| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
European Parliamentary Elections Bill [HL]
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the legislation on European parliamentary elections, which currently consists of
three Acts—the European Parliamentary Elections Acts of 1978, 1993 and 1999—and a number of provisions in other legislation.A similar consolidation Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, but it fell for lack of time because it was held up by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which made relevant amendments to the legislation that was being consolidated. Your Lordships may recall that that consolidation Bill received your Lordships' support. The opportunity has been taken to make one or two changes to the first Bill, in order to take account of subsequent legislation and to incorporate an amendment made to that Bill by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
The Bill will make it easier to follow the legislation on this subject. I am aware that there are differences of opinion on the substance of the law on elections to the European Parliament, but this consolidation Bill is not the place to debate them. The Bill is simply intended to make the existing statute book clearer.
I offer my thanks to the Law Commission and to Parliamentary Counsel for all that they do in this valuable work.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a second reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. We all support consolidation of the patchwork of the statute book. It is important legal housekeeping, but it offers no opportunities for spin doctors and so it has had a low priority under this Government. Their record on the matter is pretty feeble. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton.
Any consolidation measure starts with the same welcome as the sinner that repenteth. But this rarity makes it all the more interesting to ponder why this particular part of the law has been singled out for consolidation now. I understand the background and that the Lord Chancellor has just set out the earlier efforts to consolidate this part of the law, but I have two questions for him.
The first concerns further pending legislation on this subject. I understand that Mr Peter Hain, the Minister for Europe, has announced that on behalf of the Government he has agreed in Brussels—just before this Bill was brought forward for debate—that the Government will shortly promote more legislation on European parliamentary elections.
We know from Mr Hain that that will include making dual membership of this Parliament and the European Parliament illegal. That is the so-called dual mandate. I understand that Members of this House or another place will no longer be able to sit in the European Parliament. Am I right in assuming that that can be done only by amending Clause 10 of this Bill, as that clause firmly provides the exact opposite of what Mr Hain has promised to achieve?
Mr Hain says that he has agreed that this change in European election law and other changes, about which I have no information, will be ratified by the Government by the end of this year. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell the House what changes are proposed to this legislation in order to fulfil Mr Hain's promise to our European partners and what timescale the Government propose for that legislation. Given the history of the matter, I believe that the Joint Committee will probably want to know the answer to that.
My second question concerns the status of the new law. As we know, the 1999 Act is regarded by some lawyers as a legally dubious Act of Parliament because its passage relied on what is claimed to be the invalid Parliament Act 1949. This view is held by, among other distinguished lawyers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He brought forward legislation on the subject not long ago. I realise that the Government and others do not agree with that view. I do not want to enter into that controversy today. Apart from anything else, I am not qualified to do so. There are, after all, two respectable legal views held on matters every day of the week in the courts and, generally speaking, half the laws are proved wrong every day. But this issue has not been tested.
My question is whether this potential flaw in the 1999 legislation is carried through into the new legislation or is cancelled out by this new Bill. Can this consolidation Bill, if properly passed into law, give a greater legitimacy to the underlying legislation than it currently has? It would seem wrong for such a purpose to be achieved by means of a consolidation Bill with its special procedures. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us whether the Bill does launder the 1999 Act in this way? One wonders whether that might be the reason that the Bill is before us now. Is it really a legal laundry Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord gave me no notice of either of those points which are of considerable detail. I hesitate always to give advice on any point of law, particularly since the noble Lord recognises that the law can sometimes be difficult, without attending closely to the detail of the point. I shall write to the noble Lord on the first point.
I am, however, entirely satisfied that, even if a further amendment was required, consolidation is still desirable so that there can be a clear base from which people can work when future changes arise. But I am far from saying that any need for a future amendment will arise. I shall write to the noble Lord on the subject.
The status of the 1999 legislation is in my view undoubted. The Bill neither adds to it nor subtracts from it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Zimbabwe
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
-
"With permission I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe.
"Yesterday Robert Mugabe was declared the official winner of the presidential election. This result should surprise no one. ZANU-PF has been bent for months on achieving precisely this outcome, by any means and at all costs.
"The Zimbabwean Government have subjected their electorate to two years of violence and intimidation. They have harassed opposition candidates and supporters, manipulated the voters' roll and restricted access to polling stations. They have exploited every instrument of the state to distort the outcome of the election—military, police, media, youth militias and the bureaucracy.
"ZANU-PF has also done its utmost to conceal the extent of its violence and malpractice from the eyes of the world. It excluded European Union election observers, monopolised domestic TV and radio and restricted international media organisations, including the BBC. None of those was the action of a party confident of its ability to win a free and fair election.
"These elections can only be judged by agreed international standards, not least the declaration signed by Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare itself in 1991. In December of last year, on the basis of evidence already available the Commonwealth concluded that,
'the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law'.
-
"A key yardstick by which any electoral process must be judged is impartial electoral administration. There was nothing impartial about the process in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe staffed Zimbabwe's electoral supervisory commission with partisan army officers. The issue of the names of who could
- and could not vote was not settled until just days before the election, amid allegations of fraudulent malpractice.
"During the election itself the electoral commission reduced the number of polling booths in urban areas in order to restrict the opposition vote. In many rural areas, the opposition say their polling agents and monitors were prevented from inspecting ballot boxes before voting started. Others were not allowed inside polling stations. Many opposition workers say they were abducted, detained or arrested by supporters of the ruling party or the security forces.
"I have today received the preliminary report of the Commonwealth observer group. It says:
'The violence and intimidation created a climate of fear and suspicion'.
- 'Thousands of Zimbabwean citizens were disenfranchised'.
- 'a systematic campaign of intimidation'.
- 'The conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors'.
- 'election was neither free nor fair'.
-
"Zimbabwe was until recently the pride of Africa, the breadbasket of the continent. But Robert Mugabe's disastrous economic policies have already severely damaged his own country. Now there is 70 per cent unemployment, 112 per cent inflation, and a decline last year in GDP of 10 per cent. This year is expected to be the same.
"The failure of the electoral process in Zimbabwe is a tragedy not just for Zimbabwe but for the people of southern Africa as a whole. The South African rand has depreciated by 40 per cent in the last year. The people of southern Africa deserve better too. Their governments will inevitably bear most of the responsibility for helping the region to recover. We shall continue to work with them in this task.
"The House will know that the European Union decided on 18th February to impose sanctions targeted against the leadership of ZANU-PF. These include a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I will be travelling to Barcelona this
- afternoon where we will review the position with our European partners at the EU summit to be held in that city.
"We are also working closely with the US Government who have already announced a travel ban on the ZANU-PF leadership and are considering a possible broadening of sanctions along the lines of those which the EU has already enforced. We will continue to work closely with them, our G8 and SADC partners.
"The House will know that Her Majesty's Government took the view on the evidence available at the new year that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. What has happened since has simply confirmed that judgment. In the event—and we regret this—Commonwealth governments decided not to follow that course of action. They appointed a troika of South Africa, Nigeria and Australia to decide on Zimbabwe's status in the Commonwealth. We await their conclusions in light of the strongly worded Commonwealth observers report to which I have already drawn the attention of the House and of the more detailed conclusions that the report promises.
"It is crucial that we and the international community stand by the people of Zimbabwe in the face of the deprivation and hardship heaped on them by their government. We will therefore continue our programme of humanitarian assistance and our assistance in the fight against HIV/AIDs. But I can tell the House today that we will continue to oppose any access by Zimbabwe to international financial resources until a more representative government is in place.
"Robert Mugabe may claim to have won this election but the people of Zimbabwe have lost. We are faced here with a leader who is determined to ignore the international community, ignore his people and ignore the grave consequences of his actions.
"Change will have to come to Zimbabwe. One day—I hope soon—we shall all look forward to a democratic government of Zimbabwe, acting in the interests of its people and taking its rightful place in a modern Africa.
"There are those who have sought to suggest that this is a conflict between Africa and the West, black against white or the south against the north. I reject that totally. At its heart, this is a matter of universal principle—of the right of people freely to determine their own future. It is that principle which has been flouted in Zimbabwe, and all democrats should speak with one voice in condemning what has taken place".
3.52 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that important and sombre Statement. As I said at the beginning of last week's debate on Zimbabwe, we on these Benches view the situation that has emerged with
sadness and anger. We view it with sadness because we see a great and prosperous country destroyed and democracy clearly brought into contempt. I fully endorse the noble Baroness's tribute to the stamina and courage of the people of Zimbabwe, who stood in long queues for many hours, intimidated and challenged, to make their democratic choice—which many of them were then denied.We feel sadness because the election has now officially been recognised as seriously flawed and the Commonwealth, in which I always believe strongly, has been hideously tarnished. We feel sadness also because European Union officials have been humiliated, SADC standards have been flouted in almost every respect and the whole scene for southern Africa has been darkened.
We are angry because all that was utterly predictable, and was predicted more than two years ago. There were repeated warnings to the Government and others that we were heading towards a tragedy. The Government now use firm and tough language, which I respect—but it is late, late, late. The truth is that the quiet dialogue, which we said would not work, has been an utter failure.
For Zimbabwe, there is probably worse to come. There is a strong whiff of the police state as gangs and armed forces hunt down defeated political opponents, then harass, arrest and imprison them—and worse. Predictable is the mealy-mouthed response from some African states, which will lead to validation and approval of what has happened from the appointed group of three. Predictable also is that the next speech from the tyrant Mugabe will probably be on the lines of reconciliation and sweet talk—about getting together and forgetting the past. That will go on even while his henchmen are closing down freedom and promoting the worst kinds of racism and hate as they did—people forget this—on a hideous scale in 1983.
What is to be done? Having let things drift so far, what will the British Government contribute to rescue the situation? First, there must be a coalition formed of the determined democracies, including the United States of America, Denmark, New Zealand and some of the wiser African and Asian leaders. That coalition should come together and speak with one voice. It should seek to include— the most difficult task of all—a dithering South Africa whose leadership does not yet seem fully to understand the dangers that the Zimbabwe situation now threatens for that great country. The sooner South Africa understands those dangers and uses its influence, the better.
Secondly, all possible international pressure, including financial and travel restrictions, should be put on Mugabe and his cronies. I was glad to learn that some of that is going forward, although hearing again the words "review" and "consider" fills me with unease.
Thirdly, fresh elections should be demanded. The President of the United States does not recognise the latest elections. I would like to hear the same words from our Government. We believe that Zimbabwe
should be suspended from the Commonwealth until there are new elections and a representative government in place.The Prime Minister's words have been well flown on two fine wings. He is quoted as saying:
- "The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier".
He was right. And the Commonwealth is right in saying that its core principle is that,
- "people should be free to exercise their life choices and pursue their lawful engagements without fear of intimidation, arbitrary arrest or loss of their civil rights".
We need not more fine-spun words and feebleness. We have words and rhetoric aplenty. We need principled and focused action, which is what we now expect from the Government.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in welcoming the Statement it would be appropriate for the House to recognise the enormous efforts to mediate made by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in the run-up to the Zimbabwe elections. No doubt she will be much concerned with the situation over the coming weeks and months.
What happens now in terms of British policy towards refugees and the opposition? I refer not only to those whose grandparents were born in the United Kingdom but all those people, black or white, who have shown so much courage in attempting to conduct a democratic election against overwhelming pressures from the Mugabe regime. It is important that we do not abandon those people and take only those who are white or who are, without question, entitled to residence in the United Kingdom.
There is also a broader Africa question and a large question about the future of the Commonwealth. The Statement contains some strong language about the Commonwealth's fundamental values and universal principles. One of the reasons other Commonwealth African governments have not been strongly on our side is that they do not entirely share those universal principles or fundamental values, which is part of a broader problem. Not many African states have successfully had democratic changes of government in the past 10 to 15 years—and not many of those are Commonwealth member states.
What does that mean for the future of the Commonwealth? Are we confident that in using such broad and idealistic language as in the Statement, we can nevertheless hold the Commonwealth together? Or must we recognise that we may be facing a breach or further weakening of the Commonwealth as an institution?
Chaos in Zimbabwe—probably involving famine and certainly involving refugees flowing into South Africa, Mozambique and other border states—will add to chaos in a region in which the Congo and Zaire are in considerable disorder, Angola is not fully pacified and there are severe problems in Rwanda. Other states have also been involved in the Congo.
The American Government are now preoccupied with the problems of west and central Asia. The previous American administration made it clear that they thought Africa a problem for the Europeans to deal with, while the Middle East and Eurasia were areas in which the United States led. It is important that the British Government try to focus the attention of other states within the EU and at the United Nations on the long-term problems for the world of weak states in Africa and how we rebuild not only their economies but their societies and administrations.
4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about feeling sadness and anger. We all share those sentiments, although I could probably add frustration. I must admit to the House that I personally feel a great deal of frustration, having worked on these issues for many months.
I strongly disagree with the noble Lord that our policy has been an utter failure. I considered his proposals and listened carefully to those made on Zimbabwe during the past few weeks by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs in another place. All that the noble Lord talked about today and what his right honourable friend suggested in another place is action that we have taken.
We have built an international consensus. There has been strong condemnation from the European Union, leading to targeted sanctions. Strong statements have been made by the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We were disappointed that we were unable to get Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth, but we were entirely realistic about that, because the Commonwealth is an organisation of 54 countries that operates by consensus. We established a mechanism to deal with the situation if the observers' report stated that the election was flawed; we must now look to the troika.
We achieved unanimity in the European Union, which I must say, with respect to the noble Lord, would have been extremely difficult for his party if it had been in power. My right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and I have all spoken to colleagues not only in southern Africa but across Africa about these issues and we shall continue to do so. Let us not forget that the blame here lies with Robert Mugabe. We are talking about a man and a party who care nothing for their own people. The House should not forget that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his kind remarks about me. He asked what will now happen to refugees and those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will know that on 15th January, taking account of public concern, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary suspended removals until after the presidential election. I can tell the House that the Home Office has no immediate plans to recommence removals.
The noble Lord then asked two related questions about the fundamental values of the Commonwealth and went on to raise some wider questions about what
is now happening in Africa. I do not entirely share the noble Lord's views about democratic changes in Africa, because during the past two years there have been examples such as Ghana—and we hope for a peaceful transition in Sierra Leone in May. But I recognise that the shift towards democracy is fragile and vulnerable and I entirely agree that we must support those emerging democracies. Within the Commonwealth context, it is important that we talk about our shared values and beliefs. For too long, we have all assumed that those values are shared because we sign up to them. We must tackle the fact that we approach them in quite different ways. One way to do so is through the process emerging through the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The fact that within that process is a recognition that African leaders and governments must tackle issues of political and economic governance is a glimmer of hope.I entirely agree with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about working with colleagues in the United States and other European Union countries on the issue of weak stakes, in particular, but more generally on the impact of conflict in Africa. The United States has made clear that its priority in Africa is Sudan and we hope to work closely in resolving the conflict there. Of course, we shall do all we can to ensure that the policies that we are promoting in Africa not only through the New Partnership for Africa's Development but through our bilateral relations with African countries are shared by European Union colleagues. The noble Lord will know that recently my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited the Great Lakes with his French counterpart.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the credentials of the Opposition would be purer if they had been more consistent about Africa and its policies—especially the former apartheid regime in South Africa? Would it not be good if the invigilators could be brought together to consider the evidence of the impropriety that has been suggested—in my view, rightly? We heard today on the BBC the view of some observers that the way in which the election had been conducted was fair. I do not share that view, but will my noble friend consider calling them together so that they can take a joint view on the matter?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page