Piracy

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble kinsman Lord Luce on securing this powerfully important debate. As I perceive it, the root sources and drivers of piracy in the Indian Ocean exist on land, not only in Somalia but in other countries in the region, such as Yemen. Surely success in eradicating piracy in the Indian Ocean in the long term requires actions to boost the current extraordinarily poor quality of life and the paucity of livelihoods in Somalia and Yemen and more widely.

The action taken by Her Majesty’s Government to lead the international community on Somalia and to support most strongly the re-establishment of Somalia’s Government has been most welcome, as has been the opening of the FCO’s office in Hargeisa in Somaliland, which I see as a welcome possible step towards wider recognition as a nation.

DfID has recently published an operational plan for its work in Yemen, having not been able to do so before due to the continuing political and security crisis. I will focus my few remarks on our Government’s strategies in these two countries. The link between piracy and terrorism is now well established, particularly considering the recent history of arms flows uncovered between Yemen and Somalia, which is documented not only in UN reports but in the recent news of al-Shabaab weapons from Yemen being seized in Puntland.

The first and most obvious question to pose is: what is the Government’s strategy? How are our Government, working across the relevant departments, focusing on the region? Is there such a strategy? I am not aware of one, but I would welcome learning from the Minister how the Government are co-ordinating their activities in the Indian Ocean’s conflict formation, in what is undoubtedly a strategically critical geopolitical area.

Leading on from that, the House of Lords EU Select Committee’s report, Turning the Tide on Piracy—I am sure that we will hear more on this from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—highlights that it is key that we invest in the development of coastal communities in order to offer not just an alternative income to people but a considerably greater quality of life than they have at present. Perhaps the Minister might outline the current funding that our Government are providing for such coastal communities in Somalia, as well as in Yemen, where the south and the area around the great city of Aden are currently of particular humanitarian and security concern.

Earlier this year I had the honour of acting as the chief international election observer in Yemen, which is the second time that I have had this opportunity. This time I spent several days on that duty in Aden. I saw the shockingly low standard of life of a thoroughly civilised people who had previously—prior to their very low standards now—enjoyed what they called a European standard of life. That creates the vacuum into which al-Qaeda will draw its suicidal victims and its fighters. President Hadi, when he recently withdrew the head of the Social Fund, remarked that it was working as an alternative Government. Are the UK Government, who are putting their funding in Yemen through the Social Fund, ready to reconsider their way of spending money in the light of the President’s decision?

Of course, the picture of people’s daily survival and the conflict in Yemen comes through very powerfully in the figures provided by organisations such as the United Nations. The possible life expectancy of people in Yemen, for example, not just in the coastal regions but throughout the country, is one of the lowest in the world. Life expectancy is 46 or 47 years. Yemen has the lowest figures for the whole region and beyond. It is at the bottom of the pit in terms of infant mortality, maternal mortality and child mortality. When one looks at the life available to people in Aden and Yemen generally, is it any wonder that they turn to piracy to try to survive?

I therefore seek some understanding of DfID’s new operational plan in Yemen. The bulk of our assistance is going to humanitarian needs but DfID is discontinuing its funding in the health and education sectors. It has already exited from maternal and neonatal health programmes. Is that really the right way to assist the people in the coastal city of Aden, for example? I would suggest that it is not a strategy for long-term future development of the people of Aden and the coastal towns around it. That is demonstrated by the fact that the women of the area are seeking training, involvement and political involvement in public-life sectors. I would like to see us supporting that.

Tonight’s debate makes it very clear that detailed plans, analyses and policies are not only desirable but essential if the amount of funding that we can provide from the United Kingdom, and our undoubted influence in the region, will tilt the balance and give the people locally a better future that will end their reliance on piracy.

UK Industry: International Competitiveness

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in his wide-ranging remarks, commented that he wished the Government could be more active. In my support for the splendid Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on which I warmly congratulate him, I am not seeking for the Government to be more active, because most businesses would request that government stand back. I am putting forward comments which I hope the Minister will take into full account and maybe even action some of them. I hope this will strengthen the Government’s position in supporting British industry internationally.

It is an absolute fact that, given that the House of Commons is omnipotent and omnicompetent, the international competitiveness of UK industry abroad is in some way restricted by our own democratic system. It places us at a disadvantage with our competitors, for example. Today, we must be looking at the competition while praising industry. We are trying to see who we are up against, and how we can do better than the competition. Our particular democratic political system inevitably pins the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers to the Benches; as does the system here, with our parliamentary Questions, constant debates and Statements. The democratic accountability of Ministers means that they must very often be here. Inevitably that can be seen to place UK businesses at a disadvantage with nations such as France, which is regularly led by prime ministerial and presidential delegations all over the globe. I know that the coalition Government are working to improve this. However, it is a simple fact that our system, in that sense, cannot provide that same spear-headed support that some other member states of the European Union and the USA can do. Therefore, I suggest that it is even more crucial that the UK Government provide a coherent and cohesive service to UK industry, particularly in-country. The steps this Government have already taken to raise British trade and investment interest abroad, which give a new and highly welcome pre-eminence to commercial diplomacy, are excellent; but there are significant concerns and gaps that still remain. I will be highlighting some of the most serious concerns, and inviting the Government rigorously to address them.

For a Government who have made significant and considerable progress with their welcome stress on value for money, results, outcomes and impact, it is noticeable that such language and structures are not readily mentioned in the Government's commercial diplomacy, such as in the FCO’s charter for business. I wonder whether that might be considered when the new edition, which I am sure is on the way, emerges.

The House of Commons business committee, for example, has previously reported that UK embassy and UKTI staff do not readily identify whether the country in which they are serving is a priority country and what the difference means. That is not helped, in my view, by the lack of transparency and accountability in the process for deciding priority countries or in how and where ministerial-led trade missions are sent. For example, the various sector and advisory groups supported by UKTI are appointed directly by Ministers without any parliamentary scrutiny. That provides a democratic deficit in what are essentially government and thus taxpayer-funded bodies influencing UK policy. It also causes potential conflicts of interest and a lack of trust in the capabilities of those bodies. Perhaps the Minister would be willing to reconsider that point.

I have previously asked a Written Question to this effect and received a somewhat summary rejection by the Government, but I believe it would be more than helpful to shine a light on the practices of the Government in supporting UK industry abroad, perhaps by introducing an independent evaluation body. That could be similar in make-up to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, specifically for trade impact or at least to offer in some way a more formal, thorough and transparent process than the current largely questionnaire-based process. This revamped evaluation mechanism and transparency would much more effectively highlight results, provided those results have been identified and the objectives achieved; and thus our knowledge, value for money and serious impact, on which the Government, in all other sectors, are so keen, would become available. I think that would immensely heighten the Government’s capability in supporting industry.

I turn to priority countries. UKTI has a series of priority countries and UK Export Finance—the old ECGD—focuses on certain countries, not necessarily the same ones, depending on UK Export Finance’s own criteria of how effective and able it will be to receive its funding back in the long term. The FCO has its own geopolitical and strategic priorities which do not reflect consistently UKTI's priorities. Again, DfID has its own 28 priority countries and works in many more. Is it not unsurprising that with this array of different prioritisations the UK struggles—and I believe that it fails—to put forward a single face, in country and internationally?

Have the Government thought how to co-ordinate these different priority countries and even priority sectors within those countries? A possible example of how the UK does not enable itself to bring its full impact to bear in a country would be the disconnect between UKTI and DfID priority countries. As the Government are already providing significant expenditure to DfID's priority countries, as well as to the other countries in which DfID works, would it not make sense for UK Export Finance to provide preferential export credits to those countries to ensure that the UK is gaining the fullest possible impact and value for money for its investments in its stated priority countries? Are we not now aware that the long-term effectiveness for what is called development aid is, in fact, through the development of business and industry on the ground? That is surely one of the key reasons why, quite properly, this Government, as opposed to the previous Government, have placed commercial diplomacy and the strength of British business and industry at the absolute heart of their overall international policy.

With that in mind, I turn to the knotty problem of UKBA, the UK Border Agency. I declare here that I am honorary chairman of the Iraq Britain Business Council, which is working not just in Iraq but in other countries in the Middle East and North Africa region. In that role, I have the privilege to work with some of Britain’s most competitive and powerful companies in the oil and gas, construction and infrastructure, finance and professional services, education and training, telecommunications, and other sectors.

My remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of any of those companies. Nor have I put these comments in front of any of those companies to gain their agreement or otherwise. These are my own comments. Iraq is one of the great potential sources of trade and development—for international companies as well as the UK’s—which is relatively untapped, and as chairman of the Iraq-British Business Council, I foresee the difficulties that our companies face.

Given our historic legacy and our strong presence in the region of the Middle East and North Africa, UK companies and UK-based companies, or those trading through the United Kingdom—particularly those using the English language, which is now the business language of the globe—are relatively well represented in Iraq. However, there are key issues which diminish UK competitiveness towards both western and eastern countries. I have mentioned several.

The policies and priorities of UKBA for countries and for sectors of populations do not match up with any other British Government policy. It is almost impossible to get UK visas, not only for Iraqi business men and women, but for other nations with which I work in the region. It is difficult, onerous and, I would suggest, humiliating. I take the case in front of me at the moment of an outstandingly large company in the region: one of the main board directors wants to come here for business, and to bring his wife and a couple of children with him. It is Ramadan soon, and it is a good time for him to come as there is space at home and less work going on. Is it really essential for him to wait 15 days at least, maybe 20 or more, in Lebanon, for a visa? Is this a way in which British industry can be helped? Is this the way for us to make friends and influence people, or in the modern phraseology, win hearts and minds, as well as win business?

Of course, it makes the training of staff from host countries, at all levels in the UK, almost an impossible matter. Business meetings in the UK are extremely difficult to set up because of this. I would suggest that UKBA must be brought into the fold of the wider umbrella of the heartland of British policy internationally. I do not yet see that happening.

British business is repeatedly urged by the British Government to invest. In Iraq, the Iraqi Government are also urging us to invest. The Government of Basra delivered this message in a BBC Radio 4 programme. Prime Minister Maliki and President Barzani both say that the door is wide open for Britain. I believe that the British Government are inadvertently not pulling their weight in this overridingly important matter. I urge the Minister to take note of the points that I have made, and perhaps to carry them out.

Middle East

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, one recent development in the Middle East was the peaceful transfer of power in the Republic of Yemen. Yemen and her neighbour, Somalia, are key to the stability of the region, and indeed to a far wider region beyond, including our own society, where we have many Britons whose original families came from Yemen.

Yemen is not a member of the GCC, but it has been greatly assisted by the immense and careful work that the GCC has put in over the past year or so. This culminated in a unique memorandum of understanding in November 2011. The implementation of that has brought a welcome period of calm after the excitement and deaths of Tahrir Square, through which the Arab spring manifested itself in Yemen.

The transition of power from President Saleh to President Hadi has now been marked by the beginning of the national dialogue. This will take a transitional period of two years. There will be a review of the constitution, which has already started, and a referendum involving the entire electorate in 18 months on that review. According to the MoU, this will be followed by a full and contested presidential election in 2013. The recent early presidential election had a single candidate. This body of work involved the entire political spectrum of Yemen for the first time. Thirty-eight of the 40 opposition parties, known as the Joint Meeting Parties, participated in both the election and in forming the national Government of unity, who incorporate the original governing party. Former President Saleh, in a unique tribute to the calmness of the situation in Yemen, has remained the president of his party. The Joint Meeting Parties and the governing party have formed the national Government of unity.

All this was made democratically possible by the early presidential election of 21 February this year. I had the good fortune to be an official observer, at the Government’s request. It was suggested that I went to Aden, and I did. There I watched the real and tangible milestone that the early presidential election marked for the people. I was able to compare the system clearly because I had been the head of the European Union election observation mission for the presidential election of 2006, when I spent the best part of six months in Yemen, travelling across the country and witnessing what went on.

The election of last month, just a few weeks ago, did great credit to all concerned. The Supreme Commission for Elections and Referendum, which was formed as a result of the recommendation that I made in 2006, fulfilled its role superbly. It trained people, transmitted knowledge and, with the support of the UNDP, all the appropriate literature was put out. There was a great amount of advertising, even in the scant two-month period between November and February. It was a great credit to all concerned that the election went so well. I was particularly pleased to see the enormous interest of women in the election, and I believe that a lot can be done in offering further training to bring women into the public sector. The procedures and processes went well and the new President, Mansour Hadi, has a firm body of support from the electorate behind him.

It has been an immense struggle for everyone to get so far. I pay tribute particularly to those in Aden who got to the polling stations, because the massive southern movement, which is extremely violent, did everything it could to stop people voting. I managed to visit 50 polling stations, but by noon half had closed and by 3.30 pm the remainder had to be closed because of the violence. Yet people came out to vote. They minded so much. They had their thumbs marked by the Indian ink that the United Nations says is such an essential feature of elections these days. I am not so sure that that is such a clever thing to do. It makes it very difficult for people to go home afterwards. The key was that people came out to vote in spite of all the opposition against them. Unlike the United Nations, I am delighted by the presidential immunity that was passed before the election. To do otherwise would have handed incoming President Hadi a poisoned chalice. I think Yemen has a right to be proud of herself. She can get ahead now and does not have to sit in the same position as Egypt with a search for the past poisoning everything.

The search for stability in Yemen is something that I know we are all going to support as powerfully as we possibly can. I was very impressed by the combined efforts of all concerned, including the diplomatic corps. We had particularly strong inputs from the European Union ambassador, Ambassador D’Urso; the ambassador from the UK, Nicholas Hopton; and Mr Feierstein from the USA. They all worked together with the GCC in supporting the Government.

In Yemen and the surrounding countries, the key must lie in capacity building and institution building and in making absolutely certain that our interventions, whether they are aid or trade, political or otherwise, strengthen what is available and build capacity. There is so much excellence locally, and I am absolutely sure that if we work hard to support the Yemeni people and all the Yemeni political parties and their Government of unity, the time ahead will be very much better than it has been in the past. I commend this success story—the peaceful transfer of power in the Republic of Yemen—to your Lordships’ House.

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

[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 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.