Yemen

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is quite right to point to a number of very worrying dangers, including piracy and terrorism. We are in fact one of the largest donors to that very impoverished country and we are obviously concerned about how the political process should proceed. We hope that transition will be in a peaceful way and without too much bloodshed, but it is really for the people of Yemen and their present president to decide how that transition should go. As for outside support, rather than outside intervention, we think that the neighbouring countries are probably the best people to rally round and provide it. That may be working through the organisation Friends of Yemen, of which we are one.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

How many people does the Foreign Office have in mind and how many, in particular, are employed at the embassy in Yemen?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the noble Lord’s second point, at the moment we have 10 still there. The noble Lord is quite right to raise the subject because it is an extremely dangerous designation. There have been two life-threatening attacks on the British ambassador in the past year. I assure the noble Lord and the House that we have the most careful and detailed contingency plans for getting those people out safely, but it is a very dangerous situation. I do not have to hand the precise overall number of British nationals. It is not very many but I will provide him with the precise details if we can ascertain them, which is not easy.

European Union Bill

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think I agree with the noble Lord and I shall try to explain why in my remaining remarks. The word “competence” is of course very clearly defined in the treaties. There is no need to try to unravel that because it is defined in the treaties themselves. I agree that the word “power” is more difficult and I have been dealing with that. On removing the ability to veto, it may be that those precise words are not those to be found in the treaties but the action is clear enough. The removal of the ability of this country to veto certain proposals, so that they do not go to QMV, is a very clear adjustment or in some cases a surrender of power. I would not have thought that there was any difficulty about that.

Perhaps I may proceed with the explanation. I was saying that a prime example of a treaty change where we are not affected is the eurozone stability mechanism. The third is a treaty change which merely sought to codify EU practice in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence.

In all cases, any future treaty change will need to be considered according to a set process, provided for by this legislation. In accordance with Clause 5, a Minister of the Crown would be required to make a statement within two months of a treaty change being agreed at EU level. That ministerial statement will have to give reasons why the treaty change does or does not require a referendum, by reference to the criteria set out in Clause 4 of the Bill. Like any ministerial decision, it will be open to any member of the public to challenge the Minister's judgment in that statement through judicial review. An Act of Parliament would then be required in all cases of future treaty change. So the possibility of judicial review by the courts does not displace the role of Parliament, but offers an additional safeguard for the people to hold the Executive to account.

The EU Bill would also give Parliament greater control over whether the Government can agree to use of the self-amending provisions of the Lisbon treaty, which those of us who were here a few years ago will recall very well. Those decisions, known as passerelles or ratchet clauses, allow for modifications to the EU treaties without recourse to formal treaty change. Because of the lack of a universal definition of what constitutes a passerelle, and because the Government's aim is to ensure that our proposals are as clear as possible to Parliament and the public, we have set out explicitly which treaty articles would require additional levels of control.

As I made clear earlier, Clause 6 provides that any proposal to use passerelles which would entail a transfer of power or competence from the UK to the EU would require a referendum as well as parliamentary approval by Act. There are two broad categories of provision in Clause 6. The first is the passerelles, which enable the European Council to decide to remove a veto in an area we consider to be significant and where we have made equivalent provision in Schedule 1: for example, social policy, the environment, common foreign and security policy and EU finance. Secondly, there are five specific decisions involving a transfer of power or competence, for example, a common European defence or participating in a European public prosecutor's office.

Clause 7 makes provision to require that any proposal to invoke one of the passerelles that would not involve the transfer of power or competence from the UK to the EU should nevertheless be subject to primary legislation. Clause 8 makes provision for specific parliamentary controls over any future use of the so-called broad enabling clause in Article 352 of the treaty, well known to many of us, on the functioning of the European Union.

Clause 9 makes specific provision for three passerelles in the field of justice and home affairs. The UK enjoys a protocol in respect of this field which allows the Government to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to opt in to a justice and home affairs measure. We have provided that a Motion would need to be approved in both Houses before the Government could opt in to one of those measures. Once the negotiation has then taken place on the proposal, if it is acceptable to the Government, an Act of Parliament would then be required before the Government could agree finally to the proposal in the Council. This provision does not apply to all justice and home affairs opt-ins, only to those passerelle clauses listed in the Bill which, if used, would allow EU powers to expand within the scope of the competence already conferred on the EU in the treaties.

There are some additional proposals which would require parliamentary approval by passing a Motion in both Houses rather than by an Act. These are provided by Clause 10. There are treaty articles which modify the composition or rules of existing institutions and, for the most part, are subject to QMV.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Which other members of the EU are prepared to go down the route which the noble Lord recommends?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Different member states have different patterns, including, as the noble Lord will know very well, elaborate referenda procedures, all of which take a very long time. The noble Lord will also be familiar with the German constitutional court and with other constitutional provisions in other member countries. This may be too general a comparison, but I think he will agree that most countries have somewhat more elaborate provisions and controls through constitutional courts and referenda requirements than we have had hitherto in this country.

As I was saying, there are some additional proposals which require parliamentary approval by passing a Motion in both Houses. These are provided by Clause 10. A vote in both Houses is therefore a practical solution to enable Parliament to have an appropriate level of control.

I hope not to detain your Lordships very much more, but there are one or two final matters which it is right to put before you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble and learned Lord because, when I was a Commissioner, he was enormously helpful when we met. The reason was that he cared about the European Community and still does.

Reference has been made to the debate in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I do not think that the other place gave this Bill the consideration that it deserves. I do not share the view of the Bill taken by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I think that it is an abomination. It reflects a suspicion on the part of the Government about most of the things that the European Union does. In the other place, we had the usual suspects: John Redwood, Bill Cash and the somewhat ambiguous Foreign Secretary William Hague, aided and abetted by a minority of Labour Eurosceptics. They characterised the Bill as a “show Bill” and a “mouse of a Bill”, and the Foreign Secretary was depicted as being “all over the place”. Those criticisms are not entirely without foundation.

Of course, in the Commons, maybe a majority of the Conservative Party desire to come out of the European Union altogether or to render it insignificant. This Bill is not exactly a disappointment; it is exactly what many of us thought it would be: a smokescreen for those in government hoping to camouflage their true intent regarding the European Union.

In this House we have heard the noble Lord open the debate in a very calm and dignified way; it is exactly what we would expect. But does he really believe in this Bill? I remember when he unreservedly supported the situation of the EU and he wanted us to go in. Now he wants the reverse. Of course, I think Britain should adopt a decisive role in Europe, helping to mould it, particularly at this time when the EU could play a significant part in global affairs. In Europe, the Conservative Party has chosen to align itself with some extremely dubious people. That is not irrelevant; that shows how it really thinks. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, cannot possibly approve of that alliance.

Where does the Liberal party stand in that regard? The Conservative Party in the European Parliament has left the European People's Party altogether, favouring instead what Chris Huhne once said were the “wackos and weirdos” in the Parliament. There the Conservative Party remains. Was that the pursuit of an “enlightened self-interest” which is writ large across its so-called European policy? That is what William Hague said. I do not believe it.

The Bill is short, but it has the capacity to be complicated, confusing and contradictory. Even from the Government's point of view, the ambition to initiate a referendum should be clear and decisive. Instead it is the very opposite. That has been reflected in our debate, particularly by my noble friend Lady Symons. That is no accident. It stems from the Government's attitude and confused stance towards the EU. The Government endeavour to satisfy both the antipathetic attitude of the majority of their supporters and the obvious requirement to be a worthwhile member of the EU. It is impossible to reconcile those objectives.

The Government are quite unable in the Bill to indicate when a referendum will be required. A mass of contradictions and difficulties have been raised in the debate today. We do not know whether Parliament or the courts will be able to determine that important issue. That is not an academic point; it goes to the very heart of what we ought to be debating today.

We should also be directing our concern to other vital issues, such as jobs, cross-border crime, trade and climate change—all essential matters in which the EU can play an increasingly salient role. In a world of blocs of power and influence, the EU must be heard on all those issues. The Government prefer it to be ineffective. The EU speaks for about 500 million people and therefore occupies a significant role in Europe and the world. We should be part of that process, but this puny Bill fails to promote that ambition.

Where, in all this, stand the Liberal Democrats? I was, frankly, very confused by the speech of the noble Baroness, for whom I normally have a lot of time. Are they in favour of the Bill? Are they against it? I emerged at the end of her speech without any guidance whatsoever. Are they prepared to fight for the EU, a cause about which they once cared enormously deeply; or do they now propose to take the ignoble course, alongside their Tory allies, of administering a potential death blow to the EU?

Before the general election, David Cameron described himself as the son of Thatcher. Well, Margaret Thatcher said that referendums sacrifice parliamentary sovereignty. They represent, she said, political expediency. So where stands the Liberal party as far as that is concerned? It is important that the Liberal Democrats should be able to respond to that criticism.

The Bill should not have been submitted to Parliament. It is fatally flawed. It is introduced primarily to placate the Tory anti-EU campaigners, but even this miserable Bill will not achieve its misconceived objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, as this is our first major debate on EU matters since we finished with the Lisbon treaty three years ago, I must start by making an apology. At the end of those proceedings, on 18 June 2008, I regretted that, with one honourable exception in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, noble Lords in receipt of an EU pension had not declared that interest. Many of us, including your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, felt that such pensions should have been declared because they can be taken away if a holder breaches certain obligations arising from their time in office. This applies to former members and officials of the European Commission, but I made the mistake of saying that it also applies to former MEPs, which it does not. I therefore apologise now to those I named, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, with whom I subsequently corresponded.

It is regrettable that the nomenklatura in your Lordships’ House has since confirmed that even former EU Commissioners do not need to declare their forfeitable pensions in our debates. They tend to be some of the most blinkered and enthusiastic advocates of our EU membership. It is not helpful to the public if they do not know where those noble Lords are coming from, so I hope that they will do so anyway, although I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has already failed the test. I would have thought, too, that former MEPs might also want to mention this experience because it suggests that they might have—

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I do not have to declare it every time, but it is well known that former Commissioners get some sort of allowance by way of pension. It is not as vast a sum of money as the noble Lord suggests.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the test of whether it should be declared is what a reasonable member of the public might think, and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has now passed the test.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is exactly what we would like to do and are seeking to do. The noble Lord, with his experience, has just reaffirmed my earlier point that, although this is what we must now do, the pressures are pressing the opposite way inside Israel, where there is increasing nervousness at the uncertainty and the difficulties afflicting their neighbours. We are dealing with a tricky situation, in which the persuasion we need to get Israel and Palestine negotiating on a new and sensible basis is working one way—and we are pushing—but Israeli fears are working the other way.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Will the noble Lord accept from me that his reply to the Question is 100 per cent right, and I support it? What is rather more strange is that I support the noble Lord, Lord Wright. Is it not imperative that the Government should come to a conclusion about the issue he raised forthwith? We should not simply accept that the situation should go on indefinitely.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is clearly in a supportive mood this morning and I am grateful to him for that. He is right to say that recognition of the Palestinian representation here is an important issue. We will seek to come to an early conclusion and I take note of his concern that we should do so.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank my noble friend for that observation. Of course, this is the right way to go. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken on these lines and we will continue to use the influence that we undoubtedly have. We must always use that influence in the most careful and selective way. I believe that the Palestinian Authority is aware of the need to move forward using precisely these methods. It faces grave difficulties but we will certainly do anything that we can do to encourage it.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, will the noble Lord—

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If we are very quick we might get three speakers in. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has been trying to intervene since the beginning.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

How do the Government intend to press the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority to resume the peace process? Is not that a matter of extreme urgency? Hamas and Hezbollah have repeatedly expressed the view that Israel ought to die. Against that background, is there any prospect of resuming meaningful discussions between the Israelis and Hamas and Hezbollah?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord speaks with great experience, feeling and wisdom on this issue but I know he is the first to understand that, although we can do our bit, many parties and pressures are involved. Some feel that it is all up to our American allies and that they should increase the pressure and recognise the urgency. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has indicated some of that feeling in statements he has made over the past few days. Some feel that renewed pressure should come from within Israel and the Palestinian Authority provided they can work together in a better way than they have done so far with the two elements of the Hamas people in Gaza and the authorities in the West Bank. All these tasks must be addressed. Therefore, the broad answer to the noble Lord’s question is: yes, the urgency is recognised; yes, we will do what we can but we are not, alas, the only party involved, nor can our influence alone be decisive—I wish that it could, but it is not so.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I fully support the argument mounted by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, in favour of a two-state solution. That is the only route which could be followed at present. Like him, I have doubts about the present coalition in Israel, but that is another issue.

No one can doubt the severity of the current situation in the Middle East. It is blindingly obvious. In nearly all Arab countries there is turmoil and an understandable search for change. It was spearheaded in Tunisia and has now spread inexorably. What is now to ensue? The peril is that the present dictatorship will be followed by even worse regimes. All, even in Iran, can pay lip service to elections. But let us remember that in 1932 Adolf Hitler emerged victorious from so-called free elections.

The dilemma affecting the West is daunting. To challenge the desire for radical change would be mistaken in the extreme. To come to terms with change could in certain circumstances result in damaging consequences. The stance taken by Washington is somewhat understandably ambivalent. Today, we learn that President Mubarak has made some further concessions, which are not very convincing against this tumultuous background. What will emerge is the million-dollar question.

The choice facing Israel in particular is potentially catastrophic. Extremists bay for its demise. However we may view Netanyahu and his coalition Government, by current Middle Eastern standards, his administration could be deemed to be moderate. That is not my opinion, but that is how it could be viewed. At least the Netanyahu coalition is subject to scrutiny from within the country.

Hamas and Hezbollah, in contrast to the former and courageous President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, seek the destruction of Israel, something about which I would remind the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. She hardly mentioned that fact, but preferred to remain an apologist for Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I fear that the noble Lord was not listening carefully to my remarks. I am absolutely no apologist for anyone who seeks the destruction of Israel. It is for Israel’s survival that I urge that it sits down and talks to its opponents. As I made very clear in my comments on Northern Ireland, we have to do so with people who we do not like on the whole.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

The noble Baroness refuses to acknowledge that neither will recognise Israel in any form or shape, which in my view is an absolute prerequisite to any substantial peace talks.

Sadat sought to achieve long-term peace in contrast to what Hamas and Hezbollah are trying to do. If things go awry, Israel will be surrounded by hostile forces that far outnumber its own defence force. The fact that Israel and Egypt have upheld, through years of enmity and upheaval in the region, a peace agreement is a testament to the fact that Arabs and Jews can co-operate. If the example of Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat were to be emulated, not only peace but prosperity could enhance the fortunes of both peoples and there is no doubt that the poorer Arab sectors of society would benefit most.

Certainly, we must give the movement for Arab democracy a chance. Perhaps that is best achieved by non-interference on the part of the West. This uprising demonstrates that the majority of Egyptians are becoming active and vocal in that cause. But, of course, we cannot underestimate the dangers inherent in the current situation.

One focus for helping to promote stability in the region is the peace process—albeit that it is all too sluggish—between Israel and Palestine at present. To achieve peace, Israel must always demonstrate a strong commitment to justice through its independent judiciary, which is the only one in the Middle East. It has not hesitated to bring its former President to face a situation in the courts and a cover-up cannot be entertained. A peaceful solution is certainly worth the abandonment of the policy of expanding settlements and, to be fair to Israel, it has in the past uprooted some altogether.

At the risk of creating enmity within, let us not forget that in 2005, Israel withdrew 8,000 of its citizens from Gaza and the West Bank. But now, at this perilous time, both sides must strive ever increasingly. While the settlements may have served a defensive purpose at the outset, in many instances they have been hijacked by those with messianic fervour born out of centuries of feeling outcasts.

Iranian influence in a malign way cannot be overstated. The clamour for Islamic jihad from inside that country, the suppression of opponents and the obscene attacks on its foes play a huge part in subverting peace. It encourages the training of suicide bombers who wreak havoc on innocent civilians without conscience or concern. Meanwhile, Iran supports Hamas in maintaining rocket attacks on Israeli citizens designed to kill, even if they do not always succeed.

Of course, Israel, like all democracies, makes mistakes. Some have grave consequences. But Israel cannot make territorial concessions that can be interpreted as a sign of weakness. To achieve enduring peace, stability is essential and, as ever, risks have to be taken for this to happen. Peace is of course elusive, but it has to be pursued even more vigorously than it is at the present time or the alternatives of extremism and terror will prevail. It follows, therefore, that particularly during this vastly troubled time, the voices of hate should not drown out those of desperation, yearning above all for a peaceful settlement.

Having said that, I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Luce, in hoping that trade will replace much of the toxicity which threatens to engulf so many.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because not for the first time in recent weeks and months I find myself in so much agreement with what he has been saying. In congratulating him, I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. He and I have known each other for more than 45 years in politics, across the divide. What has frequently been heartening to me is the degree to which we find ourselves agreeing in analysis of foreign policy matters. If we must have this Conservative-led coalition, I for one am very glad that his wisdom is at the disposal of the Government and I hope that they always listen. But he must take very seriously the challenge in the concluding passages of a particularly effective—characteristically effective but particularly effective—speech by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. If he is to win the ends he really must ensure the resources. Some of the things that the Government have been doing of late, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has underlined with regard to the BBC World Service, are quite extraordinary. These are the very times when these kind of activities become more important than ever.

In a lifetime of international work, some of it in the most turbulent and insecure parts of the world, I have perhaps injudiciously reached some pretty firm conclusions about human affairs. I declare an interest as a continuing trustee of Saferworld. One of my conclusions—I have no doubts about this—is that the origins of extremism and terrorism lie in the sphere of alienation, cynicism, exclusion, disempowerment and poverty. Looked at in a global context, one of the things that sooner or later we all have to recognise is that the world is full of people, many of them very well educated and articulate, who are absolutely fed up with being managed by the traditional powers and being pawns in the traditional powers’ play game. They want responsibility and power for themselves as well as a say in their own future and in how the world is organised.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to point out—I almost leapt to my feet and cheered, as I cannot say how strongly I agree—that peace and security cannot be imposed; lasting, enduring security has to be built “brick by brick”. That phrase is one that I have often used myself—I hope that he will not mind my saying so—and is one that I totally endorse. What are these bricks? Of course, they are in the realm of hearts and minds. I wish that we would not talk about “winning hearts and minds”, as the point is that the solution lies in hearts and minds. That includes security sector reform, the removal of the counterproductivity that is over and over again a real thorn in the flesh of progress, accountable government, justice, and of course human rights. We are still, I am afraid, inclined to see these principles as a sort of optional extra in a decent society rather than as the absolutely central pillars of stability and peace.

What are the processes for moving forward? Well, if I have learnt anything, it is that the processes must be as inclusive as they possibly can be, but the other principle that I have come to endorse completely is that there should be as few preconditions as possible. Preconditions can make progress very difficult indeed. The objectives spelt out in preconditions are things that you build by common ownership in the process of negotiation and talks. Getting this point accepted is crucial. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, for whom I have infinite respect, said very indignantly that there has to be an acceptance of the state of Israel. Few of us would disagree with that, but my noble friend and others must also look at the issue from the point of view of the Palestinians. Where is the absolute acceptance of the principle of a state of Palestine? Where is there a real, demonstrable commitment to finding ways not of delaying but of speeding up the creation of that state?

Another issue of which we hear a good deal—this argument has also been used in the case of Egypt—is that, where it is very difficult to see where the new leaders are, one is left with the perhaps unacceptable reality that one simply has to deal with the existing leaders. Of course, if there has been tyranny, oppression and a denial of freedom and debate, it is hardly surprising that new leaders are not always obvious. Leaders will emerge in the context of debate, of freedom and of peacebuilding. We have to be open to the leaders who will create the future rather than always harking back to the leaders who have made such a mess of the past.

Perhaps I could refer for a moment to one or two specific dimensions of what I have been saying. In the case of Egypt, the points that I have been making are fairly obvious. Like others, I cannot put on record too strongly my admiration—my unlimited admiration—for the courage and dignity of the Egyptian people. What a lesson and challenge they have been to the people of the world. In that situation, however, we have been inclined to talk about the role of the army. I just make the point that any future for Egypt that depends on the role of the army is not the kind of peace and stability for which we are looking. The army may have an interim role to play, but we must not become dependent upon it; that is not a democracy or what a well founded society is about.

The other thing to recognise is that there is acute poverty in Egypt. There is a lot of social disempowerment as well as political disempowerment. The suffering has been made worse because of the amount of resources that the outside world has put into supporting the tyranny of the army and the rest, so this is a complicated issue. I think that there has been a certain amount of oversimplification in the journalistic response to the role of the army in the situation.

On Israel, a great deal has already been said in this debate, so let me just underline a couple of points. First, I am delighted to find that, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I was in Israel in the middle of the 1967 war. I can remember sitting in the basement of a hotel—the air-raid siren had sounded—and talking to some of my Israeli friends. As we listened to the radio, when some particularly militant Zionist comment came into that situation, my friends became exasperated and said, “It’s all right for these people, but we have got to build a future for this country, and that future depends upon our relationships with the people surrounding us. This kind of simplistic propaganda is actually making all that more difficult”. If I have a criticism of how we in the outside world have responded to Israel, it is that we have repeatedly let down the voices of moderation and reason within Israel—courageous people who have refused to participate in military activities that they find totally unjustifiable; and where has been our strong support for those people in Israel? My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred to Israel as a democracy, but why is it that we always seem to end up on the side of authoritarian Israel instead of on the side of the intellectual—let us not be afraid of the word—and thinking Israeli people who are really looking for the constructive way forward?

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

At no time do I have any room for Prime Minister Netanyahu, but I was trying to suggest that, by comparison with other leaders in the Middle East, he has something to say.

[Lord Judd]

Well, let us ponder those words and evaluate them for ourselves.

If we are talking about Israel, we also have to face up to the issue of Hamas, which has been mentioned. What grieves me is that Hamas was a pluralist organisation, but the cards have been played in such a way as to play right into the hands of the extremist elements of Hamas. We create self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course the challenge is to have dialogue with Hamas. I certainly agree with those such as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who say that, in the end, there is no alternative but to talk to Hamas—and the sooner, rather than the later, the better. In that context, we have to remember that, while provocation, which is stupid and counterproductive, by those elements within Hamas and other parts of the Middle East in, for example, their actions against innocent people in Israel should be condemned, we must remember that it is not a one-way story.

The siege of the economy in Gaza has been a very cruel and blunt social and economic action, which could not have been designed better than to play into the hands of the extremists. The UN has pointed out that, in the so-called buffer zone within Gaza, last year Israeli shootings killed 52 people, including farmers and young people. Only recently, my old organisation, Oxfam, saw some of its work in the West Bank set back by the demolition that took place at the hands of the Israelis. People have to face the economic and social consequences of that action. Let us not think that the whole provocation comes from the Arabs. There is repeated counterproductive provocation from Israel itself.

The solution as I see it is of course to have a viable state for the Palestinians, but if there is to be such a state it must be one with proper boundaries, not Bantustans. It must be a state that in every sense, geographically and politically, makes sense. It has to be based on the involvement of the widest possible cross-section of people in finding the way forward.

In conclusion, in the region as a whole we have some huge adjustments to make. France, the US and ourselves are seen as being hand in hand with the outdated tyrannical rulers who have called the game for so long. We have to make a strategic transition to being on the side of the people. This will be complicated by the degree to which we have built up our arms relationships with so many of the outdated rulers and have become economically so dependent on the money we have made out of those situations. That has been provocative to the people and will be difficult to remove ourselves from. But these are the strategic issues. Otherwise, we will just be trying to put a finger in the dyke again—and sooner or later the dyke will crash. The lesson of Egypt is startlingly clear.

Gaza

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, my noble friend is completely right. The problem is obviously the lifting and easing of the blockade. We have had some small success: the Israeli authorities have agreed to shift from a total block on progress to a list of very limited permitted goods and are moving to a blacklist of goods that cannot go in. They have announced that they now are happy to allow in things such as steel-ready concrete, asphalt and cement for Palestinian Authority-approved civilian projects that are under the supervision of the UN.

There is, of course, a long list of ifs and buts. Frankly, we have not found that any of this so-called easement has yet made much difference on the ground but it is a slight move forward. Of course, consumer goods are allowed in. We will continue to press extremely hard to get a much more expansive and open regime to allow in the reconstruction items and materials to which my noble friend refers.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Opposed as I am to Netanyahu, is it not right to recognise that in recent days there has been a considerable relaxation over the movement of construction goods from Israel to Gaza? Is it not also right to recognise that there is currently recognition by the United Nations that Hamas is not exactly performing well? Does it not altogether oppose the United Nations regime?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I say to the noble Lord that no one on any side is really performing fully in the way that we want. The relaxation has been announced and we are watching to see whether it has an impact on the ground, although, as I said earlier to my noble friend, our analysis suggests that that impact is not very great so far. However, it is at least a step in the right direction, although we have to go further, as there are so many qualifications and safeguards. I also say to the noble Lord—and it is a perfectly fair point with which I know he will agree—that rockets are raining down all the time on Israeli territory from Gaza. Therefore, the Israeli authorities have to have some safeguards with regard to equipment going into Gaza, which might be used merely to develop aggressive military weaponry for use against them. There is a balance to be struck, and I think that sensible people all round have to recognise both the difficulties and the possibilities on all sides.

Afghanistan

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Will the Minister take the opportunity to reject the idea that has been advanced by at least one prominent person—and perhaps by several—that British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately? That is entirely unjustified at the moment.

Gaza Flotilla

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who is a considerable authority in this area. He is absolutely right about the Israeli judiciary and the quality of judges. What he says will have to be determined when it comes to the investigation. I have read extracts from editorials in Israeli newspapers. The noble Lord is right to say that many wise and highly intelligent Israelis are questioning whether the present policy—not only in relation to this matter but generally—is the right one for the security of Israel. I believe that the security of Israel is vital and should be pursued by somewhat wiser and more subtle policies than those being followed at present.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I acknowledge that this act should never have occurred, but does the Minister agree that a state of war frequently leads to a horrendous and unlawful situation and that this is no exception? Does he also agree that humanitarian supplies should be conveyed to the people of Gaza at this time? However, is it not equally important, as the noble Lord said, that the illegitimate and provocative behaviour of Hamas in Gaza should cease? In no way can it contribute to a peaceful solution to this issue.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, of course I agree with both those wise propositions. The rocketry must cease and that would begin to open the way to better things. Obviously, as the noble Lord says, war leads to the most terrifying, terrible and horrific situations and violence. We all recognise that. The sooner we can bring peace, instead of this horrific situation, the better.

Queen's Speech

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a privilege to open the days of debate ahead on the humble Address. I want to begin with some of my own tributes. My first tribute, echoing that of the Leader of the House yesterday, is to the outgoing Leader of the House, now the acting Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I am thinking of my time on the Front Bench opposite, when she led your Lordships’ House through some intensely difficult moments with the greatest skill. We all owe her our thanks. We also extend our deep sympathies to her for her tragic loss.

I also salute the work of my predecessors in the role I am now fulfilling over the past years—it is been about nine years now—including the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, who I am happy to see in her place and who was doing my job before; the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown; and, particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. They all set very high standards which I shall be hard pressed to follow, but I will do my best.

For the sake of my own career prospects—which, I admit, are extremely limited—I should also pay tribute to the two ex-leaders of the opposition parties, now the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House, who have come together with such grace and speed, sacrificing the joys of opposition for the chill exposure of government. I acutely realise that from now on I shall have to pick my words with exceptional care, otherwise I may attract some distinctly uncoalition-like rebukes from my noble friend Lord McNally about my general abilities, qualifications and grasp of events, if not more.

I am pleased to be dealing with foreign affairs alongside my new noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. To claim that we have always seen eye to eye on such matters as the future development of the EU and the Lisbon treaty would be stretching credulity beyond limits, but he is a towering authority on international issues and it is a privilege for me to be working with him. Finally, I am glad that my long-standing colleague, my noble friend Lord Astor, has been appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence and will, of course, be winding up at the end of today’s proceedings.

We are witnessing a huge change in the way states and Governments face and interact with each other, and it is desirable now that Britain should be at its most agile, innovative, ingenious and constructive at operating within this quite new international milieu. First, while the Cold War is obviously decades behind us, with its grim threat of mutual nuclear annihilation, which some of us grew up with, the post-Cold War phase has brought new dangers of nuclear proliferation. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr Hague, announced this morning, after only a few days in office, a highly significant departure in the UK’s strategic weapons policy—namely, by publishing for the first time the full number of nuclear warheads in the UK stockpile. In future, our stockpile will not exceed 225 warheads.

The Government will also launch a review of the UK’s nuclear posture; that is, its so-called “declaratory policy”. None of this will affect our national security, but it should all help considerably to boost the climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states which has been so signally lacking. All of this further affirms the full commitment of the coalition Government to the current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review going on in New York while we speak, where we are playing a strong role and which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is attending.

A second major factor that we must now recognise is that the axis of international power and influence is shifting, not merely to the so-called “emerging powers” such as the BRICs—that is, Brazil, Russia, India and China—about which I shall say more in a moment, but also to increasingly significant players such as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and to groupings such as the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. The growing significance of the G20, alongside the G8, also clearly reflects this trend.

Thirdly, when it comes to our military strength—our hard-power capability—the shield of Achilles has today to be raised not only against visible enemies but also against the cowardly viciousness of the roadside bomb and other murderous methods. At the same time, the work of the military is increasingly and inevitably intertwined with reconstruction and civil repair. The Taliban and its Pashtun backers are one vivid and present example of these challenges. The wind-up speech of my noble friend Lord Astor will focus on the many specific questions and issues related to the Afghanistan war which I know are on your Lordships’ minds and on which we intend to give regular and comprehensive reports to Parliament on a quarterly basis.

Successful power deployment today—that is, power to protect and promote our people, national commercial interest and prosperity and yet at the same time uphold our values and maximise our contribution to global peace in a heavily interdependent age—therefore rests overwhelmingly on diplomacy in all its forms. That means operating not just through government-to-government relations but also, increasingly, through every kind of sub-governmental, non-governmental, professional, informational and commercial linkage. It demands a continuous spread of cultural diplomacy and soft-power deployment throughout the globe and the international institutional network. This dense mass of connections is the new global network in which we have to operate. What people call our enlightened self-interest in this new context is no narrow affair. It involves being an effective force for good in the world, fighting poverty, meeting or adjusting environmental and climatic threats as well as seeking the very best for our own nation and society. At government level, it requires an intricate web of diplomatic relations with nations large and small, conducted with the maximum mutual respect and underpinned by a highly active, informal latticework of connections.

Of course, we want a strong, close and frank relationship with the United States of America—to use the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—and, within our own region, with our fellow European Union states. We want to use and strengthen the combined weight of the EU wherever we can. However, in the international landscape, the channels for power and influence will lie also in our bilateral network links with a whole variety of new players and not only with and through the main transatlantic duo.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

How does the noble Lord reconcile that with his party’s alliance with extreme right-wing forces in the European Union? Are his views shared by the Liberal Democrats in that respect?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This is a coalition Government and a lot of views are shared. I shall come to European Union matters in a moment. Not every detail is shared, but the majority are. I assure the noble Lord, who has considerable experience of these things, that what I shall say represents the united view of the coalition on how we go forward on the crucial question of the European Union.

The same new pattern goes for our energy security. An entirely new pattern of energy supply is in the making, which invalidates old priorities. Nations such as Poland, with its shale gas, Brazil, with its enormous new oil finds and its sugarcane biofuel, and Canada, with its tar sands, shale, biofuels and Arctic oil and gas, all come to the fore as the key sources in the new era. Norway, too, will be increasingly our lifeline. But Russia, on the other hand, may come to have a less dominant role in Europe’s energy supplies—which is all to the good.

We will need to consider the redirection of diplomatic resource, in all its forms, to countries and networks which seemed scarcely to feature on the global priorities map a decade or so ago. We have to work out how scarce resources can best be deployed towards nations and networks such as the Turkish republic and the republics of Central Asia and the Caspian region, such as Azerbaijan. We must build stronger, reinvigorated and more structured ties with the Gulf states—our close friends in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE, for example—with North Africa and with Japan, still an economic titan, in which the Secretary of State has asked me to take a special interest, with Latin America and especially with the whole vast Commonwealth network of linkages, both governmental and non-governmental, with India and Pakistan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia in the lead, while fully respecting the interests of smaller Commonwealth countries as well.

I am sure that we all welcome Her Majesty's forthcoming visit to Canada, a leading Commonwealth member, and to the UN in New York, with the Duke of Edinburgh in June. Her Majesty’s own words that the Commonwealth is, in lots of ways,

“the face of the future”,

are worth keeping in mind.

I should add that we also warmly welcome the official papal visit to this country. I understand that there was a pastoral one before, but this is the first official one.

Our links with India, one of the world’s fastest-rising economies, will be of particular importance to us. The gracious Speech confirms that we will seek a truly enhanced partnership with the Indian giant, again a central Commonwealth member.

These will now be the priorities of diplomacy in its new guise. Experts may talk about the shift in wealth and power now taking place globally, but it is time to grasp what this really means, where the new power and influence centres really lie, and how we relate to them to our best possible national advantage.

I come to some specific issues concerning us all, although, obviously, I cannot in the time available—and noble Lords would not want me to—cover every aspect of the scene. I turn to the point raised about the European Union. There will, no doubt, be many debates ahead on the development of our relations with the EU, but I confirm that we will be energetically involved in the EU’s external policy challenges of today and tomorrow, although, of course, these form only a part of our overall global positioning and strategy. Some of us were not overenthusiastic about the new European Union external action service, but now that it exists we want to see it play a really positive role for the EU and its member states.

The EU is clearly facing great strains at the moment, which go well beyond the problems of Greece and the euro, and it is in our interest that it gets on top of these challenges before they drag us all down. But the coalition is agreed that any proposed future treaty that transferred further areas of power or competences from the UK to the EU will be subject to a referendum, and we propose to seek amendment of the European Communities Act 1972, accordingly. In addition, we will ensure that an Act of Parliament will be required before any ratchet clauses within the Lisbon treaty—the so-called passerelle clauses, which veterans of the debates will remember all too well—are put into effect. Any major transfer of powers by this route would also be subject to a referendum.

We also plan to examine further the case for a UK sovereignty Bill, to establish that ultimate authority remains with our Parliament. All that is very much in the spirit of the Laaken declaration, which wished to see the EU less remote from and nearer to the people of Europe. We all want to see parliamentary and democratic scrutiny, control and accountability for the European decision-making process maximised, and I believe that this is the way forward—for us and for the Union as a whole.

Turning to Iran, we support tougher sanctions to deter that country’s dangerous nuclear ambitions, but the question is whether China and Russia will co-operate fully, because they are in a position to undermine them. At present, those two great nations back sanctions, but also encourage deals such as the Turkey and Brazil nuclear fuel deal, which appears to do little to promote a more responsible attitude by Iran. There is also the new Iraq-Iran oil pipeline deal, which could weaken sanctions in the future. All those developments remind us that regional as much as western issues are at stake.

In Iraq, we now have post-election political stalemate. There has been an election, and democracy has worked in that sense, but there is now a stalemate that could be dangerous and bring yet more violence. A positive aspect is that oil investment is set to go ahead in what has been described as one of history’s biggest transfers of oil territory into the oil production and supply chain. Either way, whatever happens—some people have talked about output as big as 12 million barrels a day, which would make Iraq much bigger than Saudi Arabia—commercial opportunities are clearly opening out on a major scale. BP is already leading boldly with its investment in the Rumaila oilfield, although BP is currently facing nightmares elsewhere, as we have all read in the media.

In Sudan, where we have been spending—and this figure surprised me when I read it in my brief— £250 million a year on humanitarian aid and development, our hopes remain resting on the comprehensive peace agreement and, looking ahead, on the south Sudan independence referendum. In view of the heavy Chinese presence in Sudan, perhaps it would also be right to call your Lordships’ attention to the major spread of Chinese investment and trade activity, not only in Africa but worldwide, and to note that the UK is the biggest outside investor in China, while Chinese investment here is also growing rapidly. So while we stand solid on our principles in relation to human rights, we need and intend to maximise our relations with China and are happy to have inherited an already strong showing at the great Shanghai Expo, where by all accounts the British pavilion is a popular marvel.

There are numerous other dangerous and tense situations around the globe that require our attention and which doubtless we will address in the months ahead. Some require continuity of the policy of the Government from whom we have inherited them and some need vigorous new directions. I refer briefly to the many obstacles still blocking the path to a Palestinian state and to the miserable situation in Gaza. We must keep close track of the increased tension as expressed in yesterday’s and today’s papers over North Korea’s latest unprovoked act of aggression, which we deplore. We extend our sympathies over the death of 46 sailors on the torpedoed “Cheonan” vessel.

We will keep a close watch too on the renewed dangers of disintegration in the west Balkans, and we are also addressing the nexus of hazardous issues in the Horn of Africa, including the continuing piracy problem. Burma, too, we have to watch carefully, and the rearming of Hezbollah may raise tensions again in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Thailand is torn by riots and other horrors are reported daily in the media. The list, I fear, goes on and on. This is a dangerous and precarious world.

As for hopes for recovery in long-suffering and misruled Zimbabwe, we will give all the support that we can to the reformers and encourage stronger help from Zimbabwe’s neighbours, particularly South Africa. Our priorities must also include UN reform, on which we back permanent seats for Japan, India, Germany and Brazil, as well as African representation. I add what I hope is obvious to your Lordships: in all our affairs, this Government will never condone torture, complicity in torture or rendition leading to torture.

I have spoken almost long enough. I see on the list of speakers today those who are in the front rank of authority on many of the issues that I have mentioned, such as the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Anderson, Lord Hannay and Lord Owen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as well as many others, all of whom offer specialist wisdom by which we should be guided.

Rather than taking more of your Lordships’ time, I conclude by saying that today our distinctive positioning in this world of major and often brutal transition can and will define and unite us here at home. It can give us what we need, which is clear purpose and identity in this nation. Strength without is strength within. Security without is security within. The two cannot be separated.

The Prime Minister has established a National Security Council to bring together strategic decisions about foreign policy, security policy and development. This will be a powerful centre of decision-making. It has already met three times in the two weeks since the coalition Government were formed and will be a major means of involving domestic departments, which have an increasingly international aspect to their work, in the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives.

It is with this underpinning that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is moving vigorously and swiftly to see that he and his department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—I emphasise “Commonwealth”—work very closely with his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development to ensure the best possible co-ordination and deployment of all our overseas resources, diplomatic, military and developmental, to meet and serve the nation’s international priorities and worldwide interests and purposes effectively and efficiently. That is what this coalition intends and that is clearly what the country wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

This has been a remarkable debate, largely unreported, and has in my view demonstrated the value of this Chamber. None can be more remarkable than the speech of my noble friend Lady Flather. I thought it was fantastic. In paying tribute to her, I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Kinnock. I thought her speech was equally fantastic and I thank her very much for it.

Yesterday, the Leader of the House spoke of the coalition’s duty to promote “freedom, fairness and responsibility”. How does that maxim apply with regard to the European Union? In its statement, the coalition said, rather remarkably:

“We will ensure that the British Government is a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners”.

Virtually every action that the Government have taken and every statement uttered by the Conservative Party regarding the European Union before and during the election belies that intention. The reaction was grudging. It was sour. They were playing unashamedly to the anti-European Union lobby which dominated the Conservative Party and, I believe, still does.

The Liberal Democrats took an opposing stance. They are, without doubt, pro-European. I can only believe, therefore, that this particular paragraph was inserted to appease them. But what of the majority of Tory MPs and Peers? How can these two irreconcilable views come together? What of the Bill Cashes of this world and their ilk who are now in a majority in the Conservative Party? We come to the next paragraph in the coalition document. It states:

“We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament”.

But what if there is a change of circumstances and virtually the whole of the EU opts for a transfer of powers? Are the Government prepared to stand apart? Will we still have a referendum if only UKIP and other right-wing extremists are opposed? What a waste of money that would be.

I recall only too well how the then Danish coalition reacted in the middle of the 1980s. The Farmers’ Party, a small minority, was able to hold up pretty well all European legislation on transport. I know that because I was the Commissioner at that time. It led to the fury of all other Members. We could make progress only when we could operate according to a qualified majority, but that was not always the case. The Danish Parliament, led on these matters by the Minister concerned, was able to destroy the credibility of the Commission and the European Parliament. Are we in for another dose of that, except that this time it will not be the Danish Parliament but the Tory Party here and in another place which will be held responsible?

My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to the Tories’ choice of ally in the European Parliament—what Nick Clegg described as “a bunch of nutters” and racists. This was vehemently rejected by the Tories, and all other right-wing democrats recoiled in horror at what they were proclaiming. Nick Clegg was 100 per cent right on that. What does the coalition now think? The noble Lord, Lord Howell, for whom I have a great regard, lived down to this nadir. He did no duty to the House. He of course said he would return to my intervention, but he never did. In my opinion, he has not filled his role with great dignity today, notwithstanding the plaudits which have been hurled around this House.

The EU is going through a crisis, as are many others. It is at times such as this that we have to stand by the EU as staunch, somewhat critical, supporters, rather than as foes, which the Conservative Party is at present.

I wanted to speak of international aviation—for a few more days, I am the president of BALPA, the British Airline Pilots Association—but time does not permit that. However, the coalition Government are not able to hide behind that particular excuse. Through omission, they are failing the future of aviation, which I am convinced will constantly improve. Even more unfortunately, the coalition is risking the future of this country. It cannot ignore aviation as it does in this statement and in the contributions made today in this House by government Ministers.