Brexit: The Customs Challenge (European Union Committee Report)
Lord Taverne Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, I was not a member of the committee but, having read its report several times—it is not an easy read—I am impressed. First, as many speakers have pointed out, it provides convincing evidence once again of what would be the disastrous consequences of a no-deal Brexit, and I trust that the Commons will rule out that option conclusively.
The report should be, or should have been, compulsory reading for those who plan to vote for the Clarke amendment, for a form of customs union presumably on the lines of the facilitated customs arrangement analysed in this report. This, the Government claim, would enable the UK to control its own tariffs for trade with the rest of the world. It is the option which seems to be the present favourite to win the Commons beauty contest to be voted on today.
However, that option has many serious snags. As pointed out in chapter 5 of the report, the present EU customs union requires a common commercial policy—in effect, a single market. To allow for the freedom to make separate trade agreements with the rest of the world, the customs union proposed by the Government, and, one must assume, by the Clarke amendment, seeks to avoid this. But the committee tells us that, for this kind of customs union to work and for us to enjoy a frictionless border with the EU as a non-member, there would still have to be convergence of regulations. We would, we were told, become “a regulatory satellite” of the EU. Would this be acceptable to most Brexiteers, or to those who support a soft Brexit? Instead of winning back control, we would, we are told, be subject to control by satellite.
The facilitated customs arrangement would also be immensely complex, involving different tariffs for EU and non-EU countries, including possible payments and repayments collected or paid on behalf of other countries. Compliance would, as many other speakers have pointed out, be a very hard and costly task for small to medium enterprises. Being part of a customs union without being a member would also require very complex negotiations, which are hardly likely to be welcomed by the 27 after their recent experience of endless delays and changes of tack by a succession of incompetent Brexit negotiators.
But what all Brexit advocates—even soft Brexit advocates—ignore is the most important development of all, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, referred. There is strong evidence that the people’s will has changed since the referendum and is no longer the people’s will today. The evidence is not just the march by over a million people, or the petition to revoke Article 50 signed by some 6 million. Professor Curtice, who is much invoked by the Government and Brexiteers, long maintained that opinion had not shifted. He has now changed his view. A vote today, according to his findings, would be 54% to 46% in favour of remain; according to YouGov, it would be some 56% to 44%.
This shift should not come as a surprise, and there is every reason to suppose that it will grow. Nearly all Brexit news is bad: on overseas investment; a growing number of manufacturers and service companies which are planning to leave the UK; a likely crippling shortage of nurses and other professionals in the NHS, caused by the exodus of EU citizens; and so on. It is true that there are lots of leavers crying, “We want out”, and “Why haven’t we left yet?” No evidence will change their minds. However, there must be many of the 52% who voted leave who care about the future of their jobs and the prospects for their children, and they will not be impervious to what manufacturers such as those in the motor industry and Airbus tell us.
There was an extremely extensive poll of intending leavers on the eve of the referendum about the reasons why they intended to vote “out”. Many gave different reasons, but they all agreed that leave would have no downside—no prospect but that of life in the sunlit uplands. Now it is becoming plain what Brexit means: any form of Brexit, however soft, will make us poorer, especially the most vulnerable. It would be a strange twist to the present confusion if we left the EU because MPs believed they were obeying the people’s will, when—
Lord Dykes
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, as I agree strongly with his words, but in the context of what he was saying two sentences ago can he estimate the number of people who accompanied Nigel Farage on his long trip from Sunderland?
Lord Taverne
It was not exactly over a million; I cannot give more details.
It would be an extraordinary travesty of justice if people who voted to leave because they thought that was what public opinion wanted now find that most want to remain. The only way to ensure that such a travesty of justice will not happen—and indeed to solve the present impasse among Government and MPs—is to give the final decision to the people.
I much admire the MPs who have spoken out for this cause, in defiance of party pressures: those Conservative MPs who cannot support a party 170 of whose public representatives have recently signed a letter in which they seem quite happy to tolerate the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. What an extraordinary retreat from sanity by a once-great party. No wonder people abroad feel we have gone mad. Similarly, I admire the Labour MPs who decided they could not support a party that aimed to make its leader Prime Minister, a role for which they believe he is totally unsuited.
Finally, I want to mention one other MP—one of Labour’s strong leaders in the battle against Brexit and the cause of a new people’s vote. It is my old opponent in Lincoln, who nowadays has my admiration and respect, Dame Margaret Beckett. More power to her elbow.
Immigration: Hostile Environment
Lord Taverne Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on introducing this debate, enabling us to consider this matter.
On the face of it, what the Home Secretary has announced seems good news, but there are some serious questions. Will the Government end the refusal of applications under tier 1 only, or does it also apply to those who are refused independent leave to remain under tier 2? In particular, does it deal with a typical case which I have raised in two emails with the Minister asking for information?
A Mr Owais Raja is a highly skilled migrant, a UK-trained engineer who until recently trained Ministry of Defence engineers at City College Plymouth. The college asked him to write the training programme himself and promote it every year he worked for them. He applied under tier 1 but was refused indefinite leave to remain. He is now destitute and faces imminent deportation. He lost the right to work or to rent somewhere to live and, subject to what the new policy change means, neither he nor his family is allowed to use the NHS. This means that his six-year-old son Ayaan, who has a hole in his heart, can no longer receive potentially life-saving treatment. Nor can Mr Raja afford to buy blood-thinning tablets for his wife, who has a pulmonary embolism which is at constant risk of travelling to her heart or brain, causing a heart attack or stroke. She, of course, cannot visit her GP.
What was his crime leading to the refusal of his application for indefinite leave to remain? Raja’s accountant made a mistake in filing his 2012-13 tax return. Raja had no knowledge of the error: he found out only in 2016 when applying for renewal of his indefinite leave to remain, and immediately paid the £1,200 he owed. It is worth mentioning that he had paid about £60,000 tax over the previous eight years. The Inland Revenue accepted that his was an honest mistake, imposed no fine and charged no interest—which it does when it judges that there has been dishonesty.
The Home Office, however, said that the discrepancy was evidence that Mr Raja had deliberately provided false information, informed him that he was a threat to national security and triggered its discretionary powers under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules. This is a section designed to deal with serious criminals and terrorists. It meant that Mr Raja cannot work in Britain or travel to any country other than his country of birth, as no other country will risk letting him in now that he has been labelled a threat to national security. It also deprived his family of access to the NHS.
The family’s position is desperate. When his son recently had chest pain, Mr Raja could not afford to visit the consultant and pay fees of £80 an hour or send him to hospital and pay £100 a day. He cannot pay for food or rent. He has no connections or relatives in Pakistan any more and his children speak only English. He is now destitute. So far, he has survived by liquidating his savings, selling his car, his wife’s jewellery and wedding dress and his precious engineering books, and by living off discarded food from Tesco that has passed its sell-by date.
He has had help from his friends. His former students were so upset by his plight that they send him odd gifts of £10 and £20. I have seen the most moving letters from students who say he was an inspirational teacher, and from his employer, praising his work and integrity. He, and his family, face a future of having to beg and sleep on the streets, or deportation.
Since I wrote a letter about Raja in the Guardian, I have had many emails showing that his plight is not exceptional. I gather from an organisation, the Highly Skilled Migrants Group, that there are at least 1,000 similar cases where people’s lives have been ruined. These highly skilled migrants such as Raja are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers and professionals on the Government’s list of occupations in which Britain is short, and who have often lived here for a decade or more and have British-born children. Their only error is one that half a million British taxpayers make every year. Native taxpayers amend their tax returns without facing any penalty—not even a fine—but the Home Office treats migrants who do as terrorists.
This treatment is a national scandal every bit as outrageous as the treatment of the Windrush immigrants. A monstrous injustice is being perpetrated by our Government in our name. If it is not remedied, the Home Office will not only be breaking every canon of a civilised society, but ignoring one of the most basic tenets of the rule of law—the golden rule that someone is assumed innocent until proved guilty.
How did this happen? The history is important because we must know how far the policy change means a break with the past. Originally errors in tax returns were dealt with under paragraph 322(1) of the Immigration Rules—a draconian provision specially designed for that offence—with a penalty of refusal of ILR and deportation. Under that sub-paragraph (1), at least it was the Home Office which had to prove dishonesty, but because of that, it kept losing in the courts. So in its determination to increase the number of deportations and intensify the hostile climate for immigrants, the Home Office switched to using another rule—sub-paragraph (5). This was originally intended not for tax errors but for really serious crimes, such as murder, terrorism and conduct that constitutes a threat to national security.
That switch was a switch for an improper purpose. Furthermore—this is almost unbelievable—under that sub-paragraph, which deprives immigrants of the right to work, rent property or access to the NHS, I understand that the burden of proof lies on the migrants to prove their innocence, not on the Home Office to prove guilt—and not just innocence but that the Home Office’s decision was “perverse” or “irrational”. To top it all, they cannot get legal aid. What could be a greater betrayal of our traditional respect for justice and the rule of law? However, the switch proved a success. Not surprisingly, by use of this sub-paragraph, the Home Office could boast that the number of deportations has dramatically increased.
The Secretary of State has now announced a change in policy, which gave us hope. He said that applications to refuse ILR would be put on hold. But refusals of ILRs and deportations continue. Amelia Hill cited further examples in Tuesday’s Guardian. The Home Office explained that these cases had already been scrutinised by the review and that the use of paragraph 322(5) had been judged to be appropriate—an ominous explanation. Now the question arises: will those new rules apply only to tier 2 immigrants? Will they quash all applications under paragraph 322(5) and open them up for fresh consideration? If the answer is that only those who are now making applications under tier 2 are affected, the scandal that I have announced continues; it is not remedied. If, on the other hand, it is remedied, and the use of paragraph 322(5) is discontinued—and, indeed sub-paragraph (1) should also be discontinued—I would say three cheers for those who have made what is often a difficult decision in politics in admitting the Government’s grave errors.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Given that the noble Lord worked through the housing Bill with me, I hope that he would agree that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is a very experienced member of your Lordships house in the area of housing. Having the Immigration Minister co-chairing, as he asked, will lend great credence to the panel. I am sure he would agree that the bodies I mentioned are the type that we would want represented on the panel to ensure its housing expertise. I pay tribute to the groups that he mentioned, but they are not necessarily in and of themselves housing experts, although they have expertise in the area of immigration and slavery.
I must now turn to the Windrush generation, because I want to spend some time on that. I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, and all those from the Windrush generation who came here quite legally to help to rebuild this country after the war. The Government, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all said that the Government deeply regret what has happened and have made it a key priority to resolve the problems that have arisen and to ensure that it does not happen again. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to his friend and all that he achieved in his life.
The Home Secretary has commissioned an independent lessons learned review, which will look at how members of the Windrush generation came to be entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants, why it was not spotted sooner—this has been going on for decades; it is not a new thing—and why the right corrective measures will now be put in place. The review will take into account the experiences of those involved and wider reflections on Home Office culture as a whole. We have established the Windrush Scheme task force, which is working with members of the Windrush generation to resolve their status and ensure that they obtain the documents they need to evidence it.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary also issued a call for evidence to inform consultation on a compensation scheme for members of the Windrush generation who have been wrongfully impacted by immigration measures. That call for evidence closed last Friday and we are currently analysing the responses. Simultaneously, we have strengthened the checking services provided to employers, landlords and public service providers to ensure that we are not denying work, housing, benefits or services to those who are here lawfully. We will be providing regular updates to the Home Affairs Committee on the progress of that work. Our focus now is on putting right what was so wrong in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me for an update on Windrush figures. As of 10 June, the task force has received 20,145 calls. It has referred 5,750 for call-backs and completed 5,740 call-backs and issued 1,651 documents.
We owe it to the public to ensure that we maintain effective controls on immigration and have measures in place to protect taxpayer-funded services. The compliant environment forms an important part of those measures.
The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Taverne, asked about tier 2 visas and for an update on NHS workers and doctors. As they will know, because it has been widely reported in the media this morning, the Home Secretary is currently reviewing that and he will make an announcement on it very shortly. I will be able to say more after the announcement, so I hope that the noble Lords will bear with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, talked about a specific case. He will understand that I will not discuss it on the Floor of the House, but I will write to him about it. He also talked about HMRC and people being refused resettlement on the basis of their tax returns. This is not about people making minor tax errors. We are now able to check what applicants told us in the past about their self-employment and compare it to what they have told HMRC for the same period. There is a clear pattern of abuse where, more often than not, the self-employed earnings used to claim points in the tier 1 application have been £10,000 higher than the self-employed earnings reported to HMRC. Where employment circumstances do not add up and applicants claim to have been working in a full-time low-paid manual job while simultaneously earning very high amounts from self-employed work for which the evidence is weak, we must consider paragraph 322(5), to which the noble Lord referred, and refuse the application where the evidence shows that the individual has not played by the rules and their character and conduct is such that they should not be granted settlement in the UK.
Before the noble Lord intervenes on me, I will make just one more point, because he then may not need to intervene. I will write to him on the case he raised separately and in no way am I saying that what I am outlining is anything to do with that case.
Lord Taverne
Will the Minister deal with the point that paragraph 322(5), which is concerned with terrorists, is used in connection with mis-statements in tax returns?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will write the noble Lord on that when I write him on the specific case, if that is okay by him, because I am rapidly running out of time and I want to get through points that other noble Lords made.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, talked about reduced numbers of staff. The work of the immigration system is vast, as noble Lords will appreciate. Every year, we make more than 3 million decisions on visas and have 250 million people crossing our borders. We are not complacent about this. The immigration system is constantly and continually improving, such as with ePassport gates.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made a very important point about identity assurance. I particularly draw to noble Lords’ attention, as she did, the issue of EU citizens when we leave the EU. That is why we have put in place measures to ensure a very clear process, so that what happened with Windrush will not in future years happen to EU citizens. So all EU citizens who are here lawfully when the UK exits the EU will have the opportunity to regularise their status to remain in the country by applying for settled status. On identity assurance, we have operated a new scheme for settled status from scratch. So the application system will be simplified, user-friendly, and it will draw on existing government data to minimise the burden on applicants.
Economy: Spring Statement
Lord Taverne Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, what I find extraordinary about this Government is their complacency. I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Bates, of complacency, but I am surprised because I would not have expected it from Philip Hammond. He told us in his Spring Statement that we have now turned the corner and there is light at the end of the tunnel. However, as those two respected think tanks, the IFS and the Resolution Foundation, reveal, his plans reek of complacency. In the words of Paul Johnson, director of the IFS:
“The reality of the … fiscal challenges facing us ought to be at the very top of the news agenda”.
I suppose I should declare an interest, because in 1971 I was the first director of the IFS when it was launched. Indeed, I am proud to have acted as midwife to this infant, which has grown into such a formidable institution. I should also mention that in 1961 I was Member of Parliament for Lincoln and therefore I look forward with particular pleasure to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
Let me refer to the findings of the Resolution Foundation, which was, after all founded by a very distinguished Conservative ex-Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, generally known as David “Two Brains” Willetts. It says that the plans of the Government depend profoundly on further deep cuts in public spending. There will be a further £2.5 billion of cuts to benefits for those of working age in the next financial year and even bigger cuts the year after. The poorest fifth of households will be the hardest hit. Will the Government be able to enforce such extreme hardships?
Indeed, I believe that there is more bad news in the pipeline—more bad Brexit news—than is generally expected. The Government still rely on proposals for a new trade deal that they hope to negotiate. These may bring temporary unity to the Conservative Party, but such proposals are almost certain to be rejected by the 27. For instance, in her Mansion House speech Mrs May suggested that in its new trade deal the UK should act on the EU’s behalf when goods are imported into the UK from the rest or the world and collect the EU tariffs and pass them on to Brussels. It would be a system that exists in no trade agreement anywhere else. When this was reasonably described as “magical thinking” by officials in Brussels, the alternative held out was the Government’s notorious plan for invisible, frictionless borders. Anyone who listened to or read the speeches in yesterday’s debate on Ireland, particularly the excellent speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Patten, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and, especially, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, must realise quite how hare-brained and damaging these proposals are. No one outside Britain regards them as credible.
In fact, without a dramatic U-turn by the Government, can they propose any trade deal that is realistic and has a chance of being acceptable to our EU partners? For that matter, how can there be a deal with Ireland if we stay outside the customs union, as the Government intend? If we stay outside, there is no way to avoid a hard border in Ireland and it is clear that the 26 will give their full support to Dublin. If it becomes more generally regarded as possible or likely that there may be no deal, the reactions in the market, the effect on the pound and on investment, will make our economic prospects infinitely worse. And this may come sooner rather than later: particularly in the case of financial services, the moment of truth may be nearer than we think. I recommend that people look at the speech of my noble friend Lady Kramer in the middle of the night in last Monday’s debate.
Lastly, I have another fundamental criticism of government policy. The burden of austerity has been borne by the public sector. Many speeches, including the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, have pointed out the extraordinary damage which austerity has caused, including the suffering by local authorities —in some cases spending has been cut by 50%. These cuts have materially reduced the quality of life in many sections of Britain, especially among the poorest. Yet the Government rule out any tax increases and persist in further devastating cuts in public spending. Already the taxes we pay as a percentage of GDP are 13% lower than in Germany, 17 % lower than in the Netherlands and 21 % lower than in France. All three have a higher standard of living than us and very much higher productivity. Lower taxes are not the path to more prosperity; they are more likely to be the way to a dysfunctional society. We spend a significantly lower percentage of GDP on health and social care than the Netherlands, France and Germany. Meanwhile, the NHS is heading for a crash, and will be further hit by EU nurses and doctors going home or no longer wanting to work in Britain, because of Brexit.
I am glad it is the policy of the Lib Dems to put 1p extra on income tax instead of further cuts in services. No one spoke a truer word—completely contrary to the philosophy of the Government—than the famous American lawyer Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said:
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.”
Budget Statement
Lord Taverne Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, the OBR, the IFS and the Chancellor have all been accused by several speakers of excessive pessimism in their forecasts. I believe that they will prove to have been overoptimistic. I feel hesitant about differing in this from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, whom I have always regarded as one of the most sensible of Conservatives. What is extraordinary is that the Government, the media and most of industry have all expressed confidence that in the end there will be a soft Brexit. But suppose they are wrong and we end up with no deal or the hardest of hard Brexits: if the financial markets should start to believe that this is where we are heading, it is very possible that there will be a panic, the pound will sink, business and consumer confidence will evaporate, and investment will dry up. Then we would be in a severe crisis. What price then the so-called pessimism of present forecasts?
What are the reasons why no deal or a very hard Brexit are a real possibility? Let us take the Irish problem—the border between the north and south of Ireland. Dublin wants a regulatory regime between the north and the south that is subject to the same rules and regulations as now. Obviously, this cannot apply to the rest of the United Kingdom so it would mean a border in the Irish Sea. How could this possibly be accepted by the Government, let alone the DUP? Other government proposals for a seamless, frictionless border—achieved by some innovative, untried and unexplained IT system—have rightly been rejected by the Republic as incredible. I have always thought—and the recent report by the Commons Brexit Committee confirmed—that the only way we can avoid a hard border is to stay in the single market and the customs union. But that has been firmly rejected by the Government. I really cannot understand why it was ever thought that these talks could succeed.
The failure of the talks at this stage is an indication of the problems of the talks about free trade in general. How can they conceivably be concluded and ratified by the parliaments of the 27 and the European Parliament before the Brexit date? It is said that the aim is now Canada-plus. The EU’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada took seven years to negotiate and would offer nowhere near the benefits we now gain from the single market and customs union; for example, services—our major export industry—would suffer particularly badly. Hence the need for Canada-plus, but this greatly complicates the negotiations.
The Government have conceded that more time will be needed, and now aim for a transition or implementation agreement, which, again, it is generally assumed can be sealed before the end of March 2019 and will run for two years after the Brexit date, during which we will stay in the single market and the customs union and will continue to be subject to the European Court of Justice. Will the Conservative Party accept that? It cannot even agree on the shape of the final relationship with the European Union. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Darling, pointed out, what would the transition be to? What would the implementation period implement? The obstacles to concluding the trade agreement are formidable. Furthermore, the moment we leave, all the various trade agreements with some 60 countries that have been negotiated on our behalf by the European Union cease to have effect. We would suddenly be left in total isolation, having to renegotiate some 60 by no means simple trade agreements.
When the reality of the problems that lie ahead in the Brexit negotiations begins to sink in, it looks pretty scary. No deal or a very hard Brexit loom as distinct possibilities, but also open up a new and happier possibility. I believe there is a very real prospect of a major shift in public opinion when a significant section of leave voters—who were promised the sunny uplands—realise that they did not vote to see their families seriously impoverished. If this happens, MPs who feel bound to obey the will of the people may find that the people’s will has changed. In Parliament a final vote is needed and it might well reject no deal. The only real choice for Parliament then would be to revoke Article 50—which is unlikely—or to let the people have the final choice. No deal might well lead to no Brexit. As several speakers have pointed out, if this unprecedented national act of self-harm were reversed, it would totally transform the present prospects of gloom and decline.
Zika Virus
Lord Taverne Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Conservative Benches yet.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Taverne Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I want to address the implications of a referendum in 2017, which I do not think have been properly considered very often. I very much agreed with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Howell when he said that the European Union is, at present, in a state of flux. It faces entirely new circumstances and completely new challenges, but that is not an argument in favour of having a referendum in 2017. If the eurozone is to survive, it will need some greater degree of fiscal co-ordination and some initiative for growth. Both of these mean more Europe and yet there has never been greater disillusionment with Brussels throughout Europe than there is at the present time—people want less Europe. How will that be resolved? We will not know by 2017. How large will the eurozone be? It may be smaller but it may be larger. What will its relations be with the outside?
Another thing that will be needed is a banking union. However, Germany and France are very far apart at the moment about what sort of banking union there should be. It is likely to take considerable time and is not something that is likely to be resolved by 2017. The form of any banking union will have very serious implications for the City of London. What sort of Europe is likely to have emerged by 2017? We do not know. If we are going to have a referendum that is meaningful, the choice must be clear, but we will not know what sort of Union we are supposed to vote on—either to leave or to stay in.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also said that we should play a leading part in the kind of changes that Europe needs. I completely agree. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said that there were many opportunities for us to exploit the need for change that there is in Europe. I entirely agree. But what will be the effect on our influence in Europe in leading these changes if we have a fixed referendum that leads to the possibility—indeed, in many people’s eyes, the likelihood—of an exit?
Many people in Europe look at the polls and the rise of UKIP, this xenophobic, populist party. They hear the speeches of my noble friend Lord Lawson and other Tory grandees, and indeed the statements made by some Cabinet Ministers, and they assume that Britain is likely to exit. What sort of concessions are they likely to make if they think that we are not going to be a member in any case? How will they respond to what in effect is a threat—“If you do not give us what we want, we will walk away”? Fixing a referendum is not likely to enable us to achieve the kind of changes that we want and need, because you can achieve those only if you are inside, if you have a commitment to the Union, not if you are threatening to leave and exercising what will appear to some as a form of blackmail—when we need good will.
My third reason is that the only people likely to benefit from a referendum in 2017 will be the antis, which is not surprising; that is why they are in favour. Suppose the Conservatives win the next election and Mr Cameron starts his negotiation for substantial repatriation of powers backed by the threat of walking away in a referendum, is he likely to achieve these successes? He is extremely unlikely to do so. He may get a few cosmetic concessions, a few sops thrown to him, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson that people will see through that; there will not be any substantial repatriation of powers. If he is still Prime Minister—which would then be somewhat unlikely—what would Mr Cameron do in a referendum if all his negotiations have failed? He could not say, “But we must still say yes”. The Government would be forced to support a no campaign, together with a vitriolic anti-European press. One could not guarantee a repetition of 1975, when all three parties were in favour and so was the press.
What happens if Labour wins the election and commits itself to a referendum in 2017, which fortunately so far it has not done? Suppose that Labour, too, feels that it cannot be left out in this competition for the popular vote, would it agree to a referendum? Two years after the election, just at the time when Governments are supremely unpopular, a Labour Government would have a vote, which would be unanimously opposed by an anti-Europe Conservative Party and the press. Again, it is quite likely that the result would be exit.
Who will be the beneficiaries of a referendum that is fixed in 2017? I am not opposed to the idea of a referendum when we know exactly what we are voting for and if it is an absolutely major issue such as whether or not we should join the euro. I am not opposed to a referendum in principle. I am not very keen on it; on the whole I am a supporter of Burke in this matter. Let us assume that there is the likelihood of an exit. What would be the result of that? We would finally have an answer to the problem posed by Dean Acheson when he said:
“Great Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role”.
We have not yet found a role—I think we have to face that fact—but if we exited from Europe we would have found a role, and what would it be? The sort of influence we would have in the world if we exited from Europe would be that of a less prosperous Norway or Switzerland.
Herbal Medicines
Lord Taverne Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for raising this Question. Not entirely unusually, I do not altogether agree with everything that he has said. My view is that the Government should not establish a register for unlicensed herbal medicines. To quote that indefatigable battler against quack science, Professor David Colquhoun, herbal medicine means,
“giving patients an unknown dose of an ill-defined drug, of unknown effectiveness and unknown safety”.
My objection is that licensing will confer on practitioners supplying these medicines a spurious respectability and credibility that can do great harm.
Every time I raise the lack of evidence for alternative medicine in this House, someone gets up, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has now done, and says, “But I was cured” by whatever it is—Chinese herbs or homeopathy. On the last occasion I raised it in the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, praised homeopathy and said that she hoped that my well known views, which she seemed to suggest were somewhat eccentric, would be ignored by the Secretary of State for Health. They are not entirely eccentric views; they are the views of the scientific consensus.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, spoke about homeopathy at a time when he was still president of the Royal Society. He said that if homeopathy worked other than as a placebo all the laws of science would have to be repealed. There is not, to my knowledge, a single fellow of the Royal Society who supports either homeopathy or Chinese herbal medicine. The most detailed, careful, scientific, blind trials have confirmed that view. Only recently, the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, said she was perpetually surprised that the National Health Service still funds homeopathy. I recommend to those who advocate alternative medicine the book Trick or Treatment? by Professor Ernst and Simon Singh. It is extremely well researched and a very objective treatment, which does acknowledge when there may occasionally be some possible benefit, but on the whole their views and conclusions are quite plain. There are many reasons why many people feel better after treatment—often because placebos do work, whether after taking a homeopathic dose or treatment with herbal medicine. Private practitioners of alternative medicine often have more time for patients and may be good at tender loving care, which is a very important feature of good medical care. Often, people get better anyway.
Anecdote is not scientific evidence. People say, “Well, does it matter if treatment works only as a placebo?”. It does matter. Faith healing sometimes works, if people believe sufficiently strongly. In parts of the world, so does witchcraft. However, it really matters if people who are seriously ill do not take scientifically proved treatment, or if pharmacists, for example, prescribe homeopathic pills for malaria. Dr Wakefield was believed because many mothers reported that their children showed signs of autism after taking MMR. I remember a “Panorama” programme which interviewed several parents who told how this happened to their children. The programme was extremely sympathetic to Dr Wakefield’s views, and stressed how kind Dr Wakefield listened so carefully to these parents, but completely ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence that there was no established link between MMR and autism. In fact, the anti-vaccination campaign was organised by a group of people who were strong believers in alternative medicine. Today, we see the consequences in Wales.
Quack medicine is not harmless. We should not make it respectable by statutory registration, which suggests that it is not only respectable but officially licensed. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as usual, put forward his views very charmingly, I know of no one in this House who puts forward misleading arguments more charmingly.
Baroness Northover
Various noble Lords have made that point.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked whether the Government have in fact dropped the commitment to regulate. The Government recognise that there is a body of evidence about the public health risks associated with herbal medicines. It is important that the department does not proceed with the statutory regulation of any group, including herbal practitioners, unless we are sure that this will provide the necessary safeguards for patients. In other words, it is being looked at very carefully—whether the balance of regulation helps or hinders. Noble Lords have heard various views expressed.
Lord Taverne
Will my noble friend answer one question? Is registration supported by the Chief Medical Officer?
Baroness Northover
I am afraid that I cannot answer that very simple question. I may be inspired to do so shortly, but in the mean time I should say that this is a more complex area than that. Although I will be happy to come back to my noble friend, I think that there are a number of wider issues to look at.
European Union Bill
Lord Taverne Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne
My Lords, as this debate goes on my speech, as the House will be glad to hear, is getting shorter and shorter. It is almost inevitable that there be some repetition but I will try to keep it to the minimum. I oppose this Bill in principle for three reasons: philosophical, political and constitutional. The referendum argument should be put in some context because the Enlightenment —that glorious episode in the history of civilisation—saw the birth of democracy, but the recognition that the will of the majority should generally prevail led to two strands of development. One of them was the approach of John Locke; the other was the approach of Rousseau.
Locke’s approach was to emphasise the rule of law and the rights of minorities as well as the right of the majority. The Rousseau approach was to say that the will of the people must prevail at all costs and should not brook any opposition whatsoever. Locke’s philosophy was expressed in our parliamentary system and its gradual evolution from the Bill of Rights of 1688, while Rousseau’s approach found its expression in the French Revolution and in the Committee of Public Safety. In fact, in the house where he was staying, Robespierre the incorruptible used to read to the daughters of his host the works of Rousseau rather like a religious preacher who was reading it for the benefit and moral edification of his pupils.
I want to challenge the idea that a referendum somehow leads to a connection between the people and government. The followers of the referendum are also the people who feel that it is the ultimate expression of democracy. As a result, they regard MPs as delegates and not representatives—because if they were representatives, they might be flouting the will of the majority. Perhaps I may draw on my own experience to challenge this idea.
I once fought a by-election as an independent in 1973 on the issue of whether a Member of Parliament should be a delegate or a representative. My local Labour party in Lincoln told me that if I voted in favour of joining the European Community, against their instructions—indeed, against a three-line Whip—they would withdraw support. Well, I did and they did. I resigned, called a by-election and the result was an overwhelming victory for the principles enunciated by Edmund Burke. It is interesting that an opinion poll taken in Lincoln showed that the people there were against the idea of our joining the European Community by a majority of three to two.
I therefore believe that it is a mistake to think that, somehow or other, a referendum is the ideal instrument of democracy. If you ask people, “Do you want a vote?” they of course say yes. If you ask, “Do you think it is important that you should have a vote?”, it is, “Yes, of course it is important that we have a vote”. But do they vote? On the whole, the turnout in a referendum is very low and they often vote on an issue that is not the issue of the referendum. How many people are likely to turn up to vote in a referendum on whether we should partake in the office of a public prosecutor in Europe?
The political objections have been so well stated by so many previous speakers that I shall not repeat them. Yet why do we have this Bill? The fact is that a virus has infected the Conservative Party—a virus of hostility to and even hatred of the European Union, whatever the effect on our long-term national interests. It is odd how, in the past 50 years, a virus has infected both main political parties. I saw it happen in the Labour Party during the 1970s and 1980s when a virus of latter-day Marxism affected nearly all younger members of the party, including some of the brightest. Many of the champions of new Labour were at one time Trots, members of the Socialist Workers Party or the Militant tendency. All of them supported unilateral nuclear disarmament and leaving the European Union, including Tony Blair, but eventually the party recovered its senses. Now, it seems that no Conservative under 40—certainly, no Conservative MP that I am aware of— recognises the need to work closely with Europe as the natural forum for exercising our influence in the world at large. No doubt they will recover in time; I hope they do so soon.
My third objection is a constitutional one and a point that has been made very effectively by several speakers. The referendum will be triggered if there is any transfer of powers to Brussels, but the Government have no intention of transferring them. So have we got it wrong in thinking that they have no such intention? Are they perhaps thinking of joining the eurozone? It seems a bit unlikely. Are they going to support majority voting on foreign policy or a common defence policy, take part in a European public prosecutor’s office or extend the scope of majority voting? Will the Minister—I feel slightly sorry for my noble friend who is going to reply—explain under what circumstances the referendum would be triggered in the present Parliament?
The answer regarding the purpose of the Bill is quite plain: it cannot and will not apply to the present Parliament—its purpose is to bind the next Parliament. That is a wholly unconstitutional proposal. It contradicts the principle that Parliament is sovereign and cannot bind its successors, a principle that is now restated in Clause 18. It is a most unconstitutional principle and there is a simple way of thwarting it: to have a sunset clause saying that Clause 1 and Schedule 1 shall cease to have effect when this Parliament is dissolved. I hope that all Liberal Democrats will support such a clause because I see nothing in the coalition agreement that forces us to accept a wholly unconstitutional principle. I hope that Members of all parties, irrespective of their views on the merits of Europe, would also support such a clause to stop a constitutional monstrosity being enacted.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Lord Taverne Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I have taken no part in previous debates about the future of this Chamber, but I have listened to many of the speeches and have read most them. As a result, like the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as he said in his outstanding maiden speech, I have changed my mind. I used to be in favour of an elected, or largely elected, Chamber and am now persuaded that we should remain an appointed one. I have been influenced particularly by the arguments on expertise and independence.
On expertise, let me give one example which I find extremely persuasive. A year or more ago, our admirable Speaker, strangely designated the Lord Speaker, called a meeting of those who were scientists, who were especially interested in science, like me, or who were science journalists. One of the latter, who I believe was the editor of Nature, observed at the end of the meeting, “The Lords are probably the most scientifically numerate legislative Assembly anywhere”. He then asked, “How many of the scientists here would stand for election?”. The answer, of course, was none. The overwhelming consensus view of the science journalists was, “For God’s sake, keep the Lords as an appointed Chamber”. That argument applies to many other forms of expertise.
As for independence, elected politicians, certainly in the United Kingdom, tend to be strongly tribalist. Disraeli formulated what is almost a golden rule in the House of Commons:
“Damn your principles! Stick to your party”.
I have never found that a particularly appealing doctrine. The Lords are, on the whole, much less tribalist, but if elected, contrary to what the noble Earl has just implied, Members would face the usual party pressure: “You are here because your party voted for you to represent them. You should vote the party line”.
Of course we need reform. We need reform in the way in which we are appointed, the terms of our appointment and when the appointment should come to an end. That is why so many of us support this Bill. There is something strange and wrong with the idea of a life Peer. We are a strange kind of constitutional mule, with neither pride in ancestry nor hope of posterity. It is almost assumed that age cannot wither us, unless we recognise our own failings. We urgently need to find a way in which to cull our numbers and persuade existing Peers to retire. Given the large number of new Peers, speeches in time-limited debates will soon be down to two minutes or so, major debates will go on until the early hours of the morning or for several days and there will be an interminable queue for Parliamentary Questions.
The House is quite good at self-regulation, but it is quite a lot to ask that we must form our own judgment of when the time has come to go. Until a new solution has been found, which will take some time, perhaps we could bear in mind some guidelines. Age is not necessarily the major issue; certainly many speakers seem to be unaffected by it. When I first came here, Lord Longford, for one, continued to make very useful contributions as he neared his century. He was also self-disciplined enough to keep within the time limit. I remember that, when new Labour was at the peak of its popularity and the enthusiasm for it had spread even to this House, he made a speech that was definitely politically incorrect. He apologised and said: “I suppose this view is rather old Labour, but if I’m not entitled to be old Labour I don’t know who is”.
At a dinner given by my Lib Dem colleagues some two years ago for those of us who had joined the octogenarians, I proposed some signs that we might heed in judging for how long we should go on. I am sorry to repeat them to my Lib Dem colleagues who are present, but most of my colleagues are on an away day and, anyway, if politicians are not allowed to repeat themselves, they might have very little to say. I have five suggestions of the signs that we should heed to accept that the time has come to retire: first, when candid friends tell you that each of your speeches is getting better than the next; secondly, when what your speeches lack in depth they more than make up in length, although, of course, that is not peculiar to elderly Peers; thirdly, when you stop to think and forget to start again; fourthly, when your doctor advises you to buy day returns rather than season tickets; and, fifthly, when you get out of breath playing chess. No doubt others can add to this list.
Meanwhile, we await what the Government propose. When, as now seems inevitable, they propose that this House should become an elected Chamber and if that proposal is passed, we may be surprised by the consequences. As Ernie Bevin once said and as George W Bush might well have said:
“When you open that Pandora’s box, you never know what Trojan horses will jump out”.