European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has consistently maintained that in all matters European he will put British interests first, while recognising that we, as a fully fledged member of the European Union, will continue to play our part. The Bill is therefore good news. It is good for us and good for the eurozone. It gets the UK out of future liabilities that the previous Labour Government signed us up to, with the EU budget lying as a guarantee, and rightly replaces them with a permanent European stability mechanism that is guaranteed only by eurozone members.

This is right for the eurozone and, most importantly, for Britain. It addresses the urgent need for the euro area to put in place a regime that will provide collaboration and support, and that will make eurozone members take direct responsibility for the monetary union of which they have chosen to be part. Importantly, it means also that there will no longer be a reliance on others who chose to opt out to provide treaty-mandated bailouts when crises hit. However, it is just a small component of the crisis that the eurozone faces.

The rules must be adhered to because they are important. My noble friends Lord Lawson and Lord Lamont referred to the time that the single currency was born. Let us cast our minds back to that time. Economic tests were set. They were established as stringent criteria for qualification. Were they applied in reality? Sadly, they were not. It was clear to me, as it was to many others, that the euro had many flaws. Joining together in a monetary pact and without fiscal union 11 members with different economies in different states of development and with different industrial structures was setting up a currency zone on weak foundations. A one size fits all approach, as the then Conservative Government said and as the Conservative Party has maintained consistently since, does not work. I am glad that the Labour Government led by Mr Blair listened to their predecessor and did not join the euro.

Even if we entertain for a moment the notion that the criteria for monetary union were sensible when they were set, their practical application was not. Allowing countries to qualify on the basis of very loose interpretations of the criteria set up the currency to fail—and it is failing. At the time, those who predicted that during the good times the disparities between the economies of member states would not matter but that they would matter in harder economic circumstances when the currency would be tested, were dismissed as doomsday merchants.

Let us fast forward to 2010 and where we are now, as countries in the eurozone and outside it seek to scramble it out of its crisis. Reforms and austerity measures are essential if we are to succeed in restoring some sense of stability to both markets and the eurozone. However, the members of the eurozone cannot ignore their obligations. It is no good for Greece to say that it wants to remain in the eurozone if it cannot implement austerity measures. I do not agree with the premise that a lack of integration has led to the rise of extremism. It is forced integration, with national identities being lost, that has led to the rise of extremist parties throughout Europe.

If—and it is a big “if”—some of these infant steps work towards restoring stability in the markets, perhaps we can then look to and advise on other measures such as the issuing of Eurobonds, which is currently on the agenda with the election of the new French President. Today the euro crisis predicted by the “doomsday merchants” is upon us. Countries are struggling on the brink of implosion because of widely differing levels of indebtedness and competitiveness. The architects of the euro did not put that down as a major objective—far from it. Countries such as Greece are heavily indebted and pay heavy risk premiums. As we all know, its debt is unsustainable. Some suggest that the solution is to refinance the debt through Eurobonds. However, as other noble Lords said, Germany is the key player in this. Why would Germany, which is currently benefiting from the current rate of the eurozone, seek to devalue? It does not wish to, but compromise and consensus must be the call. If the eurozone is to survive, compromise will be necessary.

It was said in this Chamber and elsewhere that the introduction of the euro would mean Britain losing its influence; that our lack of participation would marginalise our status both in Europe and on the world stage; and, indeed, that our lack of membership would render the City of London second to Frankfurt. It did not. When our Prime Minister rightly stood up for British interests and threatened to veto any legislation that would tax the City of London, again it was said that that would marginalise the UK. It has not. Britain’s continued engagement and involvement in discussions on the creation of the ESM, our contributions through the IMF and our influence as an active and influential member of the G8 and NATO lay to rest the absurd suggestions that Britain lacks influence.

The Bill reflects the promise to put British interests first. It was a decision by the previous Labour Government, albeit at a time of crisis, which committed Britain to bailing out the eurozone even though we chose not to be a member. The Bill simply puts right that wrong. I therefore welcome the establishment of the permanent mechanism of the ESM but, in doing so, also welcome the fact that we no longer face the liability of bailing out a currency zone that we chose not to be part of, that we are not part of and that we should never be part of.

Christians in the Middle East

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first I join others in thanking the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating this most important of debates. Let me also say what a huge privilege it is for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sacks.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, talked about the Abrahamic faiths. I remember my own early learnings in a Church of England school and how I returned home after hearing the words of the noble prophet Jesus, who said:

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven”.

When I reflected on those words and asked my mother about them, she said, “The Abrahamic faiths are that Judaism lays the foundations, Christianity builds the walls and Islam is the roof. We all have the same origin and the same destination. Together we build a single house of worship”.

As many noble Lords have said, it should not be forgotten that the Middle East is the birthplace of the noble prophet Jesus, the home of Christianity and where many of the world's most ancient Christian denominations hail from. Indeed, I am often asked as a Muslim why Islam is in conflict with the West. I reply by saying, “I am a Muslim and I am of the West. I assure you there is no conflict. I do not stand in front of the mirror every morning and slap one cheek from the Muslim side and slap the other from the West. They are perfectly compatible. Equally, there are many Christians and Jews, rightly so, who are of the East. That is where the Abrahamic faiths originate”.

Today, between 10 million and 12 million native Christians remain in the Middle East, concentrated across Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Iraq, yet those Christian communities are declining, as we have heard, not just because of low birth rates and emigration but, most alarmingly, because of persecution and violence against them. Indeed, this final and sinister element is now prevailing further afield, including in Pakistan and Indonesia, where extremist and erroneous interpretations of noble Islamic scripture have resulted in communities being attacked, churches being destroyed and, most tragically, lives being lost. Extremists pitch this as a battle between faiths and ideologies. I reject that. I believe it to be a fight against devout faith and religious extremism. There is a difference. Ultimately, being truly devout makes you anything but an extremist. Yet as much as some in the West equate all Muslims with extremists, there are those in the Middle East who are suspicious of the West. That is prevalent in many Islamic parts of the world. It is based on an extreme hatred of the western imperialism and the perceived unqualified support for Israel. Unfortunately and tragically, this has served on occasion as a pretext to scapegoat indigenous Christians.

What is the solution? As we have heard from many noble Lords, an opportunity is perhaps provided by the Arab spring and the desperate need to drive for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. These have become essential components in what I believe will be a lasting and peaceful future for all communities and all faiths, not just in that region but in the wider world.

Too often we lay the responsibility on someone else's doorstep: “It is for the US to resolve” or “Let each country decide its own fate”. We hear those remarks quite often, and I wish to spend a moment or two on two propositions. The first is Britain’s role on the world stage. We have influence, perhaps beyond what we sometimes realise. When Britain talks, people listen; when Britain walks, people follow. Our diplomacy is world renowned, so let us not discard our role on the world stage. An ambition to play a central and pivotal part in resolving the Israel/Palestine issue should not be dependent on the Americans. Let us not wait for the US to lead. Our Government can take the initiative and build the hope and rekindle the spirit and brave ambition of those leaders emerging in the region today much in the spirit of President Sadat and Prime Minister Rabin. Of course we desire countries to design their own fate, yet helping them to nurture and develop state structures is also important. Intervention should not be in military might alone, but should extend to education and investment.

It is against this backdrop that we must work with the Islamic world in nurturing stable, settled, prosperous and free Christian communities, and all communities, across the Middle East. As the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, said, this will be the ultimate test of Islamic openness. It is this Islam whose hand needs to be strengthened. It is this Islam that needs to prevail. When Muslims interact with Christian communities, and with all communities, with mutual respect and understanding and when faith does not condone suicide bombers but, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, respects human and civil rights and is not out for religious domination but instils the principle of religious pluralism, then it is truly at ease and compatible with the emergence of liberal democracy. Some may say that that is a model too far. Of course it is not, for we find its mirror image on our shores. What Muslims living in the West demand—and receive—for themselves by way of rights, legal protections and representation, they ought to be able to grant to Christians and all communities living in Muslim-majority countries.

I stand before noble Lords today as someone proud of his country and his faith, who is proud of being British and Muslim. The Arab spring should provide opportunity and hope to millions who will be able to say in years to come that they are proud to be Iraqi or Syrian or Egyptian and Christian. Promoting a democracy among Muslims that stresses minority rights and secularism will be the foundation of a healthy pluralism in the Middle East. It can be achieved with the desire and the ambition of people of all faiths. As the right reverend Prelate said, ultimately, with prayer, it can be achieved. Inshallah.

I end with the words of the holy prophet of Islam, the noble Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, who, when addressing the religious leaders of the monastery of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai, who had sought the protection of the Muslims, said:

“This is a message written by Mohammed ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter”.

I end as a Muslim by extending to the Christians in this House the peace of the season and wish them a very merry Christmas.

Pakistan

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Pakistan has many problems but very high on the list are the terrorist threat and its borders with Afghanistan, as we all know. As to relations with India, we notice that India and Pakistan have recently been talking. We greatly welcome and encourage their dialogue, which we hope will lead to a less tense development on that side and therefore less distraction from the main aims that the noble Lord has rightly identified.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, accepting that Pakistan has been in the front line in the war on terror for the past 10 years, I seek our Government’s assurance that strategically, militarily and tactically on the ground Pakistan’s role will not be diminished and that it will continue to play an integrated role in the war against terror—not watching on the sidelines but being involved and engaged fully to prevent the kind of incidents that we saw recently with attacks on Pakistani forces within Pakistani sovereign territory. I join in extending condolences to the families who suffered loss as a result of that act.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sure that my noble friend’s condolences will be appreciated. These horrific things do happen, and we await an investigation of what on earth went wrong for this to have occurred. Full integration in counterterrorism is very much our purpose. As the House knows, we have counterterrorist discussions with Pakistan, although I cannot reveal the details, and we are determined to use its skills and intelligence availability in the united war against terror.

European Union Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

[Baroness Quin]

I will speak very briefly in support of the idea of a sunset clause, which is probably the best way of ensuring that, assuming that the Bill becomes law—although I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on that—there is at least an opportunity for a fundamental rethink about it. My noble friend Lord Davies, whose fine speech I will not repeat, made the very important practical point about the operation of the Bill, particularly under the almost nightmare scenario of having a complicated referendum with several questions on entirely different aspects of treaty change. His practical objections to the working of the Bill really do need to be examined and thought through in much greater detail than seems to have happened so far.

I also have a more fundamental objection. I get very concerned about the idea of holding more and more referendums without thinking through what their role is to be in our parliamentary democracy. On the whole, I prefer a representative democracy to a plebiscitary democracy. This Bill, unfortunately, takes quite a few big steps towards a plebiscitary democracy and we need to think about that. It is very seductive to talk about giving power to the people. However—and I know I am in a minority in this place in espousing this view, as someone who believes in an elected second Chamber—there are ways of giving power and a vote to the people other than by referendum. I do not want us to be seduced into thinking that the only way in which you can give power and influence to the electorate in this country is via the continual use of referendums. I do not think that that is true for a moment, and, again, it is something that we should think about.

The Bill represents fundamental constitutional change. Along with a number of other measures that the coalition Government are introducing, we are making considerable changes to our constitution—in some ways, almost more so than the previous Government, of whom I was a supporter and who were often criticised, particularly by the Conservative Party, for the extent of their constitutional changes. However, we are doing so in a way that I think is fundamentally unsatisfactory in a Bill such as this. For that reason, anything that causes us to rethink this legislation is, in my view, to be greatly welcomed.

European Union Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I want first to address some of the general points that have been made in this debate and then focus on Amendment 42, with which I thoroughly agree. I very much support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on that. Several general points have been made. Some of this debate has been a bit of a Second Reading debate, which is a very good thing. These issues are extremely important and I accept that many of these amendments cut across the thrust of the Bill itself. They force the Government to explain exactly what their purposes are. That is a most important aspect of this evening’s proceedings. We are making some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for recognising that we on this side of the House are very much in favour of enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of European Union decisions. If the argument was about that, there would not be an argument. We would be pretty much in agreement and would have put the Bill to bed long ago. The issue is entirely about referenda, and whether it is sensible, practical and ever seriously intended to have referenda. It is important that, as a result of the proceedings of this Committee, we elucidate that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that he thought it was a sick joke—strong words, but justified—to suppose that the Bill would in any way enhance our relationship with our partners in the EU or enhance the British public’s support for our membership of the EU. I do not cast aspersions on the sincerity of any Member of this House. I am sure the people who say that they believe that the Bill will somehow enhance the British public’s understanding of and support for the European Union have genuinely persuaded themselves that that is the case. However, it is quite difficult to follow that argument, which is so obviously contrary to the historical facts. We all know what those are: Mr Cameron offered this Bill to his Eurosceptics as a sop. It was put to them as being a victory for the Conservative Party in the negotiations that led to the coalition agreement. Indeed, Mr Cameron and his Whips have been going around the Back Benches of the Tory party, as I know, saying, “You must be pleased with us now. We have at least brought forward this Bill, which stops any further growth in powers for the European Union and preserves parliamentary sovereignty”. That is an aspect we will come to later in the Bill. That is historical fact. That is how it has been presented and the way it happened. There is no question at all of anybody saying, “Let’s see what we can do to enhance the British public’s understanding of and support for membership of the Union”, and then coming up with this Bill. That is not how it occurred.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend Lord Hamilton referred earlier to the importance of connecting again with the British people. Is the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggesting that military independence, the loss of our decision-making around defence and judicial independence are less important than financial independence?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have not raised the issue of defence at all in my remarks, so I do not know where that question comes from. From the Whips, I am told. I do not dispute that interpretation.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister put forward the Bill, which is all about connecting with the British people, not with the Whips. The important thing is what the British people care about. They care about our defence, our military independence and our financial independence. That is what this Bill is all about.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The British people clearly care very much about the defence of the country; that is another, wider subject. I have no doubt at all that they are very unhappy with what the Government are doing in that regard. As the noble Lord may know, I have always supported a greater degree of cohesion in European defence matters. However, the amendments that we are discussing are not concerned with that issue. I want to get back to the Bill and the amendments that we are discussing.

Amendment 42, which deals with the European public prosecutor’s office, exposes the Bill’s lack of sincerity. Of course it is possible to make an argument for having a referendum about our joining the euro, or possibly about our joining Schengen, but is it really credible in this regard? Does anybody really think for a second that any Government would seriously have a referendum about the public prosecutor’s office? I do not think that anybody could possibly believe that is a realistic possibility.

Article 86 provides for a public prosecutor’s office. It says:

“In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust”.

The words which state,

“In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union”,

provide the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about having national jurisdiction. This country clearly does not have jurisdiction in financial crimes committed in Brussels or elsewhere in the Union against the financial interests of the Union. We are a member of the Union and suffer as a result of those crimes, but our courts may very well not have jurisdiction in such circumstances. Indeed, they are most unlikely to have it.

Who is going to oppose that? If you are going to have a referendum, have one on something that is controversial. If you go to the British public and ask, “Are you in favour of crimes against the European Union? Are you in favour of prosecuting them? Are you in favour of having a public prosecutor who would have jurisdiction in such cases?”, who is going to say no, they are not? It does not really make sense. Article 86(2) continues:

“The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the regulation provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences”.

What is controversial about that? Where is the substance there for a genuine referendum campaign? Can anybody consider suggesting to the British public that we spend £1 million of their money on having a referendum on such a subject, let alone tens of millions of pounds? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out that almost certainly a referendum on that subject could not be linked to some local or national election, and so the costs would be disproportionately high. It just does not ring true. I said that on Second Reading and I say it again now. The Government will have to do very much better to try to persuade the British public of their sincerity in that matter than they are doing.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says that the treaty may extend the remit of the European public prosecutor’s office to enable it to deal with cross-border crimes within the European Union. That is perfectly true. He quoted paragraph 4, but it is clear that that decision would have to be taken by unanimity, so we have an effective complete lock on that for the rest of time. There is no threat of that happening without our having to take a decision on it if we wanted to. Of course we should take a decision only with parliamentary support. In fact, we should take a decision to join the European prosecutor’s office in the first place only with parliamentary support—whether through a resolution or a Bill, I do not particularly care; I am all in favour of that.

If the British public do not think that we in Parliament are capable of taking a decision on a matter which is a no-brainer—is it not?—to pursue financial fraud more effectively, then what is the purpose of having a Parliament? It does not even begin to make any sense.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for bringing forward this amendment, as it shows up the complete hollowness of the Bill. It is insincere and simply does not make any sense. It is not for real. It is like dealing with a dishonest salesman: you know perfectly well that what he is saying is not the truth; you try to get at the truth and his real intentions, but it is clear that the real intentions are not the ones being overtly expressed. That is my problem with the Bill. It is a very serious problem. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to his fellow signatories to the amendment for bringing it forward. I hope that we get an answer from the Government. What is the reason for this obsession with the public prosecutor’s office? A respectable answer may be this: “We are stopping everything. Of course, it would be absurd to have a referendum on the public prosecutor’s office but we want to stop everything. A cat should not be allowed to cross a street so far as competences in the European Union are concerned without having a referendum. We want to be absolutely certain that we are totally pedantic about that”. That may be a respectable answer. It is an intellectually coherent answer but it means that the Government have adopted a policy of complete, rigid, ideological dogmatism in this matter. That is a very revealing point. If that is the explanation, it is very important that the public should know about it.

Libya

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for his opening statement and his continuing leadership in this House, alongside the leadership being shown by our Government on the international stage for the necessary and measured action to date in Libya. I also join many in this House in extending our thoughts and prayers to our brave Armed Forces and, of course, the innocent civilians who have been caught up in this tragic conflict.

Some of the key questions that were asked of the coalition’s intervention in Libya have already been answered. Bloodshed in Benghazi was to be averted and thankfully it has been. The no-fly zone was to be effective and the Libyan air force is at a standstill. That has been achieved. There are cracks, as we hoped, in Colonel Gaddafi’s top ranks; the defection of ex-Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa reflects that.

However, challenging questions remain. Do we arm the rebels? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord West, referred to that. Who are the rebels? Who specifically leads them? Many reports suggest that on both of these questions no one is clear. The old adage, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, is perhaps in part applicable in this instance.

People are united by one noble aim, some would argue, but notable aim nevertheless, which is opposition to the current regime led by Colonel Gaddafi. If Colonel Gaddafi is to be toppled or if he, as far removed as it sounds currently, steps aside, what will be the premise of the interim Government? The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to tribalism. Does the interim council represent the wide-ranging interests of Libya? It is believed that there are up to 140 tribes in Libya and the influence of many of them extends beyond the political boundaries into Tunisia, Egypt and Chad. Of these tribes, there are arguably about 30 with demonstrable influence in Libya. Indeed, as was mentioned earlier, some of the people coming to Libya to fight for the cause are coming because of these tribal associations. Notwithstanding Colonel Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, many Libyans depend on their tribes for their rights and protections and their ability to secure employment.

Alongside this historical perspective and the emerging political leadership, there also remains a void in the military leadership, strategy and direction. The noble Lord, Lord West, referred to that. We have all witnessed media reports on our televisions of scenes bordering on the chaotic as we see fighters without direction or strategy driving up a road one moment and then coming back down the next. Are these the people who we are seriously suggesting should be armed? What about their training? Who provides that, even in terms of basic weaponry? A level of training is needed. Should the UN, NATO or the coalition countries specifically provide it? Indeed, as has been said, are we resourced to do that?

Of course, there is finally the question of the legality of such an action within existing resolutions. One of the real achievements of the current action has been the secure, legal base on which I believe the coalition has acted, in comparison with the intervention in the second Iraq war. However, we have already seen the extent to which there are now varying explanations of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. The noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Kennedy, have said that this security resolution was based on the responsibility to protect—a noble doctrine that emerged in the aftermath of the tragic genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda. The six principles set out by the responsibility to protect have, to a large part, been met already. However, if we decide to arm the opposition, whoever they may be, I am concerned that the fragile coalition that currently exists not only will be tested but will crack. That would be to the detriment of the success that we have seen thus far.

One of the major failings of the second war in Iraq was the fragmented international response—the lack of authority. As many, including me, argued at the time, there was a lack of a legal international sanction. We need to learn the lesson and ensure that, if required, a new resolution, as other noble Lords have said, is sought.

What next for Libya and the region? Ceasefire is indeed a noble intent—an objective of Resolution 1973. What we see right now, as we all acknowledge, is a civil war. Whether it is to our liking or not, there remains a small amount of support for Colonel Gaddafi and his regime. I refer back to the tribes of Libya, as I believe that the resolution lies in part with them. Those tribes have affiliations across the wider Arab and African region. My noble friend the Minister talked about the Libyan contact group, but I believe that we should also seek to engage the tribal leaders from across Libya to ensure that, alongside the interim council, they are empowered in the country’s future and have a stake in it. In that way, we will demonstrate actively that we respect the historical traditions and cultures of the people of the country and of the wider region, which will bring greater benefit.

Secondly, on the continuation of the no-fly zone, that is where countries of the Arab League and others, such as Turkey and Egypt, can lend help. Notwithstanding Egypt’s own difficulties, it has a large air force and it should help. These are our allies in the region and now is the time for them to stand up and be counted through support in military means as well. This would carry a dual benefit: it would involve the region in resolving some of its own issues and challenges but, more importantly, it would allay the concerns and ever increasing support behind the idea and perception that this intervention again demonstrates that it is the West against the Arab countries or, as some including Colonel Gaddafi’s regime suggest, it is the crusaders against Islam or the Muslim world. It is not.

Thirdly, there is the international role in state building and the institutions that need to be built. I believe, as we all do, that Parliament and the judiciary are key in ensuring that we do not descend into a situation of prolonged instability that benefits no one. Certainly, that is where we can lend not only our support and expertise but, dare I say it, our people in helping to strengthen assistance in building the infrastructure of the country and in energy security.

In a question that I posed to my noble friend the Leader of the House some weeks back, I asked about the domino effect across the Middle East, which continues. We remain concerned about the continuing and deteriorating situations as we speak in other Middle East countries including Yemen and Bahrain and, of course, in the continuing conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, what we do in Libya and how we seek to resolve the challenges of where we are today will, to my mind, determine how we are judged by history and, perhaps more significantly, on the criteria of morality and protecting civilian life, which we have set as the basis of our intervention.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and also the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for her remarks, which were clearly based on wide experience of middle eastern affairs. Change is occurring in the region: across North Africa and the Middle East. As we debate the issue this morning and into this afternoon, the situation is so fluid that changes are occurring not by the day but by the hour, and perhaps by the minute.

Concerns have been expressed about the vacuum that the situation creates—the gap that is left in the absence of the current leadership—and whether this opens a gateway for the vacuum to be filled by extremist groups. Let us be clear that these concerns are not unfounded, given that the policies that these groups extol—let us look at this domestically—do not safeguard the fundamental human rights of their own communities within their own borders. More often than not, their foreign policy has opposition to the West as the cornerstone of its approach. But do not let their extremist view be the one that represents the whole region and the parties within it.

We in Britain have a role to play based on our deep association with many of the countries, both through their being close allies and through our historical ties. We should also recognise, as many noble Lords have done, the importance of the region in terms of international trade. Suez is, after all, the gateway to international trade. Let us not forget that it is not long—a few months perhaps—since Egypt was regarded as a great tourist attraction. However, events have moved on. Is Egypt today regarded as a tourist attraction in the same way that it was only a few months ago? Undoubtedly, what happens in North Africa and across the Middle East—indeed, across the whole peninsula, including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and as far as India and Pakistan—affects not just that region but the world.

However, let us look forward. What is our role? I align myself with the view expressed by many noble Lords that this is not about intervention but about facilitating. It is about recognising that we are a constructive and critical friend who will help to facilitate the transition. We need to work with the existing Governments under the transitional arrangements that they put in place and build strong relationships with the new ones that emerge. However, in doing so, we must focus on each country. Each country is unique with its own structures and institutions. As events unravel, it is also important that we let our voice be heard above that of people who seek to present this evolving situation as a clash of civilisations, which it is not, or as a clash of East against West, which it is not. Nor, most importantly in the current climate, should the situation be hijacked and seen as a clash between geo-Christian traditions and Islamic traditions. It is not, and it should be made unequivocally clear that it is not.

We oppose not the faith of Islam but the extremist and militant ideology, and we must stand firm against it getting a grip across the region. Indeed, let us recognise in our words and actions that Islam as a faith extols democratic principles and values. As a faith, it speaks of trusting those who govern you on the basis that you believe they are those who can be most trusted and who will dispense justice based on their integrity. Those are qualities which I am sure we all recognise and which resonate with us all. Let us look at the practical issues that are happening on the ground, to which the pictures from Tahrir Square in Cairo are testament. We see from slogans that there is no conflict between the communities. Muslims, Jews, Christians and those of no faith are standing side by side, demanding change. It has been said that the military has a transitional role in some of these countries, and I agree. However, let us recognise the role of the military thus far. They have shown authority and presence in Egypt but, thankfully, they have also shown respect and restraint. Long may that continue.

We need to demonstrate support for the new secular Governments who we hope will emerge, while not losing focus on the core conflicts of the region—a point to which many noble Lords have alluded. I cannot claim to have visited Israel in 1948 or, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned, 1967, as I did not exist at that time. However, I visited Israel at a time of hope, when the Camp David accord was upon us. President Clinton and Yasser Arafat engendered hope, and Ehud Barak was the Prime Minister at that time. There was hope on the ground among the Israelis and the Palestinians that something could be achieved, so I am an optimist. If we got close to that before, we can get not just close to it again but can go one step beyond.

As my noble friend Lord Trimble, who is not in his place, said, at this juncture courage and conviction are required to take that next step. We wish to see those two states, Israel and Palestine, secure in their borders and, most importantly, at peace with each other. As we look at what is unfolding in the region, let us recognise that each country, its system of governance and how it will evolve is unique. As we move towards a more pluralistic and representative form of government, we should appreciate, as noble Lords have said, the historical traditions of each country, its culture and the pivotal role of key institutions.

Public opinion on the streets of Cairo may be replicated across the whole region. We should lend it our support, not in an interventionist way, but by showing that we are a friend. As the people within these countries move towards the leadership they desire, let us be the friend that we should be to them and, indeed, the friend that they desire us to be.