Syria

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As Syria is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court it would need a UN resolution to direct such a course. I have no doubt that the idea has been circulated but no action has been taken on it. As for gaining the support of the surrounding region and the leading Arab powers, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are in direct contact with a range of leaders in the area. Our posts are in constant contact with the area. I myself had contact last week with a number of leaders, including, although not directly an Arab leader, Mr Najib Mikati in Lebanon, which is directly affected by what is happening in Syria. We keep lines as open as we can with all the major influences and parties, not least the Turkish Government and Mr Erdogan who have some direct line of influence over Bashar al-Assad, but so far their efforts have been to no avail.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 were built on the platform of the Arab League agreement, and that provided a degree of cover, preventing Russia from vetoing the resolutions. What is the working assumption of the Government in respect both of the Arab League generally, which presumably is fairly pessimistic about support, and the way in which Russia will now react?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord, with his experience, is describing precisely the modalities and parameters that my colleagues in the British Government and other diplomats are having to cope with in New York at this moment. There is some hope that a resolution can come forward. There are varying views within the Arab League and among Arab leaders about which way to go and how much pressure to apply. There have been in the past first the traditional Chinese attitude of non-interference, which I have already described, and secondly some reluctance from Moscow to be involved. But this could be changing and there comes a point in this transparent interconnected world where the sheer volume of the atrocities means that there is a unity of intolerance to the continual misbehaviour. We may get to that point soon.

European Union Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I asked at the start of Committee why we needed Clause 3. Clause 3 refers to the simplified or accelerated method used in Brussels for producing a treaty amendment. Clause 2 refers to the product of the normal method used in Brussels. The product, by the time it reaches us, is exactly the same: it is a treaty amendment. How it began, who proposed it and which process was followed in Brussels are irrelevant to the ratification requirements here. We should decide the ratification requirements and any necessary referendum requirements on the basis of the weight of the amendment, not of the means by which the amendment was agreed in Brussels. I therefore asked why we needed Clause 3 as well as Clause 2. I have read very carefully the Minister’s answer at the end of the debate. He did not answer the question. He cleverly lured me into a semantic debate about competencies and powers, which we played into the sand, but we did not hear the answer as to why we needed Clause 3.

There is a difference between Clause 3 and Clause 2. If you eliminated Clause 3, you would eliminate something that is not in Clause 2. That is the final section of Clause 3, which contains the significance test. It is to that section that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is now proposing an amendment.

There is no significance test in Clause 2, which is the first of the two clauses setting out what we do when a treaty is amended. Does that mean that the Government believe that any treaty amendment made by the traditional method, however insignificant, must require a mandatory referendum? That seems to be the implication of having the test only in Clause 3 and not in Clause 2. I would be inclined to argue that we should eliminate Clause 3 now but transfer subsection (4) to Clause 2, so that the significance test, whatever its form—the form in the Bill, the form as revised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, or the form as revised by others—applies to any treaty amendment. That seems to be logical.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, used two arguments which perhaps play on the question. One was implicitly that Article 48(6), the accelerated method, would be used for the trivial, whereas the full-dress method, Article 48(2) to (5)—Clause 2 of this Bill—would be used for the heavy stuff. That may be so, but it does not seem very plausible to me. The noble Lord argued that we need not worry about having a series of referenda on the trivial because amendments would be bundled. He said that, from his long experience of Brussels, he knew that that was the way it worked. That is completely correct. In the past, treaty amendments have been brought together in a bumper-package intergovernmental conference, resulting in a new treaty or a massive treaty amendment.

In my view that will not be the case in future. A lesson has been learnt that it is not right to lump a whole series of questions together. The answer in the French referendum and the Dutch referendum came about partly because a whole lot of measures—not all of them necessarily very large—were put together and people were asked whether they would buy the package. If there is anything in such a package that you do not particularly like, the reasonable answer is to say no. The European Union has learnt from that and the Article 48(6) method—the Clause 3 material—will not be trivial relative to the Clause 2—or Article 48(2) to (5)—material.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Is there not a logical problem in saying that because a number of insignificant matters are lumped together, they will by definition become significant? If they were to be lumped together as the noble Lord is saying, surely it would be very difficult for someone who accepts one matter but not others to vote in a particular way. But surely a bundle of insignificant matters does not by itself therefore become insignificant; it becomes significant.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

That seems likely to be the case. I agree with the noble Lord.

The second argument that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, used was about time. Here I have to say that I warmly welcome the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, which brings in the concept of urgency. It seems to me that the situation in which Article 48(6) is likely to be used will be the urgent situation. That is what was in the minds of those who invented the Article 48(6) procedure. The heavy procedure under Article 48(2) to (5)—Clause 2 of our Bill—contains provisions for a convention of representatives of national parliaments and the European Parliament meeting with representatives of the member states. It also contains provisions for doing away with that and concludes with a two-year period for national ratification. These timetable elements, and the reference to the convention, drop out in the accelerated method. The idea of a two-year delay has gone in Article 48(6), just as the convention has gone. People had in mind that there could be crisis situations in which the European Union would need to revise its texts quickly—hence Article 48(6). That makes it a little paradoxical that we are insisting on adding a referendum requirement.

More than that, we are—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out at the start of our first day—doing something that we have never done in this country before: we are providing for an Act of Parliament to be overruled by a referendum. That is literally unprecedented, and we would be doing it in relation to matters, if they were under Article 48(6), where we had voted in the Council for an urgent change, since nothing can be done other than by unanimity in the Council. Everybody has voted for it; it is sufficiently urgent to justify the accelerated procedure; it goes through the House of Commons and through the House of Lords; but under this Bill it then requires a referendum which could overrule an Act of this Parliament. That is why I think that there is something really dangerous in the Bill, not just in terms of our position in the European Union but in terms of our basic constitutional position in this country. I really do worry about it.

I come back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It must be right to introduce the concept of urgency and to make the tests not cumulative. It seems to me that Amendments 16A and 16B deserve our support. However, even if they were included in the Bill, I would still argue that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill, because in logic you do not need different procedures depending on how it started over there. The procedures you follow should be decided by the significance of the measure itself.

Libya

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his helpful update, both on Libya and on the wider repercussions of the Arab awakening. I shall have but three reflections. First, what are British interests in this conflict? Secondly, what light does this conflict throw on wider issues? Thirdly, what happens after Gaddafi?

First, it is perhaps not very fashionable nowadays to talk about British interests, either narrowly or more broadly defined. Certainly, interests as shown by the relatively low number of diplomatic personnel we have had in Tripoli suggest that we do not have major interests there as we do in certain neighbouring countries. Equally, we have substantial oil interests with British companies very much involved but, whatever the future of Libya, they will still have to sell the oil on which they are very much dependent.

We have an interest in migration. I recall that when I was in Libya, five or so years ago, it was claimed, following the time when he claimed that he was the leader of Africa as well of the Middle East, that Gaddafi invited all African citizens to come to his country. There were said to be up to a million people from sub-Saharan Africa waiting for Tunisian boatmen to bring them over to Europe. Over the weekend we heard that the first boat since the troubles had arrived in Italy with 300 potential migrants, mostly Eritreans and Ethiopians, with another 800 on the way. We certainly have an interest in moderating that illegal flow from north Africa.

However, what is crystal clear is that, more broadly defined, we have an interest in international law and in keeping in close touch with our allies, hence the importance of the two Security Council resolutions—1970 and 1973. They were a triumph of the Security Council, bringing on board all the relevant players without being vetoed by some who one might have thought would veto them on the grounds of interference in the internal affairs of another country. However, in my judgment a clear reading of both 1970 and 1973 leads to this conclusion: their primary purpose—certainly that of 1973—is as the Prime Minister said in the other place. Resolution 1973 limits our operations; its primary purpose is clearly civilian protection. All the activities that we take part in must be seen in that light. Clearly, when a military convoy threatened Benghazi, it was wholly consistent with Resolution 1973 for the French planes initially to take out those tanks and armoured personnel carriers. That was probably also true when we took out the ammunition dumps, which would have been used for attacks on civilians.

Beyond that there are difficulties. What happens if those tanks are retreating from civilian areas? What is the position on the supply of arms to both sides? I submit that a clear reading of Article 9 of Security Council Resolution 1970 shows that we cannot supply arms to either side in the conflict. Unless and until a new Security Council resolution in respect of arms supply is moved, we must be constrained, as NATO has now agreed. Although it is in the interests of the country, of world peace generally, and certainly of regional peace, that Gaddafi no longer be there—it is impossible to conceive of a pluralist democracy under the rule of law if Gaddafi remains in place—it would be wholly wrong to seek to remove him by force and have regime change. The carefully constructed coalition would evaporate if regime change was made a clear aim. We have to be extremely careful. It is in our interest to remain four-square within international law.

As a side reflection on this, there was no mention in the coalition document of the Maghreb, yet it is now at the centre of attention, which shows the extent to which events move quickly—beyond documents of even a year or so ago. However, in Libya and the Maghreb, the response to the Arab awakening may be the defining issue for the coalition, as perhaps Iraq was for my own Government over the period from 2000.

As a second reflection, what light does the conflict in Libya throw on other issues? From the United States we have had the Obama doctrine, which is more restrained and avoids the Richard Haass-type “reluctant sheriff” approach. It seeks to ensure that there is a new multilateralism, working with allies. It will be interesting to see the extent to which that new multilateralism is shown in other areas as well because of the fear of overstretch within the US Administration.

From the European Union, yes, there are resources, but not unity. Germany abstained from Resolution 1973. France was quick off the mark. Perhaps the German and French responses were due to the proximity of elections, but neither Baden-Württemberg nor the cantonal elections in France showed that they succeeded. However, we hear little about the European External Action Service. Disunity and the British-French alliance have been the major features of the European Union response. Perhaps there will also be new thoughts on humanitarian intervention, but I have no time to go along that path.

Finally, on the post-Gaddafi situation, some of his advisers may say to him that it would be wise now, having reached a high point and taken the oil-exporting areas, to stop, call for a real ceasefire and allow in observers and humanitarian assistance. At that point, he would possibly split the coalition. What is clear is that we have an interest in stability in the region; that we should work through our alliances to ensure that; and that the European Union has the resources of soft power. Certainly, from the experience in central and eastern Europe, with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it has the instruments for soft power. Clearly, the United Nations must be in the driving seat. Clearly, the Arab League must be the party that is most engaged. Our interest should surely be to work through the European Union as one of our key instruments to ensure, as far as we can, that our border area—the Maghreb—is given as much, if not more, attention than the eastern partnership. That, surely, is in our interest, in the interests of the region and in global interests.

Yemen

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is right that that defection is significant. Those are influential people and that might help the move towards a peaceful resolution and a final decision by President Saleh on how and in what manner he goes in an orderly way. Concerning the UN, it has not recently played a significant role in Yemen. In most people’s view, the responsibility really lies with President Saleh openly to engage with all parties in a sustained and credible fashion. As I said earlier, we think the best kind of outside support should come from the countries immediately around, which are obviously as concerned as us about developments there.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister agree that it is difficult to avoid seeing any change in the administration as a potential threat to western interests? What is his assessment of the role of al-Qaeda among the many other causes—secessionist, tribal and so on—of the unrest? If there were to be an implosion, what is his assessment of the danger of the unrest moving across the frontiers to other countries?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course, as the noble Lord knows, these dangers are there all the time; there is no doubt about that. The al-Qaeda threat is there but is not the only threat. Al-Qaeda is most active in the north. Many of its members are being pushed over the frontier from Saudi Arabia. They are a problem and no doubt they are thinking of ways of exploiting any trouble or disturbance they can find. That is why it is essential that the president and the people of Yemen move away from the threats of violence and towards an orderly pattern of transition which they can decide for themselves.

European Union Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

In using the words,

“constructive engagement with the EU”,

the noble Baroness’s memory might go back to the fact that the Conservative Government of that time talked about constructive engagement with apartheid South Africa.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My memory goes back even further to when the Labour Party was itself completely riven on what approach it might take to the European Union, which was rather before the apartheid saga.

The coalition programme looks forward to forthcoming legislation with a view to increasing parliamentary scrutiny of new powers and competences, and looks outwards to ensure that the demands of democratic engagement are upheld. It goes further than before by enshrining in law that for significant changes sovereignty should be ceded by those who own it, the citizens or people of our country. It is therefore a far cry from the wording in the Conservative manifesto, which stated:

“We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation to the UK”.

The Bill takes the treaties, as amended most recently by Lisbon, as the starting point. While the coalition agreement gives a commitment to examine the EU's existing competences, and particularly to work to limit the application of the working time directive, this is not in my view a dramatic change. In fact, in an age of austerity, it might seem sensible to review the need for greater labour flexibility. However, it does raise the question of what other competences there will be and when. I wonder whether my noble friend could explain when winding up the debate the timeframe to which the Government are working in their examination of competences, and what role Parliament will play in scrutinising their conclusions.

Let me now turn to the substantive parts of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 5 will no doubt attract considerable scrutiny, as they deal with the procedure to be followed for treaty amendments and changes. They change the current situation in now requiring an Act of Parliament after the Government have signed up in principle to the change. This will no doubt add a considerable time lag to EU decision-making. We had an example of a draft European Council decision only last night on the European stability mechanism, and I wonder what useful purpose might have been achieved by a country that is not in the eurozone holding up those that are in it doing something that tidies up an existing situation and seeks to put it on a permanent footing. The way in which we dealt with that last night would no longer be possible if these changes go through.

I accept that every change of treaty requires an Act of Parliament, and I am in no way opposed to that level of parliamentary approval for significant and substantive treaty changes. Yet I wonder whether raising the test for an Article 48(6) decision—the simplified revision procedure—as set out in Clause 1(5) is necessarily the way to go. Clause 4 sets out a rather long list of criteria whereby a future treaty change will be judged and changes the situation whereby qualified majority voting ensues. I understand that the list is so comprehensive due to our lack of a written constitution in the United Kingdom and therefore to the relatively open-ended possibilities of judicial review. Can my noble friend explain whether that is the rationale behind this prescription and, if it is not, why we are spelling out our parameters in such detail? Does that not reduce the flexibility of the Government of the day to evaluate each decision on its merits and to go forward on that basis?

I turn to that other area of controversy, the so-called use of the referendum lock. The potential use of referendums will cover large numbers of procedures, including ordinary and simplified revisions and passerelles. The Constitution Committee, in its report on the Bill, lists some 50 treaty provisions that might attract a referendum. I accept the Government’s premise that a significant disconnect has developed between the British people and EU institutions. In fact, I wrote a thesis in the early 1990s on British attitudes to European federalist integration, and that disconnect had been there for some decades before. The challenge for succeeding Governments is to improve education about the EU and its institutions rather than just lamenting the lack of support for them, as put out by noble Lords on the opposition Benches a few minutes ago.

As we moved to a federal settlement in the UK in the 1990s with the establishment of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales, one would have expected that we would have also taken the opportunity to talk of our rightful place in Europe. Yet the Opposition became obsessed instead with impregnable tests on the euro and whether the ill-fated constitutional treaty would get through. In the mean time, another generation has grown up knowing the European countries better than ever before but not feeling the common solidarity that should unite us, other than in the most instrumentalist manner.

That distrust of EU institutions now leads us to the logic of the referendum lock. As noble Lords will know, the Constitution Committee defines a limited set of conditions in which, in its opinion, a referendum would be warranted. The committee goes on to say that this Bill is a radical step-change in the adoption of referendum provisions. As a Lib Dem who was privy to several animated discussions in our own party over whether to commit to a referendum before joining the euro, I know how difficult it is to agree what constitutes a fundamental shift in power. I was proud of moving to that promise and am overall a supporter of referendums for significant changes. Other European countries have their own scrutiny and control mechanisms in place. I come from a view that every generation should be able to have a voice on the direction of its country’s stance on sovereignty. At this stage, I am not inordinately concerned about these clauses. As the Constitution Committee reminds us, Parliament could repeal or amend any or all of the control mechanisms established by the Bill, including the referendum lock provisions.

On the significance condition, therein will lie the practical issues of how frequently referendums will be held. First, let us be clear that this condition in the Bill will enable Ministers to judge whether a simplified revision procedure change that gives an EU body the power to impose sanctions, requirements or obligations on the UK would not require a referendum. If this reading is correct, can the Minister give us examples of the sort of changes he has in mind that would then fall under ministerial judgment under this test? In other words, what would he consider insignificant?

On the subject of referendums, my recall is that if a treaty change would have triggered a referendum, we would have had about five in the past 25 years. Does the Minister expect a similar number in future? The other contentious area—

Somalia

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the political situation in Somalia.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the political situation in Somalia remains fragile and its instability presents increasing threats to the region and beyond. We continue to work with the Transitional Federal Government and our international and regional partners to take forward the UN-led Djibouti peace process. We, together with the United States and others, have made clear to the transitional federal institutions that there can be no extension of their mandate without reform to make them more legitimate and representative in the eyes of the Somali people.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, for the past two decades, Somalia has been a classic failed state, yet within its territory is the autonomous enclave of Somaliland, the old British protectorate. It is democratic, it co-operates with the international community as regards pirates, it seeks its own independence and international recognition, and wishes to be a member of the Commonwealth. Amid all the turbulence in the Arab world, surely now is the time for the Government to encourage African Commonwealth members to raise the matter in the African Union in the hope that there can be proper international recognition of what is a successful entity: the old British Somaliland.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to this issue, and I recognise the stability and achievements of Somaliland. Indeed, that recognition is reflected in the specific aid for Somaliland that has been given. When it comes to recognition as an independent state, while that is something that the Somaliland people have sought, it really is a question of getting their neighbours to lead the way. At the moment there is no recognition of Somaliland as a separate state by any country in the world. It may be that it is through the African Union that a change of heart should come, but our position is that this is a matter that has to be settled by the Somali people themselves and their neighbours rather than unilaterally by us.

Shipping: Piracy

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. The situation is getting more serious every week. More and more ships are being attacked by the hijackers and the piracy operation is growing, so he is completely right to recognise the seriousness, as do Her Majesty’s Government. We are, as he says, in the lead on the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia. We are seeking to develop more substantial facilities to meet and track the pirates. The question of the UAVs is difficult. We have none, but of course our American allies do. A great many of these are currently deployed elsewhere, but my noble friend can rest assured that we intend to develop a more robust response in relation to these and other kinds of maritime air patrol because it is certainly needed.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of reports of a deal between the pirates and al-Shabaab, an affiliate of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whereby the terrorists cream off some of the money that goes to the pirates. Do the Government accept that this is likely to be true? If so, will it not have an affect on us in the possible financing of terrorism through the diaspora in the UK and in possibly making insurance companies in the UK liable for that financing?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have certainly heard of these reports and there are a great deal of rumours surrounding the whole question of the relationship between pirates, pirate finance and terrorism in the region, but we have no firm evidence of this particular pattern of transaction. It is, however, something that we are investigating and watching very carefully indeed.

British Overseas Territories

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, this has been a wonderfully varied debate, culminating in the typically discursive speech of the old seafarer, the Lord, Lord Selsdon, moving from motto to motto. For me, the debate seemed to depend on the three Es: that is, the economy—the tax havens and tourism; the ecology, particularly the British Antarctic territory referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and the British Indian Ocean territory as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne; and the ethical obligations set out by the right reverend Prelate as regards dealing with people and not financiers.

I was particularly struck, as I am sure all Members of your Lordships’ House were, by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. He is a distinguished surgeon and perhaps, more relevantly, a distinguished son of Achimota Hospital, which has sent distinguished Ghanaians around West Africa and beyond as the pioneer providing the new colonial experts from West Africa.

We owe a debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who has been a long-time campaigner for overseas territories. I was delighted that she mentioned the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the role that it plays in focusing our attention on the overseas territories. I note that at the current 60th Westminster Seminar on governance, parliamentary procedure and practice, of the 67 participants, 12 come from the overseas territories. That is so important in making these people, who are often from remote territories, walk tall in the world.

With regret, I note that there is often a prevailing attitude in this country to the overseas territories of ignorance and neglect. I am very ready to concede initially that that neglect did not begin at the time of the previous election, nor did the problems we have in looking to the future. Save at times of crises, there is little mention in the UK of the overseas territories. An exception was the interesting series of articles in the Times in November 2009 by Michael Binyon. About the overseas territories, he wrote:

“They feel abandoned, forgotten, former strategic assets that are now seen in Whitehall as costly liabilities”.

The temptation in a debate of this nature is to give a Cook’s tour of various overseas territories. I congratulate the noble Baroness on taking up several key themes, rather than taking us around places she has recently visited.

I shall concentrate on only a few reflections and will not mention all the overseas territories. How would one explain now to the man—perhaps one should say person—from Mars the nature of our overseas territories? In the old empire there were swathes of red all over the map. Now there are but pinpricks. One is struck by the fact of diversity in the fullest sense. Fourteen islands and territories are scattered around the globe, the only nexus being a fierce loyalty to the Crown as remnants of a once-proud empire and too small to be viable on their own. Some are large, some are small; some are constrained by old treaties such as Gibraltar and Utrecht; some are rich—indeed, Bermuda and the Caymans have among the highest GDP per head in the world—some are poor, such as St Helena and Pitcairn; and some are inhabited and some uninhabited, like the British Antarctic Territory mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and of course the Chagos Islands, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.

Some of the territories have a recent history that makes us feel somewhat ashamed. There have been criticisms that we have not been as quick and ready to deal with the new Government of Anguilla as we should. We think also of the corruption scandals that have characterised the Turks and Caicos Islands in the recent past, the sex scandals affecting eight of the 50 or so inhabitants of Pitcairn, and the disgraceful attitude of this country towards the Îlois, the Chagossians. The noble Lord mentioned the Wikileaks material which showed a certain hypocrisy on the part of the then Government who talked about the marine protection area as if it had been devised for environmental reasons, but it seems that a key consideration was that it was a device for denying the Îlois the right of return. Before the election, the coalition partners were generous in their promises to the Îlois. One can cite statements made by both the current Foreign Minister and Nick Clegg, who said:

“It is a disgrace that £2m of taxpayers’ money … has been squandered in order to uphold this injustice”.

In replying, can the Minister say whether we intend to spend yet more taxpayers’ money in opposing the application before the European Court of Human Rights? The coalition has called for a new approach to the overseas territories, saying that it regards them as assets and not liabilities. Obviously we need some indication of how this approach is intended to work.

My second reflection is this. Rather like the title of the film “The Empire Strikes Back”, there are a number of problems left for London, along with a number of contingent liabilities. A 2007 National Audit Office report stated:

“Our overall conclusion is that since 1997, whilst progress has been made in managing and mitigating some risks; the degree of success in both individual Territories and across key risk areas has been mixed”.

An earlier report from the Public Accounts Committee, published 12 years ago, pointed out the difficulties we faced as a result of our international responsibility for the territories in terms of social matters, the death penalty and so on.

Equally, there are the problems of financial regulation and the tax havens mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. The Cayman Islands is the largest centre for hedge funds. Gambling is becoming an increasing provider of employment on Gibraltar, as many companies move there from this country as a result of its favourable tax regime. Another general question in the report was: what was in the past a benefit to the UK in terms of trade routes but which perhaps is not a continuing benefit, what are the obligations to the territories which remain? These were covered generally in the NAO report. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, pointed out that the Government underwrote £160 million of bank loans to the Turks and Caicos Islands following the corruption scandal. What are the potential liabilities on the aid budget because that sum represents a substantial amount for each of the inhabitants?

In July, Ministers approved the use of aid funds for the construction of a long-promised airport on St Helena. I concede that it is a moral obligation, yet there has to be a question mark over the viability of the population of St Helena, particularly following the grant of citizenship in 2002. Swindon has benefited from the many Saints who have gone to live there, and one wonders how demographically St Helena will survive when so many of the younger people have tasted the good life in Swindon. I made this point to some representatives of the Saints at the time of the granting of citizenship in 2002. Perhaps it is, alas, one of the unintended consequences.

My final reflection is this. How stable and long-lasting is the current relationship? Each territory presents its own problems. Is there any vision on the part of this country, any overall plan for the next decade or two, to ensure that the territories will be assets and not liabilities? For example, will the relationship between the FCO and DfID concerning the overseas territories be the same? Do we assume that Bermuda, with its large and prosperous population, will remain an overseas territory for, say, the next decade? If Bermuda becomes independent, that would make the overall population substantially less than 200,000. Have we considered new options, such as the precedent of the French territoires d’outre mer and other interesting constitutional devices to give the overseas territories a greater voice here in Westminster? Why should not selected representatives of the territories sit in your Lordships’ House? It would not be difficult and it would mean that the voice of the people of the overseas territories could be heard quite directly. France is able to benefit substantially from EU funds as a result of the DOMs and the TOMs, and equally through representation of French people from overseas in the French Parliament.

I turn to the position of Gibraltar and the Falklands, referred to so well by the distinguished former Governor of Gibraltar, the noble Lord, Lord Luce. We have successfully resisted pressure from neighbouring countries on both Gibraltar and the Falklands, and perhaps the lesson of 1981, in which the noble Lord, Lord Luce, played a distinguished part, is that we need to consult more closely with the inhabitants of those countries on any constitutional change. In Gibraltar, the Chief Minister has indeed made contact with the Spanish and recently sent up an interesting trial balloon by talking about a sort of Andorra solution for the future of Gibraltar. Can the noble Lord say whether Ministers are willing to give this a hearing or not?

On the Falklands, had there been someone from the islands here, no doubt they would have spoken rather more clearly about their vulnerability to defence cuts than the distinguished former military people who speak on their behalf. We recognise that relations between the Falkland Islands and this country are good, which was particularly evident at the Overseas Territories Consultative Council held last November. Like others, I shall raise three issues on behalf of the Falklands and the overseas territories.

Based on the fact of UK sovereignty and the need to boost the economy, the fees for Air Safety Support International, which has not been mentioned so far, have risen greatly. The Department of Transport is seeking to recoup higher fees from, for example, the Falklands, amounting to around £125,000. The impact of the air passenger duty has already been mentioned. It has a specific impact on the Falklands, because they fall into band D. Since last November, there has been an increase in duty per passenger to the Falklands of £85 in economy and £170 in other categories, which is clearly a potential blow to tourism in the Falklands.

Pension payments to UK citizens have been already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and others. Her Majesty's Government have already accepted the principle that there should be no discrimination in UK law in respect of fees to students from the overseas territories.

There is a need for some innovative thinking, a consideration of what it means for these territories to be assets, and a recognition that we cannot continue to stumble along with no fixed aim as we are doing currently.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree it is a very important matter, worth considering, but I am afraid my answer at the moment to the noble Lord is that we are still looking at it—in a positive light and in light of the need to upgrade the negotiations and get momentum behind them—but we have not reached a decision yet.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister agree that whatever the effect of the unrest, the fundamental fact remains that it is the United States that will have the key role, if it so chooses, in the peace process and, further, that our own potential role is hampered by the fact that many Israeli politicians and military people stand the danger of being arrested in this country if they were to come? What are the prospects for Clause 151 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which at least would allow the DPP to interpose his judgment, rather than that of a magistrate, before a private prosecution takes place?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As the noble Lord knows, the Government intend to amend the law so that a private individual cannot obtain an arrest warrant under universal jurisdiction without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are quite pleased with progress—the legislation passed through Second Reading in early December and we expect the Bill to have Royal Assent before July. The problem has been recognised and action is being taken.

France: Bilateral Defence Co-operation

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any proposals to build on the recent treaties with France on bilateral defence co-operation by exploring initiatives for diplomatic and foreign policy co-operation.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, our relationship with France, further strengthened by the November 2010 UK-France summit, is one of our most important bilateral relationships. Since President Sarkozy visited London for the UK-France summit, we have also welcomed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Europe Minister. Bilaterally, we work on a range of foreign policy and European issues, as well as immigration, counterterrorism, climate change, employment and social affairs. France is also an important trade partner. It will host the next UK-France summit later this year.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, surely the logic of sharing defence assets is that we need a foreign policy agreement on where to deploy those assets. Now, when both countries are experiencing similar financial stresses, should we not look at the collocation of embassies, sharing diplomats and co-ordinating policies in areas such as West Africa? Will the Minister also consider the possibility of encouraging our Commonwealth partners to look at a new dialogue with La Francophonie, which, again, would be in our mutual interest? Where are the new proposals in preparation for the summit to be held later this year?