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

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I confess that I was rather surprised when I came in to find that I was in such an exalted position on the speakers list. Now I have to follow that impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, so I am in some difficulty. But I shall try my best. First, I say to voters: when all the political parties are agreed, beware. Beware, beware, beware. I say to the Government, referring to the title of this debate, that those who always wish to get the best of both worlds very often get the worst of both worlds because they are being too greedy.

I turn to the statutory instrument arranging the referendum for 23 June. I would have thought, bearing in mind that the referendum need not take place until the end of next year, that the Government would have taken more time in the negotiations to get a better deal than the sad one that they have got. They would also have had the advantage of asking the Tory Party at its conference in October whether its members agreed with what the Government had brought back from the negotiation.

I have to declare myself straightaway; I always do. I was against joining the EEC, or the Common Market, in 1973, and now that the EU has gained so much additional power in policy fields other than trade, I am even more convinced that we should leave it as soon as possible and have the power in this country to decide our fate and future. I remind those people who say that the direction of the EU is not towards integration that at the beginning of this month the six original members of what was then the EEC proposed that the eurozone should become a fiscal power and have power in military matters as well. So in fact the direction is not backwards but forwards to, as they say, a more integrated Europe.

I cannot help feeling that the Prime Minister made a demeaning spectacle when he went to Europe and did not demand but pleaded with them to give him some concessions that would enable him to recommend that Britain should remain in the EU. I am afraid that he has not come back with anything at all of that sort: indeed, the concessions are pitiful. They are virtually as pitiful as the concessions brought back in 1972—possibly 1973, or was it 1974?—by Harold Wilson, which turned out to be no concessions at all.

He, too, promised that there would be no economic and monetary union. He gave that assurance. Well, we know what happened to that assurance. Now the Prime Minister is assuring the country that we will never join the euro. He cannot make that promise. The parliamentary situation arranges that. As he well knows, no parliament can bind its successor and there is no agreement, national or otherwise, that can alter that constitutional position. So he is promising something which he cannot properly deliver.

I am sick and tired of being told by politicians, self-serving multinationals and foreign potentates that Britain must remain in the European Union—not only for Britain’s sake but for their sakes. We now have to arrange our affairs to suit the rest of the world, not to suit our own country. I remind the Government that they are here to serve British interests and not the interests of those people.

Britain has survived and thrived for 1,000 years as an independent country. Even in the face of hostility from European countries, it would do so free of the incubus of the EU. We need a country that is governed for itself—Britain governing for itself through its own institutions which have been with us successfully for the last 1,000 years.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am afraid that that sequence is not quite correct. I think the noble Lord will accept this, but if we have a difference of opinion, we can discuss it afterwards. The critical point about the process is that it is for the Government, first and foremost, to decide whether they want to table an amendment in lieu or simply reject the views of this House. That was the Government’s decision, not the Speaker’s. Whether there is advice or not, it is the Government’s decision that they wish not to pursue the idea of a more general review of the franchise. They simply wanted to reject the view of the House of Lords. They then triggered the issue of financial privilege and it is indeed correct that neither the Clerks nor the Speaker could then gainsay them. However, this figure has now got common currency and it is thought that that somehow justifies this process. If your Lordships’ House was only proposing a little baby, they might have let it through; but they thought it was a big baby and they produced it in the way they did to try and scare us. This rabbit has been inflated by Ministers for their own political ends. We should be told exactly what the calculation is; what, realistically, it is as a proportion of the total referendum budget; and who now endorses this figure.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

The noble Lord keeps on talking about the Government doing this. Surely, however, the House of Commons has already rejected this policy four times, by an average of 50 votes.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, that is not absolutely true. First, it has not specifically rejected the amendment proposed by your Lordships’ House. Secondly, as I thought I had just explained, the issue of an amendment in lieu means that it is no longer necessary. If the Government had decided on such an amendment to express their apparent view that a general review is required, and that it should not be in this one Bill, financial privilege would not have been triggered in any way. That is the process that should have been undertaken.

The issue before your Lordships’ House today is no longer simply whether the electorate for the EU referendum should or should not be expanded, important though that is. I have given a lot of time and effort to trying to make sure that this referendum is one that we can be proud of because it has the same electorate as the one that was so successful in Scotland on a similar issue of the future of that generation. However, this matter has now been deliberately escalated by Ministers into an insidious attempt to undermine the constitutional role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House. We must stand firm, pass Amendment A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and reject this attack.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that. We have all talked about making sure that this is a level playing field, so I am delighted to know that noble Lords are keen to ensure that people who will be entitled to vote can be registered. However, the issues are whether this needs to be in the Bill and whether we need to wait until the annual register, which starts in July 2016. We have a rolling electoral register. Can the Minister say whether it would be possible to look at registration at an earlier stage? Lest anyone think that I am trying to skew things by looking for a quick referendum at a later or earlier date, we do not know the date, so we have the veil of ignorance. However, we will know relatively soon when we shall have Royal Assent for the Bill. Could the Electoral Commission not set in train the process of registration as soon as Royal Assent is granted?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is trying to be helpful, and I am surprised that he should be opposed from the Liberal Benches. I did not agree with one thing he said: that we should abide by a democratic vote. The vote in this House is not and has not been democratic. The vote will be democratic only if the House of Commons agrees. It is rather an impertinence that this House should have carried the amendment on the franchise when it knows perfectly well that the House of Commons opposed such an amendment by quite a large majority—51, I think.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is being treated very badly, because he has tried to be helpful, bearing in mind that he has a different view from that held on the Liberal Benches. While I am talking about the Liberal Benches and democracy, I have to say that they came out in huge numbers to vote for the amendment on the franchise, yet they have only eight MPs in the House of Commons. That is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace that they should use their undemocratic power in this House to overrule the democratic House—another place.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I certainly have no intention of doing down the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. We have had a vote in your Lordships’ House. The Members of the other place will have the opportunity to either accept votes at 16 and 17 or to vote it down, and we will reach a point of ping-pong. The elected or unelected nature of this House is for another debate—

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I think we are muddying our feet and that we are in very dangerous waters when we go into these places. By raising these issues we are stoking people’s fears about refugees, and that is not a proper thing to do. At some stage we should discuss these things in more depth rather than in this sort of debate, but I think that it is a very dangerous way forward.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I have been listening to this debate all afternoon and I find it very interesting indeed. I also realise that all the amendments are well meant, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has hit the nail on the head. What she wants is unbiased information, and she believes that you cannot get it from the Government because they are in fact biased. I say that because the Prime Minister has just been to Iceland where he made his position perfectly clear, which is that he wishes to remain in the EU. He believes that it is the best thing for Britain to do, so he has made his position absolutely clear. How can the Government be unbiased? The noble Baroness said that we have civil servants and they will be unbiased. Civil servants are never unbiased; they take their lead from the boss, as in fact they should. Knowing that the Prime Minister has gone abroad and said that he believes that the United Kingdom should remain in the EU come what may will condition whatever is put into these reports. We should make no mistake about that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Would the noble Lord allow for the possibility that the Prime Minister might have reached the position he now holds because of his concept of the British national interest and his position as Prime Minister in trying to define that national interest?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Yes, I believe that the Prime Minister believes that, but the British national interest cannot be served in the European Union. That is because the European Union is exactly what it says it is and what it wants to become. It has been made perfectly clear by unelected officials and indeed by elected people that they want further integration. However the Prime Minister tries, he will never be able to join a full Union unless he is prepared to agree to more integration, and that of course will also mean joining the euro. Further integration must include the euro and anyone who wishes to be part of further integration will have to join it or else leave or become some sort of associate member. Those are the facts and we should not try to deny them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned South Korea, which has indeed been a great economic success. It is interesting that it has signed a free trade treaty with the European Union. If South Korea can do that, why cannot we?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

If the European Union did not sign a treaty with us but put restrictions on trade, it would be very much the loser. We are trading with the European Union at the moment on the basis of a deficit of £70 billion a year. Why would Europe not want to trade with us? It traded with us before we joined, when 35% of our exports went to Europe. Why on earth would the European Union wish to stop trading with us? Of course it would not. That is nonsense and I wish people would stop talking about these 3,500,000 jobs which are going to be lost.

[Lord Flight]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I suggest to him that this lost confidence is in reality merely a scare campaign by the yes vote. There is no evidence that this country has lost confidence in looking after its own interests. It has emerged as the most successful economy of the past four or five years. It is no more than a scaremongering tactic; it is not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. As I have said before, I believe this country would thrive outside the European Union.

Lastly, I want to comment on the American official, whoever he was, who said that it would be grave from the point of view of America and its relations with this country if we left the EU. Of course that is American policy for two reasons. One is that America is scared that the European Union will succeed. It knows that most countries are anti-American so it wants a friend in sight. The other is that America does not really believe that Britain should shine in the world because the American interest is paramount under any circumstances.

[Lord Tugendhat]

The official concerned was the United States Trade Representative. I think we ought to assume that the United States Trade Representative is able to speak for the United States in trade matters and surely the point he was making was a very different one. Signing free trade agreements for the United States is a very complicated matter. It involves an infinite amount of politicking in Congress and it is very difficult to carry through. Therefore, from the point of view of the United States it is better to be able to sign trade agreements with very large units where there is a good deal to offer both ways rather than with relatively small units. That is the point he was making and, given that he speaks for the United States in trade matters, one should not be quite as dismissive as the noble Lord has been.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I was not being dismissive. I understand the point of view of the United States and of other countries. The problem is that they want huge agglomerates to discuss and decide matters and I believe that there will be a loss of democracy under those circumstances. I may be wrong but in any event the Americans will still want our whisky and we will still want their awful films so trade will go on.

I want to finish with a quote:

“The European Union faces long-term economic decline and the ‘love affair’ of integration is at risk”.

Who said that? Not me. It was Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened throughout the debate and I remain a little puzzled. A number of possible reports have been proposed but no one has made it clear at which audience the reports are intended to be directed. I suspect very strongly that, even if all these reports were published, the percentage of those voting in the referendum who will have read any of them will be a tiny fraction. Therefore one is bound to ask: at who else are these reports to be directed? They may well be very useful for Members of Parliament but it is unlikely that any of them is going to change our views very significantly at this stage.

To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Green, I think it would be helpful if we had more information. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about the problem of asylum seekers. There is great movement at present not only of asylum seekers but also of migrants. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out, very complicated issues are arising about the effect on the population and the way in which those coming to the country may eventually become full citizens. I think he is right about that but none the less I am very doubtful whether the various reports which we will consider will have much effect on those voting, even if we include 16 year-olds, but I look forward to hearing the view of the Front Benches on this issue.

Because this is an advisory referendum not a binding referendum, as the note from the House of Commons Library makes very clear, we may find ourselves with a somewhat inconclusive result, in terms of both turnout and the majority. In those circumstances the matter may well have to go back to Parliament and these reports may be very useful in that context, so I am in favour of the reports but we need to be clear what their purpose is.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spicer]

My Lords, we have heard that Amendment 2 is a tongue-in-cheek amendment. We have never had one of those before; it is, I think, without precedent. We have had wrecking amendments and probing amendments, but we have never had tongue-in-cheek amendments. Leaving that to one side, the amendment enables me to make one short but serious point.

The argument that has been made for getting on with things is clearly a strong one, because of the confidence factor and so on. We shall find out fairly quickly whether we can get the results we hope for in terms of change—certainly in terms of treaty change. For instance, on the question of repatriation of powers we shall fairly quickly come up against something called the acquis communautaire, which dominates, and is endemic to, the entire set of treaties. It requires all the movement to be one way; it does not allow any return of powers within the treaties. Given that unanimity would be required to change a treaty, we shall find out fairly quickly what the situation is. So any amendment, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, that would cause further delays is a bad thing and should be voted against.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is perfectly acceptable, and I hope the Minister will accept it. However, I cannot understand why on earth Amendment 2 has been grouped with it. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, did not insist that it be listed separately. He will be surprised to hear that, to some degree, I agree with what he said. 2017 will be a very difficult year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

I agree entirely with the words the noble Lord is using and I have followed much the same pattern myself. Does he agree with me that those who tell us we can never come out of Europe would have to accept that we are in fact—I am going to use a fairly strong word—enslaved?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I think “enslaved” is perhaps going a little far but at the same time, of course, we have lost the ability to govern ourselves in many respects. The noble Lord is right that things change. I always remember the dictum of Harold Wilson:

“A week is a long time in politics”,

and a decade, of course, is an aeon.

I was about to say that I wish we would not call each other names. I respect those who think that Britain should be part of a large agglomerate but, on the other hand, many of us believe that this country has succeeded for 1,000 years by its self-government.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Which country has succeeded for 1,000 years?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I do not want to offend the noble Lord but the country that has been successful for 1,000 years is England. It is England. With my name being of Scottish origin, I would want to join Scotland with the success that the United Kingdom has achieved, certainly since 1706.

When it was mentioned that Lady Thatcher changed her mind, I thought that there was some dissent. I can assure noble Lords that she did change her mind. The reason I know that is that in 1992, when we were discussing the Maastricht treaty, there was a committee consisting of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and many other people, and Margaret Thatcher—Lady Thatcher, if I might correct myself—led the opposition. I was chairman and she used to sit on my right hand side and make contributions that made it absolutely clear that her view then was that we should leave the EU. There was only one little problem. As the meeting went on I found that it was slipping away from me. It was slipping away from me on the right, but a little glance at her handed the meeting back to me. Margaret Thatcher became a convert to Britain leaving the EU.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Does the noble Lord not think that it is fairer to judge Lady Thatcher by what she did when she was Prime Minister rather than by what she might have done or thought when she was not?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Of course I knew her as Prime Minister, but I was not close to her when I was Prime Minister—when she was Prime Minister—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I assure noble Lords that I never had an ambition to be Prime Minister. The fact is that Prime Ministers sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes they are badly advised. I think that she was very badly advised to agree to the Single European Act. On behalf of the Labour Party, Donald Bruce—Lord Bruce of Donington—and I sat on that Front Bench opposing the Single European Act. Unfortunately in my view, the Labour Party has changed its view, but it might come back to reality in due course and get on the right trail with this.

I agree entirely with Amendment 1 and, as I said earlier, the noble Lord has raised an important point.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the contributions that we have had so far, for one moment I thought that I could be tempted to recount my 45 years’ membership of the Labour Party and my journey towards Europe. I will resist that for now, although I might come back to it.

It is important that we address some of the details of Amendment 1. It is fundamentally about a level playing field. I understand that noble Lords opposite are focusing on a level playing field over how the date will be set and the arrangements for purdah, but there is more to a level playing field than simply purdah. The Electoral Commission’s remarks or comments on this amendment are important. These show that in the commission’s experience since 2004, in referring to PPERA and its requirements, campaigners and electoral administrators need time to prepare themselves properly to follow the detailed rules that Parliament has specified. These rules relate to donations, campaign funds and, of course, how a campaign is properly designated.

I had hoped that noble Lords would refer to the ninth report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raises this point quite properly. It says that there is a bit of a problem here with the requirements in the schedules about establishing or designating an appropriate organisation that will come within the terms of PPERA, and with the campaign period of 10 weeks. The issue for me—the Electoral Commission makes this point—is that we will have a much longer campaign than 10 weeks. It has already started: organisations either have been or will be set up in the hope and expectation that they will be the designated organisation. At some point they have to get their act together and ensure that they meet fully the requirements of PPERA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I am sorry to interrupt, but he may not recall that during the 1975 referendum the press, other than the Daily Express, was virtually all in favour of remaining in.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I very much recall it, because, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I was secretary of the Spelthorne Get Britain Out campaign, so I was fully aware of what we were up against. I will come on to this on Amendment 2.

I want to focus on specific questions relating to this. Everyone is familiar with the 10-week campaign period and everyone is talking about purdah. However, there is a period before that relating to the operation of PPERA and designated organisations. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee said,

“if as suggested in the memorandum the start date for applications for designation is likely to be earlier than the start date for the referendum period, this will have the knock-on effect of reducing the minimum length for the referendum period”.

In considering the issue raised in these amendments, the committee said:

“We consider that, if the Government intend there to be a minimum of 10 weeks for the referendum period, they cannot rely on the operation of the 2000 Act”—

PPERA—

“to deliver that minimum period. In our view, the 10 week minimum for the referendum period should be specified on the face of the Bill”.

I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Delegated Powers Committee is correct. If it is not, how can she give the guarantees that we all accept have been made? I accept that there is a need to ensure that, when we enter the process of the referendum, there is a proper level playing field which everyone accepts and understands. To do otherwise would undermine the whole process because, as noble Lords have said, whatever we have at the end, we want a settlement. That brings me to my noble friend’s Amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I am not privy to all the Government’s thinking, but, no, I do not understand that that is on the horizon. Any proposal must be examined carefully: we cannot change the voting age and simply assume that it will have no implications for other areas where our law and our society treat 16 and 17 year-olds differently from their 18 year-old counterparts.

Noble Lords will wish to reflect on how this change would look to the public. I have no idea how 16 and 17 year-olds—were they to be given the vote—would vote. A number of people might guess and they might well be wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, in an exchange with my noble friend Lord Tebbit, that he thought that 16 and 17 year-olds were more likely to use their vote better than my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I am not quite sure what that said. Nor do I know how 18 and 19 year-olds are likely to vote. It is possible that a change in the franchise of such a radical nature—this is a radical change—will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as some sort of attempt to affect the result of the referendum. We are anxious as a Government that, whatever the result of the referendum, the legitimacy of the process cannot be questioned. The safest way of doing that is to stick to the Westminster franchise and leave the vote at 18.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who is not currently in his place, made a valiant attempt to say that we have opened the door by allowing Peers to vote or by the minor adjustment in Gibraltar. We are talking about millions; we are talking about a radical change. It is a change that not only would be radical, but would have the potential to affect timing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hamilton for referring to the report of the Electoral Commission. Quite rightly, the commission did not offer a view on 16 and 17 year-olds, but it did, in addition to the paragraph to which he referred, say:

“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”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, “Well, we could accelerate the process having regard to the fact that so many young people are aware of social media and could be brought up to speed with the issues”. However, as I understood the debate yesterday about registration, it was so important that we did not rush the procedure because people might be left off. It was far too important a matter to in any way accelerate. Therefore, if it affects the timing, which I understand to be very important in a number of contexts, that is a relevant factor. However, the crucial argument is that this is not an appropriate moment to make that change. In all those circumstances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Could I ask a hypothetical question? I preface it by saying that I understand that the “leave” campaign wants to support this amendment. That might surprise some people: it surprised me. How firm are the Government in opposing this amendment? Let us suppose, for example, that the amendment is carried on Report and is sent back to the House of Commons, which already rejected this proposal. If it comes back to the House of Lords, and we insist on the amendment—after all, Monday indicated that this House is not only roaring; it is using its teeth as well—the Parliament Act would apply. What then would happen to this Bill? How long would it be delayed and what effect would that have on the timetable?

[Lord Faulks]

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

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

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has been in his place since 3 pm this afternoon and that he came to this debate straight from the Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill. In the circumstances, he might wonder whether the definition of slavery is quite comprehensive enough.

This House has debated the Protocol 36 imbroglio many times and I do not want to revisit all the arguments made in these debates, but I want to emphasise a few points, and I want to comment on the Motions before us and to ask the Minister a couple of questions.

The Government are proposing to opt back in to the 35 measures set out in Command Paper 8897. As I said in our last debate on the subject, I very much support rejoining these measures, especially the improved European arrest warrant. The Government have chosen these rejoin measures very well, although of course they should not have had to choose at all. None of the measures that the Government are choosing not to rejoin is at all harmful to the United Kingdom’s interests. By deciding to abandon some measures and keep others, the Government have wasted their own and parliamentary time. They have unnecessarily spent political capital negotiating all this with the Council and the Commission. By trying to keep the number of rejoins low, they have rejected, at the very least, four perfectly good and valuable measures. The fact is that, very regrettably, the Government have been at best extremely clumsy in the way they have treated Parliament throughout the entire Protocol 36 debate. Others today and in previous debates have listed the delays, the absence of Explanatory Memoranda and the unsatisfactorily worded Motions.

The letter of last Wednesday from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, notes the Government’s failure to adhere to the commitments they have made to Parliament on this matter. As he says, the Government have persisted to the very end in presenting this House with a deeply unsatisfactory and illogical Motion. The government Motion asks the House to approve the draft regulations transposing 11 measures into UK law. Ten of these are among the 35 measures that the Government are seeking to opt back in to. The Commission has advised that they need to be transposed now if we are going to be able to opt back in to them.

But what of the other 25 measures? The government Motion says that by agreeing to the transposition of 11 measures we endorse the formal application to rejoin all 35. Why do it this way? Why make endorsement of the 35 simply consequential on agreeing to transposition of 11 measures, one of which is not even a Protocol 36 measure? If it was an attempt to avoid discussion of the European arrest warrant then it has clearly failed to do that, as has again been demonstrated tonight.

I entirely agree with the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on this matter. It is a profoundly unsatisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. The approach also raises some questions. The Government are seeking to rejoin 35 measures, 29 of which are non-Schengen. This means that the Commission is obliged to approve our application if the package is coherent and practicable. It seems clear that, provided we transpose 10 measures into UK law, that will be the case. However, that leaves six non-Schengen measures. Here, it is the Council who must decide to allow rejoin or not.

There are some confusing and worrying signals. The Minister has already mentioned Spain. The Times reported last Friday that Spain had forced a concession from the Government on the Prüm decisions. The article said that the Home Secretary, to secure Spain’s agreement to the rejoins, agreed to run a small-scale Prüm pilot. The article went on to list expressions of outrage at this agreement from Tory Eurosceptic MPs. I was surprised by this—not by the expressions of outrage so much but because I had thought, as I said in a debate on Protocol 36 on 17 July, that the Government had already committed to running a small-scale Prüm pilot anyway. I had thought that this was on the Government’s own unforced initiative. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether Spain, as the Times reported, had in fact demanded this concession.

Perhaps the Minister can also tell the House whether Spain, as it is rumoured, has used Gibraltar as a reason for raising objections to the opt back in. Is it just Spain? Can the Minister say if other member states have forced concessions from us in our negotiations to rejoin the six non-Schengen measures? It is worth bearing in mind that no concessions of any kind would have been necessary had we not decided to exercise, quite unnecessarily, the block opt-out. I very much hope that the Motion tonight will be the end of this sorry saga, at least in your Lordships’ House. I hope that it will allow the Government to spend their time on more productive and substantive conversations with our partners in the European Union.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief and begin with a declaration that I always make when I speak about European Union matters: I was never in favour of joining the EEC or the Common Market, as it then was, and I am now in favour of getting out as soon as we possibly can. The House will understand that I cannot support the regulations. I do not think they should be made and we should not be part of the European construct.

What I do want to say, and the reason I have risen to my feet, is to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. If he puts it to a vote, I shall, of course, vote for it. I really am ashamed of the Government and the way in which they have handled this whole issue. These regulations were put before the House of Commons, which expected to have a long debate on them, and if possible, to discuss individual matters contained within them. They were so disappointing that the Speaker reprimanded the Government on the way in which they handled the matter, and the House itself was completely and utterly outraged. There was chaos in the House of Commons. The Government have almost done the same here—of course, in a much more polite way. They put up a Second Reading debate with 32 speakers, interspersed with a Statement which took about an hour, before the debate on the regulations. The result is that we reached this very important debate at a quarter to nine.

As has already been pointed out on the opposition Benches, that is simply not good enough. I object very much to Parliament being treated in that sort of way. I hope they will take a lesson from the way they have handled this, and the way in which the debate has been interspersed with criticism from the opposition Benches, to ensure that when important matters of this sort are discussed in future, the House will have adequate time before 10 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is, of course, quite right to ask me to qualify that. I should say that there is nothing more for Parliament to do. I understand that there may or may not be a debate in relation to the European arrest warrant in the House of Commons.

I will now deal with what happened in the House of Commons. It forms part of the concern of my noble friend Lord Boswell. I came back from China this weekend, where I had been discussing the rule of law issues which, as my noble friend Lord Lamont said, are very much a matter of priority for this country. On the flight back, I had the opportunity of reading the debate in the House of Commons; it was not an edifying experience. The expectation was that the debate would focus on the European arrest warrant, but that was not one of the measures that required any legislative action, so it was not within the scope of the Motion to approve the statutory instrument.

The Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Theresa May, indicated that the debate could concern itself by “proxy” with the European arrest warrant. The party opposite would have none of this and there ensued a bad-tempered and rather uninformative debate that eventually resulted, after three votes, in the statutory instrument—the subject of the Motion—being approved and the European arrest warrant not being fully debated. This did not reflect well on Parliament. I am glad to say, albeit by an amendment, your Lordships’ House does not have the procedural impediments that the House of Commons has, and all 35 measures, insofar as it was necessary, could be debated and, indeed, have been.

The European arrest warrant has been the subject of debate—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The Minister said that the debate became a bad one because of the behaviour of the Opposition in the House of Commons. Surely I am right in believing that the Government were reprimanded by the Speaker, and that is something quite different. It seems to me that he has made an allegation against the Opposition that really is not true.

[Lord Faulks]

I am certainly not in a position to criticise the Speaker; it would be entirely improper for me to do so. I am entitled to comment on what transpired in the House of Commons. I did not acquit anybody of contributing to what was a thoroughly uninformative debate. The position, as far as the Opposition were concerned, was that the shadow Home Secretary felt that the scope of the debate did not permit her to discuss the European arrest warrant, and that was the view of many in the House of Commons. The Speaker gave the observations that he did, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to criticise him or not.

The shadow Home Secretary was also asked during the debate whether the party opposite would have exercised the opt-out—and, if so, which measures it would have opted into. Her response was, “Nice try”, so I am not sure that that was a particularly dignified response to what was a serious question.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, in no way do I want to impugn the integrity, the sincerity or any other attribute of the Minister, because he has been very helpful. However, I think that he does not fully realise the extent of the problem. If he came into city centres—I do not know if he does—late at night or early in the morning on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, he would realise some of the problems that our people face who have to serve alcohol, who get threatened, who get frightened and who get assaulted. As my noble friend Lord Robertson was reminding me, binge drinking is becoming an increasing problem.

The Minister asks, “Why pick out only one category?”. It is because those in that category face such dangers, and are upholding the law that we pass. I am sorry, I should have said that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was at our meeting. As he said, and as my noble friend Lord Lea said, people who serve alcohol effectively act as policemen, upholding the law on our behalf—upholding the law that we pass. We should give them some recognition for that. USDAW and I have had e-mails and letters from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, one or two of whom I see today, from Cross-Benchers and from independent Members as well—I think that I have got it right on this occasion—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

Independent Labour.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Independent Labour. On the basis that they express some genuine concern, I should like to test the view of the House.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. Clearly this matter should be taken very seriously. I do not think that these directions are frozen in time or form, and the debate as to precisely how best to communicate what there is agreement on over the use of electronic communications will go on. I entirely take my noble friend’s point about the degree of attachment to them that exists, depending on the individual and not necessarily depending on their age.

The new clause proposed would impose statutory obligations on the Department for Education, the Judicial College and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and on jurors themselves, in connection with jury service. These obligations cover the same ground as some recommendations from the Law Commission, which we are still considering and to which we will respond shortly. The crucial point, however, is that if it were decided to implement them, or to make any further suggestions about improving directions to jurors or about jury management issues as opposed to trials of particular cases, legislation would not be required. It could be done administratively, and in our view that would be a better course than accepting the suggested amendment. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

May I say a word about the proposed age limit of 75 for serving on a jury? I had better declare my interest straight away because I was born in 1926. It seems that anybody older than 75 is being written off as no longer fit to take part in an important public duty. Bearing in mind that lately we have had people of 84 and 85 being tried in court, we should call upon those over 75—perhaps, say, up to 100—provided that they are able to carry out the duty. It may be insulting to people of mature age who are still very intelligent and keep up with affairs, particularly public affairs, to debar them from what other people are asked to do to help the public weal and their fellow citizens.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will have listened with great respect and interest to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. The incident that he has retailed from 50 years ago shows what a very humanitarian politician he has been during 50 years of extremely distinguished public life.

My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and my namesake, my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, spoke powerfully on this subject and I agree with them. There would be no point in repeating what they just said. But I rise to ask the Minister a question. Can he tell the House what is the average time taken to process applications under the criminal injuries compensation scheme? My noble friend gave us some rather different figures, but if the noble Lord’s figures are correct and annual disbursements are of the order of roughly £200 million and the total liabilities of the scheme are about £500 million, it implies that rather a long time is taken to process each individual claim.

If my noble friend’s figures represent reality, the situation may be slightly better, but it is important for the House to know exactly the effectiveness of the bureaucracy handling this important scheme and therefore what sort of time is taken.

Will the noble Lord also tell us the cost at the present time of administering claims? Perhaps he could break down the average cost of the claim so that we can see how much of taxpayers’ money that goes into the scheme is used for the benefit of victims and how much goes to the administration of the bureaucracy involved.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I support the remarks made by both noble Lords, Lord Davies. It will be interesting to see the answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, posed.

I support the amendment because I believe that the people who are being disadvantaged are the very people whom the Government say they want to look after. They are also the people who make this country work, such as postmen, people in shops and people on the shop floor. They are the people who are likely to be worst affected by these cuts.

It puzzles me why we make cuts of this sort for essential compensation while at the same time we spend huge sums on matters that appear not to matter. We also ladle money out to foreign countries, which perhaps should start looking after themselves.

I had a Question answered about the £10 billion that many countries have agreed to make available to Afghanistan. I asked how much that would cost Britain. The Answer came back that it would cost £170 million a year between 2013 and 2025, so it seems that we can find money to support people abroad. I have no objection to that, but I want decent treatment of the people of this country.

The amount of money that is involved is relatively small. If the Government really believe in this big society in which we will all be treated properly, perhaps they should reconsider what they are doing in the matter of this compensation order.

I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers about the Government being completely out of touch. But, frankly, almost every day we have an indication that the Government are completely out of touch. For example, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Gauke, suggested that people who pay cash to some of those who might be injured are immoral for doing so. The Government do not appear to realise that millions of people in this country do not have a bank account. There is only one way in which they can pay and that is in coin of the realm.

I put that forward as an illustration of how the Government appear to be completely out of touch with what is happening in the country and the needs of people, particularly those who are unfortunately victims of accidents or other incidents.

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Royall. First, there is the issue of people being attacked by dangerous dogs. This particularly concerns the UCW, the trade union representing postmen and women, but has also been raised by a wide range of other organisations, including the Police Federation, the Royal College of Nursing and the Local Government Association. The MoJ consultative document proposed to tighten the current policy under which claims have, in some cases, been considered from applicants attacked by dangerous dogs not kept under proper control. The Government’s response to the consultation claims that:

“A small number of respondents expressed concern”.

That is a travesty, as widespread concern was expressed. We should not forget that not so long ago this was the subject of cross-party support and I regret that that is no longer the case.

The Government acknowledge the complexity of defining a crime of violence. They believe that these cases involve injuries sustained in incidents outside the core purpose of the scheme and that proper redress in these circumstances would be found elsewhere, through an insurance claim, a compensation order as a result of criminal proceedings or a civil claim. This is the height of cynicism. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is the very last resort when all else has failed. The options suggested by the Government would offer no recompense, as the Minister well knows. A further suggestion by the MoJ is that postmen and women injured in dog attacks could sue their employer, the Royal Mail. However, the Royal Mail has a good record in discharging its duty of care to reduce risks and it is virtually impossible to secure personal injury compensation from an employer in a civil court in respect of criminal injury, with employers liability insurers resisting such claims vigorously and the courts, when tested, holding that the employer is not liable, on the whole.

The determination of deliberate attack, as the Government themselves acknowledge, is extremely complex. I live in an area of London where dogs are often kept as aggression accessories. To close off the opportunity for compensation to people who have suffered mental and/or physical injury as a result of dog attacks is inhumane. These cuts will also affect thousands of people who work in shops and public offices. Compensation is very important to the innocent victims. At present, only injuries that disable the victim for at least six weeks are compensated. It gives public recognition for pain and suffering, helps to pay off debts and can help recovery from trauma. Those who work part-time, as my noble friend Lord Davies has already said, which is 35% of retail staff, earn too little to qualify for SSP. The Government’s own impact assessment admits that the scheme has very stable running costs—around £210 million per year—and,

“we assume that in the absence of reform this will continue”.

There has been too much emphasis on the CICS as a demand-led scheme when it is, in fact, reasonably stable. As the general secretary of USDAW, the shopworkers’ union, John Hannett, has said:

“We do not believe that the innocent victims of violent crime should bear the brunt of austerity, or that these cuts are justified by the £50 million projected savings”.

Victims are to be asked to pay up to £50 upfront to obtain their initial medical evidence. If they are off work or still shaken from their experience, this could prevent genuinely injured victims from bringing a claim. The proposals for future loss of earnings could be worse off by £139.15 per week, which could result in serious financial hardship. The changes, as my noble friend Lady Royall said, fail to take account of the current job market, by demanding that people be regularly paid for a period of at least three years when temporary periods of unemployment are reasonably common nowadays.

The Government’s stated intention was to cut the lower awards to provide better protection and support for the most seriously injured victims. There is no evidence that this has happened. Even those with the most serious injuries will suffer as a result of these changes. In conclusion—and we have already heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about what happened 50 years ago—it will be 50 years ago in December that the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, said in this House:

“For the innocent victims of such crimes we all feel sympathy, but we feel that sympathy alone is not enough”.—[Official Report, 5/12/62; col. 305.]

If the Government’s proposals go through, this will be a very sad anniversary indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, first, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, that the reality, which apparently still takes time to sink in across the House, is that we are all a lot poorer than we thought we were four years ago. Whichever Government had come in would have carried out drastic cuts in public expenditure. That has been acknowledged by the Opposition in their moments of candour. Therefore, every time that the Government come before the House with some saving in public expenditure, the Opposition say, “These are not the kind of cuts that we would have made”. The Liberal Democrats have neither the resources nor the inclination to do this, but I know of parties who keep a running total of cuts in expenditure which the Opposition would not have undertaken, and it adds up to something that questions their economic competence.

As for my noble and learned friend, Lord Howe, I hear his story. I have been in a few small parties myself, but the Aberavon Conservatives, which he led, must have been almost of Liberal Party size in its gatherings. The scheme that he pioneered in the 1960s cost £6 million. We are debating a scheme that costs more than £200 million. Also included in his long and distinguished career was a period as Chancellor when, like me, he must have stood at Dispatch Boxes listening to the impact of cuts that were necessary at the time. That is one of the responsibilities of government.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I have a simple question. What would £6 million be in today's money?

[Lord McNally]

That is in current prices. The actual scheme cost less than half a million pounds when first introduced, so I was not trying to belittle it. We have all known schemes which have been introduced with the best of intentions but have had long-term consequences. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, the previous Government took a hard look at this in 2005 and then backed off from making similar decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

You may make that assumption. We will see what happens when we come to a vote. I am fully aware, as has been readily acknowledged, that the trade unions, which have been readily represented on the opposition Benches—and rightly so—today have argued against the changes. I understand that. I understand less the willingness of those on the government Benches—sorry, the opposition Front Bench—to leap on this passing bandwagon.

It is no use pretending. We are dealing with relatively small payments from the scheme for temporary injuries. In return for that change—I notice that the noble Baroness did not mention this—we are substantially reforming the amount of money that will go into victim support. I think that I will have support in this House for this concept that rather than paying small amounts here and there—small penny-packet amounts to various minor injury claims; some maybe justified, some very much less so—it is better to devote that money to real victim support and to dealing with the trauma of crime at the sharp end, when it happens, in a way that is effective. That is the basis of these reforms.

I understand where the trade union members are coming from, but I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is coming from when he throws in overseas aid. One of the things I am very proud of is the way that this Government have sustained overseas aid.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I gave that example because I had just received an Answer that we are going to spend a further £178 million in Afghanistan—that is, after billions and billions of pounds for our military presence there. I raised this amount because we have people who need to be looked after in this country. We are talking about some of them now. If we can afford to spend £178 million to help people in Afghanistan, which is fine, surely we can find an extra few million to help unfortunate people in our own country.

[Lord McNally]

We are finding it for unfortunate people in our country, but Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world. I am proud of our aid programme there. If the noble Lord rereads what he said he will probably find echoes of that great conservative sentiment of “hang ’em and flog ’em” and “don’t give it to foreigners”.

Constitutional Reform: Referendums

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, my Lords. I am thinking on this matter and have been talking with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about his own experience. He has told me that he was considering forming some kind of group of wisdom that could look at these issues. We are still in contact on that. Whether it should be done as a parliamentary exercise or government exercise, or given to a suitable think tank, I am not sure, but I do not deny that what the noble Lord has said is good thinking.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

If the Minister cannot give an assurance that we will have a referendum, can he give an assurance that the Parliament Acts will not be used if the House of Lords does not agree with any legislation on reform that comes from the Commons?

[Lord McNally]

No, I cannot give such guarantees. The Parliament Acts are there for the judgment of the Government of the day. As I have said previously, whether there should a referendum to consult is a matter for the judgment of the Parliament of the day.