Yemen

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: the extreme danger is unquestionable. We have drawn down the staff at our embassy to a small, core team and a further withdrawal of staff may be necessary if conditions dictate—we are watching the situation very carefully indeed. For obvious reasons, which I know the noble Lord will understand, it would be wrong for me to comment in detail on any contingency plan, but that is the position.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, are the Government minded to support opposition demands for a presidential council to be established in Yemen to ease the transition from power and to send a clear message to President Saleh that he is no longer fit to rule? Will my noble friend also tell the House whether he believes that the Friends of Yemen group has any further usefulness, given that it is so closely aligned to the old regime?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Our general position is strong support for the Gulf Cooperation Council’s plans, which have been brought forward with considerable detail and support from the neighbouring countries and the whole region. We believe that, for the moment, that is the best plan on the table. I certainly concede to my noble friend that it is not working well at the moment, but that seems to be the best possible avenue through which one could begin to see some kind of settlement emerge. That is all that I can say at the moment, beyond the fact that, of course, the United Nations remains very interested and is watching the situation closely as well.

Syria

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the situation is far from getting better: it is getting worse. The reports of atrocities are disgusting. We have all been shocked by the news of the apparent treatment of a young child—indeed of many young children—in the mayhem of violence. All these questions are being debated today at the United Nations. We and the French—the noble Baroness mentioned Monsieur Juppé—are putting forward sentiments very similar to those that she suggested. It is a question of carrying all opinion in this direction in order to get effective co-operative and co-ordinated action. Not everyone, particularly in the Arab world, has yet reached the point where they have united in seeing that further measures are required beyond those that we are already proposing. I myself was able to consult with a number of Arab and Gulf leaders last week in that region and had some mixed opinions on whether this was the time for more forceful action. The noble Baroness can be assured that Her Majesty’s Government hold this matter in the strongest-possible and deepest concern. We believe, and fear, that stronger measures will indeed be needed.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I congratulate my noble friend on the new tougher resolution that the Government are trying to secure through the United Nations Security Council. Let us, however, speak plainly. We know that China is one of the countries that is likely to veto this resolution. My noble friend will of course be aware that Chinese workers in Libya had to be taken out on a Chinese frigate, and that China now has interests around the world. Will he urge the Chinese Government, as they engage around the world, also to build alliances around the world to promote the interests of their own citizens if not for nobler purposes such as democracy and human rights—which, alas, they do not respect?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point which has certainly occurred to me in discussions with senior Chinese diplomats. The traditional or conventional stance of the Chinese authorities and Chinese Government is that they do not interfere in foreign countries. The reality is that because of extended Chinese influence and involvement throughout the world, whether the Chinese authorities like it or not, they are involved and do have to move towards taking a responsible position as they become a world force and a world power, an active member of the World Trade Organisation and a responsible authority and influence in the world. If this is the role that they want to play, they will have to be involved in a much more positive way, as my noble friend says.

European Union Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to me that it addresses an issue which desperately needs addressing in the Bill, and that is flexibility. The structure of the Bill, particularly in its elaborate nature, with the 56 possible incidences of referenda, is, frankly, a couch of Procrustes, on which we are busy stretching ourselves and on which, no doubt, our feet or our heads will one day be lopped off. It is very rigid indeed. It leaves very little appreciation to the Government of the day, although of course the Government of the day will have had to agree in Brussels that, in principle, subject to the proceedings in this Bill, they will go along with it. However, then the rigidity comes back in. It is not surprising in a way. The Government proudly call this Bill a referendum lock, the key of which they have taken out and are now throwing out of the window.

I think this amendment is one way to deal with the issue and earlier today we discussed others. I very much welcome the fact that the Government recognise that, in the handling of this “or otherwise support” issue, they needed a bit more flexibility and they have now moved an amendment, which I was delighted to see went through unopposed, which gives a little more flexibility. It enables a Minister in Brussels to say that he would take something back to London and subject it to the procedures under the Bill, but that he would support it. It enables him to say that but, of course, it does not allow it to go through in any legal sense. That is an increase in flexibility. We have just voted for an increase in flexibility for Parliament because, if less than 40 per cent of the British people are prepared to get off their backsides and vote, then Parliament will be able to take a decision itself and the result of the referendum will be only advisory.

It would be splendid if the Government would think a little more about how to introduce more flexibility into the Bill, while not removing the essence of it. I accept that it is supported by a majority in the House of Commons and that it is in the coalition agreement, which says that, if there are major constitutional changes, there will be a referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, the recommendations of our own Constitution Committee are rather clear on this point but were ignored by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted the bit he liked, but did not quote the bit he did not like in the Constitution Committee’s report. That was a much longer bit, which said that referendums should be used only for major constitutional innovations. If you look at the various clauses of the Bill, you will see that there are stacks of things there which are not major constitutional innovations. This provision will give a little more flexibility there, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider that because flexibility will be needed somewhere down the line. The more care taken with the legislation, the better that legislation will be for the interests of this country.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I say to noble Lords opposite that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise that this amendment is intended to enhance scrutiny and to improve propositions that might be put forward by the Executive. We also accept the spirit of what noble Lords opposite are trying to do. For the record, I do not find, in the copy that I have just looked up, the elements of the coalition agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred as endorsing this amendment. I would not want to tempt him to read out the entire section on Europe in the coalition agreement, as the hour is late.

I shall speak to the substantive elements of the amendment. We do not believe that it would be right to take such a dramatic step to remove from the Executive, the Government of the day, the decisions about what they will support or not and to give them to a committee of both Houses. We have had a long debate about Parliament and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and so on. In Committee, we heard a lot of argumentation across the House regarding urgent situations and what would happen because decision-making was so late and would be so stymied. I find that the methodology proposed here would certainly add to the amount of time that would be taken to deal with measures if a Joint Committee had to rule on them. There would also be the issue of reintroducing some rather subjective concepts: urgency and national interest. We have had debates on those subjects; both are highly subjective. We are also conscious of the judicial review implications contained in the Bill.

Finally, the amendment seems to miss the underlying theme of the Bill, which is that the Executive make a call on a proposal, bring it to Parliament, Parliament agrees it and then the public are to ratify that decision through a referendum. As we have repeatedly heard from the ministerial Bench, the Bill is designed to reconnect the British public with these policy issues that emanate from the European Union. The public will be empowered, through the processes proposed here. To take that away and to give it to a Joint Committee of both Houses seems to me to entirely miss the point of the Bill. On that basis I suggest that it goes contra to where we had got. Before I conclude I give way to the noble Lord,

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Baroness has said that one of the reasons why she did not want to support the amendment was that she was worried that it would raise the possibility of judicial review on the decision about whether a referendum was necessary. According to this amendment, that decision will be taken by a parliamentary committee—in this case a joint parliamentary committee—so how could there possibly be a judicial review? That would be contrary to the Bill of Rights.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I think I can see the point that the noble Lord is making. I wonder whether he is interested in hearing my reply, as he is now engaged in another conversation. As I understand the amendment, the committee would make a recommendation to the Government on the basis of urgency, significance and national interest. I think the decision of the Minister, in accepting or not accepting the recommendation, would be subject to judicial review.

For the reasons I have enunciated, I can see that the amendment is well meaning but I urge my noble friends to oppose it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the clause makes no reference to the Joint Committee advising the Government. The Joint Committee would have the responsibility for making a decision. By definition, if the decision is made by a parliamentary committee—a Joint Committee or other parliamentary committee—it could not be subject to judicial review.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Since the noble Lord continues with the matter, I will detain the House for a moment. What is the point of a recommendation coming out of a Joint Committee if the Government ignore it?

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate and there is one thing that we can say about ourselves: we are at least consistent in our inconsistency. We were talking earlier about 40 per cent thresholds and yesterday we were talking about 5 per cent thresholds, and some of us have been subjected to referendums over the years whether we like them or not. Therefore, the important argument about parliamentary democracy which was put forward eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others does not quite register. I fear that this amendment suffers from the same weakness that it is the purpose of the Bill to try and resolve—that, effectively, Parliament is making these decisions. We hide behind the words “major constitutional significance”—some people may say they are weasel words—because what is major to me might not be major to the noble Baroness. We then take away from the Government of the day any significant role unless they rely on their party positions to whip people into particular positions.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to the fact that the Government had to be able to respond and be a good partner to our European colleagues. I believe that the United Kingdom has been an exceptionally good partner over the years. However, simply because we have particular constitutional architecture concerning how we take decisions that affect us in no way invalidates us as a good partner nor does it invalidate a Government’s ability to respond. There are many decisions that require an urgent response. I see no reason why that cannot continue.

It is only when there is actually a change of substance that time will be taken to ratify that. Even when we have been talking about the current economic position in Europe we have been looking at the stability arrangements and others, and we know that these are going to take 18 months to 24 months to get through on existing arrangements. Therefore, I do not believe that this country would be unable to respond and act as a good partner. Nor am I frightened by the prospect that if we enhance our constitutional arrangements our European partners will take the huff and stop dealing with us. I do not believe that for one moment. It is our business. I believe that the Commission accepts that it is our business to decide whatever structures should be put in place. That is the way of the world. Other countries do it. Other countries have referenda; other countries have a variety of constitutional locks. As the European Union grows, I suspect we will enhance the variety of different decision-making processes that come in. Why should we be worried about that?

I do not think that people on the street are running around saying, “I wonder if we are a good partner with our colleagues in Paris or Bonn”. I do not think this is something that registers with the people. What does register is if they are told one thing and then something happens that is the opposite of what they were told or promised. That comes back to why there is a need for such a Bill. Whatever its inelegancies—and I can see that there are many—it is there because we have broken a trust. There is a huge gap between what we as politicians think and what the public think of us. It has only been the recent financial crisis and the situation with bankers that we now have somebody we can look down upon. Until then, we were really at the bottom of the pile.

The truth is that we are, and have been, inconsistent. We have chopped and changed on referenda. Burke was quoted extensively—I am no scholar on Burke—but he was operating in the 18th century.

European Union Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has not persuaded me of the need to include an urgency condition. It seems to me there is absolutely nothing that prevents the UK from co-ordinating with other EU member states in response to any natural disaster. Furthermore, if the amendment were adopted, the ability of the UK to react speedily might even be circumscribed. The amendment does nothing to improve clarity; rather, it confuses the situation, compromises legal certainty and is very subjective. Amendment 10 states:

“The urgency condition is where an amendment under the simplified revision procedure is considered to be urgent”.

“Considered” by whom and in what forum? It is very unclear. I venture to submit that this amendment does nothing to improve the clarity and certainty of the Bill.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I too oppose the amendment, although I recognise that in tabling it the opposition Benches are very conscious of the leap in the dark that we are making to some extent with this Bill. It is about future eventualities at a time of significant flux in the world, and indeed in the European Union. One would need to be a clairvoyant to imagine what might be coming down the road in terms of emergencies and urgencies that would need rather speedier action than the normal pace of change in the European Union. In fact I think one of the reasons why there is a disconnect between the British electorate and the Union is partly because of the very slow and cumbersome methodology and pace of reacting to events. When there is a deep economic recession or a great financial or banking crisis, people out in the country want their leaders and politicians to act speedily to deal with the issues that led to those events, and perhaps would wish us to move faster than we have been capable of doing in international fora and multilateral institutions.

Despite recognising these things, I nevertheless oppose this amendment because I think what defines urgency is so subjective and so much predicated on what the Government of the day, and the policy-makers on either side of the debate, would imagine to be urgent or not. While I think we all know what is urgent when it hits us in the face, and it is quite right that we should and should then act speedily, enshrining it in law seems to raise a host of problems, not least again with judicial review. It also creates a basis of very subjective analysis as to whether something is urgent or not, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in his very helpful moving of the amendment, accepted that we do take quite a long time—that even the European financial stability mechanism is going to take a leisurely pace. This really goes to the heart of the argument; that it is better for us to look for ways to facilitate speed and urgency when the urgent situation arises, rather than to seek to enshrine it in law at this stage.

European Union Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I, too, would like to address the question of sunset clauses, but first I will pick up on one or two comments by my noble friend Lord Taverne. He seemed to suggest that we would be put at enormous disadvantage, because there would be negotiations in the EU on certain things that were to the United Kingdom’s advantage but which the referendum lock would somehow stop us agreeing to. This suggests that it is impossible to win a referendum on an issue that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom. I do not quite understand the logic of that. It suggests either that the British people are extraordinarily stupid or that somehow there are no powers of persuasion to tell the people of this country that when things are to their advantage they should vote for them—a rather depressing attitude.

To return to the sunset clauses, and indeed to the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I voted in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that introduced a sunset clause for the five-year fixed Parliament. I did that because it struck me that it was a matter of convenience to the coalition to have a five-year fixed Parliament. If that is what was wanted, and if the Liberal Democrats wanted somehow to organise life so that they would not be tipped out of bed by Prime Minister Cameron, who would then call an early election, that was up to them and it was surely something pertinent to this coalition Government and for their duration. I did not quite see why that should tie future Parliaments to adhering to the timescale of a five-year fixed Parliament. That was entirely different.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I imagine that since the noble Lord sees the Liberal Democrats behind attempts to tie anyone’s hands through the use of sunset clauses, he has forgotten that it was the late Lord Kingsland who moved, for the Conservatives, a strong Motion for a sunset clause when we debated the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I was coming on to counterterrorism. Those sunset clauses were designed because the Government had taken an enormous power to themselves. It therefore seemed right that there should be sunset clauses allowing those powers to lapse automatically. As my noble friend Lady Nicholson mentioned, we are now talking about giving power to the people in referenda, then saying, “No, no, we should have a sunset clause so that those powers are then taken back by government”. That is a totally different concept, which was the point raised by my erstwhile noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

There would be enormous problems in the country if we had to explain that we were passing legislation that gave referenda to the people and that those powers would then lapse and come back to their Government. The people of the country would not understand that in any way whatever. There is a very clear difference between giving the power to the people and having the Government, as in the counterterrorism legislation, taking powers to themselves that can be seen to be excessive. It is in those cases that the sunset clauses should allow those powers to lapse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I notice that my name is attached to one of the amendments on the Marshalled List. I rise with rather a heavy heart to say anything at all. The kind of discussion that is now taking place—I rebuke nobody for it—and which has been launched by the Bill and beforehand, casts a shadow over an enterprise which deserves to have been given more wholehearted support from a much earlier stage.

I am on record in my own disreputable memoirs as having written a letter in 1948 commending the prospect of Britain taking part in the original negotiations on the formation of the European Community. I reproached the Attlee Government for not having then undertaken the initiative commended by Winston Churchill. It is sad that we did not join at the beginning. We were proud at the time, and entitled to be, of our survival and success in the war. However, at some points we have allowed that pride to be transformed into conceit and have staggered and stumbled in quite a less attractive way in joining this enterprise.

It was entirely right, when we had considered it carefully, to conclude as we did after the 1972 Act that the British people should be entitled to express their view on the major, fundamental change involved in the transfer and sharing of sovereignty, an enterprise that was already under way and working quite well. In that spirit, we were able in successive Governments to play a reasonable part in carrying forward an important and worthwhile policy. I was content and proud, for example, when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, we circulated a document around the Community entitled Europe—the Future, which visualised steady progress in enhancing the influence of Britain and Europe on the world stage as it was developing.

I have become less and less happy with the to-ing and fro-ing, which has been illustrated as a reductio ad absurdum in this debate. I find my name attached to a thing called a “sunset clause”, which is also a “sunrise and re-set clause”, and does not do justice to the enterprise on which we were embarked and to which we are still committed. The Bill is a response to anxiety among the British people and a tendency to think that we can resolve that lack of understanding if we have an immense clutch of referenda ad infinitum. It would be far better if we were to recommit ourselves to the original enterprise rather than find ourselves engaged in this kind of discussion on this kind of issue.

There is a great course still to be put under way. I grieve at the fact that the Bill purports to give the British people an opportunity that they ought not really to have because it becomes so complex that it is absurd. They were entitled to have that question put to them, as was done in 1975; it was the major step. It is on that foundation that I would prefer us to be going forward now rather than allowing it to get into this morass of multiple referenda.

I do not support my own amendment. I apologise for the fact that it is there because I have joined the rattling to and fro in a context which does not deserve it. I hope that the amendment is not put and that the Bill does not pass, but I am not going to challenge it single-handed at this stage. However, I think that I am entitled to express my dismay in the light of what could have been achieved and sustained, and what can be achieved and sustained if we commit ourselves more wholeheartedly to the European Union, about which Winston Churchill spoke with favour and where successive Prime Ministers have led us forward—even my noble friend Lady Thatcher. We worked together for 15 years, trying to enhance the power of the United Kingdom in the European Union. Our political marriage, which lasted for 15 years, concluded in a divorce, about which the less said the better. However, I reaffirm the legitimacy of that which we did together in those years, and the legitimacy of the objective to which we should be directing ourselves.

The sooner we allow this Bill to spread itself into the morass of discontinuity and die a death, rather than have a sunset clause fluctuating one way or the other, the better. We should let it die of senility because we have had enough of it. That is what I should like to see happen.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, it was on this day last year, and with some trepidation, that I stood as the first Liberal on government Benches in 96 years to support the Queen’s Speech. This party knew, as did the Conservatives, that Europe could create a huge rift between us. It is in the true spirit of what a coalition is meant to be, in European terms, that we have managed in this Bill to come together in pursuit of its fundamental objective of rebuilding trust between the British people and those who govern them.

Amendments 61 and 63 aim to do more or less the same thing: to suggest that the Bill is a complete waste of time and should therefore expire as soon as this coalition Government cease to exist. I have enormous respect for the noble Lords whose names are listed as supporting these amendments. They undoubtedly believe that this Bill is unnecessary and will do little to address the disconnect between the EU’s institutions and Britain’s. They are entitled to their view, but I regret that there has been no attempt on their part during the passage of the Bill in Committee to propose an alternative method of restoring trust.

Noble Lords on the opposition Benches have just been the custodians of power for 13 years. During their time in office, there were broken promises in consulting the people and precious little support for engaging the public in the European debate. Now, when confronted with the central aim of the Bill—to promise the British people that they will have a say in some matters to do with giving over more power to the EU, or at least to assure them that Ministers will have to justify their decisions—the response is to suggest that the Bill is an artificial construct intended simply to appease anti-Europeanism; and that it should therefore be dispensed with at the first opportunity, namely the Dissolution of this Parliament. This goes against the spirit of the Bill and we will resist that from these Benches.

I turn now to the principle of sunset clauses, somewhat anticipating what the Minister might say in response to the other two amendments.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness and am most grateful to her for giving way. However, it is unwise to caricature other people’s arguments, particularly when one does so inaccurately. I wish she would recognise—I ask her to do so—that many of the amendments that have been moved, by me and others, provide for the strengthening of parliamentary control over any changes in the European arrangements. It is a strengthening over what was provided by the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, for which the noble Baroness voted. We would get on a bit better, frankly, if we did not suggest that there had been no suggestions from those who are moving amendments to strengthen controls. There have been.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does not particularly care for other people putting words into his mouth. I suggest that he apply the same principle to others. I was not at all proposing that those controls are not being suggested. What I was talking about was a disconnect between the British people and their institutions, whether it is in their relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament or the European institutions. The tone of the debate makes it rather difficult to take what the noble Lord says with the seriousness with which it is intended.

This is the only amendment to the Bill that I have tabled, and I should therefore be most grateful if I could continue to address the principles behind my amendment. Somewhat in anticipation of what the Minister might say in response to the other two amendments, let me speak to the amendment in my own name and in that of my noble friend Lady Brinton, Amendment 64.

Sunset clauses in legislation are increasingly becoming part of the framework of our constitutional arrangements. We have seen them in a spate of Bills over the past decade or so. It was only earlier today that a sunset clause was reprieved and put on a permanent footing in the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010. That also happened to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This House voted again and again to insert such a provision into the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. A host of other Acts attracted such clauses, including the Finance Act 2001, the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006. The list goes on and on. Why are sunset clauses there? Among the reasons is concern about the unintended consequences of the relevant legislation. There was concern that new structures and processes were being installed without clarity on how exactly they might work in certain circumstances that could not be foreseen when the legislation was passed. In other words, they cannot be foreseen here and now. On that basis, there is no Bill, once enacted, more suitable for post-hoc review and the possibility of repeal than this one. Its aims are clear and I have reiterated our support for them. What is unclear is the effect of the measures on decision-making in the future.

Several noble Lords have mentioned the need that might arise when decisions are taken in urgent situations. Others have spoken of the need for flexibility. Yet others have spoken of the level of complexity in EU legislation. All sides of the House share a central concern—that UK interests should not be put at risk due to its adoption of the complicated procedures in place in the Bill. Therefore, a sunset clause, if accompanied by a straightforward sunrise clause, would seem to be ideally suited here.

I turn briefly to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. There is little that one would fault with it, other than the proposal that the Bill should sunset at the end of this Parliament. Several noble Lords have suggested that there is no point in the Bill because the coalition has already declared—not today but at other times during the passage of the Bill—that there will be no further transfers of powers or competences. In other words, we do not need this legislation because there has been a declaratory statement of what the purpose of the Bill will be for the rest of this Parliament. That misses the point that we are intending to legislate for the future.

I turn to the issue of whether a Parliament can bind a future Parliament in this manner. I agree with the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place which said that Parliaments by necessity bind the other, as all legislation is directed at the future, rather than the past. I quote from the report:

“Laws passed by one Parliament do not contain a sunset clause at the Dissolution”.

All can be repealed by a future Parliament, if it so chooses and if that Executive can muster support. However, I recognise the political difficulties that repeal can attract, hence the simplicity of Amendment 64. First, the fact that the sunset would not take place until three years into the next Parliament would mean that a new Government would have sufficient time to see how the provisions played out in reality. Their Ministers would be able to see for themselves that their negotiating positions were not as inflexible as the Bill might appear to suggest, and that that they did not go to Brussels with one hand tied behind their back. In other words the provisions should actually work in practice. We would have sufficient time to assess whether we needed regular referendums, as the four remaining years of this Parliament plus three in the next would allow for a reasonable time span over which to make a judgment.

Finally, my amendment would also allow for an evaluation of how the judicial review provisions work. The process of judicial review can be, as we know, fairly drawn out, and we will have been able to make an assessment of whether the dire predictions of the frequency of judicial review will really bear out.

My Amendment 64 would put in place the possibility of evaluating how things will play out. This evaluation period would be sufficiently long to test the workings of the Act. The process would be straightforward: the Act will lapse if the Government think that it is not in the national interest to retain it, but if the Government of the day wish to retain it, again, all that will be needed will be an order resurrecting it—a sunrise. It will not absorb political capital or indeed take up precious legislative time. This clause is intended to be a pragmatic, evidence-based solution to ameliorate uncertainty. While I may be probing today as to the Minister’s objections, I suggest that in future years he may look back at this amendment, if accepted at Report, with some relief if he is caught in an unwelcome bind that was not evident on a glorious, sunny day in May.

Lord Grenfell: I support Amendments 61 to 63. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, feels that he must now dissociate himself from Amendment 62, because the olive branch on which the amendment perches is very appropriate and could lead us out of a difficult situation.

I think that Schedule 1 is an abomination, and I always have done, and wish that it was not in the Bill. To pretend that this could possibly bring the people of this country closer to the EU and vice versa is a total myth, and I am surprised that there are those who still believe that this is the way to go in order to cement the relationship between the people and the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right to say that the Bill is not exactly a subject of discussion in the bars on the Champs-Élysées or even in the Quartier Latin—far from it. But it is beginning to have a little bit of resonance in the two Houses of the French Parliament, particularly in their European Union committees, where they have taken note of it. A member of one of those committees asked me the other day whether this was actually true and whether it could happen. When I said it could, he said, if I may slip for a moment into the language of Simon de Montfort in this Parliament,

“Dans ce cas-là, nous entamerions notre proper chemin”—

which means,

“In that case, we’ll go our own way”.

And indeed they will.

I honestly believe that to think that the rest of Europe will go along with this is simply not true. It will test their patience to the limit and will do us no good at all. This Bill is not a good Bill. It is full of things that should not be there. To requote something I said late one night in Committee, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said that perfection is achieved not when everything has been said that should be said but when there is nothing left to take away. This Bill suffers from the fact that the Government do not see that there is a great advantage in taking quite a lot of this away, but I am afraid that we may have to live with a different situation.

This is not a good Bill. I support the three amendments and hope that at least we can make it better by passing them.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Before I comment specifically on the sunset clauses—and notwithstanding the masterful innings of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe—it is important to reflect on the ultimate purpose of the Bill. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and other noble Lords talk about connection with the British people. The fact that people on the streets are not talking about Parliament debating the EU Bill is in fact a recognition of the disconnect that the Bill is trying to address. It is about defining Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Perhaps more importantly, however, it is about defining the relationship of Parliament, and indeed the European Union, with the British people, which is a very noble intention. The Bill looks to challenge, test, promote and perhaps redefine our relationship with Europe in the best interests of the British people. It is not sceptical. It is not against the European Union. It is about recognising the strengths of the single market. However, it is also about improving that relationship.

I have sat through many sittings on this Bill and heard many noble Lords talk about their experience of the 1975 referendum on joining the European Economic Community. I must confess that—through no fault of my own, I should add—I did not have much interest in the issue at that time. However, like many British people today, I am interested in defining our future relationship with the European Union. Why deny a referendum? Why deny the people of our great country a voice in defining that future relationship—not against Europe, but working with Europe at the heart of Europe?

Should sunset clauses be applied? Yes, where there are specific timelines in the Bill, as noble Lords have said in respect of other Bills. However, this Bill does not have that. They do not apply to this Bill. The EU Bill seeks to define our relationship. A sunset clause limited to this Parliament alone, or extended as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, suggested, is limiting. It does not recognise what this Bill seeks to do: to reconnect with the British people. Nor does the lack of a sunset clause bind future Parliaments. If there is a need at the time and in the correct place, which is here in Parliament, another Act of Parliament can be proposed that looks at the Europe of the future. That is, indeed, for the future. For the here and now, I believe that a sunset clause would kill the Bill. It will leave it with Ministers and not with Parliament. Most importantly, the basis of the EU Bill, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, is for an enduring constitutional framework. Ultimately, it is providing the British people with a voice in defining our future relationship with Europe

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

European Union Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have clearly explained the problems associated with the term “or otherwise support”. I wish to give an instance of where a problem may arise. The Council in Brussels may be discussing a measure which requires unanimity—our agreement—in terms of some outcomes that would be unacceptable to us, and others that would be acceptable to us once Parliament had endorsed them. How is the Minister to express that preference? There is a real risk that “or otherwise support” could be interpreted in a way which prevents the Minister expressing that preference. That, surely, would be completely counterproductive because in such circumstances we want to be able to say—do we not?—that one or more courses of action would be unacceptable to us and we would not agree to them there and then, but that another course of action could be acceptable to us once we had the authority of Parliament to make a legal decision possible. Taking all these points together, I hope that the Ministers will break their duck and agree to a change. After all, we have been sitting here for I do not know how many hours and so far they have not managed it. I would like to encourage them to try a little harder.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, specifically on Clause 7(3). He mentioned the coalition agreement. I think that on day five in Committee we discussed the coalition agreement and what it said about passerelles. Does he agree that the coalition agreement is clear on this particular use of passerelles, as it says:

“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that … the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation”?

As regards his other more general points, the report of the Constitution Committee, which discusses Clause 7, concludes at paragraph 41:

“We agree with the re-balancing of domestic constitutional arrangements in favour of Parliament”.

Both those statements point in a different direction from that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for breaking into her remarks but I find it hard to understand why that encompasses the words “or otherwise support”, given the arguments that have been made. I do not believe that the noble Lords on the Cross Benches, or I, are for one moment arguing that there should not be an Act of Parliament. The issue is about the run-up to the draft decision that Parliament will make, and whether that run-up should include a proper debate involving Ministers of the Crown.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I was getting to that. Whoever said that EU legislation was dull and boring should see the enthusiasm of Members of this House to make sure that we examine every sentence. I was going to refer to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on “or otherwise support”, and I shall do so now. Clause 7(3) states:

“A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support”.

However, that has to be read in the context of the following words:

“a decision to which this subsection applies unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament”.

My interpretation of the words,

“or otherwise support a decision”,

is a slightly more legalistic one. Will the Minister clarify that point? I see “or otherwise support” as meaning to give assent to “a decision”—meaning a law. In other words, that is a decision as seen in the category of regulations, directives and decisions—in this case, a decision taking immediate effect. That is why supporting —in other words, giving assent to—the making of a law would not be possible, but the Minister would have to come back with a draft decision, and subsequently go back and support it. This might be a rather legalistic view of the issue, but I should be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether that is right. If it is, the words are entirely sensible.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I have looked at this section and tried to construe and understand it, which was difficult. If I may say so, we are making rather heavy weather of the phrase “or otherwise support”. There is only one issue that the House ought to consider—is the legislation clear as presently drafted? If it is, then of course a lot of this argument is negated. If it is not clear as drafted, someone—almost certainly the Government—ought to put it right. I am doing my best with this phrase,

“or otherwise support a decision”,

but I am finding it difficult to understand what it means. I do not know what “otherwise support” means. Does “otherwise” refer back to the original approval, or to something less than the approval that you are minded to support? This is an extremely difficult concept to grasp. In short, is it clear? The answer to that is no. Should it be amended? The answer to that is yes. Who should do the amending? It should, on the whole, be the parliamentary draftsman. If ever there was a case in which the Government should say, “Right; we agree there is something here that we can look at again”, this is one.

[Lord Triesman]

I have the same difficulties that have been expressed by a number of noble Lords in this debate. Broadly speaking, as my noble friend Lord Liddle and I have said on several occasions from this Dispatch Box, our position is that the kind of arrangement in Clause 7(1)—the requirement for Parliament to undertake the necessary work in all these circumstances—is well understood. It would increase the amount of parliamentary work on European legislation and would inevitably increase the amount of scrutiny we placed on such legislation. That is bound to be a good thing. In our submission, it is also bound to reflect well on Parliament and its responsibility to do the job adequately, without turning to a multiple requirement for referenda.

This clause, at least in some of its wording, is not just a lock but a double lock. There are two kinds of locks in it. The first is that, apart from the matters covered in the clause, there will be a referendum lock, and there is a double lock on the political process in which a Minister might take any reasonable part in any reasonable discussion of any reasonable proposition in order to make sure that their parliamentary colleagues—let alone the public—know what the issues are and how they stand on them.

There is no difficulty with the notion of the first part, where the requirement is,

“may not vote in favour”.

That is the point on which, I suspect, there is a great deal of agreement around the House. However, I do not think that the use of “or otherwise support” is a simply a drafting or technical matter. I rely in part on the fact that those words appear in many clauses. This is not the only example. Clause after clause imposes the requirement. In general, when we have talked about these kinds of clause, the government Front Bench has indicated that in some sense—not in any sense that Ministers have described to us, and certainly not in any detail—it will be all right on the night and that it will not somehow have got in the way of anyone engaging in serious political work.

We first moved an amendment to delete that wording some time ago; I continue to believe that it is unhelpful and inappropriate. I put to the Government the following thought, which flows from ministerial experience—a good many Members of this House have real ministerial experience in this and other foreign affairs issues. Ministerial experience tells me that it is wholly impractical to try to do the political job without being able to speak on any matter of substance while you are doing it. Your processes of thought—the decisions to which you may come not instantly but as a result of discussion—must remain wholly obscure. Can you even say that you wish to deploy the knowledge you have of the issue? Can you say that you think that it is in the national interest that the issue is thought about and resolved? Can you find words in the process in which you are engaged—some of us have been engaged in these processes in much detail over the years—that are so neutral that nobody could misunderstand any word or syllable that you said as being other than completely neutral and not demonstrating any inference of support? Can you realistically anticipate that everyone will agree that what is said is so neutral that they will not claim that it is a breach of the law when they do not agree with you or the outcome? We have heard noble Lords saying in terms that they are in fundamental disagreement with almost anything. I do not mean noble Lords on the government Benches—they are just happily confused—but noble Lords in UKIP, for example, have found it almost inconceivable that anything that could be said would not represent some slippage into a greater presence of Europe in the United Kingdom.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it is not a matter of how she reads Clause 7(3). Of course it is all about decisions. Draft decisions are bound to give rise to the expression of a view, or nobody would have drafted them. That is precisely why you would draft a decision. I cannot believe that we do not agree on that basic proposition.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Does the noble Lord then agree that “or otherwise support” could as easily imply assent—in other words, agreeing to support it?

[Lord Triesman]

No, my Lords, I do not agree with that. In the process of any kind of discussion, people will say something which either indicates support, or which they hope is sufficiently neutral not to indicate support but others will say that they believe that it does. The moment that anybody drafts anything, it will be seen or thought to be a clear indication of support by the very nature of going through the process of drafting it and putting it into the public domain. In real politics, that is precisely what will happen.

That is all fundamentally unhelpful, and I really hope that in their own interest—because at the moment they provide the Ministers who are taking part in discussions in Europe and elsewhere—the Government will not put themselves in so calamitous a position as to be unable to operate effectively.

European Union Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, for saying that. I do not feel any differently about underlining something from how I do about declaring something that is already in existence, is supported by the judiciary and is not in question. Of course, I shall read the interventions of noble Lords who have spoken previously on these matters, but I remain to be convinced that we need this clause in the Bill.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I will briefly address three issues. The first is whether we need this clause in the Bill. I completely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord Kerr, and with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe that the clause is probably redundant, not only because it is declaratory but because it does do what it sets out to do. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that if one reads carefully the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee report, one sees very clearly that the committee does not think much of the clause. Paragraphs 82 to 86 of the report state:

“Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law … evidence suggests that clause 18 is not needed … if the legislative supremacy of Parliament is under threat, it is from judicial opinions in other areas of law … Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the Government, and the whole premise on which it is included in the Bill is, in our view, exaggerated”.

That is the view of the European Scrutiny Committee.

In case the Minister convinces the House that the clause has merits that are not instantly evident to most of us, I will say a word or two about Amendment 59. We have spent hours and days in Committee trying to gain clarity where there was ambiguity in the Bill, and a level of certainty where there was obfuscation. Therefore, it is odd to see that Clause 18 is as ambiguous as it is. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose amendment seeks to replace an Act of Parliament with the European Communities Act 1972. This would be a welcome move.

As regards Amendment 57, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, looks at paragraph 61 of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee's report, in which Professor Tomkins says that it does not deal with the primacy issue, but only with the source issue, which is not really a question of sovereignty. On careful reading, the report leaves one almost as confused as when one started, because it seems to say everything to everybody, and seems to want to placate several constituencies in one go. It is also clear when one reads the evidence in the Notes that different legal experts offered different ideological interpretations of the Bill. Therefore, I would not die in the last ditch to defend the report. However, it is interesting that it is fairly clear that the sovereignty issue is not addressed by the Bill.

In conclusion, I find it rather peculiar that paragraph 115 of the Explanatory Notes states:

“This clause has been included in the Bill to address concerns that the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty may in the future be eroded by decisions of the courts”.

This is slightly curious. Perhaps the Minister will give us clarification.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I spoke to Amendment 58. It is not in this group, but it is very much part of the balancing act with Clause 18. My purpose in tabling Amendment 58 is to persuade the Government that it would be helpful to have a clause to balance Clause 18. Both the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, and I would be happier if Clause 18 was not there, so that there would be no need for what one might call a balancing affirmation. However, I suspect that if we wind up with Clause 18, the majority of the House would be happy to have it along with a balancing affirmation. I am not going back into the theology of declaratory clauses, although in different ways, I half infer from a range of speeches, including, to some extent, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that declaratory clauses are not without value if there is a balance.

I hope the Government will not look askance at the idea that I am trying to do them a favour. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is an honourable man, and I hope I am, and I think this would be helpful. It would avoid the impression that this Bill is simply about giving credence to the idea that everything that comes from Brussels is horrible and that we have to watch like a hawk and have referendums in various places. This is the tone of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made an excellent statement—I am reflecting what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others—but it is hardly the picture that is coming across of the role of the European Union in this Bill.

I have taken the liberty of writing out the major pieces of legislation that constitute the framework of where we are in Europe. It is quite significant. I have not even put in all the jargon of the acronyms—TEU and so on. We have the European Communities Act 1972, the amending treaties and the Single European Act 1987. We all remember that these were not little jigsaw pieces. We have the Maastricht treaty of 1992, the Amsterdam treaty of 1997, the Nice treaty of 2001 and the treaty of Lisbon of 2007, which were concluded in the context of the European Union having a dynamic of development with new EU competences side by side with the successive enlargements of the European Union and new competences in fields agreed to be necessary for Europeans to act together. If we are in the business of declaratory clauses, I think that would be a good one and might reflect the views of the majority of the Committee if Clause 18 remains in the Bill. It needs balance.

The only other point I shall make is that we have here an affirmation of what the Government claim to be their position. The Minister says that this is the Government’s position and that far from trying to introduce an opt-out from Lisbon via the back door of referendums and so on, they accept responsibilities from the framework of all the signatory nations in implementing this framework and that they will look pragmatically at any new proposals under these treaties in the usual way through the Council, the Parliament and the Commission.

I am leaning over backwards. I hope it is not a posture that looks too ridiculous, but if you are going to have Clause 18, a balancing affirmation like this would be very desirable.

Education: Bahraini Students

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

EU: Transfer of Iranian Refugees

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[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?

Palestine

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[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?