Sudan

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his comments in relation to Christian Aid, and I agree with him. I hope that when the dust begins to settle and the immediate crisis begins to be alleviated, we will be able to work together and co-operate internationally to ensure that those responsible for undoubtably grotesque crimes are held to account. I cannot tell him more than that, unfortunately, because it is such early days. It would represent a failure of global systems that we have in place were that not to occur, so I very much hope that becomes a priority at the appropriate time.

I also agree with the noble and right reverend Lord’s comments about the need to restore our aid budget as soon as possible; I have made the point many times in response to comments by people across the House.

Finally, our priority has to be to pursue now, not just in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of violence involving evacuation, every single diplomatic avenue to end the violence and to de-escalate tensions. We are working with our friends and allies across the world, including across the continent of Africa, to try to help facilitate the environment and conditions in which peace will be possible. But at this stage it is incredibly difficult because, as the noble and right reverend Lord knows, we are in the heat of the violence as we speak.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, feel grateful for the opportunity to ask some of the questions which have been highlighted by this extraordinary extraction operation we have been involved in over the last two weeks. On the whole, it has been very successful, which I think is largely due to the extraordinary qualities of our service men and women, who are prepared to show cool courage in the face of adversity. They do not let us down, and their existence is a great national asset, in my view.

The Government say—the Minister said it just now—that they are working with friends around the world to try to solve some of these problems. Anybody who looks at this operation from a relatively objective point of view, trying to ensure that lessons are learned for the future, would be above all struck by the fact that we have been attempting to do all this entirely on our own. However, it is quite obvious that there are other countries which are willing to take on some of the risks and costs involved in the extraction operation, and which can in some cases supply useful bases, such as Djibouti—of course, we could supply Akrotiri—or a lot of materiel, aircrafts and so forth, which are necessary for this purpose.

So it is a rather sad fact that we are not collaborating with our partners and allies around the world on this particular matter; we are trying to do it all ourselves. I think that is characteristic of the post-Brexit mentality and the feeling of the Government that we do not want to become associated too much with other people, multinational organisations of different kinds and, above all, any operation that has called itself European at some point. That is a great mistake. I hope it will be corrected, because it is quite clear that other extractions of this delicate nature will be required from time to time, and we must be in a position to make the contribution that we need for the sake of people’s lives and for the sake of world peace.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

First, I echo the noble Lord’s remarks on the bravery of our service men and women. I made that point in my opening remarks, but it is absolutely right that it should be amplified. I extend that to staff in the FCDO who have been working around the clock for the staggering commitment they have shown in recent days and weeks.

I do not recognise the approach that the noble Lord has just conveyed. Our post-Brexit position in the world does not translate, and has never translated, into isolationism in the way that he implies. We recognise that challenges such as this cannot be solved by the UK working alone. We have been working across the board, with allies across the European Union and beyond, and will continue to do so.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree that external trade is a reserved matter, but here we are talking about trade inside the United Kingdom—as well as trade inside the single market of the European Union, of course. I do not think it follows at all that one can say there is no role for the Assembly because external trade is a reserved matter.

I would love to support the amendment in the names of the two noble Baronesses. I agree with the spirit of it. It is extraordinary how, throughout this saga, things have been done to Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland being fully consulted or even informed. It is extraordinary, when you think about it, that the protocol was concluded without the involvement—I want to embarrass him now—of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who knows far more about these issues than most of us do and has a judgment that we would all respect. That should have been brought to bear.

I hesitate to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is busy with his emails, but, if he would like to listen, I will criticise him. It would have been good if he had found the ability to spend more time in Northern Ireland while he was negotiating. It would have been great if his master, the then Prime Minister, had been able to spend some time trying to understand the issues and seeing people on the ground, but it is an astonishing fact that Michel Barnier had more direct personal experience of Northern Ireland than the noble Lord, Lord Frost, had. That was because Barnier had spent time there doing jobs for previous presidents of the Commission.

I feel that the syndrome of imposing things on Northern Ireland, perhaps under cover of talk about reserved matters, which I disagree with, has been damaging to the United Kingdom and, of course, to Northern Ireland. I would love to support these amendments, and of course I would do so. But it would not make an illegal act less illegal if the Northern Ireland Assembly voted for it, so what are we talking about here?

I caused the Minister to look askance when I said that we are talking about a pig of a Bill. The Minister thought that was an indelicate reference. However, what we are doing here is trying to put lipstick on the pig. It will still be a pig even if this amendment is approved. If it were put to a vote, of course I would vote for it, but my general feeling is that we know what we have to do with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has correctly pointed out that what we are engaged in now is a waste of time because I am confident that at the end of the day, we will do what we have to do to this Bill. I hope the end of the day comes soon.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, for a number of years I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have not been involved in recent political discussions in the Province. In a sense, I have come back to the subject afresh today. It certainly keeps all its fascination. We have just heard two immensely important contributions to the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Bew. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, dealt clearly, decisively and definitively with whether or not trade is a reserved matter. We must be grateful for that analysis, which I hope will guide us in dealing with this Bill.

The Bill is an extraordinarily unpopular document, is it not? It is quite difficult to find anybody really prepared to defend it. The DUP is obviously very much opposed to it. We have heard this afternoon from people who are close to the DUP’s leadership. The European Commission has launched infringement procedures in relation to the British Government’s activity over this Bill. The British Government do not seem to be very convinced of the virtues of the Bill. Certainly no one this afternoon has made a strong defence of the Bill.

Against that background, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is quite unlikely that the DUP will do a U-turn; it would be a humiliating thing to do. Therefore, one must assume that the Bill in its present form does not have very far to go. That is not surprising because—and the reason I really oppose this Bill—it seems contrary to the essence of parliamentary democracy. The principle which underlines our whole system in this country is that the law must be made by the legislature—the legally elected representatives of the public. It is their responsibility to make laws; it is not the responsibility of the Government to make laws, nor is it desirable that they should try to do so.

Many of the provisions in this controversial protocol Bill reveal that there is an ambition for the Government to rewrite the law themselves. I look at the overview of the Bill in the very helpful summary produced by the Library. It says that one of the purposes is

“giving ministers delegated powers to make new provision in domestic law ‘in connection with’ ‘excluded provision’”;

in other words, the Bill declares itself as being in the business of making law and imposing it on the public, which is quite contrary to all democratic principles, and we should be quite upset about it.

This is something which has disfigured European history in the last 100 years. A number of people, from Mussolini to Hitler to Marshal Pétain, have adopted this course of deciding to get through an assembly, which would be reasonably compliant, a Bill entitling the Government to write the law themselves in the future. That is what happens to democracies if they are under that kind of attack. We should not in any way be party to that.

The House of Lords Library’s summary of the situation makes it clear that, in this case, the executive branch is deciding to write law and change international treaties more or less at the drop of a hat. That is obviously not something that anyone in this House could tolerate, and we should therefore think about this extremely carefully before it proceeds. We should make it absolutely clear that the Government cannot get away with asking for power in an enabling Act to simply write the future statute—not making this clear would be contrary to what we should do in this place.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the very powerful arguments produced by a number of colleagues, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, in favour of our spending more money on defence and taking defence requirements in this country rather more seriously than we have in the past.

I have been transfixed over the last few weeks, as I imagine many others have, by the extraordinary courage and selfless self-sacrifice of the Ukrainians, who found themselves victims of an attack by Russia. It is a real David and Goliath story, which, so far, has had the right ending. But we must make sure that it continues to have the right ending. It is very important that Ukraine retains its independence and existing borders—though innocent, it has been made to suffer by having territory taken away from it—and that it continues to be a major force in the western world. As soon as possible, if it wants to, it should be allowed to become a member of the European Union and NATO. I greatly look forward to that happening.

I think the Ukrainians would take it very much amiss if there were any attempt on the part of their western allies to delay their entry into those organisations, which they thoroughly deserve to be part of after conducting themselves as they have in the last few weeks. I hope it will be fine, but I am still concerned that people are talking about making special concessions to the Russians—not upsetting them too much or humiliating them and so forth. If they are humiliated, it is entirely their fault. No one asked them to invade Ukraine, so we should not have too much sympathy with that.

This has been a very good debate. We have managed to make it clear that all is not well in the defence of peace in the world. It is very important that we keep these things under very close review and continue to keep the Government alert to the need to pay attention and contribute properly to the cost of defence. If you do not have any defence, you invite attack and its consequences, with which we are all too familiar.

Continuity Agreement: Kingdom of Morocco

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

In a slightly wider context, in greater north Africa, south of the Western Sahara, there is almost a land border between Morocco and Mali, and there is a land border between Algeria and Mali. In the United Kingdom —I know we share similar concerns across the Chamber about security—we are thinking about sending troops and further help into Mali itself. We need to make quite certain that no messages come out of our debate tonight, from anyone, which cast any doubt on the determination of Her Majesty’s Government, and Her Majesty’s Opposition, to try to do all we can to help defeat terrorist threats along the Moroccan borders and across the whole of the Mediterranean littoral.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Stevenson on getting the opportunity to debate this, and I particularly congratulate him on his initiative in making a very interesting constitutional suggestion. A lot of colleagues will probably have seen the Order Paper and thought that this subject was slightly technical and esoteric, which may be why the Chamber is not in danger of bursting its seams, but my noble friend has raised a very general point, which is that we are bad in this country at ratifying treaties. It is an important legislative role in other countries and, of course, the United States does it with great thoroughness—with such thoroughness that the executive branch tries to avoid any ratification process starting in the first place. Nevertheless, that is democracy, and I think there is a great lack of democracy here, where the bureaucrats negotiate these agreements and there is no opportunity at all to call them to account, or for Parliament to express a view on the content of these agreements. So I thought it was a very good suggestion, and I know my noble friend Lord Stevenson is a serious and determined colleague. When he makes a suggestion, it is not just intended to be a nine-day wonder. I am sure that he will continue with this and take it further, and he will certainly have all the support I can personally give him.

The agreement with Morocco carries forward our market access which we currently have as members of the European Union—I say “currently have”, but that means only long as the transition period lasts. I have to make a confession: during the debates on Brexit over the past four years—we had an awful lot of debates in the media, in this House and in public meetings, and I have taken part in all three types of debate—I quite often attacked the Government, and indeed tried to mock the Government. I said how utterly absurd it was for the Government to say that they wanted to sign more free trade agreements with more countries around the world and to go ahead with Brexit, which involved us overnight losing our access to about 45 different trade agreements that the EU already has with these countries. In actual fact, I must congratulate the Government on having, in this particular case—and one or two others, such as with Jordan—managed to agree in principle to carry forward the existing EU agreement without the discussion breaking, as I suspected it would, into completely new fields, with new demands for new concessions that would make this a very long-winded process. So it is only fair to say that I congratulate them on making that progress.

However, I very much retain my view that it would be a great mistake to open negotiations on new free trade agreements with countries where we are not just carrying forward an EU agreement and with those with which we do not currently have a national free trade agreement before we have concluded the negotiations with the European Union or the United States. When I say “before we have concluded”, I mean before we have either concluded them or have determined that there is no purpose in pursuing that particular subject with those countries for the foreseeable future—which of course is another possible outcome.

My reason for saying that is that, whereas in an agreement like this, which carries forward the terms of the existing EU-Morocco agreement, there is no change in the competitive position of exporters from the United States or the European Union—they pay duties at the present time, if there are duties and tariffs, and they will continue to pay them, and they are not a party to this particular deal, so their position is unchanged—if you started to negotiate a new agreement with another country where there are tariffs and quotas, we may find ourselves in a position where perhaps we can negotiate a position in which British exporters will not be paying them while, presumably, exporters from other countries will. British exporters would then gain an advantage in that particular market vis-à-vis exporters from those other two countries—looking at the EU as a country. The EU and the US might be less than pleased, although of course the amounts involved may be tiny. I think that Morocco accounts for less than 0.5% of our exports, but this could happen on several occasions in several different places. It is possible that this could be a considerable factor in the negotiations we might have with the EU and the US.

Goodness knows, those negotiations are going to be complicated enough, and there is no way that the Government will achieve their aim of concluding them by the end of this year. Given that, importing this new complication would be completely crazy and really would be very foolish because, after all, the EU and the US account for three-quarters of our exports. We would be threatening their position, or at least making life more difficult in the context of those important negotiations, for the interests of our exports to countries that represent perhaps less than 1% of our trade. That would not make any sense. I therefore retain my view about the tactics of this, despite recognising that the Government have actually succeeded in carrying forward the EU agreements in these cases in a way that I did not anticipate. I hope the Minister will agree with that apologia on my part.

Before I finish, I have another question to ask. It is clear that on the last occasion, the Foreign Office did not anticipate that the Polisario Front would wish to litigate in order to try to stop the entering into force of an EU-Morocco trade agreement. It has done so and it has succeeded, so it has held up the whole process and we will see what happens. I am told in the briefing which has been produced for members of the European Union Committee:

“We note that FCO officials have told us that they are confident the UK Agreement is consistent with EU law and the Government’s position on the status of Western Sahara.”


It may be that they are confident and that they are right. Last time, they were confident, but they were not right; they were wrong. My question to the Minister therefore is: what confidence does he have, and why does he have it, that on this occasion the FCO officials have got it right and that we will not go back to where we started and find ourselves entering into further litigation?

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I would very much like to hear the Minister explain the legal basis on which this matter rests, in view of the issues that have been raised in relation to Western Sahara. The issues raised are quite important, but at the moment I do not see exactly what the answer in which the Foreign Office will be confident is. I am willing to agree that I may be utterly wrong and that the noble Lord may be able to convince us all.

Israel and Palestine: United States’ Proposals for Peace

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I disagree with this document on at least three principles. First, it is not at all even-handed. It is quite clear that the Palestinians are intended to have to earn certain concessions over four years whereas the benefits for Israel are available immediately. Part of it reads like a proposed diktat to the Palestinians, and I do not think that is very helpful if we want to restart the process of peace negotiations in the Middle East, which we all do.

The second thing I have against this document is the proposal on land. The proposal is to take away large areas of land from the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, and give them to Israel and in exchange, as has already been said, to give the Palestinians an equivalent amount of territory in the Negev Desert. That really is absurd and insulting. It is quite wrong to consider extending Israel’s borders in the West Bank beyond the green line. The green line is the line which the Israeli Supreme Court decided should be the limit of Jewish settlement and Israeli jurisdiction and control, and I do not think we should go beyond that. It would be crazy to suggest doing so, in my view, in the circumstances. Equally, I do not think we should push back the green line or the border further back, because over the past 53 years established communities have been growing and have been very successful. People have been living in that area and have had children and grandchildren and, as always happens in these cases, people are attached to their homes and if we pushed them out of them and said they had to go back to Israel, we would cause just one more problem of displaced persons in the Middle East, one more injustice and one more grievance, and I do not think that would be a good way to go either. The green line is the natural border and should be part of any discussions we take forward at this juncture.

Thirdly, I was very struck by the fact that nothing is said about the great injustice done to the Palestinian refugees, which was not their fault. That is very unfortunate. Most of the refugees left in 1948 in terror, particularly after the massacre of Deir Yassin, which was a hideous war crime. I recognise that there were quite different incidents in other parts of Israel in 1948. The Jews of Haifa tried to persuade their Arab neighbours not to leave, but most of them left because they were terrified. Some of them remained and their descendants are happily living there today, but nevertheless those refugees left in fear of their lives and we have to recognise that.

Equally, it is not at all sensible to think in terms of a right of return. Of course that would be impossible, as has already been said by my namesake the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who preceded me. That would be very disruptive for Israel, but economically it would simply not be realistic. Anyway, it would cause enormous bitterness between the two parties if 2 million new refugees arrived in Israel. It is absurd. What I think ought to be done is that individuals who left in 1948—they are all by definition in their 70s, 80s or 90s—should be given a right of return. That should be recognised as a matter of law and principle. It is most unlikely that most of them would take it up because it would not apply to the younger members of their families. In return, those who do not want to take up that right could cash it in, as it were, and receive a decent amount of monetary compensation. I am thinking $50,000 a head or something of that sort. Much smaller amounts of money would go to the second generation and smaller amounts still to the third generation. That would be a fair way of recognising the principle of the right of return. It would be regarded as worth talking about, at the very least, in Palestine. Clearly, money would be paid only when there had been a referendum in Palestine that resulted in a majority in favour of a settlement with all the details there. That is my view of the sort of document that we ought to be talking about now. I hope that we can get back to discussing how to solve this problem. It should not be allowed to fester indefinitely; that would be very dangerous.

I fear I must make the final point that we have this problem now very largely because of the extraordinarily bad Palestinian leadership over the last 100 years. Right from the 1930s and 1940s, the then leader of the Palestinian cause, the Grand Mufti, rejected any negotiations and any recognition of Israel and the Jewish settlements in the area. He preferred to go for violence and war. He had his war in 1948. He lost it dramatically and the Palestinians were worse off. He could probably have done a much better deal with the Jewish Agency in the 1930s than the Palestinians got from the United Nations partition resolution. It was another major miscalculation. His successor, al-Shukeiri, also put the emphasis on violence, with terrorist attacks on Israel and by encouraging the Egyptians to prepare a war against Israel. All that ended in disaster for the Palestinians in 1967. We then had Yasser Arafat, who famously turned down Ehud Barak’s offer of 98% of the territories. That is a terrible record. The Palestinians have been betrayed. They have been betrayed, more than anything else by their own leaders, and we now must hope that somebody comes to the fore among the Palestinians with a slightly greater deal of realism and honesty in the message he delivers to his people.