s activities?

[Lord Bates]

If the Commission continues down that line, there will have to be treaty changes. Negotiations will have to take place on the implications for non-member states and third-party countries as well as for member states. However, the proposal is in such flux at the moment that trying to judge what it is is nigh on impossible at present, let alone what a future Government’s position would be in responding to it. The fact is that we would have a position, there would be a negotiation and there would have to be agreement as to how it would operate in this country. The report, which has been presented so ably today, has highlighted the many complex issues that will need to be addressed by a future Government.

EU: Justice Opt-ins

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston)]

My Lords, forgive me, but we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches, so we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, first. We have plenty of time for other noble Lords to participate in this Question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

They would have to accept the acquis communautaire—that is for sure—before doing that. That is the position they are in.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, will the Minister accept the grateful thanks of the United Kingdom Independence Party for the powers that the Government have already ceded to the corrupt and profligate octopus in Brussels? Are not those powers among the reasons for UKIP’s support from so many real people in this country?

[Lord Bates]

In terms of the ideology referred to in the previous question, that is exactly where the ideology comes from. That sort of approach taken towards Brussels would make our people less safe, because we would not be able to secure our borders as we do and we would not be able to co-operate on crime and law enforcement measures. All those things would put the people of this country at risk. That is ideology; this is pragmatism.

Communications Data and Interception

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, speaks from a great deal of experience in this area. I welcome his support. I agree that this is a matter which will have to be addressed very quickly by an incoming Government. This is a live issue, as is properly demonstrated by the debate we are having now.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, would we be in this predicament if we were not members of the European Union and therefore subservient to the judgments of the Luxembourg court? Surely these matters should be for our Government and Parliament and for international collaboration under their control.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, my Lords, I do not see the sequitur in that at all. It is right and proper that we should make sure that the legal framework under which we operate is established in Parliament. That is what we are doing. The way in which we adapt to changed circumstances is a healthy arrangement. Regardless of the European Court of Justice’s decision, we would need to address some of the issues that this Bill deals with. We are right to be dealing with it as soon as we possibly can.

Student Visas

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I have made our policy clear—namely, to encourage genuine students to this country. I do not see any fundamental difficulty with that, and I am not in favour of moving the goalposts on this issue. The Government have their objective of reducing net migration. The noble Lord suggests that that might be in conflict with a policy which encourages genuine students to come here. I do not believe that the two are incompatible. I think that it is possible to achieve both and it is certainly the Government’s aim and ambition to do that. However, to do that, we need the co-operation of the university and college sector. No gathering of individuals contains more people associated with universities and colleges than perhaps this House. I appeal to everyone who is involved in university courts, is a vice-chancellor or is involved in any way whatever to emphasise the Government’s determination to maintain the importance of the sector but also to emphasise to those involved in university administration the importance of applying their mind to the consequences of illegal immigration to this country and of playing their part in seeking to eliminate it.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my experience of validating the polytechnic sector for 10 years led me to complain that there was no system of quality control in higher education, as opposed to quality assurance, which is really just academics cosily scratching each others’ backs? Does not this story call into question the usefulness of our Quality Assurance Agency? How could all this go on right under its nose? Is it not time that we set up a system of higher education quality control, which would have many wider benefits as well?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord will understand that a university’s funding is dependent upon it satisfying the funding agency, HEFCE, on the quality of education being provided. I have great faith in the Quality Assurance Agency. As a result of today’s announcements, we will use it to check out further those colleges which are still the subject of our concerns and anxieties following the inquiries. Therefore, I do not share the noble Lord’s views on this issue.

European Union: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, the Question has already been put so I very much regret that, in my view at least, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is somewhat out of order. I therefore suggest that my noble friends on the Front Bench do not answer him now but do so at the end of the debate.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am not sure that that is entirely correct. I, too, wish to put a point to the Minister about his speech.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to resume his seat. I think the point that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made was valid. There will be an opportunity for my noble friend Lord Taylor to respond at the end of the debate to all the questions that have been raised during it.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am afraid that I do not accept this. I still wish to put a very short question to the Minister. He mentioned that the European Public Prosecutor had not been agreed by the Government. Does he not agree that it shows clearly the direction in which the European Union wishes to go, to the eventual detriment of our entire criminal justice system?

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, both noble Lords who have asked questions are speaking in this debate and will have the opportunity to ask their questions in their speeches. I do not see why they could not have been patient and waited until it was their turn to speak. That would have been far more in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, it is of course a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, who expresses with such purity his enthusiasm for the European dream, which is, of course, also shared by so many of your Lordships, blissfully unaware that the dream has turned into a nightmare for millions of people in this country and elsewhere in Europe.

As to the Motions before us, it appears that the corrupt octopus in Brussels is putting a tentacle round yet more of our sovereignty and, once again, the Government are a willing accomplice. It is small wonder that the British people are getting angrier by the day and more disdainful of us, their political and bureaucratic class. The Prime Minister, addressing the Conservative Party conference on 4 November 2009, said:

“The third area where we will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice. We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain”.

He continued with really quite a good bit:

“I recognise, of course, that taking back power in these areas, or negotiating arrangements that suit the UK, is not something we can do unilaterally. It means changing the rules of an institution of which we are a member—changing rules that Britain has signed up to. If we want to make changes, we will need to do that through negotiation with our European partners, and we will need the agreement of all twenty seven member states”.

I trust your Lordships will agree that that is a pretty clear commitment to the return of powers to this country from Brussels in our criminal justice system and, indeed, as we know from the Prime Minister, elsewhere.

However, Mr Cameron spoke with slippery inaccuracy, to put it politely, when he said that of course he would have to gain the consent of all 27 other member states in order to achieve his aim. He may have thought, as a committed Europhile, that he was giving himself an escape route from his promise, in which he clearly did not believe. The point is, of course, that by 4 November 2009 the Lisbon treaty was already law, complete with its block opt-out for the UK from all 135 criminal justice measures. When he made that speech he was simply not telling the truth—or let me be generous and put it down to ignorance—because we did not, and do not, need the consent of any other member state to escape from any or every one of these wretched measures.

In fact, we have now opted out of all of them. All we need to do is to leave it at that, but no—in direct contradiction to Mr Cameron’s promise, his Government are proposing to opt back in to the most pernicious of them, including the infamous European arrest warrant. I do not really want to descend into its sordid detail, or indeed that of Eurojust, or the freezing of evidence and confiscation orders. The wider point is that all these areas have been under the sole control of Parliament for centuries and the Government intend to put them within the jurisdiction of that engine of European integration, the Luxembourg court of so-called justice.

The Government and those who support that transfer do not seem to understand that it is simply not acceptable to the British people for them to be liable to be extradited, to stand trial in an inferior foreign jurisdiction, at the request of an inferior foreign investigator—perhaps for a crime that is not even a crime in this country, such as xenophobia—and left to rot for months in a foreign jail before being tried without a jury.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Perhaps the noble Lord could spend just a little time on the sordid detail of the European arrest warrant. Does he object to us being able to get criminals back from Spain, France, Germany or Italy in order that we can try them and, if necessary, convict them for crimes of a very serious nature? Does he regard as sordid detail the fact that we are able to return nationals of other member states rapidly to their countries, where they have committed or are indicted for crimes, at a time when they are in this country and possibly at risk of committing more crimes?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, all that can be done as it was done for a very long time, by intergovernmental collaboration. I object to the fact that any one of our citizens should be treated as Andrew Symeou was treated. I do not think that the convenient price that the noble Lord advances for this awful piece of legislation is worth the candle, nor do many British people—actually, most British people.

As I was saying, it is not good enough to say that this is convenient for our police and bureaucracy, which is what the noble Lord was indicating. It is not good enough to say that crime crosses borders, and that all these often corrupt jurisdictions have signed up to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights so they must be as fair as our own. None of these excuses washes with real people in this country. Just one Andrew Symeou case is too many, and there have been others.

Nor is it an excuse for Mr Cameron and the Conservative Party to say that one of the last areas of our national sovereignty is being tossed to the octopus because they are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who love this sort of thing—hence, their present standing in the opinion polls. The coalition agreement pledged to,

“ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament”.

Then we had the Queen’s Speech on 25 May 2010, which reaffirmed that legislation would be introduced,

“to ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union”.

We then had the European Union Act on 19 July 2011. Your Lordships will forgive me, but I have still not understood why these proposed opt-ins do not trigger the national referendum required by that Act. We still have the power to opt out of all these measures, and indeed have done so, so why is opting back in not a transfer of sovereignty?

Perhaps I may ask the Minister another question. If a national referendum was held on whether we should opt in to these measures, how does he think the vote would go? Does the answer, that the British public would reject it in large measure, not show why the Government are practising this dishonest sophistry to deny our people that vote, which they have indeed promised, however they try to wriggle out of it?

My third question—I think for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is to answer in this debate—is the one that I attempted to put before his noble friend Lord Faulks finished his introduction, and I apologise if I was not in order in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that the Government had nobly refused to join the EU’s proposal for a European public prosecutor because it is inimical to our tried and tested legal system of police, prosecutor, court and jury, each with their separate function. My question is whether the EU’s proposal of its foreign system does not show where the EU intends eventually to go. By agreeing to the 35 measures, are the Government not giving in to yet more EU salami-slicing, in its well known fashion, along the way to its final goal? Even the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, in his peroration, said that a European public prosecutor was perhaps a little premature—quite so: it is premature indeed.

I thought of not speaking in this debate because this sort of behaviour by the Government and the Labour Party can do nothing but increase the support for my party, the UK Independence Party—UKIP is the only vehicle that our people can use to free them from the failed and ruinous experiment of European integration—but, on reflection, I decided to do so because I know that what I have to say today will not have the slightest effect on the Government, just as it has not for the past 22 years, so I thought that I might as well at least put the feelings of real people on the record in your Lordships’ House.

The Government and Labour are toying with the liberty of the individual—with the liberty of our citizens, than which they hold few greater responsibilities. Our people do not like this; they do not like the European Union, and will eventually demand to leave the whole ill fated venture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in welcoming this “double header” debate. It would have been nonsensical to have a debate on the fourth annual report and not look at it in the wider context of the government proposals we have already debated on the opt-out/opt-in in relation to crime and justice issues. However, I share with other noble Lords a sense of déjà vu in relation to the debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, was more generous in her comments and rightly referred to the comprehensive discussions that we have had. We were right to have those. We have had several debates, Statements and Questions on opting into EU justice and home affairs measures and on the Government’s proposals to opt out of all the EU measures on tackling crime, but then, as we have heard, seeking to opt back into some of them—around 35.

The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Kennedy, said extremely appropriately that these issues strike at the very heart of what we value about our society because, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the Government’s first duty is to the safety and security of its citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that this is a complex issue. It is quite technical but it is also in this sense a very simple and straightforward issue: will the Government’s proposed opt-out make our citizens safer and more secure? Will it ensure that we can better and more effectively tackle crime? The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about the law enforcement agencies’ concerns in this area contrast sharply with the rhetoric we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.

We have to recognise that modern crime respects no borders, whether it be drug trafficking, people trafficking, money-laundering, kidnap, abduction, cybercrime, paedophilia and, of course, terrorism and threats to national security. These crimes are all the more dangerous and more complex because they transcend borders and the fight against them has also to cross borders. The Government have to be honest and admit that, despite the political rhetoric, they also accept that principle. The fourth annual report on the application of Protocols 19 and 21 regarding opt-outs and opt-ins reinforces how integrated and connected the fight against crime is, and has to be.

At the same time as the Government are boasting about how many measures they are opting out of, this report highlights those that the Government have opted into. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that of 21 proposals eight were rejected and the opt-in was not taken up, but 13 were accepted and opted into. Why is that? It is because in these cases the Government look into, and make an assessment of, the content of the proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, confirmed. They consider the advantages and disadvantages and the benefits to the UK. Those are the right questions that should be asked in every single case. In three cases those issues were debated in your Lordships’ House in very useful debates. The Government put their case and we had the benefit of reports from our own EU committee. I well recall that in the case of the EPPO debate, the Government received broad support for their position. However, this fourth annual report has to be taken in the context of the wider debate on the Government’s proposals for opting out of all EU justice and home affairs measures—around 130—and then trying to opt back into 35, although that figure may change.

It has been disappointing that the public debate about these 130 measures has been of a different tone and character to the debate that we have had on the fourth report. To many of us, it seems that the public debate on these issues seeks to obscure rather than present the facts. Too often—we heard a taste of it today—the debate on anything European becomes one of those in which those with very strong views try to persuade everyone else that they should share those views. It has been interesting for those of us who have been speaking to people during the run-up to the European elections that many people readily admit to being totally confused by the political rhetoric that they hear on TV and on their doorsteps—the conflicting figures and facts that they are given. My impression is that what people really want are hard facts, accurate information and the space to be allowed to make up their own minds on the issues. In contrast, the debates in your Lordships’ House have been rooted in those facts and information, and could have been of enormous benefit to the Government in their examination of the issues. The reports of our EU Committee on the implications of the opt-out and opt back in again have been forensic, detailed and extremely valuable to our debates here and for wider consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made an unsurprising speech. I welcome him to today’s debate because he failed to take part in any of our other debates on these issues. I recommend those reports to him.

My noble friend Lady Corston illustrated the commitment of our EU Committee and the sub-committees to the effectiveness of their scrutiny role. I was concerned at the point she raised about the lack of co-operation from the Government, and I hope that the Minister can respond to and address those relevant concerns.

I hope that our debates have had an impact on the Government. The initial government statements and comments about the opt-out were not about the value of individual measures. They said that this was going to be a historic transfer of powers. The UK was going to be liberated from the shackles of EU regulation and bureaucracy. That is not quite right, is it? When a serious look is taken at the individual measures and at what really matters—the interests of UK citizens—the response becomes very different.

We have had so many debates that I am slightly losing track of how many we have had, but I have been asking similar questions and have failed to get clear, concise answers from the Dispatch Box from various Ministers. Today I shall try again. Today is slightly different because I can ask as well as answer the questions. The relevant question that has echoed throughout our debate relates to the impact assessment of the measures that the Government seek permanently to opt out of. I have asked these questions again and again. How many of the measures that the Government want to permanently opt out of are relevant to the UK and currently being used? Eventually we received some clarity. We now know that the Government want permanently to opt out of measures to tackle racism and homophobia; but we have domestic legislation that deals with that issue. We are not going to seek to opt back into a directory on international crime; but, again, it has not been published for the past two years. Much of this is a sleight of hand.

Looking at the various documents that we have had for some time, my understanding is that the measures that the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of are basically harmless and irrelevant. Some are out of date and no longer relevant. Some we have never used and do not have to use. Others are agreements to co-operate, and the Government intend that to continue. Some relate to minimum standards that we have already met or exceeded. There is a temporary system for dealing with counterfeit documents that has already been replaced. A bundle of measures applying to Portugal, Spain and Croatia do not even apply to the UK. We have not yet been told if any of the measures that the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of are harmful to the UK. That is why I endorse the calls made today for a proper impact assessment of not just those measures that the Government seek to opt back into but those that they seek permanently to opt out of. It seems to me that the Government are prepared to risk those measures that they even consider essential by being strong and bold in jettisoning the totally irrelevant.

The Minister may correct me but my understanding is that the Government are seeking to opt back in to 35 measures, and that number is likely to increase when the European Commission adds any necessary partner measures. Where measures are important—where they make a difference to people’s lives—we are going to seek to opt back in. I may be wrong and we are opting out of something hugely significant. If so, what is it? However, we are opting out of all measures without any guarantee of being able to opt back in, even to those that the Government admit they need. It is a gamble but I am prepared to accept that, following negotiations, there will be a process of some kind for opting back in.

The point made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy is very important. We are not clear about whether there will be any gap in application or implementation between opting out and opting back in. This is not a historical moment for the anti-EU members of the Government but it is an illustration of the weakness of a Government who feel that they have to pander to anti-EU rhetoric.

I want to be clear on two points. One is the principle of the opt-out. We negotiated it but we were also clear that we would not exercise the opt-out without guarantees regarding an opt-in, particularly regarding the European arrest warrant. I am fully aware of the concerns and issues regarding the arrest warrant and I welcome any improvements and positive changes to it. However, let us really understand why it is so very important that we retain that mechanism for police co-operation and intelligence-sharing across borders, and that we do whatever we can to ensure that those who are guilty of some of the most appalling and truly shocking crimes, such as abduction, rape, people trafficking and drug trafficking, can be caught and brought to justice.

There are numerous examples of the value of the European arrest warrant and I shared some of them with your Lordships in previous debates. It would have benefited greatly from the UK Government implementing the European supervision order to prevent British citizens being held in poor conditions in some foreign prisons while awaiting trial. No doubt other improvements could be made. However, I disagree most profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the benefits of the arrest warrant. He said that he speaks for real people when he opposes the EAW. Perhaps I may quote from a real person. Beatrice Jones was the mother of Moira Jones, who was assaulted, abducted, savagely raped and murdered by an EU national. Beatrice Jones said:

“He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country ... EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all”.

That comes from a family who directly benefited from the arrest warrant, and justice was brought because of the EAW.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble Baroness tells us a heart-rending story but why could this criminal not have been returned to this country under normal extradition arrangements? Why do we need to give up our sovereignty in order to expedite this sort of thing? Why do we have to tolerate an Andrew Symeou case or any case involving a British citizen in order to achieve the result that the noble Baroness has just referred to?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, changes could well be made, and I have already indicated one: this Government should have accepted the European supervision order. However, we are not ceding any sovereignty whatever by being able to go to another country to return criminals to the UK to face justice or by extraditing criminals to other countries to face justice there. That is not giving up sovereignty; it is bringing justice to those who deserve it. I am not prepared to say to a mother whose daughter has been murdered or raped that we will not continue with the European arrest warrant, which ensures that we are able to extradite criminals quickly. The noble Lord may be slightly older than me but I remember the days of the Costa del Crime, when this country struggled to extradite back to the UK criminals who had committed crimes and fled the country.

Real people want that protection and I welcome the fact that the Government have now made a U-turn and accepted that we need the European arrest warrant. However, we need assurances that they are not going to put public safety at risk through there being a gap between the opt-out and opting back in. The European arrest warrant is a legal framework and transition measures will have to be legally robust to ensure the satisfaction of the courts in dealing with extradition. Those arrangements have now expired so we need to ensure that there is no gap.

In conclusion, I am concerned about the whole process. Our EU Committee remains unconvinced by the Government’s arguments on the opt-out. Perhaps the most damning and worrying comments I have read in the whole of these debates are in paragraph 19 of the committee’s follow-up report, when it refers to the,

“lack of analytical rigour and clarity regarding evidence drawn upon”,

by the Government. That should give us all cause for concern.

Three Select Committees in the other place— the European scrutiny, home affairs and justice committees—have raised their concerns about the process in an unprecedented joint report. That echoes some of the questions that have been raised today. The Government need to respond to three key questions. Do they really need the re-opting list ready by June or next December? Is it on schedule to be ready? What arrangements have been made if agreement is not reached by that deadline? What are the transitional arrangements? It would be a tragedy for this country and for justice if the real things that matter to people in this country, such as the ability to tackle crime across borders, were sacrificed because of political rhetoric and campaigning against Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to reply to this debate. I enjoy always talking about this issue as we hear good speeches from all sides of the House and there is plenty to debate, of course.

Before addressing the particular points made in the debate, I join my noble friend Lord Faulks in expressing my gratitude for the work done by this House and by those responsible in the European committees in scrutinising this area of our activity. These are important matters that we are debating today. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an engaging and constructive discussion.

The Government are fully committed to engaging with Parliament on European Union issues and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to do so. The debate has focused on two separate but equally important matters: the fourth annual opt-in report on post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and the UK’s 2014 opt-out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. Both matters raise important questions about the protection of human rights and the ability of our law enforcement agencies to work with their EU counterparts to keep British citizens safe.

If I may, I will address, first, the matter of the UK’s opt-in to post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. I hope that it will help my noble friend Lord Bowness in his confusion if I say that we in Parliament have endorsed the coalition’s approach to this issue. As my noble friend Lord Faulks set out earlier, the Government have been clear that they will take opt-in decisions on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as the impact of the measures on our security, civil liberties, the integrity of our criminal justice and common law systems and on the control of immigration. At the heart of it all is a commitment to focus on the national interest. My noble friends Lord Teverson and Lord Dykes asked me whether I could define it. It is like one of those things that you meet upon the road. The best essay I can present is that I hope I will recognise it when I see it. As such, we will opt in only when we believe it is in the UK’s interest to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has a different view. I believe that his absolute approach is not in the national interest. But the fact that he is wrong—or I believe him to be wrong—does not mean that we do not enjoy his contributions to our debates. The question that he raised on the referendum issue actually occurred in a previous debate and I gave a clear answer then:

“The European Union Act sets clear criteria for when a referendum would be necessary. These are set out in Section 6 of the Act. This decision is not one of the areas where a referendum is required. Changes to the Treaty on European Union, the TEU, or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the TFEU, or a decision made under Article 48(6) of the TEU potentially attract a referendum under the European Union Act 2011. The 2014 decision is not a treaty change, nor a decision under Article 48(6) of the TEU. Instead, it is something that flows from the existing treaty and, as such, it is not subject to a referendum. I hope that that categorical assurance reassures the House”.—[Official Report, 23/7/13; col. 1281.]

It clearly does not reassure the noble Lord.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord is wriggling. The noble Lord is practising almost dishonest sophistry.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Almost. We have been promised a referendum again and again in the examples that I gave—first of all by his leader, Mr Cameron, before he became Prime Minister, in the Queen’s Speech in July 2010 and then in the Referendum Act 2011. Everyone understands that to mean that if there is a transfer of sovereignty to the European Union, we would get a referendum. It is not good enough to go into the intricacies. None of those statements said, “This requires treaty change”, or anything of that kind. It is quite simple. Everyone understands that if we give powers back to Brussels, we get a referendum.

While the Minister is at it, will he answer one of my other questions? If there were to be a referendum on these opt-ins, particularly on the European arrest warrant, which way does he think people would vote?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I always have difficulty in trying to persuade the noble Lord on this issue because he clearly has a very different opinion. I would just say that the opt-out position was exactly that. We were already involved. The treaty decisions had been taken in that respect. I am perfectly accurate in the answer that I gave him. If the noble Lord wants a referendum he should vote for the Conservative Party at the next election because we have offered a referendum in the case of a successful outcome for the Conservative Party at that time.

The noble Lord also asked about the European public prosecutor and used that as a sign of the future direction of the EU. I must say to the noble Lord that the UK negotiated an opt-in to ensure that where a proposal is not in the UK’s national interest, we do not take part. The ability of Parliaments to issue reasoned opinions on subsidiarity issues related to Commission proposals is a further check on the Commission’s bringing forward proposals outside the intent of those treaties. I hope that the noble Lord will consider what I have said and see exactly how the Government are approaching this issue.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for providing us with a draft of what he was going to say because that enabled us to focus on those particular interests. I will attempt to respond to them. He asked, first, whether the Government will opt in to the Europol regulation post adoption. The Government did not opt in to the Europol regulation initially due to concerns about the obligation to provide data, even where it may conflict with national security. I think I have made that clear before. As the regulation makes subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice member states’ reasons for not undertaking an investigation requested by Europol, this creates a risk that the Court could dictate national law enforcement priorities. The Government have committed to opting in post adoption if these concerns are mitigated. That is our intention, and I explained it when we debated this issue previously.

Secondly, the noble Lord asked whether it is the Government’s intention to opt in to the proceeds of crime directive post adoption. We did not opt in to this measure as we had concerns that the directive would interfere with the workings of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, thus reducing our ability at home to tackle serious and organised crime. As noble Lords will know, under the Proceeds of Crime Act it is possible to seize assets illegally obtained where no conviction has been secured. That is not possible under the directive, and we feel that that is a deficiency in its case. This Government would want the UK and other international partners to utilise the most effective legal powers to disrupt individuals who seek to hide the proceeds of crime across borders both in the EU and beyond. We will be considering whether to opt in to the measure now that it has been adopted, including considering the opinion of the EU Committee in this regard.

In relation to readmission agreements, participation in these agreements is considered on a case-by-case basis according to the priority attached to the country concerned in the area of immigration returns and the existing bilateral relationship with that country. Should the UK choose not to participate in an agreement and circumstances change, the UK can seek to participate in it post adoption. With respect to Turkey, the UK opted in to the conclusion of the readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey in June 2012. I understand that Turkey is currently passing the agreement through its Parliament and we expect the Turkish authorities formally to adopt it this year.

The noble Lord also raised concerns in relation to the Kosovo association agreement and the European police college proposal. The unfortunate instance of missing the opt-in deadline occurred in the case of the Kosovo framework agreement on Union programmes, not the stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo. The regrettable combination of circumstances that lead to this oversight has been addressed, but lessons have been learnt for subsequent framework agreements of a similar nature and the opt-in has and will be asserted in those cases.

In relation to the CEPOL proposal, the Government informed the presidency of our opt-in decision on the deadline itself, which was 13 March. Paragraph 10 of the Code of Practice on Scrutiny of opt-in and Schengen opt-out Decisions commits the Government to notifying the parliamentary scrutiny committees of an opt-in decision as soon as we have informed the presidency, but not to doing so earlier. Although I believe that we have therefore complied with our notification commitments, I wish to emphasise that we would usually seek to provide the committees with an indication of our opt-in position and regret that the internal processes did not allow that to happen on this occasion. I should like also to reiterate at this stage the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the EU Committee in this place has the appropriate time to provide an opinion on the UK’s opt-in decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right. I recognise that the Government do not always meet this commitment and I think noble Lords will know that it is my intention for us to achieve a better performance in this area. As my noble friend Lord Boswell observed, it is not always easy to spot justice and home affairs content, particularly when the general focus of a measure is not JHA-related. However, we are raising awareness across government at official level. There have been senior-level discussions, new guidance is being circulated and we will be rolling out more bespoke training in the next few months. We hope that this will improve areas where this circumstance has arisen in the past.

I now return to the matter of the UK’s opt-out of pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. First, I join my noble friend Lord Faulks in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Boswell and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for their chairmanship of the EU Select Committee and the two sub-committees they represent here today. The committee’s two reports represent an extremely thorough analysis of complex issues and the Government are greatly appreciative of its efforts. I thank all committee members for their work in that respect.

Scrutiny can be an iterative and long-running process. The Government have already taken a number of steps to ensure that Parliament’s views on this matter are heard and understood. However, before I turn to the points on the 2014 measures raised during the debate, I would like to reiterate the Government’s commitment to continuing parliamentary scrutiny of this matter. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, we will hold another vote later in the year on the final package of measures that we will apply to rejoin. We will publish impact assessments on each of these measures in good time for that vote. For noble Lords who have expressed concerns about the quality of the impact assessments and Explanatory Memoranda, they are objective judgments and are drawn up in line with government guidelines on those matters. I am very happy to commit myself to replying to that debate when it happens later in the year.

I will respond to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made in his excellent speech. He set out a number of important points that have helped guide this debate and I am happy to respond to each one. The noble Lord asked about timings on this matter. We are aiming to reach an in-principle deal with the Commission and other member states as soon as possible. Other states support this aim; they are with us on this strategy and are keen to resolve the issue in a timely and orderly fashion.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, both asked about my assessment of progress. My noble friend Lord Faulks and I will update the House and its committees when we can. I am by nature an optimist—as I think most noble Lords will know—and the House might therefore expect me to say that we are satisfied with the general progress of the negotiations. I am happy to reiterate the Government’s commitment to hold a second vote before seeking to rejoin measures. We certainly hope to hold the vote ahead of the House rising for the Summer Recess, but we are not in a position to confirm that. However, I can confirm that we will hold the vote well ahead of 1 December.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about the timescales for providing impact assessments on the measures that we are seeking to rejoin and those that we are not. I think we know that there is a difference of view in this area because the Government remain committed to providing an impact assessment on the final package of measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and this will be provided in good time ahead of the second vote.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his patience in waiting for this matter to be answered, but the Government do not intend to provide impact assessments on the measures they are not seeking to rejoin. This is because the starting point for any analysis is that the opt-out has been exercised, and not seeking to rejoin a measure will not have a direct impact on the UK. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will actually agree with me on that point. Noble Lords will be aware that the original decision was accompanied by a White Paper covering all the issues that were raised by the opt-out.

Alexander Litvinenko

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, but, as I have pointed out, justice requires that those whom we wish to see put on trial in this country for this crime are brought to justice, and that requires the Russians to honour their agreement to extradite according to our request. I could not agree more with the noble Lord that our relationship with Russia has deteriorated as a result of the recent attempted annexation of Crimea. We are clearly not happy with that situation either, so it is yet another breakdown in our relationship with Russia.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, instead of passing sanctions of doubtful usefulness on various Russian citizens, would it now not be better to honour the promise given personally by the Foreign Secretary to Mrs Litvinenko, and to honour the Written Answer to me of 8 July last from the Minister, and respect the basic principles of British justice with a fully open inquest or inquiry? I have not understood whether the Government are committed to that or not.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I think that I have made the position quite clear. The Home Secretary is considering, in the light of circumstances, whether an inquiry is the proper course of action. Meanwhile, as noble Lords will know, the G7—not the G8—is meeting in The Hague today to consider developments as a result of Russian aggression in the Black Sea area.

European Court of Justice: Jurisdiction

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the European arrest warrant was one of those matters agreed to before 2009. Therefore, it is covered by what we are discussing today. As I have said, we will make our decision at the appropriate time in 2014. It might be that we feel that in the national interest we do want to opt out of it; it might be that we do not. But I think that we will leave that to another day.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, of the 133 measures mentioned by the noble Lord, which were still outstanding before our opt-out last December, does he accept that the Government have already opted in to eight of the most important? Can he therefore give the House an assurance that the Government will not opt into these measures one by one so that there is very little to opt out of when we come to the end of May 2014?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I think I made clear, I do not want to go through all 133 measures at this stage. The House would not like it at Question Time and it would not be an appropriate use of the limited time I have. We will make appropriate decisions on some of them beforehand if it is appropriate but the larger number is a matter for 2014.

EU: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the Written Statement in the other place by the Minister, Mr Lidington, on 20 January, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I should like to press the Minister on what Mr Lidington, said in debate on 26 January, which comes somewhat later and is very precise. He said:

“The decision on whether to exercise the bloc opt-out is important and sensitive for the United Kingdom”.

He agreed with Mr Jenkin on that point. He went on:

“Its implications for the whole range of complex, technical and often interrelated measures concerned will need to be carefully considered, and they ought to be carefully considered by Government and Parliament”.

He then said—and this is the point that I want the Minister to clarify:

“I agree completely that Parliament should give its view on … a formal decision on whether we wish to opt in or out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/11; col. 399.]

That is not just a debate that follows any lifting of the scrutiny reserve—as your Lordships know I regard that as pretty well completely useless because it has been overridden hundreds of times in the past few years and Brussels never takes any notice of it anyway—or this commitment from the Government; as the Minister and other noble Lords have mentioned, we have been opting in to some of this stuff along the road. I understand that if we agree to an amendment of it, it becomes cast in European law. The question for the Minister is: what is to be the enduring value of Protocols 19 and 21? Upon what will both Houses of Parliament be able to vote when the time comes? I put this in an Oral Question to the Government six weeks or so ago. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, answering for the Government, said that the subject was really too delicate to discuss in public and that he would give it some thought and come back to us. Have the Government given it that thought and what is the answer?

Where do this Government stand on this matter with their EU Bill? Do they envisage any of the JHA opt-ins being subject to a referendum of the British people? Where do we stand on a vote, not just a debate, in both Houses of Parliament, which was promised on 26 January? Where do we stand on the EU Bill, assuming that the Government have the sense to put back into it all the parts that were foolishly excluded by your Lordships' House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, this has been a constructive debate and I am grateful as this is the first time I have taken these measures in front of your Lordships’ House and this Committee. The Government have committed to increasing our engagement with Parliament on European issues and on the opt-in in particular. This and subsequent annual reports, as well as this debate, are certainly going to help to inform the way in which they are structured in the future. I have been very interested to hear many views across the Chamber today, which will be very helpful in informing and shaping the way in which we continue to report to Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, mentioned the very important factor of the accumulative effect. He also raised the question of how the red lines might be affected in light of that. It is an important issue that I will take back to the department to look at the implications for accumulation and whether that affects the way in which red lines have been established. I hope he will accept that I think it is a very good point that we should consider. He also raised the question of the vigilance of committees. I quite accept that, and I will come later to other points that have been made about the work of committees, in which noble Lords in this Room play a significant and important part.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the time taken to bring this report. We would like to have had this debate much earlier, but debates are in the hands of the business managers and this was the first time this slot was available. I will report to business managers noble Lords’ concern that the lead time between the report being published and holding the debate needs to be narrowed if the debate is to have more meaning and relevance. Noble Lords have made that point well and I apologise that there has been a long lead time in debating this first report.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the code of practice. A draft code of practice is at an advanced stage, but we want the code to take account of the new scrutiny arrangements announced by the Minister for Europe. Settling the detail of this has meant it has taken longer than we hoped but we expect to finalise it in the early autumn. It is on its way—it is not here yet—but the work is well progressed.

The noble Baroness also said that we failed to opt out under Protocol 19 due to the timing of these proposals. Protocol 19 gives us three months to opt out of measures to build on the part of Schengen in which we participate. During the time of the report, there have been two such measures by which we consciously decided to remain bound. We have therefore not failed to opt out but, in line with the coalition position, we have taken each decision on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Baroness and others—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, touched on this—also raised the need for more narrative and explanation in future reports and the need to explain each decision more. Those are very well made points, and in the interests of transparency I see no reason why future reports should not take account of those views. It would certainly be very helpful, particularly for accuracy, if those narratives were put in place, so I am very happy to put that forward. We set out our reasons for each opt-in decision when we report them to Parliament by Written Ministerial or Oral Statement. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that I had not spotted that it said “House of Lords N/A”. That is extremely discourteous and I apologise to him unreservedly. I will ensure that there is a proper explanation and that no comment such as that, which is quite derisory, will appear in future reports and I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention.

Perhaps I may move on to some of the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He mentioned the agreement with Belarus. We decided not to opt in, because we did not believe that the agreement would deliver clear benefits for the UK. The number of illegal immigrants removed or deported to Belarus is very low, and the UK Border Agency already has good co-operation with the Belarus authorities. The decision was taken for that reason. Also raised was the question of dates—when the last language version is finalised. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made a good point about that. We have agreed that that is the appropriate approach, and will ensure that it is reflected in the code of practice when it comes.

The question of Committee time for debate, when there is no three-month period, is a difficulty. However, we will always seek to accommodate a request for a debate on an EU measure. Given that we have only the three months to take opt-in decisions at the start, we need to work closely with the business managers. In the same way that we will discuss with them the lead time for the debate to come forward, we will ensure that they are fully aware of the three-month timeframe required. There is an opportunity for more flexibility in this. For a post-adoption opt-in, of course we have a little more time. Particularly for parliamentary time, three months is very narrow, but we will ensure that the business managers are aware of the need for proper and timely scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also suggested that the annexe issued could be kept up to date for everyone in the form of a six-monthly submission. It should be possible to send that to both committees. It is a good suggestion. We will write, setting out our analysis of the priorities for the next six months, and then hope to make that a routine part of the way in which we keep committees informed, particularly of the upcoming business.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, raised the subject of the European public prosecutor. I was rather uplifted by his initial remark that there was only one thing on which his committee had disagreed; I shall now disappoint him tremendously. The Government have made clear that we will not opt in to a European public prosecutor. We understand that the Commission proposes to create such an office in the next two to three years, but the UK does not support it and will not participate. Having said that, I am sure that the noble Lord will want to engage in further debate with us about it, which we would welcome; but that has been the Government’s position and it still stands.

The noble Lord and others also referred to the right to opt out of all existing police and criminal justice measures from 1 December 2014. That is when the European Court of Justice jurisdiction will take effect. We have to make the decision no later than May 2014, of course. I do not wish to dodge the question. I say that particularly to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, because I understand from his remarks that he has had some unsatisfactory answers to it. The fact is that the Government will use the intervening time—we have that time—to consider carefully the many different factors and implications of the decision, including proper analysis of its cost and particularly the legal implications. We have no intention of making a premature decision on the matter, which I know will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, but I hope will give some crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am most grateful to my erstwhile noble friend, but could she be precise as to whether the Government intend to fulfil the commitment given by Mr Lidington that,

“the Government have committed publicly to having a vote in both Houses before making a formal decision on whether we wish to opt in or out”?—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/11; col. 399.]

That was really my main question. Everything since then refers to Parliament being kept informed and to debates and scrutiny, none of which is worth anything compared with a vote in both Houses.

While I am on my feet, I may as well repeat my two questions. What will be the enduring value of Protocols 19 and 21, and upon what are both Houses going to be able to vote? Those matters are central to this debate and, if the noble Baroness does not know now, perhaps we should come back to them fairly soon.

[Baroness Browning]

I am very grateful. I was about to move on to that. I reassure the noble Lord that, as my right honourable friend David Lidington said, we will have a vote in both Houses if the Government decide to opt in under Protocol 21 or opt out under Protocol 19. That commitment was made by the Minister in the other place. It still very much holds good and is the Government’s declared policy. I hope that that reassures him on that point.

I think that the noble Lord also raised the question of a referendum—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

That is not an unreasonable request and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that I shall write to him with the definitive list as soon as I am able to do so.

I want to finish with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Hannay. We are going to consider this matter very carefully, so there will be no rushed decision. However, the commitment to a vote in both Houses remains very firm.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

On what would that vote be likely to be?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trying to seduce me into setting out the wording of a decision that has yet to be made, and I am not in a position to do that. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint him but, as I understood it, his initial concern was about whether the important commitment to both Houses remains good. It certainly does.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about forthcoming decisions. I am going to read out a very short list and I assure the Committee that I shall not take up too much time in doing so. Forthcoming decisions—ones that are about to be published and will require an opt-in decision—include: the directive on the rights and support of victims of crime; the European protection order civil measure; the recast asylum procedures directive; the recast asylum qualification directive; the EU/Australia PNR arrangements; the EU/US PNR arrangements; the EU/Canada PNR arrangements; the proposed regulation on the freezing of bank accounts in the European Union; and the proposal for a directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. I hope that he will also find helpful the commitment I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the six-monthly updates. That information will be extremely helpful to the Scrutiny Committee and across the wider House. The noble Lord asked about the 2014 opt-out decision. I hope he feels that I have given a comprehensive answer to that point, which was raised by several other noble Lords.

Immigration: Home Office Procedures

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not familiar with this case, which obviously the noble Lord is interested in, in detail. I will write to him.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, have the new Government amended the guidelines which the last Government gave to immigration officers instructing them to allow the second, third and fourth wives of Muslim men, together with their attendant children, to live in this country,

“even if that sets up a polygamous marriage in the United Kingdom”?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not familiar with that provision. I understand why the noble Lord is asking the question; I fear that I will have to look into the matter and perhaps write to him.