NATO and the European Union
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for initiating this very timely and important debate. The European Council only had its first discussion on a common security and defence policy since the Lisbon treaty in December 2013—so only two years ago—but it had another fairly quickly, in June this year, when it vowed to keep security and defence policy regularly on its agenda. There are preparations under way to renew both the EU internal security strategy and the global strategy on foreign and security policy. It is clear that there is considerable overlap and convergence between those two: where does the fight against ISIS/Daesh as a terrorist organisation stop and that against it as a military threat start? European cyberdefence against organised criminal hacking networks shades into defence against cyberespionage and cyberwarfare conducted by states.
Indeed, the way that internal and external security are intertwined is shown by France invoking Article 47.2 of the Treaty on European Union on mutual assistance. It suffered a terrorist attack but the response is a mixture of intelligence policing and military capabilities. None of this means a European army, even if that aim has been supported fairly recently by the Commission President, Mr Juncker. Indeed, to quote Mrs Mogherini, the high representative, the convergence of internal and external security has,
“led to a renewed impetus in the EU-NATO relationship”.
She meets regularly with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
European states are facing common threats. Europe needs a common response through the pooling of resources and equipment, joint procurement and interoperability so that EU and NATO capabilities and operations are increasingly integrated. The European Defence Agency is getting into its stride with a number of effective pooling and sharing projects, including pilot training, satellite communications, medical capability and air-to-air refuelling. I think that there was a Conservative pledge, possibly in the 2010 manifesto, to review UK membership of the European Defence Agency. Can the Minister confirm that that has been quietly shelved?
As my colleagues have mentioned, there are informal examples of co-operation through the French maritime patrols off the coast of Scotland, and indeed the UK offer of the use of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus to France. It was most welcome that the strategic defence and security review vowed to further strengthen the UK-France defence and security relationship, and was perhaps a little unexpected. The plans include, as my noble friend mentioned, a combined joint expeditionary force of up to 10,000 personnel, collaboration on equipment, including the procurement and development of missiles, the exploitation of shared opportunities with the new aircraft carriers, and stronger links between the Army’s 16 Air Assault Brigade and its French counterpart. Obviously the joint working in Iraq and Syria against ISIS, although the subject of a particular vote, is part of that trend.
Mention is also made in the SDSR of the relationship with Germany. That makes sense as Germany seems to be emerging from its chrysalis on defence. Germany and Poland should take on more of the role in NATO territorial defence, leaving the UK and France, which are more willing to deploy forces outside Europe, to continue to fulfil a wider range of responsibilities.
All this is taking place against a background of historic weaknesses in terms of waste and duplication, and a reluctance to co-procure and specialise. That is for a variety of well-known reasons: loss of strategic autonomy and sensitivity of the defence sector, along with a reluctance to give up the strategic industrial base which is seen as a matter of national prestige. Then there is nervousness about specialisation, including whether others are going to pull their weight in funding. I think that we need to look at the dangers of free-riding.
While there has been considerable bilateral co-operation, there is no invoking of the facility for permanent, structured co-operation under Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union to develop “differentiated integration”, to use the EU phrase, among member states. Can the Minister tell us if there is any prospect of invoking this structured permanent co-operation so as to streamline the variety of initiatives taking place?
Finally, I shall quote Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of RUSI:
“Most of all, the UK needs to work to maintain and strengthen the partnerships on which its security and prosperity depends. The grand strategy which it adopted in the 1940s, anchored on a community of fate between the countries of Europe and North America, remains the right one for the country today. Those who argue for a return to nationalism, and for a fragmentation of European institutions, remain on the fringes of politics”.
I hope that that remains the case. Can the Minister elaborate on an intriguing mention in the SDSR of the formation of a cross-Whitehall joint Euro-Atlantic security policy unit, apparently to bring together diplomatic and defence expertise and foster EU and NATO co-ordination and co-operation? I would be interested to know how this encouraging initiative will work and whether personnel from our allies will be somehow associated with this unit.
European Union Referendum Bill
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
He has, indeed. If anyone wants to challenge that, I am very happy to give chapter and verse. Every single amendment that has been put forward has sought to improve the position of those who wish to stay in the European Union. Whichever side of the argument you are on, it is absolutely essential that, if we get a narrow result, people are able to say that it was a fair campaign and it was properly funded.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the noble Lord accept that it is not about giving one side an advantage but about stopping the gaming of the system, which would prevent a fair exercise? That was the point made by the Minister in introducing her amendment, which I think is generally much welcomed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who, with her great experience in the European Parliament, knows all about gaming the system. I am coming on to the point about gaming the system because we have already had examples. My friend and former colleague from the other place, Sir Eric Pickles, has already written to the Electoral Commission saying that the leave campaign should not be designated because it had upset the CBI at its conference and sought to expose that it was one-sided.
If we have those sorts of games being played, where people try to knock out one campaign in order to allow another campaign an advantage, that is gaming the system. This amendment makes it effective because it means that if people were able to persuade the Electoral Commission not to designate a campaign on one side, the other side would have considerable advantage, including even more expenses to spend on the campaign than are already provided in the Bill.
I am disappointed that my noble friend is not seeking to press his amendment. It is of course a matter for the House but I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister how she believes it will be possible to deal with complaints if those who wish to stay win by a very narrow margin and people argue that it was an unfair campaign because one side was allowed to spend far more than the other.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 9 to 25 inclusive, which are all in my name. Government Amendments 4 and 9 to 25 relate to the reporting requirements that apply to donations received by, and loans and certain other transactions involving, permitted participants other than non-minor registered parties.
One of the reasons why there are so many amendments in this group is that the Bill, like legislation for previous referendums, deals separately with donations and loans. Therefore, Amendment 4—along with Amendments 16, 17 and 18—is minor and technical. These amendments make it clear that different paragraphs in the schedules may be commenced at different times. Amendments 9 and 15 are also minor and technical, and would ensure that there is no conflict between two provisions in the Bill about the reporting of donations and loans that apply and modify the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act for different purposes.
I now turn to Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22 and 23, which are the main focus of this group. The Government have tabled these amendments as a result of an undertaking I gave on Report to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. The noble Lord had tabled an amendment, following discussion with the Electoral Commission, to address concerns that the rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requiring campaigners to return donations from ineligible sources applied only to permitted participants. At the time, I set out clearly why the Government could not accept the noble Lord’s amendment as drafted, and I will not rehearse those arguments now, as they are on the record from Report stage in some detail.
However, I noted that the Government had already taken steps to address the concerns identified by the noble Lord’s amendment. These are provided by the introduction of pre-poll reporting requirements in relation to loans and donations. These provisions require permitted participants to be transparent about the sources of their funding before the vote takes place. In these pre-poll reports, campaigners are also required to detail certain donations received and loans entered into before they become a permitted participant. I gave an undertaking on Report to consider whether the level of transparency provided as part of the pre-poll reports was adequate. On that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, withdrew his amendment at that stage. The government amendments I have brought forward today represent the result of consideration and discussions with the noble Lord. We believe they will provide for greater transparency, but without imposing an unnecessary burden on campaigners.
Government Amendments 10, 11, 13, 19, 21 and 23 establish that the first pre-poll reporting period for donations and loans will begin on commencement of the relevant provisions and end after the first week of the referendum period. I note that the Electoral Commission supports all the amendments in this sub-group. The actual length of the referendum period is as yet uncertain, as noble Lords are aware, simply because we do not know the date of the referendum itself, but noble Lords will recall that we agreed earlier to an amendment stating that the referendum period should be at least 10 weeks. Setting the first period through this amendment enables the starting of the first pre-poll reporting period without waiting for the regulations setting the subsequent reporting periods to be made.
Government Amendments 12 and 22 make further progress by increasing the scope of donations and loans that need to be reported. The Electoral Commission supports these amendments too. Under the Bill as it stands, the pre-poll reports need to include only donations or loans for the purpose of meeting referendum expenses that are to be incurred during the referendum period. This would be difficult to apply in practice, especially if the referendum period has not yet been set—as it cannot be, because the negotiations have not yet concluded and we are not yet able to bring to the House a statutory instrument inviting the House to consider a date for the referendum.
These amendments will require the reporting of donations and loans that were for the purpose of meeting referendum expenses generally. This approach means that, once these provisions are commenced, if campaigners are receiving funding from foreign sources to help meet any referendum expenses, they will have to declare this before the referendum. The campaigning rules that will apply to the EU referendum do not expect people to anticipate that they may seek at some future stage to become registered as a permitted participant and return money they receive. This is clearly the fair approach to regulation.
However, the pre-poll reporting rules recognise that there is a risk that, in certain circumstances, a campaigner might delay registering as a permitted participant so that they can receive otherwise ineligible funding. The pre-poll reports therefore seek to shine the light of transparency on the sources of funding campaigners seek to use. Through government Amendments 12 and 22, we have therefore increased the scope of the pre-poll loan and donation reporting requirements. I hope the House will recognise that the additional transparency the amendments provide is indeed a benefit, and that the Government have delivered on the commitment I gave at Report. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for his constructive amendment at Report and his engagement on this point. It has helped us to arrive at this outcome.
I now turn briefly to government Amendments 14, 20, 24 and 25, which are all minor and technical. Amendments 14, 20 and 24 will correct a cross-reference, insert an additional definition and set out more clearly how existing reporting requirements under PPERA will function when applied to this referendum. Finally, Amendment 25 clarifies that the pre-poll loan reports must cover third-party security arrangements, referred to in the Bill as connected transactions, as well as loans and other regulated transactions to which the committed participant is a party. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I rise with some hesitation, because this is not an area that I know much about. I find the briefing from the Electoral Commission slightly confusing. It is probably a bit unfair to ask the Minister whether I should be confused, but is she satisfied that the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission have been fully addressed? Its briefing states that it supports the amendments, which will increase transparency of information, but it is not clear from the last two paragraphs of the briefing whether those concerns applied before Report and have now been cleared up by the new amendments today. The last sentence states that,
“in addition to these amendments we will use our guidance for referendum campaigners to strongly encourage them to only accept donations from permissible sources prior to registering with us”.
Is it the Minister’s understanding that that has been overtaken by events and that her amendments now fully satisfy the concern that some donations would escape the permissibility requirements and post-poll reporting obligations? Do her amendments close all those loopholes? I apologise for asking her to clear up my confusion, but I would none the less be grateful.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I follow that intervention with regard to the position of the Electoral Commission. I understand from what the noble Baroness said that it agrees with the content of what the Government are doing. Is it also entirely happy with the timing implications? If I understand it correctly, the commission has said that, in practice, it needs a minimum of 16 weeks’ notice after the last regulations have been approved. Is there an implication in the Minister’s statement for that timescale? If that is the case, is the Electoral Commission relaxed that it can work within those implications on the overall timescale arising from the amendments?
European Union Referendum Bill
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Will the noble Lord accept that the Prime Minister has also said that he would not rule out calling for a no vote if he does not get satisfaction in the negotiations? Therefore, what the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is calling for—that the Government set out what they envisage could happen in a scenario that the Prime Minister has not ruled out—is perfectly reasonable. What so shocks him to the core about that idea?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that the Liberals find it easy to occupy two opposite positions at the same time on a number of occasions but we cannot ask the Prime Minister to do that. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the amendment states that this has got to be done no later than 12 weeks prior to the appointment date of the referendum. I should like to think that 12 weeks before the referendum the Prime Minister will have decided whether he is going to rule anything out. The Prime Minister will have a position, so that point simply falls.
In Committee, I used the analogy of the European Union being like a bear trap. No one in Britain today would want to put their foot in the bear trap and join the European Union as it is. The question is how to get your leg out of the bear trap. People like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, say that it is just going to be too painful to remove our legs from the bear trap and therefore we must just accept the risk that we might be bleeding to death but that is much less painful. In this amendment he has now come up with the proposition that because of Article 50 it is not just one bear trap: if you take your leg out of the bear trap there are 26 others to get through, each one of which could cause enormous grief, so it is better to stay in the one bear trap. This is a ridiculous position. I am deeply shocked that he should put forward an amendment of this kind.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether Ministers are going to be bound by collective responsibility in respect of the Government’s position. If they are, it is asking a lot of them that they not only have to stand up and support something in which they may not believe, but they have also got to go out and explain what would happen if the opposite happened.
European Union Referendum Bill
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
For once in his life, my noble friend may care to pay a little more attention to what I am about to say, and he may even be convinced by it. I think that there is scope for an inter-party agreement on the preparation of a statement of intent, as it were, between the two camps that neither will accuse the other, or even the Government, of bias, if not dishonesty, simply as a consequence of having conducted an insufficiently robust analysis of the distinction between the facts—the known knowns—and the unknowns. What I am saying may prove to be true or untrue, but on the percentage chance that it is true, can we follow up the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about tsunamis by saying that they will be prevented only if we can avoid charges of bad faith when these reports are published? Therefore, the leaders of the two campaigns should swear an oath—as in ancient Rome, or some such—that they will accept that the assessment is dispassionate and that neither side will try to shoot the messenger, as and when these surveys are produced.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I back up what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, with which I entirely agree. To make the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, happy, I should say that my receipt of a pension from the European Parliament is on my declaration of interests. As far as I know, I do not have to mention it every time we discuss the EU, as that would bore the House greatly.
I wish to amplify two of the points in Amendment 24C, in the name, principally, of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The Prime Minister said recently that the EU was essential—I cannot remember whether he said “essential”, but he at least meant that it was very important—to the UK’s national security. I think that is the first time he has made that very valid point. Therefore, it is important that the report the Government promise to publish in the very welcome amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, should cover the law enforcement, security and justice point because the public have a right to know what that consists of. For instance, the report should state that we are a full member of Europol and not stray into the domain covered by Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, by implying that if we are not in the EU we will not be a full member of Europol, as Norway is not—it has a sort of observer status. The same applies to referring to Eurojust as a sort of club of prosecutors which makes sure that we catch, and can prosecute, these major criminals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, we have full membership of the European arrest warrant. We could even push for reform. I wish that Ministers, the Government and the Commission would take up the report that I wrote as one of my last acts in the European Parliament. This was about multilateral reform of the European arrest warrant. We could not do that simply as law takers outside the EU, even if we had some kind of other arrangement.
On proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 24C and the rights of UK citizens living in another country, a lot of work is being done here, to which the UK, being in the European Union, has a great deal to contribute. This work is about complementing the rights of free movement. We have maybe 2 million citizens living in the rest of the EU. We can take a leading part, with our strong civil as well as criminal legal traditions, in influencing the work on the mutual recognition of documents and of civil partnerships and marriages, including of course same-sex marriages, and on the rights that help our citizens in their daily lives in other EU countries.
It is important that our citizens understand the full implications of those EU measures, and the rights and obligations that arise under EU law enabling us to help defend our national security and ourselves against terrorism, to catch criminals and to help people taking advantage of free-movement rights through civil-law issues. I hope the Minister will say that the report will have some focus on these sectors of law enforcement, security and justice, including civil justice.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I should like to speak to these three amendments.
My noble friend the Minister’s first amendment, Amendment 24A, makes the assumption that the Prime Minister will come back with a negotiated package from the EU. There is not a lot of evidence at the moment that that will happen. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if he cannot get any reforms of or agreement with the EU he will walk away. Is that offer no longer on the table? Are we now basically taking the position that, however hopeless the concessions that we get from the EU are, the Government will campaign to stay in whatever happens?
On Amendment 24B, I have many more concerns. It speaks of,
“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership”.
This really encompasses a large part of UK citizens’ lives. Nick Clegg, from another place, said that 50% of our legislation originates in the EU. This is a very broad category, encompassing very many activities that happen in this country.
In proposed new subsection (1)(b) my noble friend’s amendment says,
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union”.
Can she indicate which countries she will identify as being not part of the European Union, but which have a relationship with it? This is also an extremely broad category. Virtually every country in the world has some sort of relationship with the EU. I would be particularly interested to have a little bit more detail about the free-trade treaty between South Korea and the EU. My view has always been that if South Korea can have such a treaty, the United Kingdom can, too. I should like to know a lot more about that. Will we be told about it in this paper? In general terms, nobody can pretend that the information that will come out in the report suggested by Amendment 24B will be in any way impartial. But of course, when it comes to partiality, we have only to move on to Amendment 24C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to find a whole list of things that quite clearly the noble Lord thinks are going to give advantage to those people who want to stay in the EU.
European Union Committee on 2014–15 (EUC Report)
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is with great admiration and pretty much 100% agreement that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in this debate. I have the greatest admiration for the committee, and I can say that because I have only recently joined the Justice Sub-Committee, as I said in the previous debate. Even when I was an MEP and not at all active in this House over the previous five years, I was always pleased to see the frequency with which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, were in Brussels. Several noble Lords have quoted the tribute from José Manuel Barroso, who said that,
“The House of Lords is one of the best in Europe in terms of analysis”—
although we could differ and say that it is the best. However, that is considerably to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, whose personality also contributes to the high profile of the committee.
The committee’s work is more important than ever. Its strength is that, across the six sub-committees, it does not treat Europe as foreign policy but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, as an extension of domestic policy mainstreamed into and connecting to the work of all the domestic Whitehall departments. Obviously, the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee deals with foreign affairs, but those are the foreign affairs of the EU, not the EU as this country’s foreign policy. That is an extremely valuable asset of the committee.
The committee has two broad strands. One is the sheer weight of the expertise and analysis that goes into the reports, which one could say is for all kinds of reasons different to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other House; the work in this House has a great deal more depth. However, it also tries to keep the Government honest as regards what they do in Brussels and what they tell us that they are doing there.
I have been in the House for nearly 18 years, but for 15 of those I was a Member of the European Parliament, which perhaps explains why this is the first time I have been involved in the work of the EU Committee. Therefore I have not yet had the opportunity or joy of being rotated off; I suppose that I have been spun on to a sub-committee for the first time.
In my first few weeks as an MEP, I remember meeting the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, on the Eurostar. I think that he must have been chairing Sub-Committee A on Economic and Financial Affairs, and he told me that he had managed to squeeze some money out of the budget for 300 copies of a report. Perhaps one would not do that now. The reports were being physically carried by him, or at least by some of his staff, on the train. He was, in a sense, putting his money where his mouth was in distributing them in the European Parliament. Nowadays of course, these things are zipped across by email—although I must admit that I have a weakness for paper copies, as I can then scribble on them and highlight certain passages, so I am not a very good model for electronic communication. I thought that that was a good example of spreading the message in practice. There is absolutely no doubt about the high regard had for, and high reputation of, Lords EU Committee reports in the European Parliament and among all those in the know across the EU.
Scrutiny overrides are a serious matter. The Government need to address them and to be rather more scrupulous in respect of the procedures. In the references to the overrides, I noted that one of the bad boys—or, let us say, bad girls—was my former colleague Jo Swinson MP, who was then a Minister in BIS. She got herself into hot water and was asked to explain a long gap in replying to the committee. However, since that evidence session, BIS has become an exemplar of how to handle European scrutiny matters. That is a tribute both to the committee and, if I may say so, to Jo Swinson. She obviously went back and achieved some action and some change, so well done her.
Our committees have done very important work in raising the profile of the role of national parliaments. As one might expect me to say as a former MEP, it is very important that there is no confusion between the role of national parliamentarians and that of Members of the European Parliament. National parliamentarians can never substitute for a directly elected European Parliament, but it is very important that on the one hand the European Parliament does not become a little snobbish towards national parliaments and, on the other, that national parliaments and the European Parliament work in partnership, as well as between themselves in the 28 member states.
Running throughout this annual report is a co-operative and collegiate approach to increasing pressure on the European Commission, as well as working with the European Parliament. There are some interesting remarks about pushing the Commission to take account of its own Impact Assessment Board reports. There is absolutely no excuse for the cavalier way in which the Commission sometimes approaches the advice given by its own advisers. The Commission must also give much more respect to yellow cards. The reaction to the EPPO reasoned opinions, perhaps led by the previous Commissioner for Justice, with whom I did not always see eye to eye, was deeply regrettable. It is well said that the Commission should publish the annual work programme in good time for constructive input. I was very interested to read about the dialogue with Vice-President Timmermans, which sounds very hopeful.
The committee asked the House’s Procedure Committee to look at whether the right to issue reasoned opinions could be delegated to it, but it decided not to proceed. I hope that it might take the opportunity to have another look at that, perhaps in order to make sure that there are no delays in the system. I find the reference to a possible green card very interesting—what with green cards, yellow cards, orange cards and a possible red card, we are going to have traffic lights not only for food labelling but for guidance from national parliaments.
I wanted to say something about two pieces of the committee’s work from the previous year. One was the work on the block opt-out and the opt back in on justice and home affairs, which exemplifies the two aspects of the committee’s work that I mentioned. One of those is the sheer quality of the analysis that the committee undertook. It played a major role in making sure that the underpinning and justification for the opt back in was there. It also tried, not entirely successfully, to keep the Government honest in the way that they dealt with this matter. Huge credit goes to the committee, specifically to its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for that.
The second piece of work, which I will not dwell on as I am running out of time, was on the balance of competences review. I can only agree with its conclusion in regretting the lack of a final analytical report bringing all those 32 individual reports together. A huge amount of work went into the balance of competences review, and it has been totally underexploited as a resource, which is an enormous shame. It could have been the basis—it could still be—for a multilateral reform exercise, instead of being a kind of unilateral repatriation or renegotiation exercise.
I can only congratulate the committee on its increasingly successful communications strategy. I follow it on Twitter and it follows me—they follow me. This morning, I was working at home and was able to listen to the audio version of the Grexit seminar in the Financial Affairs Sub-Committee. That was a very useful resource. The work that the committee has done in the past year bodes well for the scrutiny that it will no doubt apply to the negotiations that will be taking place for the rest of this year as a prelude to the referendum. I look forward to that work.
European Union: Reform
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, with regard to the timing of changes, we have clearly said that the only date that is certain is that by the end of 2017 we will have put to this country a referendum on the deal that has been achieved. With regard to treaty change, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that there are some circumstances in which treaty change would need to be obtained, but he has also made it clear that in advance of any referendum what is needed is a binding, irreversible agreement with all the other states that a treaty change would take place. On that basis, there would need to be an acceleration of treaty change.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in the light of the Greek referendum result, do the Government intend to follow the advice of the Member for Uxbridge and try to secure a no vote in a referendum as apparent leverage for further negotiations?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I was brought up in a family who said yes because you tended to get the right answer more frequently. I can see that I have caused amusement on the Privy Council Bench of the Conservative Party, but clearly their minds are far superior to mine. With regard to the impact of the negotiations, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has my confidence and the confidence of the Government that he will deliver a deal that is right for this country, and we will be able to support him when it comes to putting it to the population.
EU Referendum: Voting Age
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Earl raises several important issues which will bear greater scrutiny when we come to debate these matters. There is no standard age of majority in the United Kingdom at which one moves from being a child to being an adult. More than that, the noble Earl rightly raises the issues of capacity and capability. It is quite a difficult route to go down in Question Time because one could perhaps argue that some 14 year-olds should be able to have the vote. It is a serious matter, and I know that the House will approach it seriously.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time for coherence and fairness throughout all the electoral processes in this country? We are a United Kingdom and there is surely no justification for having a different age in Scotland from that for the EU referendum. I gather that British residents abroad are going to get voting rights in general elections for a longer period, but not in time for the referendum. There is incoherence throughout the system. Will the Minister undertake with her colleagues to look at this as well as at the unfairness of first past the post?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there is the issue of coherence in franchises for different elections; the noble Baroness raises a serious point. In particular, she refers to the fact that we as a Government have given a commitment to delivering votes for life for British citizens who have moved and now reside overseas. A Bill to deliver this as a permanent change later in this Parliament will achieve some move towards the coherence for which she calls. I am sure that that matter will be discussed broadly across Parliament over the forthcoming Sessions.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I strongly appreciated her speech and look forward to her work. I was somewhat involved in EU-Bosnia relations as a Member of the European Parliament, including in the successful campaign for visa-free travel for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina at least to the Schengen zone. I must confess that I am not sure what has happened regarding the UK visa regime.
I shall focus largely on the UK’s role in the European Parliament. The Prime Minister and the Government have taken a huge responsibility upon themselves in their professed ambitions on the linked issues of Europe and human rights. At stake are our United Kingdom and the UK’s position in the European Union. That is very risky and radical for a Conservative and Unionist Party—or “brave” as Sir Humphrey might say.
The Queen’s Speech promises a,
“strong and lasting constitutional settlement”,
and in his introduction to the Queen’s Speech, the Prime Minister said that the intention was to,
“bring every part of our UK together”.
At the same time, the Government envisage very divisive plans such as a possible Brexit and scrapping the Human Rights Act, which provides some of the glue for both our domestic union and our participation in European construction. The union could indeed become unstuck, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice said. The election promises are chickens coming home to roost, and perhaps the sound of flapping in No. 10 is those chickens, but they are putting a lot at stake.
Bedevilling the whole exercise is the fact that these plans stem not from a strategy of national interest, but one of party interest to buy off the revolting Eurosceptics and attract UKIP voters in the election. So the travails of a fractious and divided party are yet again inflicted on the country. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, reminded us that the Labour Party has historically indulged in the same exercise. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will end up using the same term about his Europhobe rebels as his predecessor John Major did. Certainly, the Prime Minister is destined to practise forlorn appeasement, as one commentator in the Financial Times today says.
The Queen’s Speech promises to,
“renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and pursue reform of the European Union for the benefit of all member states”.
The problem, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is the tension, and indeed contradiction, between those two goals. To start with, the reference to the UK’s relationship with the EU is odd, as though we were already like Norway, Switzerland or Iceland, or indeed Serbia, Ukraine, Bosnia or Macedonia which are not inside. I would have thought that a better phrase would be our position “within” the European Union.
On the substance of the renegotiation, an opt-out from ever closer union is already recognised in practice, and anyway, that phrase is relevant only to the eurozone. That goal will be easily achieved. Ensuring that the rights pertaining to the single market are not prejudiced by eurozone rules is a valid goal, but that has largely been achieved through work under the last Government. The Foreign Secretary this morning confirmed that the Government wanted treaty change, particularly on EU migration and the attached welfare benefits, since apparently government lawyers have advised to this effect. But France and Germany, to name but two, have expressly said that they do not want early treaty change. They have made that crystal clear. So the Foreign Secretary’s threat that the UK will quit the EU unless the Prime Minister’s reforms go through, by which I think he meant renegotiation, is upping the ante in a dangerous and unproductive fashion. It will consume a lot of negative energy and end up by slamming into a brick wall. The best that might be achieved is a declaration about future treaty change, but will that be accepted by the Eurosceptics?
The Conservative Party manifesto refers to having,
“already taken action to return around 100 powers”.
Anoraks such as us will know that this refers to some justice and home affairs measures, ranging from the modest to the minor, because the Liberal Democrats in the last Government ensured, with huge support in this House, that we stayed in the 35 important ones. So it is disingenuous to say that 100 powers have already been repatriated. What exactly are the other things that the Government want to return to the national level? Are we talking about powers, competences or individual measures? It is entirely unclear. Why not work with the legislative reforms pursued by the Commission Vice-President, Mr Timmermans, and work with the grain?
Another thing that is mentioned is the power for Westminster to veto any EU law. That is a non-starter and, indeed, was previously labelled by the Prime Minister as impossible to deliver. National Parliaments should instead make more use of the yellow and orange card system and work in partnership with the European Parliament, and press the European Commission, when it gets that strong signal, to seriously rethink, as it did not on the European public prosecutor. That is an example of where reform is indeed needed.
There are great inconsistencies in the Conservative pronouncements on Europe and the world. The manifesto promises to complete ambitious trade deals, but in the small print acknowledges that these would be EU deals with the US, China India or Japan. Similarly, the Queen’s Speech looks,
“forward to an enhanced partnership with India and China”,
but, again, that partnership will to a large extent be channelled through Brussels.
In contrast to these unilateral measures, pursuing reform on a multilateral basis with our partners and allies could be highly productive and could be based on what turned out to be an excellent balance of competences exercise by the last Government. That would be a worthwhile and positive exercise that could get widespread support throughout the European Union. It would be the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, called a zero-sum game. It would give us a leading role in the EU and build on the attempt to make constructive alliances that was undertaken in the last Government, not least under the Europe Minister David Lidington, who I am pleased to say has stayed, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in the Foreign Office. I should belatedly also welcome the steady hand of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The focus should be on strengthening the EU as a whole to cope with all the modern challenges and pressures that we face. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the reforms pursued must benefit the whole of the EU, not just be a monument to British exceptionalism.
We will have a chance to go through the mechanics of the Bill, which I have only just received and not had a chance to read yet. I can at least welcome that the proposed question is to be, “Should the UK remain a member of the EU?”, which for a host of reasons is the right question. I am concerned that it seems that the Bill will leave the Minister to make regulations, which was not the case with the referendum on the alternative vote or the Scottish referendum, so we will probably want to look at that. We will also want to examine in great detail the proposed electorate, which is unclear at the moment. I am glad it is proposed that we in this House should get the vote—perhaps that is a good precedent for a vote in the general election—but we need consistency on, for example, votes for 16 year-olds and what will happen to Brits abroad or EU citizens resident in this country.
I have time only to say that I strongly welcome and agree with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Judd, on human rights. It is impossible to be a leading member of the EU while boycotting the human rights system, which is woven into the European framework of peace and security. It would of course upset the devolution settlement. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, stressed the impact on our relationship with the Republic of Ireland.
Not only is there no inherent contradiction between our role in the EU and our global role, we can in fact be strong internationally and punch above our weight only if we enjoy the strength in numbers that the EU gives us. I hope that the new Government, unlike their party election manifesto, recognise that fact.
Cyprus: Russian Military Base
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the visit of President Anastasiades to London in January 2014 and the arrangement on non-military development reaffirmed the strong bonds of friendship and partnership which exist between Cyprus and the UK across many areas, notably defence, security, EU reform and foreign policy co-operation. Non-military development is a further measure of the normalisation of administrative planning laws and shows that the United Kingdom and Cyprus are serious about working together on our shared interests.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister rightly talks about the need to maintain EU solidarity on sanctions against Russia, but this solidarity is threatened by at least a quartet of EU leaders from Hungary, Greece, Cyprus and, indeed, Italy. What efforts is the UK making to maintain and forge, if necessary, renewed solidarity? Can she refute press allegations that the UK is being reticent about further financial sanctions because of lobbying by the City of London?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the United Kingdom has led the way in negotiating sanctions against Russia for its illegal activity. We continue to do so; we are not deflected from that course. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he would like an early rollover of sanctions on 20 March. We are doing our best to negotiate with all our colleagues to maintain the resolve of unity within the EU on these matters.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Georgia) Order 2015
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the orders, and I am sure that we are all grateful to her for bringing us up to date on the situation in Ukraine. I should say at the outset that I support the orders and the fact that the European Union has entered into these association agreements with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.
These countries have two things in common: first, they are victims of territorial disputes and, secondly, all have sought a European and westward-looking future. Ukraine is, of course, in the forefront of the news today, and the dispute over Crimea and part of eastern Ukraine sadly seems likely to be added to the list of frozen conflicts, joining those in South Ossetia, Abkhazia in Georgia, and Transnistria in Moldova.
I have just come back from the meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, where discussion about the situation in Ukraine dominated proceedings. However, deep concerns were also expressed about Russia’s intentions in respect of Moldova and Georgia—and the Baltic states, which are outside the area we are discussing. We must do everything we can to anticipate Russian intentions towards these states and not allow the dissident parts to provide the excuse for Russia to undermine the rest of the country seeking a different, European and democratic future. We have already seen Armenia turn its face against an association agreement.
This afternoon is not the place to go into these situations in detail but, while I entirely agree that Russia should not have a veto over the future of any sovereign state, it is important that the position of the European Union and our Government is clear—namely, that although the agreements are a welcome step to inclusion of these countries in Europe, there can be no question of accession to the European Union while these territorial disputes exist. Unless we make that clear, we stand the risk of dashing the hopes of many citizens in those countries, and that can lead only to disillusionment with the European Union and the West in general.
Nevertheless, we should adopt the agreements with enthusiasm and offer as much assistance and economic help as possible to buttress the sometimes fragile democracies that exist in these countries. The agreements are with each of the three countries and the Governments of those countries do not recognise the independence of or the occupation of part of their respective states. It may be an academic point, but the agreements make no reference to these facts. My noble friend referred to businesses in Transnistria; are we quite satisfied that the benefits of these agreements cannot be claimed by businesses— which are no doubt very inventive as to where goods are produced and subsequently exported from—which are in fact based in these disputed territories? If that is considered to be too fanciful, are we in any circumstances under the agreements able to differentiate between the three sovereign states and their Governments and the areas over which they have no control and are in dispute?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful introduction and explanation of the situation. I spent many years making EU law, but perhaps not so much time implementing it, and therefore I am not familiar with this process. Before moving on to other things, perhaps I could ask about the draft Explanatory Memorandum. It explains that one of the effects of the order, declaring that the agreement is to be regarded as an EU treaty under the ECA 1972, is that certain rights and obligations under the agreement automatically become law in the United Kingdom and then subordinate legislation can be made to give effect to the provisions of the agreement. I am not clear which rights and obligations automatically become law. It may be that the noble Baroness can take me aside at some point and explain how all this works, and that will clear my confusion.
My more general point is to strongly welcome these association agreements. I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said about the prospect of not only greater prosperity for the citizens of these three countries, but also greater security for the European Union, and I agree that the prospect of better energy security is a factor in that discussion.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the role of the Council of Europe. It is important that the roles of the EU and the Council of Europe should be complementary. It is fair to say that the EU has much greater resources than the Council of Europe; we know that the Council is always stretched for money, partly because its member states do not give it enough. They should not trip over each other. At one point there was a tendency for the EU to sort of push aside the Council of Europe, which is not a clever idea. The EU needs to come in as a complementary body, and of course it has another role to play in terms of the economic and trade relationship. However, for the rule of law, fighting corruption and an independent judiciary, obviously we have the whole Strasbourg package—aquis, if you like—and that is essentially what the EU wants to implement. There should not be any institutional jealousy between the two organisations. Sometimes during my time as a Member of the European Parliament, there was evidence of a bit of that. After all, the EU pinched the flag of the Council of Europe. However, it is important that the two should work together so as to add value to each other.
I welcome what the Minister said about the provisions on the rule of law and the fight against corruption which have been in force since last November. I should like to stress the importance of that. If we look at the history of countries acceding to the EU, although I know that this is not about accession, it is arguable that not enough was done in these areas before they were admitted to the European Union and there have been continuing problems in the existing member states. More must be done. We really need to front-load this issue. You cannot have a flourishing economy or property rights without an independent judiciary. It is almost more important even than democracy, in a sense. Certainly, some drew that conclusion from the western Balkans. You cannot have economic reform, as I say, without a strong independent judicial system.
I agree with the Minister that, while we must not overstate it, these association agreements have the potential to have a beneficial effect on the prospect of dealing with the conflicts because the people in the breakaway regions would be able to see the benefits of participating in a deep relationship with the EU and would want a slice of the action. But the association agreements of themselves are not going to solve the conflicts.
I welcome what the Minister had to say in going slightly outside the scope of these orders to update us on the situation as regards Ukraine. In that context, I am extremely shocked to read today that the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Anastasiades, on a visit to Moscow, has formalised an agreement for Russian warships to use Cypriot military bases and has also spoken against EU policy on Ukraine. We know that there is press commentary on the difficulty of keeping together a common EU policy on sanctions and the prospect of tightening sanctions on Russia. There were worries about Greece. There have been worries about Hungary, of course, which I mentioned in the House the other day. Mr Orban hosted President Putin the other day. I personally find this the most extraordinary disloyalty by EU member states towards a common EU policy on Russia. I hope that some very candid words are being shared around the European Council table with some of our member states.
I know we have just a short procedure here so I will not go on. These association agreements are extremely welcome. Perhaps from smaller acorns big things will grow. One day, perhaps, one or more of these countries will be eligible to join the European Union. This is not the time and there is no guarantee of that. Personally, I hope that it might be possible for at least some of them and this at least leaves the door open. But as the Minister said, it is their sovereign choice what relationship they want with the EU. All parties in the UK have always supported the process of enlargement and the European Neighbourhood Policy, because it is not just for benefit of those countries; it is for our security.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words. I was in Georgia last July, just after the association agreement was signed, and I cannot underestimate the euphoria that there was, but of course I was among Ministers and people negotiating the agreement. The Georgian Orthodox Church is not exactly of the same mind and I think it may lead them all downhill.
I note from the Explanatory Memorandum that the impact is very modest on the UK economy. The figure of £0.6 million is quoted. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me that this really is the bottom end of the range and that Georgia, if the situation remains stable, can expect a gradual improvement. I would also like to be reassured that there has been no further development on the Russian front in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is not a stable Government—there has already been a change of Minister since we were there—but I am very pleased to read in press reports of the solidarity there is between Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia. They were, for example, at the celebration of the centenary events of the Maidan in Kiev. The Georgian President was invited, and I know that there has been a lot of exchange. I do not think that these association agreements need disturb the Russians unduly. We have moved on from last year and must all expect greater prosperity to follow from them.
I was on the European Union Committee which produced the report on Ukraine and Russia recently. I very much hope the Government will respond to it swiftly, because it will give more of us an urgent opportunity to discuss the situation.