European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

I think we should thank the noble Lord for that, so that we can get on to our quick lunch and then to President Obama.

This debate on sunset clauses has been important. Amendment 63 is in my name. Frankly, I would happily support any of the amendments, because in this long Committee stage the Government have failed to make the case for the detail of the Bill as it stands. Because they have not done so, we are legitimate in proposing a sunset arrangement. Of course, on this side of the House we accept that there is a genuine issue about the popular legitimacy of the European Union. That is a matter for regret from our perspective, but it has to be addressed. The best way in which it could be addressed in this country is by establishing a cross-party consensus in favour of our membership of the European Union and for all parties to speak in that way. I do not think that the Bill is going to do much to establish that cross-party consensus, but it is an opportunity to address anti-Europeanism in our country. The rise of populist parties in other parts of Europe is also a matter of great concern. Britain is not alone in facing this legitimacy question.

We need to do something to strengthen the EU’s legitimacy, but do we need this Bill? There are features of the Bill that the Government have put forward that we are prepared to accept. They represent a strengthening of parliamentary accountability and of the circumstances in which referenda might be held. We now accept, which was not the case when the Lisbon treaty was ratified, that most of the things that come under passerelles and other consequentials of the Lisbon treaty should require a full Act of Parliament. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that this side supports strengthening parliamentary accountability over what decisions the Government take in Europe. On that, we are agreed. We also accept the codification in statute of the political consensus that we would have to have a referendum to join the euro and that referenda should be considered on issues of major constitutional significance. As I said earlier in Committee, a major constitutional treaty that, for instance, led to the direct election of the president of Europe would be that kind of constitutional change that would require a referendum. There is also a strong case to be considered for referenda should we wish at some stage in our national interest to surrender our border controls or to establish a common defence force. These are very big issues which could be suitable for referenda.

This Bill does not do that. It does not focus on the simple, straightforward case that in most issues you should strengthen parliamentary accountability and then on really big issues you should accommodate the possibility of referenda. Instead, it puts in place multiple referendum locks. We count 56, although I am not quite sure whether that number is right. This is a wholly new constitutional innovation on which many Members on all sides of the Committee have expressed severe reservations. In the course of the Committee, we have tried to reduce the number of referendum locks. We have argued, again with the support of a broad range of opinion in this Committee, that Ministers should be able to exercise judgment about which matters are significant on many of the minor changes and minor treaty revisions on which this Bill imposes a referendum lock. We have argued for a parliamentary process—a Joint Committee of both Houses—to consider where referenda might be necessary. We have supported amendments that would simplify Clause 6 and boil down the number of referendum locks to the really big issues.

We have had no give from the Government on any of those issues through this long Committee. That is why we come back to say that the Government have not been prepared in any way to consider the wide range of opinion in this House that the Bill needs substantial amendment, so it is right to suggest that if it is to stay as it is, the whole thing should be sunsetted. I do not blame the Minister for that; I think he has very little freedom to make concessions in this House. The only time we will get concessions from the Government is if, in voting on Report, we can make changes to the Bill. We have no intention of pressing the issues to a vote today. The whole Bill rests on the misjudgment that the leadership of the coalition has made that Europe is somehow a dead issue in our national politics; that the Lisbon treaty was, as it were, Europe's last gasp in terms of changes in its constitutional architecture; and that the Bill is therefore a cheap bone that can be thrown to the many Eurosceptics on the Benches supporting the coalition in the House of Commons.

That is a great shame for a couple of reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, no one can precisely foretell now how the European Union might have to adapt in future. Therefore, the warning of the Council’s former legal adviser, Jean-Claude Piris, that Britain might find that others go ahead and Britain is marginalised, is likely to prove correct were the Bill to last for the longer term. It could have that very damaging long-term effect on Britain's position in Europe. That is a shame, because the coalition Government, in their day-to-day policy on Europe, are trying to be positive. They present the Janus-faced stance of appealing to the anti-Europeans with this disgraceful piece of legislation on the one hand; and yet, when they go to Brussels, they try to present a positive picture of Britain's role in Europe. They signed up for the defence treaty with France. They have argued for deepening the single market. I would not disagree with a word of the speech to be made today by David Lidington, the Europe Minister, which was trailed in the Financial Times this morning. The Government are being positive, but the truth is that, were the coalition to stay in power—of course I would not wish for that—or the Conservatives to be in power for the longer term, if they wish to pursue a positive European policy, because there will need to be adjustments to the rules over time as well as to decisions, they will find their Bill increasingly an albatross. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Davies who described it as the handcuffs of the multiple referenda.

That is a great pity, because far from Europe being a dead issue, we are at a turning point in our national affairs where, in economics, we have in this country to search for a new economic model. We have to rebalance our economy, which can be done only through rebuilding our export strength. Nothing is more important for that than our full engagement in the European single market, and therefore we have to be as co-operative and positive as we can. In terms of our role in the world, we should heed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said in his speeches both today and a couple of days ago. As Asia emerges ever stronger, Britain is more dependent on the influence it can multiply through the European Union to have a role in the world. These are big reasons for showing our full commitment to Europe and why we have to be prepared to be flexible in our dealings with our partners rather than lock ourselves out, which is what the impact of this Bill will be.

In conclusion, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who quoted from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, on this side of the Chamber we believe that the European Union is a lasting dream, but this Bill is a nightmare and should be sunsetted at the Report stage.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, sometimes colourfully. There have been a lot of references to William Shakespeare, which I was rather glad about, having spent many years as a director of the Globe Theatre. I have sat through some Shakespeare which, frankly, I could not understand, but in other plays I have heard some wonderful, inner-illuminating phrases, so I am glad they have come into our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has led the way in that. As to whether he is Prospero doing such things as cannot be described, whether he is King Lear, or whether he remains in his midsummer night’s dream, I do not know. Perhaps I should leave Shakespeare there.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his presentation of his party’s position. I listened carefully to him, and if I may put this in a non-derogatory way, I would say that his speech was constructive in parts. He is right that we are at a turning point in the European Union. Indeed, one of my criticisms of some of the comments made during this long Committee stage is that we seem to be discussing the EU of yesteryear, a sort of pre-Lisbon world. Not only are we in a post-Lisbon world, we are moving into an entirely new international landscape where power is distributed in different ways. We have all said this to each other, and I know that your Lordships are acutely aware of it, possibly more than other bodies are.

There is a new international scene that requires new policies and approaches by both the member states and the European Union itself. The noble Lord was therefore right to say that we need to build a new consensus in support of the European Union and our role in it, but I must say that he has failed utterly to convince me in his various interventions, including this one, that the flexibility which Her Majesty’s Opposition seem so keen on and so anxious to see, would not turn out to fill the Bill with holes and undermine all our efforts to create consensus and restore the confidence and trust of the people so that they do not feel that the political class—Governments and Parliament—was not undermining their position in a stealthy way. This seems to me to be a contradiction that is not yet clear.

We will come to Report after the Recess. A great many wise and useful things have been said by Members on all sides in our Committee debates, and of course the Government will consider everything that has been said. My colleagues and I shall certainly do so before we reach the next stage. That almost goes without saying. For the moment, however, I must address the amendments before us, all four of them, about the idea of a sunset clause. It will not be much of a surprise to your Lordships when I say that the coalition Government, for which I am the mouthpiece today, oppose the proposal for a sunset clause. Although I know I shall not get full agreement, I shall try to set out as precisely and as clearly as I can why we do so.

Let us start with the general proposition of including a sunset clause, and why it would be absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary to include one in this kind of legislation, which is constitutional legislation—there is no disguising that—and intended to build a consensus to improve and enlarge our democracy in the modern world, in the midst of this informational revolution that has transformed the whole nature of public domain and decision-making, and to give the British people a greater say, which they clearly want, over important decisions on the future direction of the EU.

I do not at all share the view that these are obscure and arcane issues that no one discusses. On the contrary, particularly the much-maligned Schedule 1 issues, and indeed many others in Clause 6, are highly contentious so-called red-line issues which both Parliament and the public have stormed over—and the media have often joined in in ways that some of us find unattractive and not suitably calibrated. However, these are red-hot issues. The idea that they are not absolutely central to the concerns of the British people—to how we govern ourselves, position ourselves in the European Union and conduct our domestic affairs—seems to me not to be of the real world.

These are very serious and central issues. The truth is that a sunset clause of the kind proposed—we are dealing with a number of different aspects, which of course I want to come to—would seriously undermine our attempts to reconnect the British people with the European Union in its changing form and the decisions taken in their name. Here I would say that I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will accept—but I ask him to accept—that I am very tempted to have a lovely debate on the eurozone in all its aspects, but I do not think that this is quite the opportunity or even the time to do so.

Let me return to this general idea that there should be a sunset clause in a Bill such as this. There were no sunset clauses, of course, in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 or, indeed, the European Communities Act 1972, and there is a very good reason for that. Such clauses would be a recipe for uncertainty where certainty is most needed, namely in the framework by which our democracy works. This Bill belongs to the family of certainty-building and not to the family of those who wish to experiment and say, “Let’s just try this measure once and then close it down again”. It would hamper our efforts to rebuild the trust of the people that has been lost in recent years. Why? It would hamper them because we as a Parliament, and the Government as well, would be saying to the British people, “You can have a say on future transfers of competence or power from Britain to the EU, but sorry, it’s only for a limited period unless the Government decide in their wisdom that the right should continue”. That seems to me to be completely the wrong way to go about the purposes, which even the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seemed to share to some extent, behind the Bill. It would of course also absolutely guarantee the further alienation of Government and Parliament from the people whom we are supposed to serve and whose support and understanding of the values of our effective membership of the European Union we want to increase. It would be a retrograde step in the whole battle—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Given the time, I am sure that the noble Lord is keen to get under way, and I will not intervene again. Perhaps I may just put to him the simple proposition that if he is concerned about uncertainty at the same time as being concerned that the Bill’s fundamental purpose is to reconnect with the voters, the ideal solution would be to have a sunset clause sometime in the future with a general election in the middle, allowing the voters to express in that general election their view one way or another on how the Bill has panned out.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

What parties put in their manifestos is certainly not within my control or that of anyone else in Parliament. The parties can make their own decisions. I respect very much what my noble friend and her colleagues are saying and the nature of their amendment, and I want to consider it in considerable detail in the time left. I consider that a very important thing to do.

I was just saying that if the pattern I have described is the right one, the measure would be a retrograde step in an age when the British people have come to expect more of a say than ever before in a wider range of issues. We might not like it, but that is the reality. That applies not just to the British people, of course, but to electorates throughout the entire planet, of which one-third are now on the worldwide web with their linkages and networks expressing their views. Therefore, this measure would do nothing whatever in our view to help to demonstrate to the British people why our continued membership of the European Union is in the interests of everyone in this country and in our national interest. That is something in which this Government believe, although it is not a view that is shared by all noble Lords.

We would be taking power away not only from the British people but from Parliament, because what this Bill does in part, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others have reminded us, is to enhance the power both of Parliament and the people. We would be promising Parliament more control over decisions taken by the Government at the EU level only to take it away again. Weakening parliamentary control in this way would run contrary to the key principle of the Bill. That principle, incidentally, has been welcomed by the Constitution Committee of this House and by a number of noble Lords in debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, spoke with great fluency and feeling on whether the Bill binds future Parliaments. Given his remarkable career, he has been at the centre of how the EU should develop and how Britain should work within it, so I totally respect his comments. However, this Bill does not attempt to bind future Parliaments. That is not its intention and it is not the way in which it works. It is open to this and to future Parliaments to repeal, disapply or amend this legislation, once it has been enacted, as Parliament can do with all legislation. The Bill does not alter this fundamental tenet of parliamentary sovereignty, and nor should it. I pray in aid here an interesting remark of Edward Short, a man for whom I had great admiration although he was not on my side politically. When he was Leader of the House of Commons, he said during consideration of the Referendum Act 1975, which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe remembers so well:

“Although one would not expect hon. Members to go against the wishes of the people, they will remain free to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/1975; col. 293.]

Rather than binding future Parliaments, this Bill is an attempt to engage and guide this and future Governments—not Parliaments—and to bind them to seek the views of Parliament, and where necessary the British people, before signing up to any further transfers of power over and above the powers and competences that the European Union has. I have argued throughout Committee that those powers and competences are ample—some would say they are more than ample—to perform all the tasks that we want to see performed in the upgrading, development and strengthening of the European Union as it adjusts to 21st century conditions. It is our wish and our intention that this Bill should become a settled part of this country’s constitutional furniture. If people say, “You should not say that”, my answer is that any Government wish to see their architecture—their longer-term aims and hopes—last into the future and be adopted by the next Government.

One makes no secret of the fact that where we are talking about architecture rather than a one-off task, it is natural that we should want the following Government to pursue it. I recall being a member of a Government some decades ago who promoted the dreaded phrase “privatisation”. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, did me the honour of suggesting that I had invented that word, adding that it was a particularly ugly one and everyone wanted to get rid of it. However, privatisation came in with a range of laws. We hoped and prayed then that successor Governments would not repeal those laws and renationalise everything. Our hopes were fulfilled. The successor Governments to the Conservative Governments of those days kept the balance of the private and public sectors; indeed, they enlarged the private sector. We did not say that we would bind the next Government; we merely hoped that that architecture would stay in place. It did, and exactly the same issues apply now.

I made the point a moment ago that the Bill seeks to bind future Governments. All Governments, when they put long-term measures in place, do not want to see future Governments just chuck them out. This Government said in the coalition agreement that they would not agree to any further transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU in this Parliament, nor do they intend to do so. We think that the European Union has enough competences and powers and we see no great need or pressure for expansion or for the flexibility about which the noble Lord spoke from the opposition Front Bench. Of course, the Bill, from the very moment it becomes an Act—if it does—applies to this Government as much as to future Governments; I cannot see anyone suggesting otherwise.

Any treaty change would still need a statement from the Government and an Act of Parliament; any passerelle would still require parliamentary approval. It may be—for nothing is certain in the future—that for whatever reason, however unlikely it is and however much it goes against our firm coalition commitment, a need emerges to agree some great treaty change that would transfer competence or power during this Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, we cannot be sure. That is all the more reason for having this Bill in place.

If such things appear, and if they fulfil the conditions described in the Bill and relate to very serious issues—I think noble Lords underestimate how serious many of these issues are, particularly those listed in Schedule 1—there would be a referendum. That makes it all the more important that the Bill be in place, to govern, reinforce and consolidate the political commitment of this Government with a legal undertaking, and we hope to guide future Governments along exactly the same path.

Your Lordships are of course aware that this Government have a policy to ensure that, where new regulations on businesses can have a time limit put on them, then they should. That is quite different; that is for a specific operational reason—to ensure that businesses are not overburdened by bureaucracy. There are other areas where the sunset idea is valid. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 allowed for an annual review of extended detention periods for terrorist suspects. There was good reason for that, since severe forms of control order require a derogation from Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights legislation before they can be implemented.

More recently, the Public Bodies Bill contains a sunset clause—which has been described as a “use it or lose it” clause and makes perfectly good sense—to allow a fixed time for the Government to introduce desired reforms through provisions that would then expire. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised the question of the sunset amendment to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill—that was not a government amendment but was inserted by your Lordships in their wisdom. As was explained in the debate, one can see perfectly well why. The coalition exists, and I hope that it continues to exist in strong fine form during this fixed-term Parliament, but after that we have a new landscape. Who knows who will govern? Who knows what the pattern will be? It made perfectly good sense for that legislation to have a limited life before coming to be re-examined.

These examples and others have been in cases where power has been given to the Executive on a given issue for a given period of time. The contrast with this Bill is total. This Bill seeks to devolve power from the Executive to Parliament and the British people. I am afraid that the amendments would take away that devolving effect and, in effect, give it back to the Executive. As my noble friend Lady Nicholson said, matters would again be left purely in the hands of Ministers.

Furthermore, and I say this particularly to my noble friends who suggested that in Amendment 64 one might have a middle way—a little bit of sunsetting, but not too much—a system of post-legislative scrutiny is in place for all legislation, not just the legislation before us today. If people are surprised to learn that, I tell them that in March 2008—this is an inheritance from the previous Government—Ministers put in place a systematic process whereby, between three and five years following Royal Assent to an Act, the Government must submit a memorandum to the relevant departmental Select Committee comprising an assessment of the operation of the Act relative to the objectives of the legislation. The relevant committee can then decide whether it wishes to conduct a more extensive scrutiny of the operation of that Act. That is what will happen anyway. I think that noble Lords will agree that it is a bit of a contrast to the idea in Amendment 64 that if the Bill expired at a certain time, new legislation would be needed to restore the role of Parliament, and would take it back even to the 2008 position, let alone the position that I think all parties want today. Such matters will still be decided by Ministers. Although I can see that the amendment is meant to be a pragmatic solution, it would not actually solve—in fact it would dissolve—the requirement for more trust.

Our sincere hope in government is that future Governments will not cut the cord of returning trust, which the Bill provides for, and that they will not take this step back in time to the age of suspicion over the European Union and its direction that we knew in the past. There is nothing in this legislation that binds Parliament, because one cannot do that.

I have outlined powerful reasons for the Bill—not least the need to meet effectively the legitimate expectations of the British people for a say in whether or not to transfer further powers to the European Union, which is not necessary at all at the moment; and not least the need to align our country with the movement throughout Europe for a greater democratic say by the people. That is an attitude that my honourable friend the Minister for Europe has encountered as he has visited every Government and talked to a vast range of Ministers and public opinion formers throughout all member states. He has never found the ideas and proposals of the coalition in the Bill any problem at all. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who suggested that I should do a bit more travelling. I should quite like to do a bit of travelling, but my duties nowadays frequently seem to be here. Perhaps I will be released over the next few days for a little travelling. Indeed, I intend to head off to the Middle East almost as soon as these debates are over.

Those are the reasons why, with the best will in the world, the idea of sunsetting or expiring legislation that can be renewed in some way by a future Secretary of State does not belong to this kind of legislation. This legislation is intended to be the architecture for a better and more settled relationship between this country and the European Union, by our exertions, and one hopes in the European Union generally, by our example. That is the possibility of the future. It does not to any degree tie Ministers’ hands in the way that has been dramatically asserted, just as the negotiating positions of other Ministers in other countries with similar restrictions—sometimes by referenda or complicated mandates agreed with other parties in their Parliaments—are not tied but strengthened.

All of that is a fear of hobgoblins that I suggest my noble friends should dismiss. There is nothing in this that weakens our position, but there is a great deal that strengthens it. There is a great deal of hope for the future in better and settled relationships with the European Union, with popular support. That is why, for the time being and as an enduring fact, I have to say that sunset clauses do not, alas, fit the purpose of the Bill. I ask the noble Lords who have suggested them to withdraw them.

European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has just made and which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made earlier regarding what he described as commonplace political processes in which someone would much rather be defeated on an issue than argue their case differently. In theory, that sounds perfectly reasonable. However, is that precisely because Ministers’ rhetoric and Governments’ rhetoric in the past has never quite matched the decisions that have emerged?

It is commonplace in politics for someone to put forward an argument, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted the German case. To avoid a certain procedure within the German constitution, people would say, “A nod and a wink. I’ll do a bit of talking here. I’ll put up a good fight but at the end of the day I know perfectly well that I’m going to get beaten and therefore everything will be all right on the night”. In some senses, that can be seen as normal but others may see it as chicanery. People might see that as undermining the process in Brussels but some, and I am one of them, may argue that there was a prolonged period in history when cases were put in exactly that way with exactly that outcome, which led the people drafting this legislation to take measures—they may not be the most elegant but perhaps the Minister can confirm that they exist—to protect against that precise situation. Let us face it: if a parliamentary decision has to be taken on a particular proposal, a political argument develops in the media to try to influence it, and a Minister sitting at the table can play a major part in creating and framing the debate when it goes into the media and try to build support for it. There is nothing wrong with that. The idea that people are going there secretly with one particular agenda but in fact pretending to have another is precisely why the European Union is in so much trouble with the population of this country. I hope that the Minister can indicate whether that is part of the rationale behind this or whether our fears are unsupported.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, for indicating his general support for at least subsection (1) of Clause 7. It reflects the general view that we have heard in the debate so far that primary legislation is the right instrument in a number of fields, which we have discussed at considerable length.

This clause also brings the UK more into line with the commendable practice of a number of other partners, in particular, Germany, of ensuring that national parliaments have a greater say in the developments of the European Union. It is also consistent with the principles of Laaken, to which I have referred frequently at this Dispatch Box in the past, and it is consistent with the trend in the Lisbon treaty to give more control to national parliaments across Europe.

I want to come to the specific issues that have been raised with considerable knowledge and expertise and try to offer what I hope will be a constructive response. First, I refer to the theme on which a good deal has been made in the debate on the words, “or otherwise support”, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my noble friend Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, would immediately call me to order if I were to say that this is inherited phraseology. When I sat where the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, now sits, through the long nights that we were dealing with the Bill on the Lisbon treaty, I am trying to remember whether we had amendments on these words. I cannot remember and do not have the electronic memory to retrieve it, but the words were in the Bill which became an Act and which was drawn up by the previous Government, ratifying the then Lisbon treaty. Those with long memories will remember that people like me were not terribly enthusiastic about the treaty or how it should be treated.

However, that is the past and out of the past has come this phrase, “or otherwise support”, which also raises some difficult questions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly referred. Of course, we want to see in this Parliament a pattern of legislation in this enormously complex area of EU measures which minimises the obscurity and maximises the clarity. I should like to take away the points that have been put very clearly and reflect on the noble Lord’s arguments. I do not know whether that constitutes, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, “breaking ducks”, merely passing balls gently to the boundary, or whatever, but the matter clearly needs some reflection because there is clearly obscurity. I suspect that that has been pointed out again and again in debates on European legislation in the past few years; it is nothing new but it does not mean to say that we cannot get it better now, so I will reflect on the points that have been made.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the noble Lord confirm that he will take away and look at all the references in the legislation to the words “or otherwise support”? Here we are discussing only one of them. I am sure that his intention is to look at all of them: if he will confirm that, I will happily agree that he has scored a boundary.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Reflections on the words as they appear here will be bound to have cross-reading repercussions. I will put it like that: that is what I am saying that I will seek to do.

I turn now to Article 333(1) of the TFEU, on enhanced co-operation. The pat answer that the Bill gives if you stare it in the face is that if a sensitive veto listed in Schedule 1 is removed, there will be primary legislation for the removal of other vetoes. That is something that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, questioned. He cited the German example to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, also referred. That is stretching it a bit. I cannot see that the pattern in Germany—for which there may well be good reasons, such as anxiety not to offend the Länder—arises here. I trust that it does not sound too austere to say that it would not be our way to go through that kind of action in the hope that people would understand that we really wanted to do the reverse. Nevertheless, it is a complex point and I have more to say about it.

This is to do with whether we maintain or surrender a veto in these areas. We are not talking about action in those areas: I am sure that that is perfectly obvious to noble Lords. Enhanced co-operation decisions will not be agreed overnight: they will be agreed as a matter of last resort in areas of sensitivity for some member states. A move to set up enhanced co-operation has happened only once, and is being proposed now in the context of the European patent.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I had hoped that the Minister would score another boundary: he was starting splendidly with his exegesis on Germany, with which I entirely agreed. Does it not say in Clause 7(4)(e) and (f) that we are talking about a particular enhanced co-operation? We are not talking about the general rules for enhanced co-operation. I accept the first point that the Minister made about precedent. It seems to me—and, I think, to him—to be an insufficient answer, but it was a sort of answer. The point that he is making now surely does not apply, because paragraphs (e) and (f) state that the decision will relate to a specific reinforced co-operation in which we will be a participant.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is precisely the point that I am making. I mentioned the European patent, which is a good example. A decision to move to qualified majority voting would not be something that we would agree overnight. It would be much more likely to be subject to negotiation over a lengthy period, not least because it would result in one or more member states being outvoted. I simply do not accept that the provision would hold up the taking of a specific decision. I am afraid that my mind may not be meeting that of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I cannot see what his concern is. This is to do with removing the veto, not taking that decision. That is the best explanation that I can give: I think that it meets his concern, which he put forward in a very valuable and experienced way.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

If we are talking about a specific enhanced co-operation, and the Minister accepts that we are, we have something going on out in the field—this is Article 333 on common foreign security policy. A particular kind of external activity is taking place and we do not know what it is. Those who are taking part in it have to make rapid decisions. They have to decide what we do tomorrow about situation x. The treaty says that if they unanimously so decide, they may take implementing decisions by qualified majority in relation to that specific deployment, or whatever it is. They are not changing the treaty or the general rules but are dealing with the problem that has arisen now. I do not understand the different scenario that is being presented when the Minister says that this will be prepared over time and that there will be a lot of consideration. This is about implementation. It is about people in the field. That is why I think it is rather inappropriate. Is the Minister quite sure that it is appropriate to make this a matter on which the UK would need to pass primary legislation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am not sure I agree with the picture of decisions having to be taken instantly. On the contrary, it seems to me to be much more likely that there would be all kinds of negotiation, not least because it would result in one or more member states being outvoted. I do not think these are. This is a very complex matter, and I have sought to try to explain as best I can how we see it working but, of course, I will write to the noble Lord in more detail about his precise concerns. I am not sure that he has really satisfied me about the cutting edge of his amendment, and I have clearly not satisfied him. We will just go on boxing and coxing while other noble Lords have to listened, so I think it is better if I write to him and try to clarify the Government’s understanding of the reasoning and the reason why primary legislation would be justified against his clearly very strongly held view that it would not be justified and might hold things up.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Will the Minister ensure that all Members of the Committee who have taken part in our debates so far also receive the letter that he is going to send to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, of course I will.

I want now to turn to the next point that the noble Lord raised, which is to do with Article 64(3) of the TFEU on the reverse of liberalisation of capital movements to or from third countries. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated he did not fully understand what the Bill means. He interpreted it as allowing a move back from QMV to unanimity. Article 64(3) allows for unanimity for the adoption of,

“measures which constitute a step backwards in Union law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries”.

I do not know where this phrase “step back” originally emerged from. I do not know whether it was way back in the original draft of the European constitution. It may have been. It is used to do that which we believe should be subject to an Act of Parliament. Once again, I will obviously look at it very closely, but that is why we believe it is in the Bill in the form that it is and why we think an Act of Parliament is the right way forward.

Those are the detailed points that were raised. As I said about the phraseology that comes down to us from legislation under a previous Government, there is matter for further reflection. I fully accept that just because it was there before does not automatically mean that it is the right way forward now, although the previous Government undoubtedly thought that there were good reasons for it, otherwise they would not have put it there.

Clause 7 covers four categories of passerelles—I do not want to detain the Committee by listing them all now—that cover a wide range of different passerelle devices with which we are concerned. I like to think that Clause 7 represents a clear step, which in principle although maybe not in detail has the support of noble Lords generally, towards enhancing parliamentary control over the Government’s participation in a range of important passerelle decisions at EU level. The result ought to be—indeed, the coalition Government believe it will be—an increase in Parliament’s, and ultimately the British public’s, sense of ownership of and engagement with the future direction of the EU.

Of course, in the highly sensitive areas listed in Schedule 1, as we know and have debated endlessly in Committee, the referendum lock would apply on top of parliamentary approval. However, an Act of Parliament is required in the other areas listed in the clause, which surely can only be a bonus for the public trust and accountability that we are all working towards in this legislation and in our work on the European Union generally.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Lord warmly for his reply, particularly for what he said about looking again at the wording “or otherwise support”. Whatever its origins, I am sure the Government can do better and that the change would solve a lot of problems not just in Brussels but here. How would the Government advance the case for the Act of Parliament that would be necessary if the law prevented them supporting it? We are slightly in Alice in Wonderland here, and plenty of adjustments to the wording would solve our problem.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, asked me a question that I do not quite understand. My objection to Clause 7(3) is based purely on its wording “or otherwise support”. My objection to Clause 7 as a whole applies in addition to the list in Clause 7(4), which, as the Minister understands, I think is a little too long. I have no objection to Clause 7(2), but I am puzzled by Clause 7(4)(c), (e) and (f). I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on Clause 7(3). I echo the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in talking about the locus classicus for “or otherwise support”. The phrase is most likely to cause us major problems at the start of Clause 6, which deals with bigger issues than those that we are looking at in Clause 7.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the matter and that he will write to me about Clause 7(4)(e) and (f). I hope that he might also write to me about Clause 7(4)(c), if only to explain to someone ignorant like me exactly what the relevant passage of the treaty is all about, and why the Government would object to a move back to unanimity, which seems to me to be slightly inconsistent with their overall stance on decisions.

I do not wish for the moment to protract the discussion on whether Clause 7 should stand part.

European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment from my noble friend Lord Radice, whose expertise on Europe is well known in the House. Several of the speeches that have been made by Members of the Committee have reflected their own extensive knowledge of Europe and their understandable disappointment that we have been so churlish in the way that we have talked about Europe and the European project over the years. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I take the point that there are things to criticise. However, that is scarcely a reason for the trajectory on which we have embarked.

In addressing the amendment specifically, it is clear from the beginning of Clause 2 that a referendum would be launched following matters being laid before Parliament and fully debated, a decision being taken by Parliament and a treaty approved by an Act of Parliament. Clause 3 gives essentially the same sequence: Parliament takes a fundamental view, looks at it and decides that a referendum should be held because of the conditions to hold one as set out in the Act. Under Clause 6, a Minister of the Crown must start with a draft decision approved by an Act of Parliament. The referendum condition is then triggered. In all the circumstances in which a referendum condition is triggered—were one ever to be triggered—the reality is that Parliament will have reached a conclusion. Obviously, it will not have done so in secret. It will be a decision that is well known to the public as a whole. Parliament will have decided that the point at which a referendum is required has been reached.

In those circumstances it would be inconceivable that no argument would be advanced to the people who were going to vote in the referendum to account for the decisions that Parliament had taken. It would be an extraordinary set of circumstances in which that decision did not have the visible consent of the Government. If the Government had put a proposition of that kind to Parliament and it had been defeated, it would be a significant blow to any Government. It must be the case that the arguments that had been held in that forum—or forums, taking this House into account as well—would have come to a positive outcome.

I turn to Clause 13. The Electoral Commission,

“must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness of the referendum and how to vote in it”.

In other words, it must make sure that people know the referendum is taking place and what they need to do to take part in it. Curiously, under paragraph (b), the Electoral Commission,

“may take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness of the subject-matter of the referendum”.

In short, it must make sure that everybody knows about the referendum but it may take steps to make sure that people know what the referendum is about. I make this point because if, in those circumstances, the Government or a Minister did not take steps to deal with the policy issues under discussion, it would be the most curious discussion that there had ever been before a referendum, especially if the Electoral Commission itself did not get into the theatre of argument about the subject matter. It seems to me that it is less likely to do that than the politicians who are involved in it.

There is, therefore, a huge amount of good common sense in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Radice. If you look at the specific text of the amendment, Ministers of the Crown are asked to,

“have regard to the desirability”.

This is not a monumental hurdle to have to cross. Ministers are expected to put the argument in a way that at least conveys why Parliament has taken the decisions that it has taken, and to do so in a way that is positive. Does that disbar anybody from saying, “There are issues here. We can see the following negatives”? No, of course it does not. I have no doubt that in any referendum debate people will say what they think the downside of the argument is. However, the amendment would ensure that the upside of the argument is also presented, even in a climate where a large part of the media of this country may not be sympathetic. That is probably the only route to achieving any balance in the discussion that will take place in advance of a referendum. Therefore, I welcome this amendment. One can look back and see how it links with the other clauses, and particularly how it deals with the rather conditional “may take” provision in Clause 13. In my view it would ensure that the argument was well made.

Having made that rather narrow point about the purpose of this amendment and how it would operate against the background of a parliamentary decision, I assert that in a generally extremely sceptical climate it can do no harm whatever to argue the case for the benefits of the European Union in a positive way. No doubt some Members of your Lordships' House do not believe that there are any positive benefits, or that they are so marginal that they should not be referred to because it is a waste of breath. However, a good many more of us believe that there is a very good and strong case to be made in favour of the European Union, and that it is sensible that it is made, as this amendment would ensure.

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

My Lords, I was going to begin my comments by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Radice, on the very sensible and balanced way in which he put his case, although his peroration slightly took off the ground towards the end of his remarks, but perhaps that is the nature of perorations. However, as the debate has gone on, I have begun to share the sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lady Williams that the situation is sad in a sense, although I suspect that I disagree somewhat with my noble friend on how the EU should develop in the 21st century and be made fit for purpose, where the great trends should go and how this country should reinforce them. Nevertheless, I agree with her that all the old polarities of debate have prevailed for far too long. Over the past decade or so, one has needed to see emerge a new and much more positive British presentation and role than we have seen. That is a matter of regret.

The Government have no difficulty in supporting the main sentiment behind this amendment. We are members of the European Union. If we are members of organisations such as the massive and amazing European Union, it would be absurd to do anything short of making the very creative best we could of that. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Radice, makes an important point about the need for the Government to be a more vocal and effective advocate of the European Union of which we are members, given the way that the world is shaping. This applies also to other great bodies in the world of which we are members. I am sure he will join me in saying that we need to do better than the efforts of previous Administrations in our approach to this vital task. Indeed, the noble Lord said as much. We should do so by explaining more clearly how good and positive EU membership is part of our overall adjustment to a totally changed world landscape in which major markets are growing up outside Europe and in which Europe and the European Union, including this nation, are going to have to compete with increasing vigour. We need to ensure that the European Union is understood to be, and is seen as, a force for good. We want people to understand that the European Union, and our membership of it, has been, and can be, a force for good. We need to improve the effectiveness—this is slightly off the brief—of the EU’s own voice. Many of us feel that sometimes in recent years that voice has not been quite so effective and focused as it should have been. We seek to present positively to the British people the benefits of these activities and our membership of the Union. The coalition is doing that. Indeed, all Governments should do so as a matter of course into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I put it to the Minister that this Bill will be seen by our partners on the continent of Europe and in Ireland as an example of terrible British negativity about the European Union. That is quite the wrong spirit in which to negotiate with friends and partners to defend the national interest and to achieve successful outcomes from difficult and complex negotiations. What do the Government propose to do to try to persuade our European partners that, despite the evidence of this Bill, the British Government are positively committed to making a great success of our membership of the EU, and to continuing to build up and strengthen the institutions of the Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I welcome the noble Lord back to our debate although I am not sure that I welcome the spirit of his contribution. He has certainly made a very lively contribution to previous debates and we missed him earlier this evening. However, his premise is wrong. We have clear indications that there are no difficulties. Jean-Claude Piris, the former head of the Council’s legal service in Brussels, has commented that he sees no difficulties with Clause 18, and that he also has no difficulties with the thrust of the Bill. We have checked with people around the European Union and we are not getting the picture that the noble Lord talks about. Of course, it depends who you talk to. If you find people who support your views, that will reinforce your argument as you can then say, “These people support my views”. However, I assure the noble Lord that throughout Europe there is a real desire on the part of different countries, with their different models and different ways, to seek to enhance the transparency, accountability and public support for the European Union, and to do it in ways not dissimilar to ours—which is to say that this great Union has all the competences it needs and can go forward in a whole range of areas. It does not need to draw new powers from the nation states through treaty changes, competence transfers or power transfers.

All around Europe there is a strong sentiment in that direction. It is a pro-European sentiment and I do not think that it does at all what the noble Lord says. On the contrary, this spirit shows that we are trying to make the architecture—I hope an enduring architecture; and we will debate that later—for a more democratically based Europe that is soundly build on a popular consensus, instead of one that is regarded with hostility and suspicion.

[Lord Radice]

This has been a good debate. We have heard a lot of views, some of which have been predictable, and others that have perhaps been less so. I should like to take up two or three points before I conclude.

The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said that he hoped that I was not arguing for propaganda. Of course I am not. I am arguing for the facts, and that requires a balance. Of course there is a cost in our membership but, as the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury said, the cost is considerably outweighed by the benefits. I should like that to be argued out, and to that extent I support the case for costs and benefits to be set out.

At the moment, the debate is unbalanced because there is no strong pro-European voice, and we need to restore that balance because it is not being heard. That is why, when moving the amendment, I put the accent on the positive. We were told by members of UKIP that the Government have no place in this argument. Of course the Government have a place in the argument. They are our Government. We are members of the European Union and we have been members for nearly 40 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, it is up to members of the Government to put the case—and it is entirely right that they should do so.

I thank my noble friend Lord Triesman for making an even better case for my amendment than the case I made. He made a subtle and excellent case. I accept that this may be an obligation that should not be in statute but, frankly, I would not have put my case in the way that I did if I had not felt that we in this country faced a serious problem, whereby we are a member of a great Union that neither we nor our Government argue for. I included my own Government in my strictures.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, put the case in general terms for our membership of the European Union. He rightly said that our case needs refining and developing, as does the European Union. I should like him to make a major speech on the issue, and I very much look forward to hearing it when he has finished with the Bill. I want the coalition to live up to the constructive part of its agreement on Europe. We have heard all the negative bits. Let us have some of the constructive bits. That is my message.

I intend to send a copy of this debate to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary through the noble Lord, Lord Howell, because it is important that they know what we are saying in this House—that there is a major problem and we need to do something about it. I shall closely monitor, as all of us on this side of the argument will, the performance of the Government to ensure that they stick to the coalition agreement. We have heard a lot about the coalition agreement. Let us make sure they stick to it. I shall, for the moment withdraw my amendment, but that is not because I do not think the issue is important. It is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, what has come through in the debate is that it is hard to see a strong purpose for Clause 18. It is not the best drafted clause I have ever read in legislation, and I understand why—or at least I think I understand why, which I will come to in a moment. But it is also true to say that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill do the clause no favours. They do not set out why it is compelling or why any of us who think that it is obscurely drafted should feel that we can put our hand on our heart and say that we know exactly why it is written as it is. I certainly do not feel that way. I am not a lawyer. I am not learned in the law, which is the expression that has gone around the Chamber. I am a humble mathematician and I am trying hard to understand the considerable obscurities of law when compared with mathematics.

It is important to ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Deben, only a short while ago, what the clause as it is written is for—I shall come on to the alternatives in a moment. Everybody agrees that it is declaratory in its reference to the 1972 Act. It looks as though it is attempting to balance a number of arguments which plainly have gone on in the background between those who are uncomfortable with the idea that Europe has any bearing on the way we conduct our legal lives, and may continue to do so, and those who recognise that that is a fixed reality because of the processes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, described in a very helpful speech. It is hard to understand the necessity of Clause 18 and it is reasonable to say that, as drafted, it is open to very wide interpretation. As a couple of noble Lords have said, that would probably make it open to judicial review.

I find myself in strong agreement—I hope that it will do her no harm—with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who said that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee’s report gave not the most glowing reference which anybody has written to a piece of legislation. The report is written with the niceness that parliamentarians occasionally reserve for a description of something they think is very poor, but, none the less, it says, in terms pretty much, that it is very poor. The Government in their response almost give up the ghost after a very short period of trying to defend it, because there is no certainty, I think, even on their part, that this was the right way to do it.

I cannot see the point of the clause or that it is at all helpful. I have real sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that parliaments cannot bind their successors. That view at least, about the character of parliamentary Government, must be common ground among us. In those circumstances, it must be common ground that Parliament is supreme, and it must be common ground that, should Parliament wish to stand down the 1972 Act, it would be within its competence to do so. It is extremely unlikely that it would, but that is neither here nor there in the terms in which the noble Lord put that proposition to the Committee. The supremacy argument is very powerful. One of the reasons that I have great difficulty with much of this legislation is that it seems to reduce the role of Parliament and the supremacy that it should enjoy. The points that have been made ad nauseam in your Lordships' House about multiple referenda do nothing for the objective of propping up the supremacy of Parliament, but the general proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, must be right.

If the Government feel that it is essential to have in place a clause that is declaratory, it might as well have the following characteristics. First, it should be so clear that even those of us who are not learned in the law understand it. Secondly, it should be sufficiently clear that it does not give rise to frequent legal challenge. Thirdly, it should make reference to—if I may put it this way—the core code that is involved in European legislation and not gloss over that. For those reasons, Amendment 57 offers greater clarification. It may well have been written with people who are used to dealing with sovereignty issues somewhere in the background, but it is none the less a straightforward clarification. Beyond that, Amendment 59 does that by a very direct reference to what I described as the core code—to the central proposition about why the status of our relationship to Europe is as it is.

If we did not have this clause at all, which would be my preference, much of what I said in the past few moments would not be particularly relevant. But if there is to be a declaratory cause it should at least have the characteristics that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, introduced in his speech this evening. It is impossible to misinterpret or misunderstand it. That has great merit and I hope that he will not mind my saying so from the opposition Benches. It does not alter my view that, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, the clause is not really necessary, but Amendment 59 has a convincing pedigree and that is what recommends it to me.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I will look first at Amendments 57 and 58 and then come to the vagueness charges embodied in Amendment 59. I will seek to explain why the words are in the Bill. Whether the explanation is acceptable to the Committee is another matter at the moment. I will explain that the words that are in the Bill work the other way: they add to the precision of the legislation rather than to the vagueness of it. I will come to that in a moment.

As noble Lords have recognised, Amendment 57 would include on the face of the Bill that Clause 18 does not alter the rights and obligations that the UK signed up to on becoming a member state of the European Union. It also seeks to legislate explicitly that Clause 18 does not alter the primacy of EU law. I am grateful to your Lordships for drawing attention to these two important principles: that the EU law has primacy and that the UK must honour its obligations as an EU member state. I assure the Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lea, with his Amendment 58, that the Bill supports both those principles. Indeed, the Bill has to support them. It is not a question of choice. The Bill has to support those principles because to do otherwise would put us in breach of our obligations as EU members.

I have serious concerns about Amendment 57. It does not reflect accurately the legal position regarding the UK's membership of the European Union. I say that because the UK follows the dualist constitutional model. Giving treaties effect in the UK is always a two-stage process. That did not seem to feature in the debate that we just had. The first stage—the signing of the treaty during which the UK may take on rights and obligations—is governed by public international law. The rights and obligations assumed by the UK on becoming an EU member state are governed by public, international law rather than domestic law. Those rights and obligations are binding on the United Kingdom under international law irrespective of the existence of the European Communities Act or any other Act of Parliament and will continue to be so as long as the UK continues to be a member state of the European Union. It follows that the EU Bill does not and cannot change the rights and obligations assumed by the United Kingdom on becoming a member of the European Union. It would be misleading to suggest in this or in any Bill that any Act of Parliament could do this. Such a change could only be done by the UK renegotiating the terms of its membership of the European Union.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that Governments can of course seek to bind future Governments. Most Governments whom I know, and whom many of your Lordships know, have sought to bring in great legislation. Let us take, for instance, some of the privatisation provisions under the earlier Thatcher Government. Our hope was that those would endure. We hoped that a future Government would feel bound by privatisation visions, not renationalise the whole of the then privatised sector—indeed, our hopes were in fact borne out. However, a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament; that is a completely different proposition. It is of course possible that a future Parliament could repeal the 1972 Act although, interestingly, that would not remove the United Kingdom from the European Union. It could only be done by negotiation through Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union but those things are possible. Parliament can do anything and is supreme.

Noble Lords have asked what the point of Clause 18 is and why it is in the Bill. It confirms that the second stage of the dualist system, whereby the rights and obligations taken on by the UK are given effect in UK law and can therefore be enforced through the UK courts, must always be done by an Act of Parliament. Any suggestion that EU law constitutes a new, higher autonomous legal order and has or can develop into part of the UK’s legal system independent of statute are thereby refuted. That is very important indeed. Noble Lords may say: “So what? That is what the courts have always upheld”. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, acutely observed, it has been challenged. I think that the prosecution in the metric martyrs case tried to float the idea in the counter case that EU law had some autonomous existence independent of our own statute law. It has been raised and to say that it is not in question is simply factually wrong when people have questioned it.

It is therefore the view of the coalition that it is right and valuable that this declaratory clause should be in the Bill. Even if it can be said that the courts have so far upheld that position, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is well aware—having been, as he said, the father, godfather and grandfather of the 1972 Act and much of the legislation that flows from it—and as I know and we all know, these matters are challenged. They are, from time to time, challenged by learned legal minds and there is dispute about them. Far from this clause being unnecessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, ventured to argue with great clarity, I maintain that on the basis of our own experience—what we hear, read and see in the public debate—it is necessary that it should be in place. That is my view on Clause 57 but I will obviously think hard about the views that were put forward by extremely acute and expert minds on this matter. However, I said that I would set out how the Government see the matter and that is how we see it.

Amendment 59 was a very important part of the argument put forward by a number of noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Let me explain why we have in there “an Act of Parliament” rather than “by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972”. I reassure my noble and learned friend that we have thought about this very carefully because it is a complex balance of issues and we wanted very much to get it right.

The Government accept that Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act is commonly identified as the primary way in which EU law takes effect in the UK, but unfortunately that is not quite right. There are other Acts which can be interpreted as giving effect to EU law within the UK; for example, there are some provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Northern Ireland Act 1998—and I believe there were other earlier Northern Ireland Acts as well, as I remember taking part in some myself. Then there are the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Equality Act 2006. They all put Ministers under an obligation to act in accordance with EU law without reference to the European Communities Act—and there may be other such Acts in future. Who knows? We have to prepare for these things. It was to address this concern and those facts that Clause 18 was deliberately drafted to refer to Acts in the plural, or an Act of Parliament, rather than solely referring to Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.

I reassure my noble friends that having carefully thought about it and come down on that side of the argument, which we believe to be the comprehensive and effective one, there was no sinister purpose. It was simply a design to ensure that all the means by which directly effective or applicable EU law could be given an effect in the UK legal order are addressed. That is the raison d’etre and the underlying argument why the clause is there, why it is necessary and why it is so worded.

I would like to say a final word, or semi-final word—or penultimate word—about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at Second Reading, which he touched on again today. He queried what on earth paragraph 113 was doing in the Explanatory Notes, which refers to the,

“UK subordinate legislation … and … Acts and Measures of the devolved legislatures”.

The answer is that EU law can be given effect in the UK legal order, not only directly through primary legislation but through means of delegated legislation adopted under primary legislation. The obvious example of this is the secondary legislation giving effect to EU measures adopted under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, and the reference in Clause 18 to,

“by virtue of an Act of Parliament”,

covers that aspect.

I said that was my penultimate comment. My noble and extremely learned friend Lord Howe did that dangerous thing of mentioning the Commonwealth, which has not really come into this Bill at all. I cannot resist making the point that if we are to promote the interests of this nation as a positive member of the European Union, and to do so fit in to this extraordinary new world in which all the wealth and accumulated savings and first the economic and now the political power have shifted to a degree away from the Atlantic nations and the West to the new emerging worlds of Asia, Africa and Latin America, these are the new networks in which we must also involve ourselves. We must work to ensure that our European membership enables us to take our full part in these things to reinforce each other.

I had to get that in, only because my noble and learned friend tempted me. It has very little to do with the amendment, but I think that I have explained why the two points raised by noble Lords with great learning and authority fit in to the fact that the clause is necessary; it may be declaratory but it does a job, and that is why it is there, and it is drafted as an Act of Parliament rather than the European Communities Act 1972 but deliberately and carefully.

I think I said a word about the amendment intended to help proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. I assure him that there is no way in which Clause 18 alters the commitment or position of the primacy of European Union law, which in turn rests as it always must on the will and Act of Parliament supported by the courts. That is why I would ask noble Lords and the noble and learned Lords to consider what they have put forward and withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I would like to spend a little time ruminating on something that the Minister said. He said that if this Parliament repealed the 1972 Act and the relevant parts of the other Acts that he mentioned, we would still be bound by Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Article 50 is of course the laborious and expensive process that Lisbon allows for a member state to leave the European Union over a period of some two years. Why is that so? Surely if we have repealed the 1972 Act, have we not repealed everything that flows from it, including Article 50. Could we not then get out much quicker and rather more cheaply?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am proceeding on this subject on the close advice of lawyers. I am advised that even if we repealed the Act, under international law we would remain a member of the European Union until such time as we negotiated our way out of it under Article 50. That is the point that I was making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

I will say something on this, prompted by the Minister’s speech, just to oppose that Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill. We have had an excellent discussion—civilised, expert, well argued and showing the real quality of the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, at the end did his best to explain why the Government think that the inclusion of this clause is necessary. I am no lawyer—one comes to these matters as a bird of little brain—but we will have to give what he said in his speech a lot of thought over the Recess. I am glad that we have the Recess to think about it.

The fundamental question at the back of my mind on this clause—and at the back of the minds of many Members who have moved amendments to it—which the Government have failed to answer, is: why is this clause required now? We have been members of the European Union satisfactorily for nearly 40 years. Why do we need to introduce this clause at this stage? How will it improve our relationship with the EU? I have not come across a good, objective answer to that question. I am sorry to lower the tone and talk about crude politics but I think the reason why this clause is included is because it is intended to satisfy and appease some of the worst elements—from our point of view—of feeling about Europe in this country.

I have always believed in something that I call the Dora Gaitskell principle of politics. This is based on the story that when Hugh Gaitskell made his great “thousand years of British history” speech at the Labour conference in 1962, and it was a tremendous success and the hall rose—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was probably there—Dora turned to Hugh and said, “But Hugh, all the wrong people are cheering”. I wonder who is cheering this sovereignty clause. Why are the Government doing this? The whole idea of introducing some sort of sovereignty clause goes back a long way. I was not at the Labour conference in 1962 but I had to listen to the comments of the Common Market Safeguards Campaign and the Labour Common Market Safeguards Committee in the 1970s. I remember Peter Shore, for whom I had the greatest respect as an individual, strongly putting forward the argument that we should renege on Section 2 of the European Communities Act. For the past 20 years we have had the redoubtable and indefatigable William Cash making these kind of arguments in the other place.

The Government have to explain to us why, after 40 years of membership, we need this clause now. My fear is that anything we do in this area will be misinterpreted and will be an invitation to the courts to change what has been a relatively clear position up to now. That is why we must come back to this issue with all seriousness on Report. With that, I withdraw my opposition at this stage to Clause 18 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble Lord has touched on a number of the issues that we have already covered. He asks yet again why the clause is there. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, slightly mocks the coalition, and mocks me, by suggesting that this all turns on the prosecution’s line in a particular case. It does not, of course; it turns on a very wide number of views. I do not know whether he has studied all the academic views submitted to the scrutiny committee in the other place, but they were substantial. They reflect a substantial body of thought which asserts that EU law is autonomous and independent. This measure is in line with the practice of other member states. Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, ruled in 1993 in the case of Brunner v the European Union Treaty—this was in the Common Market Law Reports 57—that Community law applies in Germany only because laws passed by the German Parliament say that it does. Therefore, although the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, put it extremely kindly when he said that we are raising the bar above others, I am not sure that that is so. In some cases, we are actually catching up with others. We are simply moving to a position of declaring that the will of Parliament is supreme in all our laws in this kingdom, but that Parliament has willed that EU law should have supremacy. That is and has been the position since we passed the 1972 Act all those long nights and years ago, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe reminded us.

There it is. I have clearly listened carefully to this excellent and learned debate. I owed it to the House and to your Lordships to explain why the coalition reached the view that a clause of this kind, after careful consideration, should be worded in this way. That is particularly important because I hope that the clause now carries a little more support from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and others. I tried to explain the position as clearly as possible. We have a good and valuable case that reinforces our stance vis-à-vis Europe, which is, as I said, positive and constructive in the dangerous and fluid world where new and positive thoughts are urgently required.

Clause 18 agreed.

Education: Bahraini Students

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make representations to the Government of Bahrain on behalf of those Bahrainians studying in the United Kingdom whose courses have been terminated.

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

My Lords, we urge the Government of Bahrain to meet all their human rights obligations and to uphold political freedoms, equal access to justice and the rule of law. The British Government are aware of allegations about the Bahraini Government’s actions towards some Bahraini students studying in the United Kingdom. These are clearly of considerable concern. Our ambassador in Bahrain raised the issue with the Bahraini Minister of Justice on 4 May, saying that it was wrong for students to be punished for exercising a right to peaceful demonstration, as recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We will continue to make our concerns clear to the Bahraini authorities.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, has my noble friend actually made representations to the Bahraini authorities that they should restore the grants to these particular students, who will otherwise be left destitute in this country? Does he think that these students are likely to obey the summons to return to their country when, this morning, the court sentenced demonstrators to 20 years’ imprisonment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have certainly made representations along those lines, in very strong terms. I could not speculate on what kind of result the pressures will have, but we have made the point that students are free to carry on activities here as long as they do not commit a criminal offence. That is the law and we have made the situation absolutely clear to the Bahraini authorities.

[Lord Ahmed]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that MINAB—the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board—has expressed deep concerns about the Bahraini authorities’ demolition of 10 Shia mosques? As a Sunni, I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will make representations to the Bahraini Government asking them to refrain from demolishing places of worship.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, we certainly will do so—and may well have done so already. I appreciate very much the insights of the noble Lord, as he understands the tensions, difficulties and divisions of this situation. In addition to making representations—which of course is not good enough unless one gets results—we have noted that the authorities in Bahrain have agreed to lift the state of emergency and to accelerate investigations into deaths in detention, and they have invited in the UN to investigate abuses at the Salmaniya hospital. That goes beyond the question of mosque demolition, but it indicates that we have the sustained pressure and that we might be getting some progress. However, there is a long way to go before we move to the dialogue that we want to see the Bahraini authorities organise in their country.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the sanctions against the students here in the UK—who, as he said, were exercising the democratic right to protest peacefully that is available to them here—their families have been arrested, locked up and told that they will not be released until the students stop protesting and opposing the regime? Can my noble friend tell the House whether the UN and other international bodies working on this Bahraini impasse would consider appointing an envoy to go to Bahrain and investigate these abuses?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have not had reports this morning about the first point that my noble friend raised, but obviously there is concern in all the international bodies about what has been happening. As I have said, we have urged the Government of Bahrain to create the environment in which a dialogue can take place. This is the pressure being put on the Bahraini authorities at the moment and we intend to pursue it. The issue of taking wider action at the UN has not arisen and, at the moment, there is no sign of organised support for any movement of that kind. But, obviously, these matters are always in our minds.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Bahrain is very complex and different from a lot of the other centres of unrest that we are witnessing in the Middle East, not least because of the problems alluded to by my noble friend? There is the Shia-Sunni conflict, the problem of outside influences and, indeed, tensions within the Bahraini Government themselves. Would the Minister consider chairing a meeting of those of us who are interested in Bahraini issues so that we might have an opportunity to discuss some of these issues in perhaps greater detail, perhaps with some briefing as well from the Foreign Office? I think that that would be immensely helpful and I would be grateful if the noble Lord would consider doing it.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As far as I am concerned, I am always free to do that—of course—and I suspect from the noises that I hear around me that that would be a good move. Let us work to see if we can find time to get together and move ahead on that basis.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, at the risk of striking a discordant note, could I put it to my noble friend that the business of the Government is governing this country rather than telling eternally almost every other Government in the world how to govern theirs?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very surprised that my noble friend is striking a discordant note, but he makes the perfectly serious point that we cannot resolve every issue in every corner of the earth. However, there are our interests—and our interests happen to be rather acute in this very sensitive area of the Middle East, where not only does one of our major allies have a huge fleet and we have our contact and communications operations for trying to control the piracy that is a direct affront to our interests, our shipping and our prosperity, but there are many other British interests as well. I think that we are entitled to look after our interests in a reasonable way without—my noble friend is quite right—interfering in every conceivable situation.

EU: Transfer of Iranian Refugees

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to a proposal from a European Parliament delegation to Iraq that the European Union Council of Ministers and European Commission seek international support for the voluntary transfer of Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf to European Union member states, the United States and Canada.

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

My Lords, we are aware of the recent visit to Iraq by the European parliamentary delegation and its proposed solution to the complex challenges that Camp Ashraf presents. Resettlement may represent a way forward, although we do not assess that residents would qualify for resettlement in the UK. Responsibility for Camp Ashraf lies with the Government of Iraq, and we call on all sides to engage in constructive dialogue to reach a lasting solution. We deplore the recent loss of life and injury.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

Will the Minister understand that attempts peacefully to resolve the position of Ashraf cannot begin until Iraqi and Iranian forces stop the brutal murder of residents of Ashraf, the wounding of literally hundreds of residents and the use of psychological torture through 280 loudspeakers around the camp perimeter, threatening the lives of those in the camp? Will he now ask the Prime Minister to urge the UN Security Council to take over responsibility for the protection of Ashraf residents, to secure the withdrawal of Iraqi and Iranian forces from the camp and to ensure that the wounded get the treatment and the medical supplies that they need to get better?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

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

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

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

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is a matter that should and does concern us all. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has now agreed to take the Ashraf issue on to the agenda at the next European Union Foreign Affairs Council on 23 May. We are moving in that direction.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not only are the wounded still not gaining medical supplies but that these people have not even been allowed to bury their dead in their own cemetery? Will he accept that, under the Geneva protocols, these are protected persons? At the risk of offending the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, again, can I add that international law requires other states to take positive action to protect innocent civilians in these circumstances? Will the international community come together to resettle these people voluntarily, either within Iraq or in other countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I referred earlier in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, to the problem about resettlement in different countries. Neither this country nor our neighbouring countries are in a position to resettle these people; they simply do not qualify. On the medical treatment issue, these points have been raised and the UN, again with our support, has stressed the importance of the Iraqi Government co-operating with the camp’s leadership to ensure that residents get the treatment they need. After the dreadful 8 April incident, a number of the injured were transferred to a US hospital and all those have now returned to the camp. The issue of serious medical deprivation and serious medical assistance is very much in our minds and in the minds of the United Nations, and we will continue to watch the situation very carefully. There appear to be some transfers of cases to hospitals in Baghdad and Erbil. The situation is not totally black, but it is very dark indeed.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

Does my noble friend agree that this situation has now reached the point where a fresh approach is required if it is ever going to be resolved in a sensible and humanitarian way? Is it not clear that Iraq would like to have this issue settled one way or the other but that it is choosing a route that is resulting in grotesque crimes against the civilian population in Ashraf? Surely the moment has come when the United Nations and the European Union together should take the initiative to find a lasting solution that will satisfactorily rehouse the residents of Ashraf elsewhere out of Iraq?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I certainly hope that that moment will come. The present course of Iraq appears to be that, by means that are not at all acceptable, it can shrink the perimeters of this very large camp. This has led to the kind of horrors we saw on 8 April and so clearly that is the wrong route. I hope that at the meeting of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council, which I have already mentioned, the prospects for redirecting the Government of Iraq into a wiser course and taking broader steps with the support of the European Union will crystallise. That is what I hope will happen.

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead]

My Lords, on the protected persons status under the Geneva Convention, is the Minister aware that his colleague, Alistair Burt, wrote to me on 9 May saying that my concerns about this protected persons status were not sustainable because there was no warlike “scenario”, as he described it, in Camp Ashraf? Does the Minister agree that the people who were attacked on 8 April, when the camp was invaded at four o’clock in the morning and resulted in at least 38 people being slaughtered, including eight women, could be forgiven for thinking that it is a warlike situation? Mr Maliki should be told that his freedom in Iraq is there only because of the sacrifice of British and American troops all those years ago.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree with the feeling behind the noble Lord’s statement. If the underlying thought of the question was whether these people could be protected by the fourth Geneva Convention, I am afraid the answer, again, is negative; it is not, in the sense recognised by the convention, a war situation. It remains, nevertheless, whatever the lawyers tell us, a very unpleasant situation, and we must all move to see whether we can advance towards a creative solution.

BBC World Service

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the BBC on the development of the World Service.

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

My Lords, we have regular discussions with the BBC World Service. We are aware that the BBC World Service has already reprioritised resources to minimise the effect of the cuts to the BBC Arabic service. We are also looking at ways that we can work with the BBC Arabic service and the BBC World Service Trust on specific projects under the Arab Partnership Initiative. We have also been in discussion with the BBC Trust, the BBC World Service and the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport over an amendment to the BBC agreement that will include setting out the role of the Foreign Secretary once the funding of the World Service transfers to the licence fee in 2014-15.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but perhaps I may raise specifically the cuts being planned in news reporting on the Arabic service, which, incidentally, will be unaffected by any resources from DfID through the World Service Trust. Does he not agree that this is a crucial time in the Arab world and the Middle East—so important that other television stations are expanding their reporting and Sky is soon to introduce an entirely new service there? Given that the World Service is already well established, respected and cost-effective, should not our aim be to develop the Arabic service, not to cut it back?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course that is absolutely right and my noble friend is extremely well informed on these matters. In fact, I really wanted to say to him that when he spoke about these matters the other day, I said that he was “misinformed”. On reflection, I think that that is too strong a word, and I apologise to him for it. He was correctly drawing on the BBC World Service circular, but that did not quite present the whole picture about the fact that the 24-hour service is being maintained in one form or another—although it is perfectly true that live broadcasts have been curtailed.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned in my Answer, we are working on specific projects under the Arab Partnership Initiative, and we hope that that initiative will be expanded and, therefore, that opportunities for more support for the service will expand. I should add that if one looks at the totality of the projection of our soft power communication with the Arab world, since between November last year and February there has been a 263 per cent increase in online BBC Arabic usage, a 949 per cent increase in requests for Arabic TV online streaming from the BBC, and a 559 per cent increase in online video requests. No one can say that we are backward in promoting the British message, persuading, using influence and communicating in a highly effective way with the turbulent Arab world.

[Lord Soley]

Has the noble Lord taken into account the very important fact that not just in the Middle East but in Iran as well television coverage is particularly important and that it is much more expensive than radio coverage? Will he give the House an undertaking that, in looking at these figures, the Government will take into account the additional cost of TV coverage to the Middle East and Iran to make sure that we do not undermine this crucial part of our soft power?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is quite right. As I indicated in the figures that I gave, although radio remains immensely important, the trend is towards television becoming the dominant leader. We can see from the enormous rise in the influence of Al-Jazeera just how powerful it is and how important it is to promote our own TV services. Therefore, although I cannot give precise undertakings on precise figures, that is clearly a high priority.

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, following the reprieve of the Hindi service, are any of the other foreign language services that have been cut likely to be able to benefit from a similar rescue package, possibly including commercial partnerships?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary gave permission for five foreign language services to be cut, mainly because their usage had fallen dramatically. However, the allocation of resources for maintaining foreign language services and the possibilities of bringing in commercial support are matters for the BBC World Service and, after 2014, for the BBC. The Department for International Development is discussing ways in which it can work in a more strategically joined-up manner with the BBC World Service Trust, which itself produces the prospect of more support for the services we want to keep and are effective and fit into the modern technological pattern.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, I hope that this is not irrelevant. If, as the noble Lord said, the BBC is cutting back, why do I have to listen at 3 am to the most ghastly children’s programme for the under-fives when that time could surely be put to use for foreign broadcasts somewhere in the world where it is not 3 am?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have a feeling that the slightly cop-out answer is that that really is a matter for the programmers and directors of the BBC World Service and not for me at 3 am in the morning. Nevertheless, although the World Service and many other aspects of government and government agencies have had to trim their sails in line with the general austerity measures, for reasons which we all know about, in general great strides are being made in expanding the communication network in these areas and in reorganising BBC programmes in a way that, I hope, will not disturb my noble friend quite so challengingly.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords saw the photograph of a young man protesting in Deraa, Syria, holding up a placard on which was written “Thank you BBC”. I think that that says it all. Can the Minister persuade his friends at DfID that the World Service is regarded by the recipients of our aid as priceless and ask them to look up exactly what that means?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that my honourable friends and colleagues in DfID are well aware of that. It is a very important element in the deployment of soft power by this nation and it makes an important contribution to the overall soft-power communication message. No one doubts that for a moment. The budget is still substantial. It has had to take a cut proportionate with the huge cut that the Foreign Office had to take at the time of the exchange rate farrago. That had a huge impact on the Foreign Office. All the agencies concerned have had to take a proportionate share of that, but no more than proportionate compared with 2008.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

When the BBC accepts financial responsibility for the World Service, who has the final word on to which countries and to what extent the BBC broadcasts: the Foreign Secretary or those who pay the piper, the BBC?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The finality and responsibility will be very carefully defined. A new broadcasting agreement is now being worked out between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC that will define exactly the rights and responsibilities of the Foreign Secretary. However, at present, the final word is with the Foreign Secretary and it was he who sanctioned and approved the cuts in, I think, five of the foreign language services. Beyond that, it has been a matter for the BBC World Service itself to work out how best to use its resources.

European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

I think that the schedule, as presently drafted, is a complete mess. It would be shameful if the Government came back with it on Report. I hope that they will be willing to give fundamental consideration to an amendment to the Bill.

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

My Lords, I want to be brief, too, but I am not sure that I will succeed. This has been an immensely interesting and wide-ranging debate, as is often the way with European Union issues. All sorts of aspects have come into the debate, which are raised by the contents of Schedule 1, which we are debating. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has described it in various critical terms—was it mishmash? I cannot remember.

I shall attempt to explain exactly why the things in Schedule 1 are there, and I think that I will be able to show that this is not quite the random selection or lottery that has been implied. I appreciate that there are obviously a number of views on the existence and scope of the provisions in Schedule 1. I have obviously looked very carefully at the amendments tabled and at some of the arguments that have been used this evening, as we have done with all amendments tabled in Committee. I do not accept the censorious view that these matters have not been addressed seriously. Every single item in the Bill has been considered very seriously, particularly all the items in Schedule 1, just as there is a long list of less significant issues where there is unanimity at present and a veto could be removed, which are not even in Schedule 1.

The idea that there has been no consideration of these matters is not really representative of the reality. There has been immensely detailed consideration of every one in Schedule 1. Last night we went over some of the implications, which are huge, behind the nature of the different groups of items in Schedule 1. We did not go over the many other items that are not in Schedule 1, where a veto could be lifted. It is thought that although that is significant it would justify just an Act of Parliament and not the deterrent of the referendum lock. I must address the central issue—again, this will take time—put by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. He asked whether there was any one item that one could remove from the referendum lock category down to the parliamentary Act of Parliament lock instead, or maybe even to a lower lock of merely approval of the two Houses—the sort of not very secure lock that has existed in the past over many areas. I understand that opposition spokesmen are saying that they now want to move on from that, and found not so much difficulty as they did in the past with Acts of Parliament.

Can one think of any of these areas and why the present list in Schedule 1 is as it is? It is not just the random British view of a whole series of things that people want to keep unanimity for. Many of these items are there because during the discussions leading up to the negotiation of the Lisbon treaty, which many noble Lords are very familiar with, a whole range of countries insisted that they should stay at unanimity. All kinds of other matters were moved away to QMV in the Lisbon treaty and in previous treaties, but people argued at the time—we all remember it—that the Lisbon treaty was, as it were, the high point and that many issues had been moved to QMV, but that in the national interest of many member countries a certain range of matters should be kept at unanimity, and that the veto should not be surrendered for those countries. That in itself explains why Schedule 1 exists in the form it does.

[Lord Dykes]

I apologise for making a brief intervention, but is that not an extraordinary suggestion? Why then are the UK Government including some of those items if they are not particularly interested in them, because they came from other countries? What about innocuous articles such as Article 155? Why is that in this long, provocative list of items? It is an extraordinary proposition.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord used the word “innocuous”. I do not believe that any of the matters in Schedule 1, which were put there with very careful evaluation and judgment, are innocuous. As I tried to explain last night, there are other areas of unanimity in which a veto could be removed that could be put in the less significant, if not the totally innocuous, category.

The list in Schedule 1 is not there by chance, accident or lottery; it is there because each has been evaluated and covers very sensitive issues where there would be a transfer of power. If the opportunity were taken to remove our veto in these areas—not to act, be active or develop policies in the areas—that would surrender an important power, which might greatly damage this country’s future national interest. I appreciate the sensitivity of the issues concerned.

I do not want to raise any hopes, but I do not think that the amendments, some of which have been advanced with great clarity and feeling—I shall come to specific amendments in a moment—are an appropriate opportunity to remove items from the schedule. I want to set out as clearly as I can, and as seriously and in as detailed a way as I can, why that is so. Of course, I shall continue to reflect on the points raised in today’s debate. As I said last night and in earlier Committee sittings, I am very happy to meet colleagues who want to discuss and analyse this or any other aspect of the Bill.

As ever, I have carefully listened to the Opposition’s wish—I believe it is a central theme—that they want more flexibility. I say “more” flexibility because there is flexibility in the whole pattern, as we discussed earlier. In Clause 4, there is flexibility, through the significance provisions. There is flexibility in the sense that all kinds of issues are not in Schedule 1, and those that are included in it are there for very careful reasons. As we shall learn as our discussions in Committee proceed, there is also flexibility in that a number of issues will be suitable, if changed, for an Act of Parliament rather than the application of the referendum lock. That is the flexibility theme that the Opposition have developed. They want, as I understand it, to lift the lock on some matters of competence and power. I do not want to make a cheap debating point—the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, possibly seemed to be indirectly reproving me—but I am not 100 per cent clear where, after all the work in the Lisbon treaty and the huge range of competences that exist in vital areas, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke so graphically, they want us to further extend the EU’s powers. My noble friend Lord Goodhart made it crystal clear, as usual, with the clarity of a fine legal mind—I say that with envy, because I wish I had the same sort of legal mind—where he wanted unanimity to be given up. I want to address his points specifically; he urged that unanimity should be given up—he used strong words, one of which was “absurd”, about there being any resistance to abandoning the veto in these areas. It was obviously not resistance to operating in these areas—we all want to see all sorts of operations—but resistance to giving up any veto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodhart]

Does my noble friend agree, however, that a situation might arise in which it is desired to change from unanimity to a qualified majority vote on the ground that some member states might become very obstructive to the choice of particular members of the judiciary or the advocates-general, and that it, might be the only way of ensuring that the problems did not become overwhelming?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It becomes a matter of hypothesis and judgment. This is an area where, somehow, one has to have solidarity and consensus. Given that it requires unanimity to go to QMV, it would be a pretty odd action by the country that did not want to go to QMV to act totally against its interest. It is an inconceivable situation. However, if a country did so, it would be a very bad basis for supporting the independence and overall quality of the EU judiciary and of the key figures like the advocates-general and judges. It remains the view of this Government that to move away from a consensus and concord of agreement and support for these kinds of appointments would be very unfortunate. I think this would be the view of future Governments, too. I do not regard this as binding; I simply regard it as common sense.

Neither under this amendment nor under Amendment 47—which I also want to speak to because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put his point so keenly and strongly—is there any question of not being able to operate or contribute to the election and appointment of advocates-general or anything else under any of these articles. The issue is simply whether it is right that we surrender the veto, so that in a future situation it might be possible that we would not be able to resist measures and proposals that were directly against our own national interest and judgment.

Let me turn to Amendment 47, which would remove key justice and home affairs provisions from Schedule 1 and therefore from the referendum lock. I know that the noble Lord is a keen expert in this area. As I said before, Schedule 1 does not prevent the use of these articles. This is a narrow exposition of a much broader point which I would urge many noble Lords who have spoken to comprehend. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about a meeting of minds, and I would love to see one, but it is difficult if it is not understood that the central point is about whether we abandon vetoes, not whether we use the articles and competences that are already there.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Perhaps the Minister would not mind going back about one minute to what he was saying about advocates-general and members of the European Court of Justice. I think that sometimes the Government seem not to be very aware of the chemistry of decision-making in the European Union. The fact of the matter is that so long as you need unanimity to appoint these judges, we will never block one because we will be terrified that somebody will block ours. The chemistry is that so long as there is unanimity, nobody blocks anything and everyone goes through on the nod. That has been true ever since the European Union was set up. If you have QMV for this, and I am not saying that we should move to it immediately, there would be no such “see no evil, hear no evil” approach because you would be terrified that if you tried to block someone on abusive grounds, you would be overridden.

I think that some of the arguments that the Minister used about—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I will now await the answer.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am longing to get on. I have taken too much time already and not met in sufficient detail some of the very profound arguments that have been made. We may perhaps have opportunities later.

On Amendment 47, by including the relevant item in Schedule 1, we are ensuring that the British people would have a say before the UK gave up the current practice of voting by unanimity on these particular areas. We, as well as the previous Government, and several partners in the member states—I would suspect the majority—would view that with very great sensitivity indeed. That is all I have time to say on these vital issues, but that indicates that these are not chance items that were just bunged into Schedule 1, but very serious issues on which there would be a very serious situation, should it come to giving up the veto, that would certainly demand the referendum lock.

I will say a word on Amendment 46 and then I will try to close because there is a great deal more to say, particularly on Amendment 47A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Flight. Amendment 46 refers to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is the engine room of the EU. As we know, the Treaty on European Union sets out provisions of principle in a number of sensitive areas, such as common foreign and security policy, and the TFEU sets out the bulk of policy areas and the extent of the competence in which the EU can act. It has considerable read-across to areas on which we in Parliament would otherwise legislate and which are of vital importance, such as social policy, criminal policy, tax policy, police matters and other things that the British people rightly regard as very intimate domestic issues. Some of the articles in the TFEU have been moved over to QMV. We have previously made clear that this Government have no intention of giving up any veto in the EU treaties, and nor have several other member states.

I reiterate that, for many member states and perhaps for ourselves, Lisbon was passed and is a fact, but it took a great slice of the issues into QMV and a great slice of them was also preserved. They were preserved because member states did not wish to give them up. Some vetoes are plainly not within the bracket that will be a vital issue at all—for example, Article 219(1) of TFEU on the setting of the Euro exchange rates with third countries. A number of vetoes fall within the sensitive policy areas defined by the last Government and successive administrations as so-called “red lines”. Those vetoes should be subject to a referendum lock, if ever there was a proposal to give these up in the future.

Finally, I must say a word on Amendment 47A, which my noble friend moved. The provisions here, in respect of Article 207(4), are narrowly defined types of EU trade agreements, requiring unanimity. I considered this amendment very carefully, as did my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe. The conclusion was that it did not make sense—and this, I hope it will be recognised, is evidence of some flexibility—to include this in Schedule 1. That does not mean that we intend to agree to give up this veto in the future, but the treaty base is not of as great a level of sensitivity for the United Kingdom, as it is for some other Member States, for whom it certainly is sensitive. An Act of Parliament would therefore be sufficient here, rather than the referendum lock.

I hope that I have given some evidence that we are looking at these matters very carefully, and that we are acting in a proportionate way. There is a scale here. The vital issues are in Schedule 1, and the less vital issues are not in Schedule 1 or would not attract the referendum lock. We have sought to increase ministerial accountability. We have not sought—contrary to the views of some noble Lords—to squander money and time by seeking to legislate for a string of referendums on matters of relative insignificance. Those matters are not in the schedule. Instead, we ask for the British people's agreement when transferring further powers from the UK to the EU in areas which define who we are as a nation and as a people.

These transfers are unlikely ever to be proposed on an individual basis—whatever noble Lords may argue—and only in the context of a package, given the opposition from several member states to moves to qualified majority voting in these areas. Indeed, articles in Schedule 1, where unanimity needs to be safeguarded, are there precisely because member states—including ourselves—have resisted going to QMV to protect our national interest. That is why they are there.

In conclusion, Schedule 1 provides clarity in the Bill, not confusion. It is a definitive and unambiguous list of treaty articles that we believe should concern the British people, if ever there is a proposal to give up a veto in those areas. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Government are obliged to seek the approval of both Parliament and the people before they can agree to the removal of the vetoes present in each of these articles in Schedule 1.

It is Schedule 1 that gives Parliament and the people assurance and therefore is a key element in rebuilding trust. That underlines why the contents of Schedule 1 are the right ones and why we argue strongly against moving from these areas towards what the Opposition call flexibility. To do so would allow a number of areas to generate the kind of doubt and distrust that we have seen in the past, which is now widespread quite a lot in this country and throughout Europe.

The declining popularity for the great European Union, which many of us have worked for and in for decades, is a bad development. Sensible Europeans need to recognise that and take moves to shore up and reassure the public support for the European Union project in the 21^st century. That is what this Bill is about. That is what we are trying to do. To begin picking little exemptions and holes in the Bill is the way to undermine its central purpose. I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Grenfell]

Before my very good friend the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put one very quick question to him of a practical nature. He mentioned that we were not the only country in the European Union that had referendum locks. Does he agree that it would be very helpful to the House if, when we get to Report, he could provide us with the list of countries and how many referendum locks that they have. I have a feeling that their number, collectively, may not add up the number of referendum locks that are being proposed by the Government.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I must hurry because time is running out, but I have in front of me a long list of countries both which have various forms of filter, referendum lock and mandate reference and which have opposed at every point any abandonment of unanimity on a whole range of issues, many of which I have covered this evening. Under my hand, I can see 15 to 20 countries straight off. I shall try to provide for noble Lords as much information as I can on the details of other countries doing what we are doing.

Palestine

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sheikh]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the proposed Palestinian statehood declaration, which is planned to be placed before the United Nations General Assembly in September.

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

My Lords, we see negotiations towards a two-state solution as the only way to meet the national aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians and lead to a sovereign, viable and contiguous Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside a safe and secure Israel and their other neighbours in the region.

The UK is fully committed to supporting the Fayyad plan and helping build the institutions of a future Palestinian state, but a negotiated solution remains the only result that will actually bring peace and justice to the Palestinian people. We call on the parties to return urgently to negotiations.

[Lord Sheikh]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he think that the agreement signed by Fatah and Hamas is a step in the right direction for the attainment of statehood? Does he also feel that the work done by the Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, in building the Palestinian institutions and economy has created the apparatus of a state, and that these achievements need to be recognised?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course this step is not yet fully consummated, but we want to see the formation of a Government who reject violence. If Hamas is to be part of that Government, it must reject violence; that is our position. If that were to go forward on the basis of the rejection of violence, we would see that as a good basis for building further hopes and moves towards serious negotiation. The Fayyad plan, as I have said, is something that we support. It takes us in the right direction towards building Palestinian statehood and getting the negotiations going again, which is central and crucial.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Would the Minister not agree that the tragic events of the weekend on the Syrian, Lebanese and Gazan border are just a taster of what we are in for as long as the vacuum in negotiations continues, and that the situation could get very much worse, given the instability in a number of Arab countries and the possibility that new Governments will be very sensitive to the views of radicals? Will he say what steps the Government are taking to urge the US President, who is to make an important speech on this matter in the next few days, to do something serious with the partners in the quartet to revive the peace process?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We are urging our allies and friends, including the United States, at all times. However, perhaps the noble Lord will recognise that a clear development in the region is the increasing determination of the surrounding Arab states to play for once a more forward part in these developments. Obviously we are deeply concerned by the events at the weekend, but if one can stand back from such horrors for a moment, it seems that they reinforce the urgent need for the Israeli Government and authorities to begin to move in a positive direction in a very fluid overall situation in the Middle East.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a premature declaration of a Palestinian state might destabilise the region rather than contribute to the emergence of a stable two-state solution?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The right reverend Prelate is right; it might do so. Of course one understands why there is a desire to move forward in this direction, but our position is that statehood must be built through the pattern of a negotiation that must be resumed, and that pressure should be put on both the Israeli side and on a peace-aiming, violence-rejecting Palestinian Government to move forward on that basis.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Is there any evidence of Hamas rejecting its present declaration about the death of Israel? As long as that continues, is it not a complete response to the present situation? Hamas must withdraw from its present declaration.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understand what the noble Lord is saying; I think we all do. However, our attitude and approach to Hamas will change when there is proof that Hamas has changed, and that proof is not yet visible.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, while I welcome the slight change of tone I think I detect in my noble friend’s remarks about Hamas, will he confirm to the House that Britain now does not require Hamas to recognise Israel as a precondition of negotiations, but that it naturally expects that to come before the end of negotiations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We want it to be part of the negotiations and part of the recognition of the quartet principles. My noble friend talks about a changing tone. We all have to realise that the whole situation throughout the Middle East is changing. The foreign policy of Egypt towards Gaza is changing, and the Syrian situation is highly fluid. All around there is enormous change, and there is tragedy as well, as we have seen over the weekend. In these circumstances, we have to retain a very agile and clear view of where we stand and where we want to go.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, does the Minister feel that the alliance between the PLO and Hamas, an organisation that is filled with terrorists and that has vowed the destruction of Israel, will help in the acceptance of a Palestinian state or hinder it?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It would help only if it produces a Government dedicated as a partnership for peace to negotiation. We are not there yet. The implication of the noble Lord’s question is quite right: until we move to that point, it will not help; when we are at that point, it will help.

European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, I have a feeling that we have reached the stage in the debate when we could leave the press and the Daily Express, and move to the precise issues and amendments in the debate.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

No, my Lords—

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord does not.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I wanted to press the mover and supporters of the amendment on one or two points. We have heard a lot during these debates about how inconvenient it is in the Council of Ministers if things get held up by the British people being consulted and the whole of that process in the United Kingdom. I ask those who support the amendment: what is their timeline for the independent review committee? It has to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Surely it will take a long time to be appointed, to meet, to deliberate, to report and all the rest of it. Are they not extending the inconvenience which they see as putting a spoke in the wheels of the European juggernaut?

Secondly, they seem to have great faith in the scrutiny of Parliament. I must repeat to them the figures given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on 7 February, when he told me in a Written Answer that in the years from 2004 to 2010 inclusive, the scrutiny reserve had been overridden no fewer than 347 times in your Lordships' House and 364 times in the House of Commons. Those figures, apart from being almost unbelievable and, I should have thought, destroying any pretence that parliamentary scrutiny was worth anything in the process of European legislation, must remove some of the confidence that the noble Lord has in his amendment.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are interesting and important points. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who was the father of the amendments, or one of the fathers—anyway, he has some paternity—will no doubt comment on them after me, but I thought that I should address some of the serious points. Not everyone has been sharply focused, but we have heard some extremely interesting observations and responses to them. I would like to express the Government's view.

Just to be clear, I say that the two amendments would make the question of whether to seek the consent of the British people in respect of the big 12 decisions in Clause 6—that is the big five or six decisions and then the whole section in Clause 6 which governs the surrender of the veto—subject to a small committee of either both Houses of Parliament or an independent review committee. The assessment of the committee, via the composition, would then be validated by a short debate and a single vote of each House of Parliament. That is what the amendment states.

That design—which, as the noble Lord said, was proposed only as a probe—would frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. Why would it do that? I will make the general point; I will come to the detailed ones in a moment. The amendments would, in effect, replay the history to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, because they would hint at referendums being held with the prospect that people would once again be denied their say because, in this case, some small committee of experts—or a committee of two Houses of Parliament—had made decisions. That undermines the whole intent and thrust underlying the Bill, which is designed to rebuild trust by ensuring that the British people can decide on the key decisions affecting the future course or expansion, if that is what is required, of the competences and powers of the European Union. By going into the detail—and I can see that the detail is considerable, because the legislative patterns of the European Union are very complex and detailed—the Bill makes clear the transfers of power and competence on which the British electorate would have the right to be consulted. However, the amendments would seek to unpick that by making recommendations in small committees.

Therefore, in effect, the British people would be denied the say that they want when EU powers are to be expanded. Very few seem to want that anyway and I am very puzzled by the sudden passion of the Front Bench opposite for an expansion of powers. The British people would miss yet another opportunity to regain trust, further exacerbating the electorate’s disconnection with, and cynicism towards, the European Union. That is what the amendments would do and that is why I am glad they are only probing amendments and not a serious intention to undermine the whole purpose and spirit of the Bill.

[Lord Triesman]

Can the noble Lord give me one or two examples of the extensions that he believes this Front Bench supports and is enthusiastic about? I ask that because, certainly during the previous day in Committee, and I think that he is also inferring it tonight, it was suggested that we were in favour of the possible production of a European army—something to which I was explicitly opposed as a Minister, as I am tonight—and the abandonment of Schengen, to which I have been explicitly opposed, as we were in government. What are the examples? These are either straw men or there is substance to them.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My difficulty in answering that question is due to the difficulty that the Opposition have in stating why they want particular treaty amendments and expansions of the powers and competences of the European Union. When we have pressed on this matter, it has been a bit like “King Lear”: the Opposition seem to want to do “such things” and there will be uncertain futures in which new powers will somehow be needed for the European Union. Therefore, they want to amend the Bill by removing areas where the Bill would prevent the surrender of the veto. That would not prevent activity, because a huge range of competences accorded to the European Union allow it to be highly active in all these areas. However, the Opposition want to remove the vetoes on the big decisions. I think that they want a referendum on the euro, although I am not at all sure about the others and I want to go through them as we discuss these matters. The Opposition have not answered that. Why do they want these huge treaty changes, and why do they want the vetoes removed? It seems to me beyond understanding that they should want vetoes removed when so many powers and competences are now accorded to the European Union, and they can do all sorts of things to achieve the kind of Europe that we want in the future. If the Opposition have some new ideas for expanding the powers of the European Union, let them state them, otherwise we are left with a kind of “King Lear” situation—they will do “such things” as it is too difficult to mention at this time.

I want to turn to the 12 decisions in Clause 6, which cover highly sensitive areas. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, call some of them trivial, it made me, in the words of Hilaire Belloc, gasp and stretch my eyes. When one looks at the reality of them—their real-world implications—they are anything but trivial. The big five decisions under Clause 6 include joining the eurozone, and there seems to be a general consensus that there should be a referendum on that. Incidentally, I reassure my noble friend Lord Lamont that there is not really a problem there at all. The referendum would take place before the UK took the decision, and the exchange rate would then be struck at a certain point in the middle of the night or whenever it was technically advisable to do so. I think that my noble friend put that in perfect perspective.

On the provisions relating to EU common defence, I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, say such decisions could not necessarily lead to anything too serious—I do not want to parody him—because it was a complex issue and it might be desirable, I suppose he was saying, to give up the veto or decide to join without a referendum because not too much harm could come from it. That is miles from reality. In fact, under an EU common defence policy—on which we would urge there should be a referendum—we would no longer be able to decide independently which situations and developments we should respond to and which situations represented a threat to our national security, we would lose our ability to decide unilaterally which operations we would mount and it would no longer be our choice alone whether we should act independently or with whom we should act in concert. Of course, in this modern world we will always be acting in concert, but we decide. To say that is in the trivial category seems to me to be taking off to another planet.

[Lord Liddle]

I cannot recollect using the word “trivial”, to be quite honest. The key point we were trying to make is that, when he talks about a common defence as though we were going to pool all our military and have a common air force and a common army and all the rest, that is a complete straw man. That is not what anyone on the continent is proposing. The real issues in European defence are ones such as why we have—I cannot remember the precise figure—400,000 people under arms yet we can manage to mobilise only 5,000 for a particular operation and why, in terms of bang for the buck, Europe is so unbelievably inefficient, given all the different national procurement systems. When we are up against it on the defence budget, the Government are saying they are not interested in common procurement and how we make that work. What we are talking about is very small-scale, step-by-step, gradual changes that would be useful, not suddenly deciding that we want to have a common army and a common air force. It is ludicrous to say that the Opposition are in favour of that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The Maastricht treaty and other treaties make clear that common defence means common control and common finance. There may be all sorts of arrangements short of that with some aspects of existing competencies already available to the European Union for all kinds of co-operation. I am going to come particularly to the question of enhanced co-operation and other military aspects in a moment. The noble Lord is splitting hairs. In the treaty it is perfectly clear what this step would involve. He says that there might be just one small step and it will be all right because we can have adjustments later on; that is not how it really works and certainly not how it works in law and under the treaties.

Let me move on, as I have plenty more to say on the other areas that were apparently described as trivial. Those included abolishing border controls—I feel it absolutely extraordinary to put that in the trivial category, as it is a major issue. Joining the European public prosecutor system, which is already in the treaty, or extending its powers when we had joined it is a very serious issue affecting the whole of our judicial system. Then we come to—

[Lord Goodhart]

Is my noble friend aware that the EPPO would have virtually no effect on litigation or law in the United Kingdom? It would affect only a few elements which involve entirely cross-border matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think we are going to join the EPP. The previous Government did not want it, this Government do not want it and I suspect a future Government would not want it. The issue here is whether, if we were in the system and it sought to expand its powers, we would have been right to give up the veto or would we hope to achieve advance by unanimity. Would it not be more sensible, particularly in the legal areas that the noble Lord knows so well, to advance via a system of solidarity, unity and consensus, rather than by seeking somehow to move into the QMV area? These are serious matters that affect the overall pattern of our judicial system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodhart]

Again, is it not distinctly possible that QMV would have considerable benefits for the United Kingdom? With unanimity, things that we want to do can be blocked by another member state. Is it not best to have the decision about whether to go for QMV taken by Parliament?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have always found this argument very curious. To go to QMV requires a unanimous decision by those involved in taking the decision. The suggestion is that a country that is anxious to protect its national interest by blocking the move to QMV should nevertheless vote for QMV and for the power to be overridden by itself. That seems to be a turkeys-for-Christmas argument that does not add up in the real world. To imagine that by the muscle of QMV—I will not call it a sledge-hammer—one is going to get other countries to fall into line with a proposition that we might like to see pushed through is unrealistic. Why should they vote against themselves? That is not the way the pattern is ever going to work. The truth is this—my noble friend Lord Lamont touched on it—that the reason there is a long list of items in Schedule 1—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The Minister has, with enormous eloquence, destroyed the case for the Single European Act and the single market. I believe he was a member of the Government who negotiated and ratified that. I can accept that there are areas of unanimity that we will never want to allow to be subject to QMV, such as taxation. That is quite clear. We will not allow them to be, and because unanimity is required to move from that, it will not happen. There will not need to be a referendum or anything else. The root-and-branch description he has given of national interest is frankly completely contrary to the facts. The Single European Act, which provided for qualified majority voting in a number of areas of technical barriers to trade, which had been blocked for many years, has been to this country’s interest. The Germans, who voted for the Single European Act, found themselves being voted down on the banking regulation. They willed the use of QMV, and they accepted the consequences. This country has never been put in that position. I do not think we should generalise this argument. There is no dispute that there are areas where any British Government are going to refuse to move from unanimity to QMV.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not want to sound critical of the noble Lord, who has had such experience in these things, but I have to ask where he has been because this Bill is about the present and the future. It is not saying that we can unravel the Lisbon treaty or that we should revert from QMV back to unanimity on a vast number of things where there is QMV. This Bill does not take back any competences or powers, although there are people in this House and another place who would like to consider that some of the powers are somewhat out of date in the central situation and should perhaps be revisited. It is not about that at all. This Bill is about further treaty changes and further transfers of power.

Here I agree with my noble friend Lady Williams. I suspect that most people—not the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—think that we are right to be good Europeans and to be effective in the EU, that we have given the European Union enormous powers and that almost anything we want to do can be achieved within those powers and with legislation within the existing competences, but that the case for allowing a further expansion of the powers and competences without consulting people who feel that time and again they have not been consulted is a very weak case. The case for not allowing people is very weak, and the case for allowing them is extremely strong. That is what this Bill is about, so I do not understand the noble Lord’s intervention about the past. It just does not add up.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Does the Minister not agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is in fact a misunderstanding of the purpose of this Bill and that his remarks and the remarks of so many of those who oppose this Bill still relate to overwhelming ownership by government of all these decisions? The purpose of the Bill is to bring the British public and the voter into that decision-making process. The focus of the Bill is in fact quite different.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend puts the matter with wonderful clarity. The truth is that not only is it not in our interest to remove the locks on so many aspects that the noble Lord finds so difficult but that many member states, not all of them, like us want no such thing as a removal of the veto in so many areas. Indeed, this explains why most of the areas requiring unanimity are in the treaty in the first place, remain in the treaty and are in Clause 6 and Schedule 1.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I have a strong preference for interpreting what I say myself and for not having it interpreted by another Member of the House. The reason I spoke as I did about the past was because the Minister spoke about it himself and expressed very strong views about the total unacceptability of movements from unanimity to QMV and about why it was inconceivable that any country would ever agree to that knowing that it might then be voted down. I gave one or two examples of why that was not inconceivable and why that had actually happened and had been in the British interest.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am receiving strong hints—correct hints, I think—that not too much more time should be taken up from this Dispatch Box on these matters, and I will leave that debate aside for a moment.

This Bill is about a further expansion of competencies and powers; it is not about unravelling the past, because we are not in a position to do that, although some would like to. It remains unclear to me why the Opposition want more competencies and powers for the European Union; I am very interested that that is now the official position of the Opposition. I am longing to hear how they are going to deploy that and expand on it in the coming weeks and months.

Let me finally turn to Amendment 39B, which states that the committee must have regard to the urgency of the draft decision. Again, this shows a lack of understanding—possibly through my deficiency in being unable to convey how the system actually works, although there are other people in this Chamber who know it much better than I do. As I tried to explain previously on Amendments 16A and 16B, and as my noble friend Lady Falkner rightly said, one could think of few more urgent things than stabilising the eurozone. It still needs doing, of course, yet the use of the simplified revision procedure to enable member states in the euro area to set up the ESM to safeguard the financial and economic stability of the euro area will take 21 months to finalise. It was agreed in March 2011 and approved at the end of 2012. How could anyone consider that to be urgent? I do not understand what the “urgency” word is doing in that amendment.

There are a couple of other weaknesses in this probing amendment, which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who is extremely experienced in these matters, is well aware of. These amendments do not seem to take account of the work of our excellent scrutiny committees. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks they are not paid enough attention. There is always the point that our scrutiny should be more effective, but it does go on and it is conducted with great vigour and assiduity under the leadership of people like the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in the European Union Committee of this House. It is within their gift to make recommendations similar to those prepared by the referendum committee at the time when Parliament came to debate the primary legislation required under Clause 6. It could be done there.

Finally, the amendments do not seem to take into account the need for primary legislation—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is reminding us of—in all these situations, which would provide for full parliamentary consideration of the decision in question through the rigour of the legislative process. It is therefore not clear how the provisions for resolutions of Parliament would fit with the requirements earlier in the clause for an Act of Parliament. Nor is it clear what would happen if one House approved the recommendations of the committee and the other House did not. Therefore, there is no need for the additional complications and opportunities for prevarication, because that is what we would get with these amendments, along with delay and opaqueness.

It is surely right that if a future Government really believe that a further transfer of power or competence from the UK to the EU is in the interests of this country, they should not be afraid to make the case to the British people and let them decide. Those who might be in favour of more powers to the EU and those who might be against should have the courage of their convictions—possibly more so than in the past—and be prepared to seek a mandate from the public, not from a small group of Parliament or some external committee. That is why I ask noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.

Bahrain

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ribeiro]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Bahrain following the arrest of doctors and nurses charged with crimes against the monarchy.

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

My Lords, we are deeply concerned about reports of the severe charges brought against a large number of doctors and nurses by a Bahraini military tribunal. It is essential that medical personnel can treat their patients free from political interference. Our ambassador raised the case with the Bahraini Minister of Justice on 4 May.

[Lord Ribeiro]

I thank my noble friend for his considered response. He has a list of 17 doctors who are currently detained, the majority of whom are surgeons. The accounts of torture and beatings reported in the Independent today confirm that the Government of Bahrain are failing in their duty of care to protect doctors and medical staff. The International Code of Medical Ethics, adopted in 1949 and amended in 2006, states:

“A physician shall give emergency care as a humanitarian duty”.

Will my noble friend join the leaders of the medical profession in condemning the attacks—as he has done, but more forcefully—and in seeking independent monitoring of any future trial?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The feelings of the Government are largely in line with those of my noble friend. The arrest of doctors and nurses seeking to perform their duties is clearly an appalling situation. I have to tell my noble friend that not all aspects of this case are clear at the moment, but we take the view that it is very important that the accused have proper access to legal counsel and be tried by impartial and independent courts. We take a strong view on that matter. Other aspects have been raised, and will continue to be raised, by our ambassador, but not all aspects of this case are clear at the moment.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that these arrests of doctors, nurses, ambulance workers and paramedical personnel are part of a massive sectarian purge of intellectuals throughout Bahrain that includes university teachers, journalists, the editor of a newspaper and two MPs? Should not the Government call in the Bahraini ambassador and inform him that, unless these detainees are released and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is permitted to carry out an impartial investigation, we will impose a travel ban on leading members of the regime and ask the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to consider charges against the leaders of the regime for crimes against humanity?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

At this present stage, we do not consider travel bans or other charges and moves of that kind to be a proper way forward. We are in constant contact, not merely with the ambassador here but, through my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain and other Ministers, including the Minister of Justice. We continue to believe that the aim is to have a national dialogue to meet the problems of what my noble friend rightly calls an appalling situation of inter-regional strife between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority that represents the ruling group. This is an intense tension. Its effects are in danger of spreading to other parts of the Middle East, with all kinds of results that we do not want. Therefore, for the moment, we stick to the view that we must urge these countries, the ruling family and the leaders on both sides—the opposition and the ruling group—to move towards a national dialogue. That is what they say they want and that is what we are urging them to do as hard as we can at the moment.

[Lord Owen]

Will the Government ensure that, besides making very strong bilateral representations, we use our position in all the international bodies available, including the Security Council, the WHO and all the humanitarian bodies, to raise this issue at the very highest level? There is now very clear evidence of targeted action against individuals who are caring for people who come into hospital as a result of demonstrations. The Bahrain Government, who have had good relations with this country over many years, must now listen to those representations.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The representations we are making are strong. I have to repeat what I said to my noble friends: not all aspects of this issue and this whole case are entirely clear at the moment. Any evidence of deliberate maltreatment or withdrawal of treatment by medical personnel from people on religious grounds would be appalling. Any interference with those who are trying to dispense treatment—if they are arrested and treated as criminals—would be appalling. All those matters need very close investigation. Whether it is the right moment to raise them in all the bodies that the noble Lord mentioned, I am not yet convinced, but they are matters which we are watching very closely, and that time may come.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I am sure that the statement made by the Minister about the intervention in respect of the medical staff will be welcomed by the House. Can he tell us of other instances of intervention in Bahrain and whether the Government believe that they have been successful in any of them?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not totally follow the generality of the question. If the noble Lord means to ask whether we have constant contact with Bahrain and whether we are putting considerable pressure on those with whom we have had close contact—because Bahrain remains a close ally and good friend of the United Kingdom, and vice versa—those interventions are going on all the time. Have they had effects? They have not had the effects we want by any means so far. On the contrary, we have seen a deterioration in the situation, which is very disappointing. The issue now is how we handle it: whether we put even bigger barriers between ourselves and the Bahraini authorities, or whether we use our former links to work very hard with them to change their ways and develop a dialogue—which earlier they said they wanted, in contrast to other countries where there has been a tendency towards civil war, mass killings and other violent and hard-line activities.