| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1308
8.15 pm
One thing is left to be done. It is now surely up to the Government to see that the EU listing, which was based on the then Home Secretary’s original order to proscribe, is also brought to an end. On 12 June the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said at col. 670 that as the British listing alone underpinned the EU listing it was likely to be reviewed. That is simply not good enough. When a decision no longer has any legal basis—the decision in Europe does not any more, because the legal basis was proscription in this country—it should be reversed forthwith, not reviewed. It is the Government’s job and duty to see that that reversal takes place.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, as someone who has listened to the debate on the subject for a long time, I want to make a small intervention to compliment the noble Lords, Lord Clarke of Hampstead and Lord Corbett, and all those in the Chamber who have fought so strenuously on behalf of the people and their freedom and rights. I feel proud that, across the Benches in this House, all parties have pulled together in support of justice.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is not on every occasion on which I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in debates in this House that I have been able to say that I agree with every word that he said, but on this occasion I can say it without any reservation. I am grateful that my noble friend intervened as one who can judge the matter a little more objectively than some of us, because he has not been involved in all the debates.
This may be technically a debate, but there is really no question for the House to decide. The Government have brought the order before us because they had no alternative; Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000 said that they must. Had the Government listened to some of us before the unseemly saga began, the Secretary of State could have come before us tonight with a good grace and claimed the credit. My noble friend on the Front Bench would not have had the task of making the speech that he did; if I may say so, it was hardly a gracious retraction on the part of the Government.
The Government have suffered a humiliating defeat in the courts. Their attitude has been labelled as perverse. The unhappy story is not yet over, as, already, two noble Lords have pointed out. The PMOI is the subject of a decision by the Council of the European Union to include it in the European list of terrorist organisations, so that its assets in the EU territories are frozen and so that Europe sends out a signal that the PMOI is perceived as a terrorist organisation. It is no secret that that was done at the instance of the United Kingdom Government, as my noble friend has said. A ruling by the EU Court of First Instance that it is wrongly included has been evaded by what can be described only as a shameful piece of sophistry.
I believe that the conclusions reached by all three of the distinguished courts will be vindicated by the verdict of history. It is perverse that those who so courageously opposed a regime, which is the very centre and source of a web of terrorism and has been condemned by United Nations’ human rights bodies
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1309
It is not too late to rectify the injustice or to congratulate the PMOI and the National Council of Resistance on their complete vindication. This is not the end of the ordeal suffered by the Iranian people at the hands of the mullahs, but I believe that it is the beginning of the end and that the people of Iran may look forward at no great distance to the dawn of a new freedom and the restoration of their country to its rightful place in the international community.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I have to declare an interest: for more than 25 years I have been a supporter of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. I also have an interest as one of the 35 people who made the application to POAC. Today, we are able to say that a long chapter of shame by the British Government is ending. It has sullied the reputation of our nation, my political party and those who, in their positions of influence, have given sustenance and the appearance of respectability to the murderous and inhumane regime that rules Iran and subjects its citizens to barbaric treatment.
As we welcome the late arrival of this long overdue removal of the NCRI and the PMOI from the proscribed list of terrorist organisations, we should stop and consider just what these wicked people have done. Children have been executed. My thoughts tonight are with the young, mentally handicapped, 16 year-old girl who had the audacity to question the judge at her trial by saying, “You should be trying the man who attempted to rape me, and did rape me, rather than put me on trial for adulterous behaviour”. What was her punishment? It was summary execution. She was taken out and hung publicly. My thoughts are with the memory of that young girl and her family.
Mention has just been made of United Nations resolutions. The mullahs’ regime has cocked a snook at the United Nations time and time again. It cares little about the world’s opinion of its barbaric behaviour. No one in this nation should ignore the rantings of the mullahs. As my noble friend Lord Corbett said, they will continue their evil activities until they are removed from power once and for all. Such a removal will be achieved only when the people of Iran are able to enjoy free and fair elections, unencumbered by the interference of the theocratic guilty men. My thoughts then will be that if the Iranian people get free elections, the brave and courageous Madam Rajavi will take her place on a ballot form. She will subject herself to the democratic process. By her example over these past years, I have no doubt that the people will respond in the way that they should.
I was not going to say much this evening but we have had a little bit of history from the Minister. I also want to provide a bit of history because, when the order was put before the House, and included the PMOI, I and others from this House and the other place, went to see Mr Straw. I reminded Mr Straw that, as a member of the Labour Party and as a chairman, I encouraged people at the conference to welcome Madame
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1310
Mr Straw made a statement on BBC television. The world saw a British Minister saying to the world that it is on the list because the mullahs asked him to put it on the list. Can noble Lords think of anything that is more offensive in a democracy? A seemingly laughing face was seen on our televisions as the same Mr Straw rubbed shoulders with the mullahs. Time is short and many noble Lords will share my joy at the end of this period.
My message to the Government, critical as I am, is a genuine plea. Do not appease despicable people just because of the oil that lies beneath the ground in Iran. Think of the threat to the democratic state of Israel that comes out of the mouth of President Ahmadinejad, who wants to drive the Israeli people into the sea. I ask the Government to show the world that this country is rightly concerned about the export of terrorism from Iran. Bullets and bombs from Iran are killing and maiming brave coalition forces, not just in Iraq but also in other countries. Our former prime minister, Tony Blair, also told the world that Iran was the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world. We should all be concerned about the nuclear ambitions of these despots. I plead with the British Government to speak out against the atrocities and let all of us hold our heads high as we work not just here but within the European Parliament.
Quite recently in Brussels, talking to other people from other nations, it was clear that the lead given by the British Government, which has now been proved to have been unlawful, motivated other countries to put the PMOI on the European list. The Government should work now to redeem themselves. They can do a penance by saying to our friends in Europe “We got it wrong”. Have the courage to say this. Some of those countries can be forgiven for taking an example from this country with its long tradition of democracy. Let us once and for all rid ourselves of the shame of our Government who have used every legal advice to assist the wicked and evil rulers who reside in Teheran.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am delighted that this order is before the House this evening. I first became interested in the PMOI some time ago when I was interested particularly in its campaign for women. I became a member of a group of parliamentarians in both Houses and we have together campaigned to try to get the organisation deproscribed. I never believed it was a terrorist organisation—on the contrary. I could see that it was led by a charismatic woman in the shape of Madame Rajavi and its agenda calls for gender equality for all women. It has the same sort of agenda as a political organisation and I emphasise that it is a political organisation that seeks change by
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1311
The people we have worked with—the Iranian colleagues in this country who have supplied us with briefings and so on—have been very courageous in their fight for deproscription. They should be congratulated, and we should also congratulate ourselves on having succeeded in this campaign.
I hope that the Government will now not pursue proscription via the EU. I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has said. It really is disgraceful that the Government were able to persuade the EU to adopt the line it did—they should not have done so. We can now go forward and I hope that we can work in future with this group of people to ensure that eventually the people of Iran achieve the democratic state that they deserve.
8.30 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to this debate. I would be foolish to deny that very strong passions are evoked by the history of the proscription of the PMOI—that much is evident from all sides of your Lordships' House. But we are where we are, and we should proceed.
Our Government—any Government—have to take a longer view when approaching such an issue. It has to be approached with caution and thought. Although noble Lords clearly disagree with the position advanced by the Government in proscribing the PMOI at the outset, it was a position honestly adopted. I refute the suggestion that it was to appease the Iranian regime. The Government’s record in advocating support of a democracy in Iran, expressing their concern about the treatment of juveniles within the justice system there and arguing the human rights case is very strong, which colleagues should recognise. That is not to say that I do not understand the very powerful views that have been expressed in the House this evening and the intention behind them, because I do.
We have now moved to deproscription; we have moved in good time and in good order. We have complied exactly with the POAC ruling, and we will proceed, as we always do in these matters, quite properly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said that he acknowledged and supported our approach. He is right to make the case for the rule of law. That is how we should proceed in these circumstances.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, when the order will come into effect. It will do so the day after it is signed by a Minister, which will probably be tomorrow, so it is pretty immediate. My noble friend Lord Corbett, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer have pressed me for details of when it is expected that Council of Europe Ministers will consider these matters. We have already advised them of the POAC decision and said that we intend deproscribing the PMOI. Because we were the national competent authority making the decision, the PMOI was listed under common position 931. The fact that that decision has now
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1312
Although I would like to, I cannot advise the House as to when the Council will make its decision. Its procedures and proceedings are for Council Ministers, but they have been fully advised and kept up to date. They know exactly what the position is within the United Kingdom, as the competent authority. It will be up to them to make their decision based on actions that we have taken.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this discussion. I understand full well the passions, enthusiasms and urgings to democracy in Iran. I certainly share those views, but we have now deproscribed. We have to move forward and it is my hope that noble Lords will feel happier and freer in their own campaigning activities for a cause that I am sure many of us share.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.53 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.36 to 8.53 pm.]
Pensions Bill
Clause 21 [Test scheme standard]:
Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 67:
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to find out a little more about how a complicated part of this Bill will work. Rather like the previous amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, subsection (3) of Clause 21 allows for a scheme to qualify for auto-enrolment even though some of its members may not meet the test scheme standard as laid out in Clause 22. That allows for a great deal of, in this case, helpful flexibility. Defined benefit schemes are becoming ever rarer and, without that flexibility, the Bill would be another nail in their coffin.
However, this clause will help to keep these schemes open only if that flexibility is properly understood by employers and is clearly and consistently applied by the Government. Can the Minister give us a clearer idea of the Government’s intentions? How many members must fail to meet the test scheme standard before the scheme fails? How bad must the shortfall be before it is considered over the top?
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in another place made an accurate point:
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1313
“Requiring an individualised calculation in respect of each member of the scheme ... would place a significant burden on any employer seeking to meet the test, with a risk that the whole scheme would fail if even one member’s pension did not meet the standard”.—[Official Report, Commons, Pensions Bill Committee, 29/1/08; col. 255.]
However, this argument failed to convince the Government that some flexibility should be applied in the clauses relating to the money purchase schemes that we have just discussed. I seek more clarification on all this. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which I understand is a probing one. Clause 21 sets out the quality requirements for defined benefit schemes with members in employment that is not contracted out of the state second pension scheme—commonly known as non-contracted-out schemes. This test operates in a similar way to the reference scheme test, which is an existing test of overall scheme quality for schemes with members whose employment is contracted out of the state second pension scheme.
We recognise that many employers make generous pension provision through their defined benefit schemes and we want to encourage them to retain these schemes. That is why, when developing the quality test for non-contracted-out DB schemes, as well as ensuring that they deliver the additional private pension saving required under the reforms, we sought to minimise any burdens on business by introducing a simple scheme-wide test. Amendment No. 67 would prevent the test scheme standard from being a scheme-wide assessment. I know that that is not the intention but the amendment could make the application more complex and increase the burdens on business. Undertaking an assessment of the projected benefits for each member of a DB scheme would be more time-consuming and complex for employers.
Amendment No. 68 would remove an important power in Clause 21 allowing the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation relating to the test. Without the regulation-making power in Clause 21(4), the Government’s ability to set the criteria for determining whether the pensions provided by a scheme were equivalent to, or better than, those provided by the test scheme would be severely curtailed. We would also effectively lose the power to specify the detailed application of the test scheme standard in technical guidance, as our ability to issue guidance is, by virtue of subsection (5), dependent on the ability to make regulations. This guidance will be particularly important where actuarial comparisons are being made.
The power in subsection (4) is there to enable us to provide employers with the right assistance. Without it, employers, possibly with advice from their actuary, would have to determine how the test scheme would operate in order to assess whether their own scheme met the standard. The test would no longer be standardised across schemes, because employers and/or their advisers might have to rely on their discretion in making an assessment in relation to their scheme. This is something that they might not feel comfortable
23 Jun 2008 : Column 1314
I hope that my response has clarified the purpose and importance of this regulation-making power sufficiently for the noble Lord to feel able to withdraw his amendment. How many individuals must fail the test is not relevant to how defined benefit schemes are tested, because it is done on a scheme-wide basis, whereas with defined contribution schemes one is looking at inputs on an individual basis.
9 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: I flatter myself that I am a fairly mild man, because nobody else will. However, even my patience snaps sometimes. The noble Lord said that we will give employers the right assistance. What assistance?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am talking about assistance in determining that they have met the test scheme standard. Broad equivalence has to be determined by reference to the test scheme set out in Clause 22. A whole host of issues might need to be taken into account. Setting them down in guidance will assist employers in making the determination. It is a little like the reference scheme test, which determines whether schemes can be contracted out of the state second pension scheme. It is detailed guidance about a whole range of issues that are likely to be relevant in making that determination.
Lord Skelmersdale: These debates are starting to become rather repetitive. It is quite extraordinary how little detail the Minister can give us on so many matters. Many people have commented on how the success of auto-enrolment in personal accounts will depend on the detail of the implementation, yet we are discovering that reams of this detail have not in any way been firmed up. Not only is Parliament being asked to sign into law a Bill that makes radical changes to pension provision in this country, but we are being asked to do it with only the haziest outline of what the future holds. To a great extent, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. This vagueness goes beyond good parliamentary practice, as important as that is. It means that employers are equally unable to predict the changes in costs that might be imposed on them only a few years hence. Unless the Minister can give me a bit more information, I shall have to seek the opinion of the Committee.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Perhaps I may try to describe what “broadly equivalent” might mean. We use the term to ensure that the widest-possible range of scheme types can be directed to the test scheme standard, because the test scheme does not replicate the benefit structure of all defined benefit schemes. We need to be able to gauge the standard of any scheme in the most appropriate manner to ensure that the wider reform’s objective will be met. Nor do we want to interfere with the benefit structures by requiring them to align with the test scheme.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |