European Council
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the only person who is confused about European policy is the noble Lord. During our time in Government, we have been committed to ensuring the best deal for Britain as a member of the European Union. The Prime Minister has been successful in securing a reduction in the European budget. He has vetoed a treaty that was not in our interests and secured lots more reforms, that have been in the interests of the British people whereas the noble Lord’s own party leader talks only about Brussels not having enough power and about joining the single currency potentially at some point in future.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Yes, I can give my noble friend that assurance. As I have said, what we have been able to secure because of the Prime Minister’s negotiating powers in Europe is that we retain responsibility for deciding which methods of energy we should use in our country.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, can the Leader of the House state quite clearly that the sanctions on Russia will not be eased until there is full implementation of the Minsk agreement? That agreement covers only Luhansk and Donetsk—it does not touch on Crimea. The implication is that, if the Russians observe their obligations under the Minsk agreement that relate to Luhansk and Donetsk provinces but remain in full occupation of Crimea, contrary to international law and the Budapest agreement, all economic sanctions will then be lifted. In practice, would not that amount to the western world acquiescing in the illegal occupation of Ukraine? Is that really the Government’s policy?
EU Council
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I do not share my noble friend’s view that Greece will leave the eurozone. Certainly all efforts are being made by the eurozone’s other members to ensure that Greece remains in the eurozone. It is in everyone’s interests—those of the countries that are part of the eurozone and those of the United Kingdom—that the eurozone continues to operate securely. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister held contingency planning meetings with senior officials none the less because that is the right and prudent action for him to take. We are working on the basis that the eurozone will continue.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I spent last week in Ukraine with a small, three-person IPU delegation. I encountered everywhere the deepest disappointment, anxiety and in one or two cases actual despair that whereas the Ukrainian army had been taking serious fatalities in the east of Ukraine defending its country, the western world has declined to supply it with the effective defensive weapons that it so obviously needs. Is it not the case that, quite apart from our obligations under the Budapest agreement and quite apart from our general commitment to peace and justice in the world, we have a very strong national interest, which we share with our NATO partners, in ensuring that over the long haul and irrespective of whether Mr Putin happens to be respecting the ceasefire agreement this week, Ukraine maintains a credible self-defence capability and remains a viable state? If either of those two things ceases to be the case, we shall have much greater problems than we currently confront. Is it not time that the Government looked at the possibility of taking the lead in agreeing to supply effective defensive weapons, including where necessary lethal weapons, to the Ukrainian armed forces?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is right to highlight the terrible casualties that have taken place in Ukraine during the past few months—it has been absolutely dreadful. We believe that the right course of action is via a diplomatic route, which is the direction that we have been taking. We continue to work very hard in that way. We recognise that the people of Ukraine want our support, because they want their country to operate in the same way as the rest of us in the West are able to. We have not ruled out the supply of weapons, but we do not believe that it is the right course of action for us to take at this time.
EU Council
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister is putting it about that there is nothing he could have said or done about this until he knew the full details, which happened only on Thursday, and the Minister has been trying to defend him on that basis. However, is that not complete and obvious nonsense? It has been known for many months that these negotiations were continuing between Eurostat and the ONS. Anybody half awake would have known that, even if the recorded growth discrepancies in any one year were fairly small, resolving the whole matter by a single payment could amount to paying a very considerable cash sum. All that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister had to do was simply to follow carefully, via the ONS, how the discussions were proceeding to see whether that danger was materialising. They monumentally failed to do that: they took their eyes completely off the ball and have no one but themselves to blame for the surprise that they found on Thursday and Friday.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I know that the noble Lord follows European matters quite closely but, from what he has just said, he is clearly not familiar with this process, which happens every year. Each country puts forward the calculations of its own measures and then the Commission has to look at each country’s submissions alongside one another. It then proposes what will be refunded in the light of that. No nation state will know the net payment until the last minute. That is why all of the nation states that were affected by this dramatic increase were as surprised as Mr Cameron.
EU Council June 2014
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I say to my noble friend that I know how much time the Prime Minister spends on bilateral relationships with a range of European partners in a range of different fora. I know from my time in Downing Street 20-odd years ago, when the European Union was smaller, how much time the Prime Minister of the day has to spend on those relationships. This Prime Minister will certainly do that, as have all previous Prime Ministers.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, whether we are in the European Union or not, we shall need the good will of our continental partners. Indeed, we shall need their good will even more if we leave, because we shall then have no more rights or entitlements under the treaty and every arrangement we have with its members will have to be laboriously negotiated. Does the noble Lord agree that in life, and particularly in negotiation, it is always a mistake to personalise an issue if you want your substantive points to be taken seriously? Does he also agree that in life, and particularly in negotiation, it is always a mistake to use public threats and blackmail, because no self-respecting human being feels inclined to make concessions under that kind of pressure? Is quiet, collaborative diplomacy not the best way?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I certainly agree that in normal circumstances, most of the time, quiet collaborative diplomacy is the right way to go. However, there are times at which, if that route does not work, you are faced with a choice of seeking to avoid embarrassment by going quietly, or of saying, “Actually, this is a point of principle about which I feel strongly, and I will therefore put up with that risk of embarrassment by arguing for it”.
On working with colleagues, I agree with the noble Lord’s point. That is how Europe works and how Britain pursues its relationships with other countries. I am sure that we will continue to do that. The noble Lord will already have seen the remarks made by a whole range of European leaders since Friday which demonstrate that they are keen that Britain should remain part of the EU. They understand our concerns and are keen to work with us to see what progress we can make in resolving them.
House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I add my own congratulations to those that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has already, rightly, received. We have a very important Bill, which we hope will pass on its way today, enshrining three principles which are desperately needed here. One is the need for provision for retirement, the second is the need for a provision to deal with those who never turn up and the third is the need for a provision to exclude those who have abused their membership of the House or conducted themselves in such a way as to diminish its reputation and, indeed, the reputation of our democracy. This represents not only a remarkable exhibition of parliamentary skill on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but a remarkable display of persistence—a perhaps often undervalued human quality, which is essential for human achievement in any field.
I will make three points. Two relate to unfinished business on which I believe we should continue to focus once we have sent the Bill on its way and one relates to a profound reservation that I have about the Bill we are passing in its present form. The first unfinished business is about numbers. I totally agree with the views that have been expressed by so many noble Lords that we need to address this issue. Our numbers are already too great and are quite absurd. I think we are becoming the largest legislature in the world and there is no natural limit to it, as we must be one of the very few legislatures in the world which does not have a constitutionally set number. We need to do something about that. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, I do not feel that merely having the facility for retirement or the opportunity to expel people who do not turn up is going to make a very big dent in the numbers in itself. We probably need to add to the right to retire some incentives and some constraints: either a retirement age or, if that takes us into conflict with the age discrimination rules and laws, some maximum term of service or something of that kind. We need to come back to that. We should also come back to the imaginative, interesting and, I think, largely very attractive suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just made to the same purpose and the same end.
The second area where I think there is substantial unfinished business is in respect of a strengthened statutory appointments commission. In an earlier Bill brought forward by the noble Lord—I cannot remember whether it was the fourth or fifth—there was provision for that, as the House will recall, in some detail. I think it is absolutely essential. The idea was that there would be an independent commission—the noble Lord suggested its members would be appointed by the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the House of Commons—which would not only vet all nominations coming from anybody for independent Peers or from party leaders for members of party groups but would have the responsibility of making a nomination to the Queen. That is enormously important. The provisions in the noble Lord’s original draft would have gone as far as it would be humanly possible to go to ensure that we had people with the right degree of integrity and personality, who could really stand up to pressures from party leaders, Prime Ministers or anywhere else if there was any suggestion of abuse. Of course there are and have been abuses, which I will come on to in a moment.
There is also a potential for abuse, which concerns a number of people in the country, in that if we provide for retirement from this place, it could become just a feeder for the House of Commons, with party leaders putting forward people who they want to promote as parliamentary candidates. That would be an abuse and only a statutory commission could give the public confidence that it was not happening. Of course, if from time to time, Member of this House genuinely feels a vocation to stand for election to the elected House, that is not something that one would wish to inhibit in any way. It is rather unusual in other countries to go from, for example, the Senate to the House of Representatives or from the Sénat to the Assemblée nationale but it does happen. There is no reason why it should not happen, although it more usually happens the other way round. In any event, that is a concern which would be addressed by a proper, strengthened, statutory appointments commission of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Steel, himself envisaged.
An even more important role for such a commission would be to address what I think is a major national scandal, all the more shameful and squalid precisely because people do not want to talk about it. People do not want to talk about it because it affects all the three main parties. In this place it is still possible—even now, in the 21st century—to buy your way in by signing a large cheque to one of the political parties. We should not shy away from that. Some may be shocked by my even mentioning the unmentionable, but it needs to be mentioned and needs to be addressed. It is a big problem. All of us in this place are inclined to be a bit complacent about our democracy in this country. If we heard that in some other democracy somewhere you could buy your way into the local legislature, we would all say, “Well that is obviously a system that is corrupt, a country that is corrupt. The least that can be said is that it is not an exemplary democracy”. We do not like to face that when it happens here. It needs to be addressed here and I think it will be effectively addressed only when the appointments are taken out of the hands of the Prime Minister or party leaders and put in the hands of a statutory appointments commission which can withhold its consent and approval for nomination. If it does so, it will become public if the Prime Minister or party leader concerned persists in pushing forward that particular candidate. That is what would need to happen. It is badly needed and badly required.
My third point is about the area where, I am afraid, I disagree with the Bill as drafted. That will not be news to noble Lords who have taken part in our previous debates. On the last occasion I put forward an amendment on this matter but was prevailed on not to put it to a vote because I did not want at that time to hold the whole Bill up. I certainly do not want to hold the whole Bill up now. It would be appalling if we risked losing getting those three essential principles that I talked about on to the statute book and nobody would want to throw out the baby with the bathwater by arguing the toss on something that, while important, would be secondary in relation to those broad principles. However, my concern is with the provision that anybody who is convicted for a prison term of more than one year is automatically excluded from the House. That is clearly arbitrary and is both too little and too much. It is quite wrong. There has been conduct in this House, even in the few years since I have been here, which resulted on several occasions in prison sentences of less than a year, or in no prison sentence at all, which should have resulted in exclusion from the House. Such conduct was quite incompatible with being a Member of a legislature and we should have recognised that. It was a great pity we did not have the power of exclusion at that time. Under the present system, the same problem would arise—we would not be able to exclude.
Equally, one year can be far too much. Imprisonment can, in some cases, involve no moral turpitude at all. Even within the lifetime of noble Lords in this Chamber there have been appalling scandals in this country of people being sent to jail for consensual male homosexual acts. I think all of us would agree that that does not reflect in any way badly on the individuals concerned—it was an appalling injustice that they were faced with jail. In no circumstances should just the fact of being sent to jail exclude you either from nomination for this place or for the right to continue to sit here if one is already a Member. If one goes back within a hundred years, one can think of those people who were sent to jail in the First World War, either because they were pacifists or because they spoke or wrote, as it was put at the time, in a way that might be damaging to recruitment. If you go back to the late 19th century, within 150 years, we had two of the finest parliamentarians who ever sat in the House of Commons—Charles Stewart Parnell and John Redmond—both sent to jail under the Coercion Acts that were passed by this House, and of course the other place, in the late 19th century. Just the fact of going to jail should not itself necessarily be an excluding factor, whether for one year or less than one year.
The solution is that we should retain the statutory right to exclude which the noble Lord is about to give us if we pass this Bill—it is absolutely right and very urgent that we should have that—but we need to use our own discretion to decide whether an offence merits exclusion or not. Indeed, we implicitly accept that principle in that under the Bill we would have to use our discretion in relation to prison sentences imposed by a foreign court. The idea of using our discretion in a case such as that is not therefore something which the House, or indeed the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill, is inherently against.
When I raised this matter previously, there was only one substantive argument raised against me, which was that the House of Commons had a similar system to the one that we were trying to introduce here. That is a very bad argument. We should not repeat the mistakes of other people. If it is a mistake, we should change it. If we think we can do better than the Commons—and that goes for any legislative context—we should do better as we see it. That is our responsibility before the British public. The Commons may or may not conclude that we were right and they were wrong, and move to align themselves with our system; that is not a matter for us. We should do what we think is right.
There is no way that I intend to take this matter forward in the course of this Bill, as I have already explained. I do not want to hold up what is a very important Bill and I would be the last person to wish to do so. But we shall have to come back to all these matters, particularly the latter one, in due time, when there is another opportunity to do so. I just hope that there is not some horrible scandal over the next few years that makes us feel that we really did need the power to exclude, even though a court had not sentenced someone to more than a year—even though perhaps a court had sentenced someone twice, but to two terms of less than a year—but we had no opportunity to exclude at all even though the behaviour concerned was really blatant and egregious. That is my profound hope. Once again, I greatly support the essential principles in the Bill and pay tribute to the very distinguished parliamentarian to whom we owe it.
Parliamentary Privilege
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it may seem a rather thankless task in life to spend many hours of one’s existence in a committee discussing parliamentary privilege. There are certainly no votes in the subject and there is absolutely zero public or media interest in it. Even though all colleagues in both Houses always say that privilege is enormously important, in practice not many of them are particularly motivated to follow the proceedings of such a committee.
Nevertheless, my participation in the committee was in fact not merely a duty, I suppose, and, no doubt, a privilege, but also a real pleasure. That was due entirely to the motivation and quality of my colleagues on the committee and to the extremely good tempered, fair and, indeed, often humorous fashion in which proceedings were conducted by our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I pay tribute to him for what he did over the many weeks when we met.
The results of the committee’s proceedings have been discussed today. I will focus on one or two details. First, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the need to legislate to remove any ambiguity about the right of people—the media or anyone else—to reproduce parliamentary debates in their accounts of parliamentary proceedings. It is absolutely essential that people—not just newspapers or broadcasting stations—have qualified privilege in citing Parliament as long as they cannot be shown to have acted maliciously or to have perverted the quotation by exclusion or something of that sort. If they have given a fair and true account of what was said in Parliament, they should be immune from any legal proceedings. It is essential in a democracy that people can refer to the proceedings of their elected representatives, or in our case their non-elected representatives, without any inhibition. It is important that we legislate on that.
I find it quite extraordinary, as will every Member of the House and every member of the public, that at a time when the Government are saying that we must have more and more time off because we have nothing to do, they are also saying that there is no time to legislate on important matters such as this. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would look again at his diary to see whether a Bill could be brought forward in the next Session so that we can deal with this matter as the committee recommended. No one has suggested that that is not a good idea or not an important priority for legislation.
I will deal briefly with a very important matter that was discussed in the committee and has already been referred to today—the issue of witnesses before Select Committees who may be tempted to refuse to appear or to try to deceive the committee when they do appear. That is a very real problem. We spent a long time talking about it. We came to the conclusion, as the House will have seen, that each House should assert its existing competence and sanctions to make it absolutely clear what the rules are and what will happen if someone breaks them. I am happy with that. However, we may find ourselves in a difficult situation if someone cynically decides that there is not much of a downside to refusing a summons or subpoena to testify or is less than straight with the committee when he or she testifies. We may have to come back to this.
There was some discussion in the committee about what we should do if we decided to legislate—whether we should act as the Australians have done and take powers ourselves in Parliament to inflict appropriate sanctions on those people who misbehave in this fashion or whether we should do what the Americans have done and make it a matter of statute law so that it is for the prosecuting authorities to pursue the matter through the courts. The Americans have done that very successfully and, I think, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, without any damage to either the perception or the reality of parliamentary sovereignty in the United States. We may need to come back to that.
I was told in the course of proceedings—we had a session in which we took evidence from representatives of the US Congress—that that power has been used in the United States about 20 times in the past century, in some famous cases, such as the Hiss case, as well as in less celebrated cases. That has been enough to maintain the credibility of the system in the United States. No one sane rejects a subpoena to testify to a congressional committee or tells lies before Congress. The legal advice given, if one were to suggest such a thing, would be quite unambiguous in the United States. I am not sure that it would be so unambiguous in this country. We must keep an alert mind here and take the action recommended in our report—that the two Houses independently produce a resolution setting out the powers and sanctions as they currently exist. I hope that that will happen before too long.
Finally, I will comment on a matter on which I found myself in a minority in the committee. My disagreement with the majority of the committee is recorded in the proceedings. Here I also take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, whose views I listened to with great respect. It is the issue of the extent to which proceedings in Parliament can be cited in a court of law, a tribunal, a judicial inquiry or something of that kind. They cannot of course be impeached or questioned: that is quite clear in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. However, in my view, they should be citable. I put the point to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who is a very distinguished jurist, that by definition proceedings in Parliament are surely a matter of public record, as they always must be in a democracy. Therefore, what is said and done here is not and should never be a mystery. In certain cases, what is said and done here—such as the passing of a Motion, or the proceedings and recommendations of a parliamentary Select Committee—may be extremely relevant to the subject which a tribunal or judicial review is looking at. It would be artificial if parties to that hearing, or members of that judicial tribunal, were inhibited by law from taking into account something extremely relevant, such as the recommendations of a parliamentary Select Committee on exactly the matter, or part of the matter, that they were reviewing. That would be absurd. It would not be a good day for democracy.
It is sometimes said that it would be unfair if the proceedings in Parliament that might be cited worked against one of the parties or witnesses before a tribunal, committee or other proceeding; that he or she would not be able to argue in his or her defence against the decision of Parliament because that would be in breach of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. However, that is just a fact of life. If the wording of the statute law happens to be against the interest of one particular party, that party cannot argue about the merits of the law and say that Parliament made a mistake in passing it. It is a fact of life that must be accepted. Equally, if Parliament came to a decision on a particular matter, or a Select Committee came to a particular recommendation, that is a fact which cannot be challenged by a court or tribunal, and neither should it be. It should be taken into account. It is completely wrong that it should be somehow suppressed or that the judicial proceedings concerned should proceed in apparent, and perhaps false, ignorance of the existence of that particular fact. That is the point where I disagreed with some colleagues on the committee and continue to disagree. I am glad that this will be resolved, not by statute or by decision of this House, but by jurisprudence. I hope that, in a responsible and reasonable fashion, the Pepper v Hart tradition is continued and that it is possible for those taking part in proceedings to cite responsibly and in a way that is consistent with the Bill of Rights—not challenging or arguing the substance or that Parliament should not have done X, Y or Z, but simply being able to cite what actually happened in Parliament. It seems to me that, in a democracy, any other behaviour would be bizarre.
Finally, the Government have decided that they were wrong in suggesting the disapplication of the Bill of Rights in criminal proceedings. I and the committee were very glad that they had that conversion. However, there are two long-term lessons that we can draw from this experience and that I hope the Government will take note of. One is that in matters of the constitution, particularly, it is a great mistake to go in for reformulation if you do not intend to change the substance of the rule. If you just rephrase the rule—codify it or put the same rule in what you believe to be better words—you will not have contributed to legal certainty, which should be the duty of any legislator to contribute to. Instead, you will have contributed to uncertainty. That is because the courts will always say, “Parliament has used different words and must therefore have had a slightly different intention and we therefore cannot interpret this principle in exactly the same way as we would have interpreted the previous principle, as expressed and formulated in different words”. You create great judicial uncertainty and, had the Government’s initial Green Paper been implemented, it would have done that and it would have been a great mistake.
The final general lesson that I draw out of all this is that if you are going to legislate, you should never set out a general principle and then create a certain number of non-exhaustive, explicit derogations or exceptions from it. There you again create enormous uncertainty because you have set up a general principle; you have said, “These are exceptions”; you have not said, “These are the only possible exceptions”; and you therefore create a whole area in which there may or may not be exceptions. Again you have created great judicial uncertainty. It is what I called during the committee’s proceedings legislation by negative example. We should never do that in any context and I hope that, the lesson having been learnt on this occasion, it will be taken account of by those who formulate proposals for legislation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, although the subject matter of some of this debate may seem arcane—it certainly involved the application of a number of wet towels to my head to grapple with some of these issues—this afternoon’s debate has reminded all of us how important parliamentary privilege is and that it is a vital part of the underpinning of our whole system of parliamentary democracy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I want to say at the outset how grateful the Government are to the Joint Committee for its report and for its contribution to a debate that has lasted for many years and, I dare say, will continue for many more years, providing entertainment for law students in the future.
The Joint Committee’s report put its finger on all the key issues, came up with a number of helpful recommendations and succeeded in doing something which some noble Lords may think is even more noteworthy: it has got the Government to think again. So I would like to record my thanks to all noble Lords who were members of the committee, in particular to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for his expert chairmanship and for setting out the issues so clearly today. Indeed, the whole debate has served as a reminder, if one were needed, of the knowledge and experience of the law and of Parliament which is to be found in your Lordships’ House.
In some ways, parliamentary privilege is itself a slightly unfortunate term: as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, it carries a suggestion of elitism, a hint of exclusivity and risks reinforcing the impression—false, I believe—of politicians who look out only for themselves. But in opening this debate, my noble friend was also absolutely right that the concept of parliamentary privilege helps to protect the rights of everyone in the country. It underpins the sovereignty of the people’s representatives in Parliament, it provides those representatives with an absolute and untrammelled right to say what they believe, and it allows anybody to speak to Parliament without fear of legal consequences.
As we have already heard, these “privileges” do not mean that individual MPs and Peers are above the law, as we all saw in 2010, when a group of parliamentarians tried to assert privilege to avoid prosecution for offences relating to their parliamentary expenses. The Supreme Court’s judgment in that case, R v Chaytor, confirmed that parliamentary privilege did not protect parliamentarians from prosecution for ordinary crimes under our criminal law, and quite right too. That point was set out very clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Even so, the Government felt that it was right that we should take a fresh look at all aspects of privilege to see whether there was a case for change. As noble Lords know, that led in April 2012 to the publication of the Green Paper which the Joint Committee has so helpfully scrutinised. I am sure that everyone in the House would agree that, wherever possible, matters such as privilege should be approached in a consensual and cross-party way, so I am very pleased that the Government have been able to agree with most of the committee’s findings, most notably its overarching conclusion that a comprehensive codification of parliamentary privilege is not desirable. I listened with particular care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, had to say in that regard. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth stressed the importance of flexibility, which was a theme picked up by a number of noble Lords.
The Government believe that legislation should be brought forward only where really necessary—I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said that and I may hold him to it in a different context in other areas of political debate. For example, if the Chaytor case had gone the other way we may have considered it, but we agree with the conclusions of the committee that the potential consequences of comprehensive codification are impossible to predict. As the committee itself recognised, that conclusion does not, however, prevent Parliament taking steps to clarify the application of privilege where necessary. I will not try the patience of your Lordships’ House by going through the Government’s response to the report point by point, but I will touch on the most important areas, all of which have been raised by noble Lords this afternoon.
First, the Green Paper included a draft clause which would have enabled the protection of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to be disapplied in the prosecution of criminal offences. The intention of that clause would have been to ensure that nobody accused of a serious criminal offence could use parliamentary privilege to avoid prosecution where the alleged offence was not related to the key elements of freedom of speech. The committee opposed the provision on the grounds that it would have a damaging effect on freedom of speech in Parliament. In addition to this principled objection, which was underlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, it is clear from looking at the draft clause that the Government came up with, and the lengthy schedule setting out those criminal offences which would not be covered by the terms of the clause, that there would also be daunting practical difficulties in implementing such a proposal. The Government will not therefore be taking it forward, and I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said in that regard.
The Joint Committee also rejected a draft clause which would explicitly have applied parliamentary privilege to the House of Commons Committee on Standards, which has lay members, which was a matter first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The Government agree with the committee that such a provision could have cast doubt on the privileged status of other committees, particularly our own Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which also has lay members. It also seems undesirable in principle to attempt to apply parliamentary privilege to a specific Select Committee by legislation.
The Government also share the committee’s serious reservations, which we have heard this afternoon, about Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which allows individuals to waive the protection of parliamentary privilege in defamation cases. This breaches the principle that privilege belongs to the whole House rather than one person. That was a point made very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. Accordingly, the Government support the repeal of Section 13. I understand that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who cannot be here today, proposes to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to deal solely with this small but important change. The Government are in principle supportive of this measure to make that clear, and we look forward to seeing if it can make progress.
I should say a few words about the applicability of legislation to Parliament—in other words, the extent to which the activities of Parliament itself are bound by the laws it has passed. Over the years there has been a measure of uncertainty and disagreement on this point and while the Government do not agree with the committee that it is necessary to legislate in this area, we do agree that it is important for parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses to discuss whether relevant provisions in Bills, case by case, should apply to the activities of the two Houses. That is why the Government’s response agreed to ensure the correct application of the Treasury Solicitor’s 2002 guidance which asked departments,
“to consult the respective House authorities … on whether any proposed legislation that is to apply to the Crown, or its servants, should also apply to the two Houses and to instruct the draftsman accordingly”.
The Government also welcomed the proposal for a Motion which sets out the importance of Bills making express provision where necessary. Following discussions with my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, I tabled the Motion which noble Lords have seen in my name on the Order Paper. I believe, as a number of noble Lords have agreed, that it offers a practical way forward. The key for it to work will be good communication on a case-by-case basis and I can certainly commit the Government to engaging with the parliamentary authorities in a completely constructive spirit on that. Assuming that the Motion is agreed to, my understanding is that the Leader of the House of Commons will move something similar down the other end.
Let me say something about the issue of reporting and repetition of parliamentary proceedings, about which a number of points have been made and to which my noble friend Lord Brabazon drew particular attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy of Primrose Hill, also devoted many of her comments to this. As we have heard, the committee concluded that the uncertainty around the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840,
“significantly inhibits press reporting of the work of Parliament”,
and called for its wholesale replacement by modern statutory provisions. As we said in our response, the Government agree with the committee that the 1840 Act lacks clarity and does not fit well with modern modes of communication, a point developed by the noble Baroness, Lady Healy. We also agree that the burden of proof where reporting is alleged to be malicious should be reversed such that it falls on the claimant rather than on the defendant. While we are not as convinced as the committee that the current legal framework significantly inhibits press reporting of Parliament, we understand the need to modernise the law. We will certainly continue to consider whether we can find, and how we can find, an appropriate legislative vehicle to achieve this important aim.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Would not a suitable vehicle be the reintroduction of a Private Member’s Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, or another private Member, of the kind that has just been referred to?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Obviously that would be a matter for my noble friend Lord Lester. I believe that the focus of the Private Member’s Bill that my noble friend is keen to bring forward is on the repeal of Section 13 of the Defamation Act. I think that that is his priority and that he is keen to have a clear and focused approach on that. But obviously it would be open to other noble Lords to pursue this issue through that route.
The committee also looked at the sessional orders which have traditionally called on the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to prevent the obstruction of Members in the streets leading to the two Houses. The Government do not intend to push for the revival of the sessional order in the other place but I thought that I would take the opportunity to put on the record that, so far as this House is concerned, we will continue to support the passing of the sessional order in the House of Lords at the beginning of each Session. I also remind the House that in looking at that issue, the committee referred with approval in the report to the “appropriate and proportionate” legislative provisions governing amplified protests in Parliament Square. What the committee did not say was that the situation was, at that time, much less clear in the areas around your Lordships’ House. Since then, an amendment to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill—now an Act—passed in your Lordships’ House has applied the Parliament Square system to this end of the Parliamentary Estate. I very much welcome that because I was keen that it should be done. I am sure also that all members of the Joint Committee will welcome it.
I am grateful for the points raised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, about jury service, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that we should not re-establish the exemption that was removed. On the interesting debate about the penal powers of Select Committees, on which both the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth concentrated, I think we all agree with the committee’s recommendation that the existing powers should be clarified. That is the right way forward rather than the legislative route. It is for the other place to lead on this, which I think was the recommendation of the committee. My understanding is that it is being taken forward down the other end, but I agree that we need to keep an alert mind on these issues.
Parliamentary privilege is a precious inheritance which we must safeguard, but that does not mean that it should be immune to all change. It needs to reflect the world as it is today, a point that was forcefully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Healy of Primrose Hill. That is why I am so grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon and his colleagues in both Houses for their important report. It has enabled us to look at things anew and it upholds the key principles on which parliamentary privilege and parliamentary democracy are built.
European Council
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I understand the sense of historical perspective and the points made by the noble Baroness about Russian history going back a very long time. Having said that, I do not think it excuses or detracts from the fundamental point that we cannot stand by if international agreements upheld by a range of countries are defied. I know that she was not saying that.
On her specific point, I agree that the more we are able, without deviating from the fundamental need to defend the rule of law, to demonstrate that the Ukrainians are sensitive to Russian concerns, the better. I take that point. The noble Baroness will therefore be encouraged by the action taken by the acting Ukrainian President to veto the introduction of the kind of language law to which she referred which played exactly into those prejudices. That is an encouraging step to have taken. As I said earlier, the Ukrainians have been quite remarkable in the restraint that they have shown in recent weeks and months in the face of often quite direct provocation.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I am quite concerned about a number of aspects of the Statement. First, I regret the distinction being made between the phase 2 and phase 3 sanctions. The implication seems to be that, if Russia limits itself to annexing the Crimea without attacking the rest of Ukraine, the cost will be limited to the phase 1 to the phase 2 sanctions, which are not very onerous. I fear that, given the psychological and strategic importance of the Crimea, Mr Putin might think that the acquisition was rather a good deal on that basis.
Secondly, I am dubious about the idea of announcing asset seizures on a contingent basis in advance. If we need to seize these assets, by the time we get around to doing so they may have been removed from our jurisdiction. Would it not be more sensible to seize the assets in the first place and then negotiate the basis on which that seizure could be lifted?
Thirdly, has the Minister given consideration to, as a major sanction, the possibility of freezing Russian banks out of the interbank market? I am not going to ask whether or not that will happen or whether it was agreed in the EU Council for the obvious reason I have just mentioned in another context, but I would be grateful for his assurance that this matter has been or will be carefully considered. It amounts to instructing European and North American banks, when swaps and deposits with Russian banks mature, not to renew them.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I can confirm to the noble Lord that the Government and their allies will consider a range of possible sanctions which may well include the kind of measures to which the noble Lord has referred. When that work goes on, I am sure that people will think about those kinds of issues.
On the issue of phasing, as the noble Lord will know, it is difficult to be too precise in every respect at this stage about what measures will be taken precisely and in what circumstances. It will depend on what steps the various players take. It is a situation in flux. The Government and their allies, overall, were attempting not to box people in too early but to give people routes out and to have phased and gradated responses. However, we want to be clear in the final calculation that if, despite our best endeavours, Russia persists in this course of action, there will be serious consequences.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. In an earlier intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drew a parallel with a debate we had in this House yesterday about the Scottish referendum. One of the key themes that came out was the need for a plan B regarding the currency. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to uncertainty. Take it from me that if you are in an extended referendum campaign, the impact of uncertainty, particularly on business intentions, is very considerable indeed. We are not confidently out of recession; even the Chancellor acknowledges that. One thing that business cries out for is a degree of certainty. That is why this is a common-sense amendment. We have to go into any referendum in an atmosphere of calm. It should not be held in an atmosphere in which some people think that the rug is going to be pulled for political reasons rather than for the best interests of the country as a whole.
Before the end of this year, one part of Britain will take a vote on whether to leave the oldest and most successful single market in the world. If there is a no vote in the referendum to come on the EU, we will be taking a decision about leaving the biggest single market in the world. It is essential for the long-term decision-making of British and international business for us to give an indication of the options, what the possible plan B is, and what the consequences will be. The Government, as part of the debate about the future of Scotland, has produced some excellent analytical papers. I commend to noble Lords who do not want to go into the minutiae of the nature of the debate on Scotland one paper in particular: the analysis of the situation regarding defence. The capability exists within the Civil Service to produce a balanced argument.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is a little more anxious today than he was last time, and I feel for him. It is probably the only time in this House that he will ever have unrestrained power. As a Back-Bencher with a Bill, he is in a position, without consulting anybody else, to be able to say that he accepts an amendment. We will get a move on and put a common-sense element into the Bill. If there had been schedules to it, we could have looked at them; but there are none. I therefore appeal to the noble Lord. Let us give a crumb to those who want this campaign to take place in an atmosphere of calmness and give a signal to the business community, which has lots of money to invest at the moment, that it can do so in an atmosphere of certainty.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I take it as pretty certain that there will ultimately be a referendum because, at some point, there will be a new treaty anyway. I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Liddell that any referendum produces economic costs and uncertainties, and that is why it is particularly regrettable that the Government have, quite unnecessarily, brought forward this entirely gratuitous Bill in this Session of Parliament to have a referendum at some point in the next Parliament. It would be much better if we left the matter until then.
However, I do not think that our labours are wasted because what we are producing today, were producing last week and will go on producing in the remaining days on which the Bill is under consideration, is a kind of template for any future referendum when it occurs. It will be clear to any Government what can and cannot get through the House of Lords. No Government will again be tempted to try to fiddle around with the main question to be asked on the referendum ballot paper, which we discussed last week. The Bill has now established that and it would not be sensible to change it. In future, Governments will be guided by the Electoral Commission’s views on what the proper question would be. Again, if we were to pass this amendment, it would be carried forward into any future Bill, even if this Bill were not to be passed and this referendum did not take place.
A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that if we had a referendum the country would have a very stark choice. I entirely agree. We all know that it will also be a very momentous choice, but it will actually be a rather uneven choice because the British public will be asked to choose between a known and an unknown—between an established and familiar fact on the one side and a purely hypothetical speculation on the other. It is very unfair and very dangerous to put the electorate in that position. It is dangerous because in those circumstances there is great scope, and therefore great temptation, for the promoters of the unknown option—those who, in this case, want to leave the European Union—to replace the unknown with a picture of their own devising which may be entirely fanciful, very wishful and even deliberately and cynically deceptive. That would be a very bad thing; it would be a very bad day for democracy to have a dishonest campaign of that kind. Therefore, it is very important that the electorate is able, as far as possible, to choose between two explicit descriptions of the two scenarios that are being offered. That is why I think that the amendment is enormously important.
There are some areas where a relatively reliable statement can be made about an unknown. For example, we all know that the Tory party does not like the Social Chapter. If we leave the European Union, we will not, by definition, be part of the Social Chapter, so it will be possible to say to people that there will not be a part-time workers directive or a parental leave directive, and anybody who is a part-time worker or who is thinking of having children will know where they stand. There are areas of greater uncertainty but they are ones where one can at least produce a reasonable description of the sort of scenario that might eventuate. For example, people are particularly concerned about whether we could still have access to the single market. There is a precedent in Norway and a precedent for EFTA, so there is a certain degree of credibility and responsibility in saying that there is certainly a likelihood that we could join EFTA if we wanted to. However, the rules of EFTA are quite clear—they have already been mentioned this morning—and it has already been explained why in many cases it would be very unsatisfactory to a great many of us.
However, there are areas where nothing certain at all can be said about what the position would be if we left the European Union today, and I fear that that is becoming increasingly likely in relation to the great area of access to the single market. Recently I have noticed that even those people who have been advocating our leaving the European Union have ceased to say, “Well, we could get a deal like Norway”. They have even ceased to say that we could get a deal like that of Switzerland. There is universal consensus on the continent among our partners and in the Commission that no one would ever be allowed to do a Swiss-type deal again. It is simply too complicated and difficult to administer with, I think, 140 separate agreements with the European Union. That type of scenario is out anyway, and anybody who takes a look at the situation will realise that it is not a possibility.
Therefore, one increasingly hears—we hear it increasingly often in this House—Eurosceptics and promoters of our leaving the European Union who say, “We’ll do better than Norway or Switzerland”. What do they mean by that? It seems to be far from clear. I detect in conversations with continental colleagues that in the type of circumstances in which we would leave the European Union there would be very little inclination to come up with special favours for us. Some have said, “Oh well, we have a deficit with the European Union. The rest of the European Union exports to us more than we export to them”. However, in point of fact, it is not a question of how big the deficit is for us or how substantial our imports or exports are; the leverage consists of the extent to which our trade is a proportion of the trade of our continental partners. It is generally never more than 25%. Therefore, I am afraid that we probably do not have a leverage.
In any case, there is no point in speculating about this, and it would be very dishonest to do so. It is important that a serious effort is made to sort out the consequences of our leaving the European Union. That should be set down in black and white by a Government who are then committed to making sure that they do not say anything which is deliberately untrue. They would have to have had serious discussions with our colleagues and partners in the rest of the European Union about what would and would not eventuate from our leaving. The British public could then be offered a genuinely honest choice between two scenarios, the details of which would have been set out as truthfully as possible.
Lord Giddens
I have not heard a single noble Lord object to the content of this amendment. The only one seems to be the “ram it through at all costs” objection. Could not the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, simply accept the amendment at this point?
Lord Teverson
Yes, I do. I am just putting a principle. My noble friend kindly introduced this probing amendment, and I am exploring some of the issues.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord says that the vote should be based purely on citizenship, whether the voter is resident in this country or elsewhere. What is his view about citizens of the Irish republic who are resident here and are on the electoral roll?
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I should state that I have dual Irish and British nationality. I am putting forward an argument. I do not think there is a perfect answer to this, but I would exclude purely Irish citizens under this definition. In fact, you could argue very strongly that the Republic of Ireland would be by far the most affected other EU member state and therefore perhaps you should include all Irish citizens. I do not think one could sustain that. I just want to make the point that as Britain we need to make up our mind on this area, and we need to be responsible for our decision. I do not think the argument is total, so I put forward a potential opposite view. I take a great interest in this small debate, but I do not think it is quite as straightforward as noble Lords who have spoken so far have said.
Immigration
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question: yes, this is one of the benefits of the free movement of labour around the community, so if one country is doing better than another we can get a flow of labour to equalise things. On the second point, on benefit levels, it is not my responsibility to answer for the Home Office on migration issues.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, amid all the unpleasantness in parts of the media over the past few weeks about Romanians and Bulgarians, has the noble Earl had the time to see the study recently published by a team from University College London, which shows that immigrants from the EU over the past 10 years have contributed far more in taxes and national insurance contributions than they have consumed in public services and in benefits, unlike the position of the native population? In other words, they have supplied us with a substantial financial and fiscal surplus, to the benefit of every taxpayer in this country. Is there not every probability that hard-working Romanians and Bulgarians will follow in the same footsteps?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s last question is yes. On his first question, I handled business on that particular report. I cannot remember the precise details, but I broadly agree with the noble Lord’s thrust.
EU Council
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I shall not resist the temptation to say that my noble friend has highlighted some of the dangers of joining the young liberals. I know that he makes a serious point about his concerns.
I am grateful for his support for the Statement more generally. I am sure that many will have heard his remarks about Hungary. As with all EU member states, Hungary is subject to clear obligations and has to adhere fully to the laws and values of the Union. I am sure my noble friend knows that earlier this year the Commission launched a detailed review to ensure that newly introduced legislation in Hungary was brought into line with accepted EU standards. I understand that Hungary has engaged with the Commission on that review and is making changes to its constitution that have addressed many of the concerns. We welcome Hungary’s engagement with the Commission on areas that fall within EU competence.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, quite rightly was given a lot of scope because what he said about Hungary was well said. The progress on deregulation at the summit and the decision not artificially to hold up the progress of the US-EU trade negotiations are welcome. They will of course take a long time anyway. Is the noble Lord aware of any member state other than the United Kingdom which has made a public statement that on a permanent basis it will not join the banking union that is being put together? Is he aware of the substantial evidence presented to your Lordships’ Sub-Committee A by a series of witnesses and experts to the effect that if we remain outside the banking union our financial services industry will have an increasing handicap competitively over a number of years and we will end up paying a significant economic price for doing that?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about progress on regulation. We keep chipping away at this and there has been progress. The fact that seven countries joined the UK in lending support to the report produced by the British Business Task Force shows that there has been a shift. The Prime Minister has been working hard in that respect, particularly with Chancellor Merkel. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about how vital the EU-US talks are. I understand the noble Lord’s views on banking union. Obviously, the Government take a different view and their position has not changed as a result of the recent European Council.