Arab Partnership Initiative

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they hope to achieve through the Arab Partnership Initiative in the wake of the Arab Spring.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Arab Partnership supports the building blocks of democratic societies—that is, effective institutions, political pluralism, free media and economic fairness—across the Middle East and north Africa. Working with a wide range of regional partners, including Governments, Parliaments, the judiciary and the media, we are supporting long-term economic and political reform. As the Arab spring has demonstrated, this is the only route to a more stable and prosperous Middle East/north Africa region. Supporting this goal reflects not only the United Kingdom’s values but also our direct national interests.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I congratulate him and his colleagues on the British Government’s robust response to and support for the Arab spring. Will the Arab Partnership Initiative incorporate some support for the public good in Iraq, where democracy is now well established with, for example, its Government’s attempts to provide health services, education, energy and a free market? Can the Arab Partnership move ahead on those fronts in all the Arab spring countries?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, it most certainly can. There are Arab Partnership funds for Iraq but they are on quite a modest scale because—as I know my noble friend is well aware—Iraq is potentially a rich country with gigantic resources of oil, phosphates and so on. Money is not the main problem; the problem lies in technical and administrative support. The Arab Partnership is involved, for example, in the development of broadcasting and accountable institutions and upholding human rights. We are working with the Government of Iraq across the whole field of energy, education and health. There is active engagement in ensuring that this potentially brilliant country comes back to the full comity of nations.

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Finally, on my third point, I support this amendment because the lack of flexibility given by the Bill, if it were to pass and become an Act, is a major danger. It imports rigidity into the whole British approach to Europe and, by transposition, it risks importing rigidity into the whole evolution of the European Union. Institutions that do not have the means to reform and adapt themselves become fragile and risk falling out of contact with what they are meant to be doing. This is a really serious problem being caused here, and these rigidities are liable to damage both the European Union and our own national interests. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a little bit of flexibility where none exists in the present Bill, which is why I support it.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I was attempting to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to give way during his very impassioned defence of this particular Motion. I merely wish to tease him a bit for one moment by saying that it is clear that he does not understand the readership of the Daily Mail—and I am sure that that is the case, as it does not appear to be his favourite reading, from what he said on an earlier intervention. But I do not think that he absolutely understands the Liberal Democrats either. Indeed, I am not actually sure that he listens to the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made it absolutely plain in his statement that he was a Liberal Democrat, and I too, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, knows, belong to that party.

None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a very serious and profound point, which was reflected in his signature to the important letter to the Times today, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other immensely eminent noble Lords have signed also. The point, of course, is that the issues reflected in the EU Bill for referendums are of “fundamental constitutional importance”, to quote the letter. The statement made in the letter, which he reflected again today in his speech, is that:

“The Parliamentary Constitution Scrutiny Committee recommends that referendums should be confined to changes of fundamental constitutional importance”.

Of course, economy of the truth is something that others, maybe even Secretaries to the Cabinet, have used to great effect. While I personally disagree profoundly with him on losing a national veto over key areas outlined in the Bill being regarded as of “fundamental constitutional importance”—I think they should be—none the less, I take issue with the noble Lord for the way in which he has clipped the important statements made by the Constitution Committee in its report on referendums in the UK. The report goes on to say:

“There are difficulties in defining what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’. Although some constitutional issues clearly are of fundamental importance, and others not, there is a grey area where the importance of issues is a matter of political judgment”.

The committee did,

“not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’”.

While it is,

“possible to set out in legislation specific issues which should be subject to a referendum”—

[Baroness Quin]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I was a member of the Constitution Committee and was very active in promoting the report on referendums. The noble Baroness should recognise that the committee as a whole was very sceptical about the use of referendums, which it wanted to be used only in very limited circumstances.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I thank the noble Baroness. Of course she is absolutely correct. She was a member, so how can I argue with her? None the less, on the record the committee pointed out that Parliament should judge what issues will be the subject of a referendum.

I feel profoundly that that is why the other place has clearly supported all these issues that other noble Lords are seeking to remove. The other place has the touchstone of having the pulse of the electorate—after all, the other place is elected. In recent months, four out of five members of the public have said that they believe that transfers of sovereignty should be put to referendum, so I really think that noble Lords would do best to withdraw their opposition to the other place’s position and not press Motion B to a vote. I think it would be an error of judgment on their Lordships’ part.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, I warmly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Triesman and which has been spoken to so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Liddle.

Occasionally, the peoples of small countries can give those of larger countries some salutary advice. Yesterday I had the pleasure of a meeting and a long discussion with the president of the Slovenian upper Chamber. We were discussing very openly the current political malaise in Slovenia—it is doing very well economically but there is political malaise there—and the fact that the people of Slovenia were completely turned off by the political class, both the Government and the Parliament. We were told that one of the major reasons for this was that they are fed up with having referendums. They are saying to the Parliament, “We elected you to take decisions and to govern, and a Government are there to govern, so why can you do nothing without first asking the people in referendums? We elected you to take those decisions”. I think that they have a point. This is a country that, not so long ago, had no democratic institutions at all. It had no means by which people could express their opinions; they have them now. What is their reaction to the massive referendums to which they are subjected? They say, “That is not the way we want to be governed. We did not give up the yoke of communism to be governed in this way”. Perhaps occasionally it is a good idea to listen to small countries.

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

First, I thank my noble friend for those words of thanks—I was going to say “condolence”—for the efforts that we are putting into explaining the Bill. He makes an extremely valuable point: where Britain’s national interests are to be promoted by further involvement under treaties or otherwise in international institutions, that is an important matter on which the Government should certainly seek support through popular consent. The argument that we cannot make progress in any of these areas of international and multinational organisations because the Government somehow fear that the people will not agree is very weak and defeatist. On the contrary, if we are to pursue the national interest in a robust way, I think that the present Government and future Governments will have no fears at all about persuading the people to give popular support and consent to the steps forward.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. Does he agree that over the past 35 years or so member state Parliaments in other member states have been more heavily involved than the United Kingdom, and the Bill offers a way for the member state Parliament in Westminster to get far more closely attuned—providing that we can work more closely with the British people—to the will of the people on further transfers of sovereignty? Does he not also agree that this has been a profoundly important debate because it has widened the discussion from the very narrow perspectives of Brussels to the Government and back again? It has already brought Parliament in far more fully and, from that, we will be able to have occasional referenda, which will bring the British public much more into the picture.

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, it would be possible to make a well founded and persuasive argument to get rid of all the provisions of Schedule 1. At this point, however, I will focus on one provision where there is an absolutely demonstrable, concrete, national, economic and industrial issue at stake. I hope I shall persuade the House, and indeed the Government, that there is more than good reason to think again about this element of Schedule 1. The House will be well aware that military equipment is one of the rare exceptions and exemptions from the single market. That is achieved by Article 346(1)(b) of the treaty, which states:

“any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes”.

That is an explicitly protectionist measure that allows individual member states to protect their own markets, as in generations gone by before the single market, or Common Market, were ever conceived of. It is an anomaly in what is otherwise a free market, and it is very difficult for some member states to give this up because they are protecting industries with considerable lobbying potential in their own countries.

I have no financial interest to declare in the British defence industry. When I became Defence Procurement Minister, I made sure that I had no shares in defence industries and that has remained the case. I have not developed any relationships with the defence industry since I left government. Indeed, it would have been impossible under the rules for me to have done so in the last year. I acknowledge an admiration for the British defence industry, which I was able in the course of my job to get to know extremely well. The technologies that it has developed over the years, many of which you cannot even talk about the existence of let alone describe the nature of, are extraordinary. We really are at the front line in this area of technology. It is not surprising, and a demonstrable fact, that the British defence industry is by far and away the largest in turnover in the European Union. In other words, we are the losers through this protectionism.

The EU market for defence procurement is roughly €70 billion, say £55 billion, or something of that order. Our own element in that is about £15 billion—say €18 billion—so we are talking about a potential market of some €50 billion to €55 billion. The French, who are very protectionist and make considerable use of Article 346, have about the same spend. The Germans and the Italians have rather less and are also very protectionist. Everyone else in the EU adds up to that sum. There is at stake a market for something like €55 billion, or £45 billion to £50 billion. Of its own nature and operating against the largest most productive sector in the EU, this protectionism deprives us of the opportunities for sales and therefore for employment and for investment, not least for sharing the considerable overheads of R&D with the Ministry of Defence, which is very much in the interests of this country—the interests of defence, the taxpayer and industry.

It might be thought—indeed, I hope it would be—that any rational Government, and I am sure that the coalition Government are in no sense irrational, would want to seize any opportunity that could be identified to deal with that anomaly in the single market. We have been pioneers in, first, opening the single market initiative under Margaret Thatcher and Lord Cockfield and, subsequently, in pushing through the opening of financial services, intellectual property and many other areas in which there was hesitation on the part of our partners in moving forward to implement the principles of the single market.

One would assume that it would be common ground between all the major political parties, in addressing the electorate in our own ways and in addressing the economic interests of the nation, to want to get rid of the protectionist barriers that face that particularly important industry. I think it would also be common ground to agree that the defence industry, perhaps after pharmaceuticals and biochemistry, is the area of manufacturing in which we have the greatest competitive technological advantages in the world market. It is very important, and we ought to be able to come, more or less, to a consensus on what should be done about it.

How do you generate an opportunity to get rid of a form of protectionism when certain member states find themselves subject to considerable pressures and lobbies and find it difficult to move? It is difficult for some of them to vote openly, clearly and decisively for the abolition of Article 346. As I said in Committee, and as all of us with experience of negotiations in any context will know, often the best way to solve a substantive problem or make progress on a substantive issue, especially in a complex negotiation where people have strong and differing interests at the outset, is by a procedural route. I gave the example of setting up a committee to solve the problem rather than taking a decision around the board table, the Council of Ministers, or whatever. The qualified majority voting system is undoubtedly a very useful weapon that has proved its worth over the past generation in achieving substantive progress through procedural routes.

I can see one or two noble Lords looking for the text of the provision in Schedule 1, so let me say that it is on page 14, the penultimate element in Schedule 1, and states:

“Article 346(2) (changes to list of military products exempt from internal market provisions)”.

The provision does exactly the opposite of what I suggest is the obvious thing to be done in the national interest. It makes it impossible for us to agree to, let alone to propose, QMV to decide the future of that derogation from the single market without a referendum. We are putting a ball around our own necks, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, with that provision. It makes no sense at all. Where we have an interest in liberalising trade—I think I would carry a number of people on the opposite side with me in saying that we surely do—and where that means might be the only way to make progress in the area, as has proved to be the case in other similarly difficult areas in the past, we are preventing ourselves from doing so.

We all know that if a British Minister is not allowed to agree and says, “Well, we've got to have a referendum beforehand”, that in effect denies us the chance to seize the opportunity rapidly. It might need to be seized there and then, because if it is not you have lost it. You have your interlocutors in a favourable frame of mind in a particular situation when they agree to resolve the question through QMV. That element in Schedule 1 is entirely perverse. It goes in exactly the opposite direction from that in which any responsible Government would want to go. It is contrary to rationality and good sense; it is directly contrary to the national interest.

The Government have been very statesmanlike in saying in the course of our debates that they will listen to new arguments, that their minds are not closed. Both noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Howell, have said that in answer to me and to other noble Lords. I am sure that that is true, because they are both sophisticated men of the world who know that one always needs to look carefully at these things. When you have a schedule of 56 items, it is almost certain that something somewhere will have crept through when it should not really be there, and it needs to be looked at again.

I claim no monopoly of wisdom in this matter, but I raise it because, as I said, I have a background in this subject and I was struck very forcibly on reading the text of the Bill. I hope that on the basis of the considerations that I have just set out there will be scope to reconsider this important matter. It is important for a major British industry which I think we all wish to support in every way we can. I beg to move.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord has not explained to my satisfaction, or perhaps to the satisfaction of others, why the removal of these two lines from the text of the Bill, which would result in QMV rather than a veto on the protectionism of military products, would assist the development of the free market, as he and I wish to see. From my experience in Brussels, sometimes sitting in the chair on common security and defence policy debates, it was very clear that some member states—particularly some of the smaller and newer ones—wished to pursue protectionism to an extent that would have been extraordinarily unhelpful both to the defence of the European Union and to the wider defence policies of countries such as the United Kingdom. In other words, we need the veto and I cannot understand why the noble Lord wishes to remove it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Perhaps I may try to help the noble Baroness. Of course I did not suggest that adopting QMV in this case would guarantee that we would solve the problem. I said that the problem had not been solved until now but an opportunity might arise to solve it via QMV. Many problems that were solved by QMV did not prove to be solvable when each individual member state was put on the spot with a requirement that it make an explicit and public declaration and hold a public vote in favour of a change, particularly when the change was to remove protectionist support for a domestic industry. I am saying simply that it would be quite perverse to deny ourselves the opportunity of using QMV as an instrument. Of course, there is no guarantee that it would work, but that is no reason for not trying it or keeping it open as an instrument that we might need.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My point was purely that from my experience and that of others in Brussels, a number of member states wish to keep protectionism. As the noble Lord has already clearly indicated, it is in Britain’s interests to have an open system, and in the case of the defence of the European Union and beyond it is in all our interests to have an open system. I cannot see how QMV will assist an open system when Britain may need a veto.

Since the noble Lord was involved in the defence industry at an earlier stage in his political career, the European Union has widened immensely. Some of the newest member states have had a significant interest in keeping protectionism moving in the defence industry, with some of them having very large interests in it. The contracts are massive; the potential for dealings that are less than transparent is huge, as some of the biggest contracts on the globe are before individual member states; and one of the great strengths of the potential of the EU common security and defence policy is an open system of military equipment, which would stop the protectionism to which the noble Lord rightly refers. I have failed to be convinced so far by what the noble Lord has said about the loss of the veto and the introduction of QMV.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I think that the noble Baroness has the wrong end of the stick. I do not see how on earth Britain keeping a veto on a matter where there is no liberalisation will help us to achieve liberalisation. What are we going to veto—protectionist moves by other member states? This is absurd; it is another world. To do what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggests does not involve a decision to move to QMV. The noble Baroness implies that if we took the two lines out of the Bill, we would automatically and at that moment accept QMV. We are not doing that; we are simply making it possible, at a putative future moment and if we felt that it was to our advantage, to do so by means of simple legislation in Parliament without a referendum.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, wishes to exemplify the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, has already put forward—in which case it must be rather weak. I cannot see why bringing in QMV is a better option than the veto, which I prefer. I cannot see how the proposal will strengthen the hand of the United Kingdom. Although I have a long and personal friendship—and indeed a good neighbourliness—with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and a high regard for his massive intellect and his knowledge of the defence industry, none the less he has failed to convince me.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does my noble friend not feel that if the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, is so compelling, he would probably win it in a referendum?

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I must admit that this is a very compelling argument from this side of the House. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Hannay, will attempt to knock it down, but I suspect that they will not succeed.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, it may dismay the House, but I will pick up from the point where this argument has arrived. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when I looked at the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford, it did not seem to me that the consequence of it was that there would be an immediate move without any further ado to qualified majority voting. Instead, there would be a very substantial process before anybody got there, even if they had the desire to get there. It seemed that whatever difficulties and barriers were raised by those who thought it best to have a closed-market system rather than an open-market system in the defence industry, it would be harder in the middle and long term for them to sustain the restriction on free markets were they to be deprived of the veto as the automatic response. In short, over a period of time—I am sure that it would be over a period of time if it happened at all—it might be possible through a different mechanism to change from this restriction to a free-market solution.

It may be thought curious that from this opposition Bench I argue trenchantly for free markets in Europe. However, it does not seem odd to me; I have held this view consistently for a very long time. Like my noble friend Lord Davies, it appears to me that when we take a serious and hard view of the areas in our manufacturing industry where we might be very successful, among them are the products of our defence industries. They are very fine industries; they are hallmarked by exceptional research and development; they are among the industries that co-operate most successfully and most frequently with the best of our university departments that are working in the same areas of research and development; they manage to do it on a large scale; and they manage to create extremely valuable intellectual properties of a kind that we cannot always achieve in many other parts of our manufacturing life.

As a former Minister responsible for intellectual property, I frequently came at this from a different ministerial portfolio from that of my noble friend Lord Davies, but none the less I was frequently full of admiration for the high quality of patents that were created in that industry and very well aware of the value that they could inject into free-market circumstances. It is very easy to see why, even when there is a concrete commercial rationale for this country, there will be others who will seek protectionism because they are fearful that their industries cannot compete in industries of this kind, particularly where those industries are so driven by outstanding research and development and by their links with the university research world. It is a tough environment to compete in—that is for sure—but that does not seem to me to be a reason to protect those kinds of industries in other countries any more than somebody could argue that we should simply protect them in our country from any difficult winds and buffeting of international competition in a fully commercial sense.

I can also understand the argument that some of those countries will be looking at industries—as we have in defence in the past—as being of considerable strategic importance and we have been cautious about whether that strategic importance should be so lightly set aside. Westland helicopters and so on have been examples of it. However, broadly speaking, we have been at our best as a country when we have been prepared in free markets to compete where we can and to achieve results on the basis of the excellence of what some of our manufacturing industries can do with freedom to operate properly in markets.

In summary, I return to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has made, that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was making and that I made at the beginning of my remarks. Nothing in this proposal moves us with any suddenness onto a different trajectory. I am loath to believe that the House and the general sentiment in this House would be against the possibility of the full operation of free markets and the benefit to United Kingdom industry of competition in a free market, especially where we believe that we can succeed way beyond many of our competitors in that market. It is a very strong argument and I hope that it will appeal to any free marketer looking at the benefits of the European Union in free market terms, which, many noble Lords have urged, were among the founding reasons that they could see for the rationale of the EU in the first place. I support this amendment and I believe that, on free market arguments alone, it should succeed.

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Lords Chamber

The third negative point is that nothing in these amendments cuts across or undermines any commitments by any of the major parties in the last election or those contained in the coalition agreement. None of those texts envisages the “Heinz minus one” number of referendums; they all envisage a broad statement that when the treaty is going to be changed, there will be a referendum. That is preserved by these amendments because if there is the normal treaty reform process, that is what will happen. For all those reasons, we are trying to introduce a bit of the proportionality which noble Lords on various Benches have called for in the last few weeks of debate on the Bill. We have done something to limit the damage to the system of representative parliamentary democracy—which all of us, not only those who tabled these amendments, hold dear—if this Bill passed unamended. I hope that, after debate, the House will support the amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the important set of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, has put forward, and focus on two important points. The first concerns Amendment 15, in which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, recommends that after “defence” we insert the words,

“that permits a single, integrated military force”.

As I understand the amendment, this would trigger a referendum. The second point concerns Amendment 16, in which the noble Lord recommends that decisions on common defence and security policy be referred back for an Act of Parliament.

It is immediately of interest that the supporters of this amendment, led by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, have, in a sense, given a concession: they have agreed that if Amendment 15 is incorporated, there should be a referendum on a single, integrated military force. However, in their second amendment, Amendment 16, the noble Lord has ceded that although the issue of common defence and security policy is very important, it should be referred back to Parliament, in contrast to the purpose of the Bill, which is to seek the approval of the British people.

I should like to comment first on this welcome opening-up as regards the potential for a referendum on the single, integrated military force. My problem, however, is that I cannot really understand what that phrase means. I do not find “a single, integrated military force” a phrase that is commonly—or ever—used in treaties or Acts of this nature. In fact, I have not been able to recall it at any time during my decade or the decade previously in the other place. I cannot help but wonder precisely what it means. Does it mean, for example, the single, integrated military force that I saw and worked alongside in the south of Iraq in 2003 to 2007, when we had a number of military forces that co-ordinated themselves under UK command? We had the Poles, who were superb; we had the Italians—a little bit more questionably perhaps; we had the Romanians, who were very fierce fighters; the Bulgarians, over whom hung a little bit of a question mark; the Danes, who were superlative; and one or two others. On top of that, of course, we had Australia and the US.

What does a single, integrated military force mean? Does it mean a command under one structure, leader and nation state? Does it mean all 27 member states? Well, I think that that is unlikely. Mercifully, the ones that do not belong to NATO are now very few, but they are very unlikely to offer troops for a single, integrated military command. Does it mean, say, the Franco-British military command, which is getting stronger and whose strength I and others most warmly welcome? I may be correct in saying that at least until recently we had had at least 32 different actions going on with the French on the ground somewhere, some of which were training. We are strengthening that duality in military terms all the time.

Although the referendum proposed here for a single, integrated military force is a welcome admission that a referendum for the British people on common defence and security policy matters, at least in this perspective, is of high value—high enough for the proposers of the amendment to accept that a referendum would be required—none the less, the phraseology is with great respect too loose, too weak, too open and too imprecise to allow this amendment to be adopted.

In Amendment 16, on the other hand, the common defence and security policy is important enough to the proposers of the amendment to bring it back for an Act of Parliament. But how does that differ from now? Parliament has primacy in any event; if we wish to have an Act of Parliament on anything to do with EU legislation or policy, we can do that now. We have the primacy; it has been restated in Clause 18 and it has been there since 1972. The purpose of this Bill, which I support, is to put it to the people, which is why I cannot accept Amendment 16, which brings it solely back to an Act of Parliament. That is no different, in essence, from the situation that we have today.

Another amendment that the proposers have put forward, led by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the last on which I will comment, contains the proposal that we should lose our potential veto for the multiannual budget. Is that truly sensible? I draw noble Lords’ attention to a highly possible situation, whereby in Brussels there could easily be today a time, not far distant, when the discussion on the multiannual budget was about the 40 per cent of the common agricultural policy expenditure. Noble Lords will know how difficult it is to get reform; it is almost possible—it has so far proved impossible to grasp the common agricultural policy by the tail and pull it into the reform network. It is rather like The Hunting of the Snark; it just has not been possible.

It is easy to imagine that reforming the common agricultural policy would be an expensive business. How might that be paid for? Suppose that it would be paid for by the British rebate. It would be very hard indeed to obtain a majority against that for the United Kingdom. We might not be in a minority of one: others who are net contributors and who also wish the reform of the common agricultural policy, such as the Netherlands and Poland, would perhaps be with us; I am not sure. But as sure as eggs is eggs we would lose France. In fact, we would have lost France before the argument began because France—great ally as it is, net contributor as it is—would have been arguing for just that. The loss of the British rebate as a payment for a partial reform of the common agricultural policy would be enormously attractive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, referred to the argument about Parliament and said that the party positions had changed. However, I said at the beginning of my remarks on the Bill last week that we are nothing if not consistent in our consistencies. This House voted so that people such as me in Northern Ireland would have a referendum on our constitutional future and that we would decide. As recently as on a visit to Northern Ireland last week, the Prime Minister said that the decision about its future lay with the people there; he did not say that it lay with Parliament. If we want to take the argument to its logical conclusion, that Parliament decides everything, why did Parliament provide for referenda in the first place? If you are going to be consistent in saying that such matters are a decision for Parliament, you do not have referenda. However, we do have referenda. We had one in 1975, and we have had a number since. Therefore, the argument that Parliament always takes the decisions is simply not true.

Edmund Burke was quoted again. He is very popular in this debate, but we are talking about the 18th century and things have moved on. Life has changed. We have a totally different world in which people are, thank God, educated and able to participate in a meaningful way and no longer require people who can read and write to interpret things for them. As a new Member, it has struck me from the very beginning of our debates on the Bill that it is hard to construct an argument that we support the Bill in broad terms, inelegant though it might be, without automatically being deemed to be someone who does not want to have anything to do with Europe. I refute that. There are positive things about Europe, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, in the view of the British people Europe has been systematically salami-sliced.

I think I understand why that is. There is a small group of people at the heart of Europe who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, believe ultimately in a large superstate to rival the United States. We saw an example of that last week when one former Prime Minister said that we now need a leader. I am not speculating on who he thought that person might be, but the implication is that the nation state is not held by some people to be the fundamental building block of the European Union. Indeed, the nation state is merely in transition towards something else.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but the facts are very firmly against him. I ask him to accept that the very architecture of the European Union is one of the most decentralised architectures of a large bloc of countries coming together that the world has witnessed in modern times. It is a highly decentralised, very diffuse organisational structure, and I beg him to recognise that point despite his excellent oratory.

[Lord Empey]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I understand the argument for subsidiarity. I was part of a European institution that practised it in the days of bringing decisions ostensibly down to the lowest level at which they can be taken. However, the practice is somewhat different. It is all very well to push things down, but setting the envelope within which those bodies can take decisions and determining the size and shape of that envelope centrally, which is what happens, goes against the argument.

The point I am trying to develop is that I believe in the nation state and in nation states coming together in common cause where that is in their national interests. However, I do not believe in a push by some people to transform those nation states into a collective within a larger body that in effect has all the characteristics of a state: its own President, its own Foreign Secretary, its own system of justice, possibly even its own army. The people of this country are not ready for that argument. Those who for economic, political or security reasons push that argument are pushing against the tide and undermining the people of this country’s view of Europe. They are therefore undermining their own argument.

I hope as we go forward with this that we will recognise that confidence in the principle of a European Union in this country will be re-established only if people feel that they are in charge. Indeed, its standing, with pages filled with people claiming for Kit Kats and all sorts of things, has been undermined and has suffered colossal damage. It may take a generation to repair it, but in the mean time this Bill, with all its downsides, can at least begin the process of saying to people, “You are now in charge”. Yes, Ministers and Members of Parliament will play their role, but in a modern democracy with modern communications and an educated electorate, who says that it is incompatible to have parliamentary democracy on the one hand and on the other hand, for certain defined purposes, a referendum in which the people can be specific? When they vote for a Member of Parliament, they vote for myriad policies covering everything from defence to social services—the whole gamut of government. Constitutional matters are much more precise, and, with an educated electorate, why should the people on occasions not be able to tick the box that they feel is appropriate?

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not think that is what the treaty says, but yes, it is likely that that is the case. Of course, any treaty amendment requires ratification by whatever the national procedures are. I am talking about an emergency situation in which most people think, “We have to do this pretty fast”.

We could still have our referendum. If the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, were accepted, there is nothing to stop the Government of the day saying to Parliament, “Despite all the risks of delay, we actually think this is a sufficiently serious matter to justify having a referendum”. That is entirely open to them, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is accepted. However, that amendment would remove the present danger in the text, which is that there would be an absolute requirement to have a referendum because there is no potential let-out for an emergency, even though that is the most plausible scenario for a treaty amendment and everyone, including us, would have agreed that it was an emergency and therefore justified the accelerated procedure. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

The noble Lords opposite will not be surprised to hear that I find it very difficult to accept this amendment. Coming from the Brussels angle, I remind noble Lords that in Brussels the word “urgency” relates to the French word “urgence”, which means of powerful importance. I recall that week after week, month after month in Strasbourg and Brussels, we had urgency debates which took place many days, weeks and sometimes months after the activity in question, such as a revolution somewhere or the Arab spring. It took me a while to realise that the English meaning of the word “urgency” is quick or hurry up whereas in French it means something that counts, something that is valued and something to which we should pay special attention. It is rather like high representative which does not mean high at all, but important.

I suggest that the transfer of sovereignty falls into the French “urgence” category—it is something of powerful importance—but inevitably Brussels life advances at the pace of a snail; it is very slow. Rather like the mills of God, Brussels grinds exceeding small and it takes a very long time. I have never known anything of importance, high-value, “urgence”, to happen at any speed in Brussels. Nor do I think that the transfer of sovereignty, important as it is, should be done in haste. I honestly cannot anticipate Brussels not taking maybe a decade over something of real value, such as the transfer of sovereignty.

When I joined the other place in 1980, I found myself dealing with a very important piece of legislation on intellectual property. It was data protection and intellectual property in computer software. When I arrived in the House of Lords, a decade later, I found that the Bill had been to Brussels and come back to the Lords and it was still in an active, first-step, consultation process. Two years later, when I arrived in the European Parliament, being lucky enough to be elected there in 1999, I found the Bill was in the European Parliament. It was just about to leave the European Parliament when I left a decade later. Powerfully important things such as that take a considerable length of time. How much longer do we imagine that the transfer of sovereignty would take?

During the past decade, we in the United Kingdom have very actively supported the enlargement of the European Union. It now has 27 states and more are coming in: Croatia tomorrow and the Balkans the day after. As a result, quite properly, the slowness has increased tremendously. It is no longer possible to put things through even at a reasonable speed; now things are slower than slow. That is why I do not see a referendum coming our way even if this Bill goes through in its entirety, which I hope and pray it will, for maybe at least a decade. Brussels is simply not able to think that way. The confusion of the euro, combined with the continuing enlargement, has made the whole system so slow, and I do not think that we will see a referendum in the next 15 years or so. Urgency, in English terminology, is simply not available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am getting signals, quite rightly so, from my Front Bench so I really must not respond to the substance of that because I shall be turning this into a debate—which we ought to have in this House on these important matters—on fiscal and monetary issues in the European Union at present. I hope that the Government take note of the obvious interest on their own Benches in having the opportunity to discuss this matter and exchange our various perspectives on it. I wanted to intervene really just to support my noble friend’s excellent amendment. If it is accepted by the House, it will get rid of a large amount—80 or possibly 90 per cent of the damage—that could be done by this Bill. If this amendment goes through, Clause 3(4) would then read:

“The significance condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the decision states that … the decision falls within section 4 only because of provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and … the effect of that provision in relation to the United Kingdom is not significant”.

In other words, the only exemption from the need to have a referendum would be in relation to matters that were not significant for the United Kingdom. Surely, to accept this particular amendment is a cost-free concession on the part of the Government. I cannot believe that the Government actually want to provide for having a referendum on something that is not significant for the United Kingdom. Am I perhaps wrong about this?

We need to probe the Government’s logic a little here, because what an extraordinary thing it would be if the Government want to take through Parliament a Bill providing for the possibility of having referenda on issues that are not significant for the United Kingdom. The Government cannot turn around and use the argument that what is significant or not might be a subjective and difficult matter to determine at any one point, because they have already accepted in this Bill, as it stands, the need to make a distinction between significant and non-significant. That argument cannot be made. The only argument that can be made is that we need to provide for having referenda on something that is not significant, which does not make the slightest sense. I ask noble Lords to envisage a scenario in which we have a referendum in this country on something that everybody accepts is not significant for the United Kingdom. We ask the electorate to focus their mind on a difficult, technical and perhaps rather abstruse matter—maybe a whole package of such matters, which is what the Government have been suggesting recently; to take the time to master the relevant briefs or at least make up their minds on this matter; and to take time off from their work or from their leisure activities and go to the polls on something that they are told in advance is not significant for the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Since the noble Lord has such confidence in the judgment of Ministers that he wishes to recentralise the possible decision-making that would come through referenda, why does he not have confidence that the judgment of Ministers would be that something inessential would not come to Parliament in the first place? There is an illogicality in his circular argument.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

There is no illogicality at all. There is no need to provide for a referendum on something which is not significant for the United Kingdom unless the Government believe that they might, at some point, wish to have such a referendum, which I regard as an utter absurdity. It would be an insult to the electorate; it would be treating the whole electoral system of this country in a thoroughly frivolous way. I have to ask the Government: what is the purpose—what is the logic, because it is not clear to me at all—in providing for the possibility of referenda on non-significant subjects? It would be an utter contradiction in terms.

I have to mention to the House a matter which I must not go into in any detail for fear of breaking the relevance rule. I shall not do that, but I need to refer to the fact that a week or two ago the Government published a Bill on reform of the House of Lords which provides for fundamental changes to this House, and therefore to the legislature of this country, without providing for a referendum at all. So we have a situation in which the same Government are saying, on one hand, “We have to change the House of Lords in a fundamental way and we cannot have a referendum on it”, and at the same time saying, “We have to have referenda on changing the rules on qualified majority voting on taking decisions about the future of the public prosecutor’s office in the European Union”—something idiotic like that. Now they come forward and say, “No, actually we need to provide for referenda on explicitly non-significant matters”. What an extraordinary contradiction.

I see that, for once, I have the agreement of the noble Lords, Lord Flight and Lord Hamilton, as well as other distinguished Members opposite. Maybe the Government, in responding, should not just turn to me; they should turn to their supporters on their own Back Benches. They certainly need to turn to the country to explain the logic of the Bill, because, whatever it is, it does not appear to be coherent or something that has been properly thought through. I am sure that it is not deliberate hypocrisy—I would not dream of accusing noble Lords of that. Maybe it is some kind of confusion, but we need to know what it is, because what they are bringing forward seems to have no sense at all either from the rational or the pragmatic point of view, or to be credible in any way.

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Government for listening with such deep concern to what seemed to me to be perfectly acceptable phraseology, but which gave noble Lords opposite considerable difficulty. It seems to me odd that something that is comfortable, which we already passed in the UK 2008 Act, should somehow become a discomforting phrase here, but I am none the less absolutely delighted to see that the Minister is able to come forward with what is clearly to other noble Lords a major concession and clarify a phrase which to some of us seemed perfectly adequate. It is always good that we should have a consensus in this House—your Lordships are known for a consensual approach—and I congratulate and thank the Minister.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful for those remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If no one else wishes to intervene, I ought to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which there would be proposals that would represent a transfer of powers or competences from Gibraltar to the EU. However, I have not looked back at Protocol 3 of the 1972 Act which ratified the treaty of accession and the extremely complicated circumstances in which Gibraltar is treated as a member of the EU but does not take part in all aspects of EU policy. For example, it does not take part in the common agricultural policy, but it takes part in the freedom of movement.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Would the Minister recommend to other European Union member states that have territories that are not specifically part of their geographical parameters—such as Spain and the Canary Islands, and France and her piece of territory in north Africa—that they follow the lead of the United Kingdom in drawing more fully into their embrace the territories that belong to them?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long. The question of the different relationships between the Crown dependencies and the EU, and Gibraltar and the EU, is a deeply arcane subject. I read an extremely long report from the Government of Jersey some 18 months ago about the relationship between Jersey and the EU. It is very good bedtime reading for anyone who does not wish to go to sleep. These are very complicated areas. However, I and our advisers cannot at the moment envisage the likelihood of a referendum. We nevertheless hope that this amendment clarifies the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

It is not the time of night to go into a lengthy disquisition on British constitutional history, but we still live in a representative parliamentary democracy and we still accept that a Government who have a majority in the House of Commons can make laws. However, we are seeking to contradict that with this provision. The amendment that is being moved is a small, modest palliation of that.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

This amendment is not in fact about the absolute underpinnings of this Bill, although it is a very tempting set of red herrings that have been laid in front of your Lordships’ House. This set of amendments is about whether or not there should be a 40 per cent threshold and, with your Lordships’ permission, I would like to comment purely on that point.

The 40 per cent threshold seems to me, as a former Member of Parliament and of the European Parliament, to be a rather odd thing for noble Lords to be considering today. We do not have a 40 per cent threshold in the general election or in the European election, for example. We are perfectly comfortable with assuming that 50 per cent of those who come out to vote is the threshold on which the electorate are exercising their wisdom. I find it extremely difficult to see why, just for this Bill, some noble Lords are so adamantine in their perception that a 40 per cent threshold—and no less—is the absolute minimum they will accept if a referendum is to give a valid answer from the British people.

All noble Lords who have commented on the imperative of parliamentary democracy and Parliament’s primacy are, of course, absolutely right. I think that it is Clause 18 of the Bill that, for the first time ever in many generations in Parliament, absolutely clearly defines that it is only through the primacy of Parliament that EU legislation can be accepted at all. It is our responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made the point in his very thoughtful intervention—and I fully support this—that we have been far too fast in ceding power from this Parliament to the European Union. However, I would perhaps remind him that that is our responsibility, certainly in the House of Commons and Government but also, to a much lesser extent, here. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, is in his place, representing the several generations of outstanding work by EU sub-committees in your Lordships’ House. That has not been the case in the House of Commons, which has let slip piece after piece of legislation pouring in from Brussels. Indeed, it is the Ministers of the day, from every single Government—from the previous Government and the ones before that—that have fed the House of Commons so little material that somehow it has unwittingly, or in some other mode, let through all of this legislation and the growing burden of all these regulations which are, I believe, oppressing the peoples of the European Union and particularly the peoples of the United Kingdom.

This modest Bill, although it is relatively lightweight, does contain two or three very important points, the first of which I believe is the primacy of Parliament over EU legislation and therefore surely over the outcome of any referendum. It also gives the wonderful possibility of a downhill-driven knowledge base to the British people and some small modicum of authority over what will happen. I very much support the Bill because of those two points.

Coming back to Burke, to the point that was raised in the context of representative parliament, I cannot help but comment, because the flavour comes through so strongly, that some of the arguments that noble Lords are putting forward tend to resonate with those of us whose female forebears fought for the vote for women. In other words, somehow some elements of the population are not fit to bring their judgment to bear on important matters affecting the United Kingdom. It is difficult. Burke, of course, was wonderful, but before him and at his day women did not have the vote. Academics had more than their current bundle of votes per person, so did the landed gentry, so did the aristocracy; well, wonderful, but today is different.

One of the key differences is that today we have modern technology. Only the day before yesterday I had five e-mails, no less, from the great Steve Jobs himself urging me to discard my newly purchased iPhone and my iPad of the week before last in favour of iCloud, where all my data are going to be parked for ever and a day. Modern people, men, women and children of all backgrounds, all income brackets, all of us—I leave aside prisoners because I do not want to interfere with the debate between two prominent powerful members of the Conservative Party on that one—all those people have knowledge now, absolute knowledge, just as much as we do, and they have time, they have energy, they get involved.

My noble friend Lord Dykes commented that—despite the absence of cricket in his tremendous tour de force of commenting on what the British public are interested in—the British people trust their political representatives to make political judgments on their behalf. Noble Lords know full well that the British public have no trust in any politician at all at the moment, although I believe that they have greater trust in your Lordships’ House than in the other place. What they do have confidence in is the knowledge that they take, albeit false knowledge, from Wikipedia, from iCloud and from other data that are now so readily available 24 hours a day and which people take, commandeer and use. Therefore, they want to be involved; they are able to be involved; they are knowledgeable about being involved and that is why the heart of the Bill is a good idea.

The 40 per cent threshold is a very odd idea, unless we are going to carry it right forward into the European Parliament, into the general election, into local elections, presumably—we can have a dismal turnout, yet we respect the council that is elected none the less and the mayors that are elected, if they are. I expect that there will be a pretty low turnout if we have elected police, for example. So we do accept that low turnout and we take just over a 50 per cent threshold as a majority. That is the way in which our parliamentary system works, that is the way in which our electoral system works. I can see no rationale, no reasonable argument that has been laid in front of your Lordships’ House so far this afternoon, which tells me that I should support this set of amendments. These referenda will be few and far between—probably once every 10 years if the European Union actually proposes a further transfer of sovereign power, which at the moment is highly unlikely. It is busy with the euro, it is busy with the superabundance of enlargement; it is not going to propose anything very important for the moment on these grounds. Maybe once every 10 or 15 years there will be a referendum. Is this of such profound significance that it outweighs the normal way in which we vote in general elections? I think not. The logic is against it because the Bill says that the primacy of the British Parliament overrides everything coming from Brussels in any case. I oppose the amendments.

[Lord Triesman]

It has been a long debate and I suspect that there has been a very full review of most of the issues. I am very pleased to be associated with the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Dykes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in this amendment. I also find myself in very strong agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Forsyth. I too have been thinking about Burke. It may completely destroy any prospect of my ever sitting successfully on these Benches again, but the reality is that those are the key arguments.

There was such strong support for my noble friend Lord Rooker’s original concept of thresholds and the feed-through to the parliamentary system—there are some differences here that I shall explore in a moment—because it was felt strongly that when there were to be significant changes to our constitution or the arrangements under which we are governed, there ought to be a demonstrable degree of legitimacy. Goodness knows, 40 per cent is a pretty modest figure when looking at a level of legitimacy for changes that profound. None the less, it was an attempt to say that there should be some authority for the decision, and that the figure gave at least that degree of authority. One of the arguments adduced at the time was that in the commentary on the turnout in local elections, in particular, dipping below 40 per cent, as it often did, people made very severe criticisms of the quality of our democratic life. When it was higher than that, people tended to think it was healthy. I do not want to say that that seems to be the key reason. I just make the point that on turnouts of less than 40 per cent, results were routinely disparaged. Anybody looking back over the press and other commentary at the time would come to same conclusion.

The constitutional debates in this House were interesting. Many of your Lordships said that once the decision is taken in a referendum we should not try to second-guess the electorate. They will have spoken, however small the turnout and however profound the issue. None the less, they will have spoken. That was never a convincing reason not to look at the prospect of some threshold. That is why I agree so strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Unfortunately, we look at it from where we are now, with this legislation in front of us.

The reason why I assert that we may be in a slightly different position now is that most of the arguments that my noble friend Lord Rooker produced are still very good. However, the argument today has a slightly different salience. It has been argued that, in relation to Europe, the people of this country have felt disenfranchised. That may well be true; I do not particularly choose to argue that it is not the case. They may well resent having had less say than they believed they should. What is needed in these circumstances may be the indelible mark of people’s approval for changes that might have a significant effect on their lives. I can see that. If it is true that we need that new kind of indelible mark, let us make sure that it is a credible mark, which has some authority and dignity and has not gone through on very small figures.

The reason why I believe that this is significantly different from the arguments about, for example, local elections, and different—with the greatest respect to former Members of the European Parliament—from European parliamentary elections, is this.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I was merely making the general point that 50 per cent-plus is our normal modus operandi. It is impossible to see why it should be any different for this referendum.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the argument for 50 per cent plus has been widely canvassed recently among the people of the United Kingdom, who formed a very clear view of it, which I agree with. I make this point because it goes to the heart of the difference that we are discussing. The difference seems to be that Parliament will have taken a decision to put the matter to the electorate. The question is: what size or degree of opposition should there be before Parliament is overridden and its decision—the decision that has been advocated by the Government of the day—set aside? The decision that forms the fundamental proposition being put to the people will have been argued for from government Benches, and may well have been argued for from opposition Benches as well, before it ever gets to the point where it is put to the people. The constitutional innovation is that people are being asked to set aside whatever Parliament, and indeed whatever the Government that they have elected, have said. This is a very profound difference from any arrangement that we have seen at any time in the United Kingdom.

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, the grouping includes quite different proposals relating to a possible sunset clause. Amendments 61 and 63 propose an unqualified sunset clause by which the Act would fall on the Dissolution of Parliament. Amendment 62 is the so-called sunset-sunrise clause, because the Act would fall but could be immediately—I stress that point—revived by a simple resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

I will speak to Amendment 62 and I shall speak very moderately. I have sat through eight days of Committee so far and I occasionally get the impression that people think I am not moderate, but I have been extremely moderate in all my interventions throughout Committee. As we enter day eight on the Floor of the House, it is evident that the Bill is a heavy approach—the Government would not dispute that—that is likely, whatever the future circumstances, to block moves to a qualified majority in the European Union.

I have already indicated that I fully understand why the Government have presented the Bill. I also consider that it would be sensible to take another look at the situation at the end of this Parliament, without prejudice, and for Parliament to decide whether to continue the Bill. That is the proposition in Amendment 62. That proposal has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as right, and I would describe it as a wise proposal.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I follow the noble Lord with further comment about the applicability of a sunset clause for this type of Bill at all. We must provide certainty for the British public, which as a former Member of the European Parliament I must say is sadly lacking for them at the moment because of the way in which European Union business has previously been dealt with by the British Parliament and Governments. The sunset clause, which would in effect kill the Bill, would take away that certainty, and I wonder whether it is an applicable mechanism for this sort of Bill.

The sunset clause was, of course, introduced by the Counter-Terrorism Bill on the basis that that Bill introduced extraordinary measures in keeping with the UK's liberal values in an emergency, but that is not the case with the European Union Bill. This is not an emergency and the Bill does not reflect a short-term measure. It is a long-term policy shared by all sides, except I think by the minority, with even the Opposition accepting that there should be a referendum for big treaty changes under the ordinary revision procedure for issues such as the euro. I am one of those who believe profoundly that in order to reconnect with the public we need more possibilities for referenda, as those outlined in Schedule 1 inform us. However, the Public Bodies Bill, which also has a sunset clause, is tasked with a specific programme for a specific time. Let me suggest that as this Bill is for the long term, this is no different from any other legislation that your Lordships’ House passes. For example, privatisation did not have a sunset clause. It was, we believe, the right thing to do to react to new circumstances.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

As the noble Baroness continues to distinguish this Bill from other Bills, would she like to distinguish it from the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, in which subsection (4) of Clause 7 headed, “Final provisions” is almost precisely the same as the one proposed in the amendment in my name and supported by my noble friend Lord Williamson?

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I thank the noble Lord very much. Perhaps I may continue. The day a Government believe this Bill should be changed, they can do exactly that through the proper mechanisms; they can repeal the Acts that introduced them. However, repealing the Bill and giving discretion back to Ministers is not the answer as it is with the other Bills that I have quoted. As I recall from my time in the House of Commons, a sunset clause is traditionally used to delegate authority for a temporary period upwards to the Executive. This Bill delegates downwards, which is why I suggest that a sunset clause is not relevant for this Bill.

I recall that Parliament defines a sunset clause as a provision in a Bill that gives it an expiry date once it has passed into law. Sunset clauses are included in legislation when it is felt that Parliament should have the chance to decide on its merits again after a fixed period. This sunset clause kills the Bill at the end of this Parliament, thus destroying the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to give the British people a say at last in what is happening in their name in ever-increasing EU legislation. However, it even gives it back to Ministers and not to Parliament. This is simply out of line with Parliament’s definition of sunset clauses.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has spoken quite a lot. I give way again.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Coming back to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, I hope she will explain why the provision for which this House voted, which is in that Bill now, is inappropriate to the Bill we are looking at today.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

The sunset clause is inappropriate because, as I have said, this Bill attempts to do something quite unusual with regard to EU legislation and successive British Parliaments and Governments. Traditionally, British Governments, and to a lesser extent British Parliaments, had not involved themselves in EU legislation. Your Lordships’ House is very different from the other place. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, is in his usual place. It is known in the European Union—in the European Parliament particularly—that the reports from your Lordships’ House are unique, wonderful and vastly helpful. However, the fact is that given our particular position in this House—we are not elected and primacy rests with the other place—it is the other place that has let down the British people. EU Standing Committees A and B are deficient in their grasp of what is going through under EU legislation. They have not been briefed by successive Governments, which is why I believe that these referenda potentially give the British Parliament the opportunity to grasp again the power that somehow it has let slip.

It is all too true that there is an assumption now that EU legislation has primacy over the British Parliament. That is not the case. Parliament has let slip so much EU legislation in past decades that there is now an assumption that the primacy of European Union legislation overrules the primacy of what is passed through the British Parliament. It was not until I sat in the European Parliament that I realised that other Parliaments have not behaved like this. Other Members of the European Parliament from different member states did not have that perception. In other words, I am suggesting that we have undervalued the British Parliament’s authority over all EU legislation. That is because the British Parliament, particularly in the other place, has allowed so much legislation to slip by that an assumption has arisen that somehow we no longer control it. By we, I mean British parliamentarians. Therefore, I suggest that referenda offer one window into closing this gap of communication with the British public.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness care to comment on the Factortame case?

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I beg to continue, because although the noble Lord’s reasoning is always crystal clear—I often disagree with him entirely but I always respect the way in which he puts forward his views—in this case, I am not quite clear what his point is. I therefore conclude by asking the Government to assure us that if and when this Bill goes through without the sunset clauses, as I hope it will, Ministers will offer other openings through which the Parliament and the British public can be given a greater opportunity to be involved in all the EU debates that are reflected in our legislation. In other words, I see these referenda mechanisms as one step towards reconnecting the British public but not the final step. I am against the sunset clauses.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I, too, would like to address the question of sunset clauses, but first I will pick up on one or two comments by my noble friend Lord Taverne. He seemed to suggest that we would be put at enormous disadvantage, because there would be negotiations in the EU on certain things that were to the United Kingdom’s advantage but which the referendum lock would somehow stop us agreeing to. This suggests that it is impossible to win a referendum on an issue that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom. I do not quite understand the logic of that. It suggests either that the British people are extraordinarily stupid or that somehow there are no powers of persuasion to tell the people of this country that when things are to their advantage they should vote for them—a rather depressing attitude.

To return to the sunset clauses, and indeed to the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I voted in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that introduced a sunset clause for the five-year fixed Parliament. I did that because it struck me that it was a matter of convenience to the coalition to have a five-year fixed Parliament. If that is what was wanted, and if the Liberal Democrats wanted somehow to organise life so that they would not be tipped out of bed by Prime Minister Cameron, who would then call an early election, that was up to them and it was surely something pertinent to this coalition Government and for their duration. I did not quite see why that should tie future Parliaments to adhering to the timescale of a five-year fixed Parliament. That was entirely different.

EU: Transfer of Iranian Refugees

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As the noble Lord knows very well—indeed, he must be saluted as the campaign leader in this very ugly situation—the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, has requested that another humanitarian monitoring mission be sent to Ashraf as soon as possible, and we fully support that. The problem, as the noble Lord appreciates, is that this is Iraqi sovereign territory and there are limits to what those of us outside can do. Despite making constant representations, our own visit on 16 March and our deploring of the confirmed killing on 8 April, we cannot intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq without the recognition and support of the Maliki Government, which we need. That is what we must work for all the time and what we back the UN in doing as well.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Did the Minister have the chance to see the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in the European Parliament on 10 May, where she reiterated the duty to protect which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred to a few moments ago? The noble Lord asked the Minister about the role of the United Nations and the declared doctrine of the duty to protect. Given that, in April, 35 people were killed and 350 were injured, is this merely an internal question for the sovereign Government of Iraq or is it not something that the international community has a duty to be involved in?

European Union Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am sure we could collaborate with other nations that control their own waters. What we do not want to do is to go on with a common fisheries policy that ensures that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are thrown back dead every year and which has removed a very valuable industry. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord. While on my statistics the fish that are thrown back dead every year would fill this Palace of Westminster and Whitehall several times over, I have to tell your Lordships that there are those outside the political class who think that that might be a rather better use for them than being thrown overboard to pollute the seabed.

This amendment does not require a referendum if we are so foolish as to stay in the common agricultural policy, which is estimated to cost each family in the land around £1,000 per annum in higher food costs, or some £26 billion. On the environment, this amendment does not address the £18 billion per annum which the Government say we are going to spend on their climate change initiative inspired by the European Union, complete with all those useless and ugly windmills, not to mention the closure of our coal-fired power stations. The amendment does not include the cost to our economy when the lights go out, nor does it cover the billion or so we send to Brussels for it to misspend on foreign aid.

Finally, the amendment does not include the huge costs of overregulation which the EU imposes on our whole economy. I dealt with this in minimal detail on 3 May at cols. 398 to 400, so I will not repeat it now, but we are talking about anything between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of GDP by most estimates. Our GDP now stands at around £1.5 trillion, so we are talking about anything between £60 billion and £150 billion. If any noble Lords want to challenge these figures, they can, of course, do so, but I trust they will join me in pressing the Government for an official cost-benefit analysis of our membership if they do.

This amendment is not triggered by any of the £100 billion or so per annum of waste which I have just mentioned that is notched up by these and other EU follies. The joy under this amendment is that a referendum would be triggered only when our net cash thrown down the drain in Brussels equals £10 billion per annum according to the Government’s own figures. Mark you, the Office for National Statistics has recently put our net contribution at around £9 billion already this year, and most people seem to agree that we are looking at £10 billion for next year, so we are nearly there. I can point out that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Vinson yesterday put our net contribution as low as £4.7 billion, so there is room for clarity here. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was mentioning the figures put forward by the Treasury, which are very much lower than the figures put forward by the Pink Book, but that is perhaps an argument for the cost-benefit analysis when we get there.

We are talking about £10 billion per annum. This may not sound much to our Europhile political class, but it is an awful lot of money to real British people. Ten billion pounds per annum comes to some £27.39 million every day. That would pay for 900 nurses every day at a salary of £30,000 per year each—or teachers, or policemen, or other public servants. The amendment requires a referendum when the net cash that we send to Brussels would pay the annual salaries for 900 nurses every day, or for 328,500 nurses every year.

There is another way to understand the importance of £10 billion per annum, which comes to £400 per annum for each of our 26 million families. All these costs have to be seen against the perilous state of our economy and the sacrifices and difficulties in which many of our people now find themselves through no fault of their own. Current spending cuts, as I have mentioned, appear to be around £21 billion. Which would the British people prefer?

I am sure that the Government and your Europhile Lordships will say that the benefits of our EU membership are so wondrous and obvious and that they go far beyond its mere vulgar cost to our long-suffering taxpayers. I have never understood what those benefits really are; what benefits we get from our EU membership, which we could not get from free trade and friendly collaboration with our European friends; what benefits we get, for instance, that the Swiss do not enjoy from outside the EU.

Perhaps the Minister could be more precise today about these great benefits. This Government and the previous Government—and previous Governments for some time—have said that a cost-benefit analysis would be a waste of money. The Stern report on climate change, however, cost only £1.272 million on a subject at least as complex as our EU membership. Surely that tiny sum would be well worth spending to discover whether the colossal costs of our EU membership are justified or not.

We, of course, are told that we stand taller as a sovereign nation in meetings of the international conferencariat all over the planet—because we have diluted our sovereignty into the new form of supranational government in Brussels run by bureaucrats. If the Minister is going to advance this line again today, could he give some concrete examples of the great advantages and the successes? Does he think, for instance, that the EU did a good job when the lid came off Yugoslavia, or that it is doing a good job in north Africa? What confidence does he have in the EU’s new External Action Service?

I conclude by asking the Government, yet again, to settle these matters by ordering an objective, unbiased cost-benefit analysis of our EU membership. In the mean time, this amendment asks that the British people be given a referendum when our cash payments to Brussels exceed £10 billion to decide whether they want to go on paying it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, I am a little dazzled by the complexity of the millions and billions and almost trillions of pounds and euros that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has laid in front of us. Indeed, while I was listening to him most closely, I recalled a moment of great happiness when I was begging for charity recently and I received a cheque with so many zeros that they fell off the end of the cheque. I ran around saying to someone else who could add up more closely in the charity, “Look, look, look, we have done exactly what we want to do”. He pulled me down to earth and he said, “Do be careful—this is a cheque from Burkina Faso”. When it was added up, it came to about $5.

The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, while in no way impugning, by this comment, his grasp of finance and passionate loyalty to the European Union’s holding on to her old funds, make me wonder whether in fact this amendment does not belong in the Bill at all. In other words, is he offering us the king with no clothes? Surely this Bill is about the transfer of powers and competencies. It is not about the transfer of finance, which should enable the European Union to carry out the powers and competencies it already has. In other words, this is not a Bill that enables us successfully to argue various different figures about financing of the European Union. My suggestion is that this most interesting amendment does not in fact belong here at all. It is correct and proper, incidentally, that the European Union should be suitably funded for the competencies that the member states have authorised it to carry out.

There is also the problem that this figure simply does not take into account our contribution from the United Kingdom to the EU budget in terms of inflation. How would the noble Lord react if, for example, the UK goes over the £10 billion mark, but proportionately our contribution is in fact smaller? That could be the case with the growth of Germany and other economies: our proportion—our net contribution—could be proportionately smaller but might be larger than £10 billion. In the calculation of our UK contribution—the net versus the gross—the timing of the UK’s actual contribution needs to be taken into account. This amendment is impractical on timing grounds alone, because our contribution generally comes in after the event.

It is, of course, natural that I would be likely to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his comments that we have diluted sovereignty from the United Kingdom in joining the European Union. I will disregard the temptation to go down that channel, otherwise we will not make any progress on this amendment—save to say that in foreign affairs and defence and security, if I could dare tempt him with that wicked phrase, we have greater strength, power, and a wider outreach with our European Union member state partners than we could possibly ever have standing, talking and trying to influence alone.

In fact, I suggest that this matter is in complete contrast to the measures that we, and other member states, have already introduced to make significant savings in domestic budgets. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord profoundly that we should empower our Ministers, our civil servants and our diplomats to argue as forcefully as possible against the sorts of increases that, sadly, the European Commission and the European Parliament have recently demonstrated that they want. That argument is, without question, right and proper, but to do that we need to empower our Ministers and diplomats. We cannot do that if we bring this type of amendment forward and claim that the mere transfer of money transfers competencies to the EU. It does not. That is why I suggest this amendment should be discussed in another Bill, at another time and in another place.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I want to congratulate him on lightening the mood of the House after what has been a pretty dismal day. We had the attempt this afternoon to introduce proposals that amount to constitutional vandalism and there will be no proposal for a referendum on that. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has today conducted himself in a way that is worthy of our congratulations for his fertile imagination, which I hope somebody will recognise as qualifying him for consideration for the Booker prize for creative fiction.

If we come to the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was saying, he inevitably gets his estimates somehow sort of right. Our membership of the European Union costs us somewhere between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of our GDP—not much of a margin; the odds are that he is going to be somewhere within that sort of range, but it lacks precision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, I welcome this modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He is seeking a referendum—or at least to discuss the possibility of one —at the appropriate time, which falls within the competence of the Bill, on the amount of money the people are paying to the European Union and what they get for it. It is about time the people of this country were consulted in a far greater manner about the money which they have to pay, one way or another, across the exchanges to the benefit of other countries. After all, the taxes levied in this country are now high and are going higher. People cannot understand why on earth they are being squeezed to the extent of about £20 billion a year when we are paying over to the European Union £10 billion a year. Indeed, if we also take into account the loans, it is more than £22 billion a year.

We should understand that that money does not belong to the Government but to the taxpayers, the people who are being asked to pay more and more out of their own pockets while we pay more and more across the exchanges to other people who, in some cases, may very well be better off than ourselves. It is therefore about time the people of this country were consulted about the money they pay—not the Government—to the European Union, which, quite frankly, is not popular in this country. According to the latest opinion polls, a majority of people would be happy to come out, which is why I would like them to be consulted. The people of this country are not against referendums—indeed, they would still like a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. They showed in the AV referendum that they can respond to argument and give a proper and positive decision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said that this is a small country and that its influence is improved and increased by being a member of the European Union. She implied that this country really could not go it alone. It is very odd that this little country built an empire with far fewer than 60 million people; that it has now established a great Commonwealth which unfortunately it does not make enough use of; and that it stood alone against the forces of Nazism during the last war and therefore saved the world from the ravages of Hitler. That is not a bad record.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord. It is most courteous and gallant of him to allow me to make a brief comment. Would he not agree that our great leader who led us in that battle and standalone fight, Winston Churchill, was in fact a supporter of the Treaty of Brussels, which in 1947 would have greatly enlarged our integration into what has now become the European Union with far wider and deeper social clauses, for example, than the Treaty of Rome created?