Syria
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Russia
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met President Trump last week, she confirmed not only that they had agreed to lay the groundwork for a future trade deal but that he had confirmed that he was 100% behind NATO. However, it is right that all members of NATO pay their fair share. We shall certainly encourage other members to do so. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also advised clearly that in relations with Russia, it is a matter of “engage but beware”.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Would we not send the most dangerous and perverse signal to Russia, and indeed to any potential aggressor anywhere in the world, and greatly undermine the credibility of the western world if we were to lift sanctions without Russia having begun to fulfil her obligations under the Minsk agreements?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we will support the continuation of sanctions until and unless all the aspects of the Minsk agreements are met. That is essential.
Outcome of the European Union Referendum
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The noble Lord said he was going to have respect for the other side of the argument, and I appreciate that. I hope he might realise, therefore, that we have not in this series of debates been talking up the virtues of the European Union because that would have been to fight the referendum campaign all over again. It is not very germane to today’s debate, which is on what we do now. That is precisely the reason we have not spoken about the merits of the European Union, not because of any loss of conviction.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
I have no doubt about the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for the European Union; it has been plain over many years.
Fourthly, we are indebted to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for an immensely powerful speech. It is for all of us to reflect long and hard on an intervention which redeemed an otherwise rather sad day.
Of the many facets of the EU debate, nothing has driven me so much as the conviction that failures of accountability are a principal cause of much of humanity’s wretchedness and pain. I have long feared that our centuries-old settlement, under which government is conducted with the consent of the people, is under threat and is in total conflict with the EU’s direction of travel. As I enter old age, I was stirred into action these last few weeks to protect my children and grandchildren from the possibility of arbitrary rule, perhaps even tyranny, if an unreformed European Union persists in turning its back on the democratic process.
Many motives have been ascribed to those who voted to leave. It would be a mistake to underestimate the sense of anger British people feel about the undermining of their democracy. I found it to be an ever-present theme during the campaign. The perception of national identity being stolen was also identified and articulated in various ways.
That brings me to the more prosaic fears I encountered. Of the many civilised, but often passionate, exchanges, I suppose the most common anxiety I met with had to do with our alleged access to the ineptly named single market. After so many years, I find it deeply shocking how many barriers there still are to trade and how damaging they are, especially to our national interest. What has become known as the single market should more accurately, I am told, be called the single regulatory zone. I continue to think of it as a customs union. Whatever it is called, it is protectionist in character and morally questionable in its impact on the poor of EU countries and even poorer citizens of countries outside the European Union.
Brussels plays host to tens of thousands of lobbyists, more than in Washington. Large multinational companies effectively purchase laws and regulations, first, to benefit themselves and, secondly, to disadvantage their smaller, often more innovative, rivals. This horrible kind of venality seems to be comfortably at home in Brussels. Perhaps a product of globalisation so much talked about is the appearance of giant organisations, whether institutions or corporations, whose very size destroys any semblance of a morality. It is a problem that we need to address, as has been said today and yesterday.
In the matter of trade, it becomes daily clearer that non-EU countries export more successfully to the EU than we do. The reason is not hard to find. The WTO tariff averages out at 3%, which compares with the cost of our membership equivalent to a 7% tariff. Our trade deficit with the EU has risen in recent months and now runs at a record £100 billion. It really is hard to see how it would be in the EU’s interest to damage this, its most important market.
Looking ahead, rather than obsessing about trade deals, why do we not just quietly and politely walk away? We might or might not have to pay the modest tariffs permitted under WTO rules until free trade agreements are in place. Or might we not explore the proposal that we unilaterally declare ourselves a free trade country? Those putting up barriers against us will soon discover that they are harming themselves more than they harm us. Surely a nation with its independence and democratic integrity restored, its identity recovered, its tradition of free trade renewed, truly internationalist in character, amounts to a vision that can inspire and unite us all.
EU: UK Settlement
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, no, part of the agreement is that there is a protection for the United Kingdom to retain a veto to remain outside the eurozone.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Is it not the case that so long as we remain in the European Union we will continue to have a veto on any potential applications to join, including if Turkey were to make such an application, because enlargement is a matter for unanimity under the treaty? Is it not also the case that, for exactly the same reason, we would continue to have a veto on any increase in the EU budget? Is it not therefore the case that in saying precisely the opposite to those two things over the last few days the Brexit campaign has once again—sad as it is to have to use the word—told lies to the British public?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I do not say that those who present an inaccurate description are telling falsehoods. I follow my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in saying that perhaps they simply do not have quite as much direct experience of the EU as he has had as Prime Minister. Unusual though it may be for me to agree so wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I have to say that he is right.
Palestinian Authority Television
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am able to give a little detail about the most recent contacts, which might help the noble Lord. In January, Her Majesty’s consul-general in Jerusalem met Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub, who had called the recent attacks there “heroic”. Our consul-general also met the Minister of Health, Jawad Awwad. The ministry had issued a statement praising the Tel Aviv New Year’s Day shooter, Nashat Melhem.
As for television, the director of pro-Israeli NGO Palestinian Media Watch describes decades-long propaganda campaigns on PA-sponsored children’s programmes which depict Jews and Israelis as enemies of God. Her Majesty’s consul-general in Jerusalem has raised this with the Palestinian Authority as part of broader lobbying on incitement since this Question was tabled. I thought it would be helpful to update the noble Lord on that.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, raising the matter of incitement, to use the noble Baroness’s word, does not seem to have had much effect. Will she remind the House of the amount of aid that we give the Palestinian Authority, both directly and via EU projects? Will she consider saying clearly to the Palestinian Authority that it is quite unacceptable for it to be taking British public money on the one hand and, on the other, using its own resources to subsidise networks that produce the propaganda in favour of terrorism that we have heard quoted in the House today?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out that, through DfID, we provide significant humanitarian aid to the people who are suffering in Gaza. It is conditional on the basis that it goes only to people in need. The Palestinian Authority should make best efforts to resume control of Gaza and re-engage in discussions with Israel about how peace may be achieved.
NATO and the European Union
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on bringing this Motion forward, and he could not have found a more pertinent moment to have done so. We all need the Armed Forces, and we have had a reminder in horrifying terms just recently of how much we need them.
We do not just need Armed Forces; we need the best Armed Forces. That is to say that we need to select people very carefully, pay them decently, look after them properly and, above all, give them the best training and equipment that we possibly can. We cannot ever fight in this country, or in any democracy, labour-intensive warfare; it must be capital-intensive warfare. We must make sure that, to the greatest degree possible, human lives are protected and that we achieve maximum effect through the capitalisation of the equipment that we provide. That has been the principle on which we have based our defence policy and defence procurement policy for quite a long time, and it was certainly the principle we adopted when I was Defence Procurement Minister during the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements.
The trouble, of course, is that such a policy is extremely expensive. The defence cuts that we have had over the past five years have been egregious and quite disgracefully irresponsible—thoroughly irresponsible. Reference has already been made this evening to the problems raised in the maritime surveillance area. Of course, we always have constraints. We had financial constraints in our time, and there will always be financial constraints. At present, the RAF supposedly has eight squadrons of combat aircraft. That should mean 96 combat aircraft. What have we actually been fielding in theatre? For a long time, there have been eight Tornado jets and there may be two Typhoons as well—a tiny proportion of the aircraft that should be available. That shows how much our defences have been, sadly, run down. We cannot now sustain deployment of more than about 5,000 men—a brigade, really, with various supporting units. I am afraid that, as a result of the defence cuts, we are in a very thin situation.
Nevertheless, there will always be financial constraints and we have to think intelligently about how we can save money. Far and away the greatest potential for saving money in defence—and this has never been properly exploited—is international collaboration. That is a field of which I know something. When I was Defence Procurement Minister, I negotiated some substantial projects involving international collaboration in procurement. For example, I negotiated tranche 3 of the Typhoon programme, which has been a great success, and the renegotiation of the A400M programme, which had run into problems but is now doing very well and will be the greatest turboprop transport aircraft in the world for the next 30 or 40 years—replacing the Hercules in that important role. In my time, although I did not start it, I was also concerned with the F35 programme, which is a splendid piece of co-operation with the United States in which we provided, for the first time, $2 billion towards the R&D cost. That programme is also going well, although I am afraid to say that our uptake of the aircraft is much lower than it should be.
I had a particularly good relationship with my American counterpart, who was then Ash Carter, and with my French counterpart, Laurent Collet-Billon. Laurent and I managed to do together quite a lot of things in terms of common collaboration and providing various naval systems. As a result of that, I was the first Minister—probably the only British Minister—invited to go to Île Longue, the French SSBN base. Of course, I invited my counterparts to Faslane with the full knowledge and support of the Americans. We entered into a collaboration in that area, of course not involving anything to do with the weapons or the weapon delivery systems, which has been very promising. I also brought the French into the Mantis programme to develop an unmanned interceptor. We started to discuss with them something that has always been close to my heart, which is a theatre or tactical anti-ballistic missile capability. That project was completely buried when the new Government came to power in 2010, but I was delighted to see it revived and mentioned again in the SDSR the other day.
So a lot has been going on, but we have not really done more than scratch the surface in terms of getting those very valuable savings. The Typhoon programme, like all previous programmes, was based on a system known as “juste retour”, which meant that each participant in the programme expected to get back, in terms of the work on the project and the employment that flowed from that in his own country, exactly the proportion that corresponded to the money that he put up front to pay for the development of the particular system or platform concerned. That is a very inefficient system. It means that you deprive yourself at the outset of the benefits of competition and the economic pressures on suppliers that you can get through competition, so that is no good. We then set up a body called OCCAR, which is supposed to be an objective body based in Paris, which had some good civil servants from various EU countries seconded to it. It was supposed to act as an agent on behalf of procuring countries to deal directly with suppliers and solve their problems. The trouble was that countries had very little inclination to give major projects to OCCAR because they wanted to go back to the juste retour system.
This matter should be taken very seriously. Although I have never done a study of it myself, it is quite clear that savings to be made by intelligent joint and collaborative procurement run into the tens of millions. They are enormous and it is utterly irresponsible for us not to do what we can to try to secure them. Two things need to be done, and in the time that I have I will mention them. They are both very important and both politically extremely difficult. They are both obstacles in front of us, and we must find a way to surmount them.
One is that, in due time, we need to aim to remove the protection that exists in the treaty of Lisbon—in the Treaty on European Union—for defence procurement, which protects it from the principles of public procurement policy, which apply in every other sector. In other words, we should be prepared to lift all protection of our defence industry. Our defence industry is extremely capable, productive and innovative. Of course, there would be losers along the way, but, on balance, we would do very well from that. I do not know why we are so reluctant to go down that route. We should be championing such a move. It would have enormous economic benefits and dividends for us all.
The second very difficult thing that we need to do, which we must grasp in good time—I hope in my lifetime that we see some real progress towards it—is to go in for defence specialisation to make sure that we do not all have to have exactly the same parallel range of equipment. We can actually expect certain of our allies to deliver certain inputs. It is perfectly all right if we have that sort of relationship with the French for them to provide maritime surveillance aircraft, and we might be permanently out of the business. It would be very unsatisfactory to do that on a unilateral one-off basis, but as a general rule it could have been a practical possibility. We have so many helicopter systems, most of which I bought—I bought 22 Chinooks, and the new Government cancelled 10 of them. We have Pumas, which I got re-engined. We have the Wildcat, which I ordered. I think we still have some Sea Kings but we have got rid of the Lynx. We have Merlin—even I can hardly remember all the types of helicopter. It represents a fantastic logistical cost to keep all those different systems going and to keep men and women trained to operate them. It is very inefficient and something that should be spread over a much wider range of countries.
That is a very difficult thing to do politically, and initially everyone has 10,000 arguments why it cannot and should not be done, but it will be have to be done if we want to go on being able to defend our civilisation effectively, be able to make a success of our alliances and go on being able to respect that essential principle that our young men and women in uniform go into battle with the best possible support that money can buy.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, I would not accept that. If the Government are people who genuinely have differences of view as to what is right for the country, then those members of the Government should be free to argue their case. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, this is matter for Parliament, not for the Government and not for the Executive. It is for Parliament to decide what is in the best interests of our country. I hope that Parliament, by passing this Bill, will decide that the people should have an opportunity to express their view. That will then be advisory for the Government and I would expect the Government to carry on on the basis of what is suggested.
I shall make one other point. Even if the Government wanted to do it, it would be impossible to report on the relationship with the European Union that the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union. We do not even know what the European Union will be like. It is the European Union that is leaving us as it struggles with the disastrous consequences of monetary union. It is the European Union that will have to move towards a more integrated fiscal arrangement if the euro is to survive. The amendment is asking the Government to predict what it will do to maintain the stability of the euro and at the same time to predict what they will do.
In response to my noble friend, I have just thought of another argument. I would like to think that in the referendum campaign the Government will be respectful of the arguments which are put across and the way they are received by the public and that they will acknowledge and respond to these arguments.
I know why the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has put forward this amendment. Of course it would help his case if the Government had to make these points. I have always thought that he was very even-minded and impartial on all these matters, but now he has left his former position he has turned into a politician, and a campaigning politician at that. I hope that my noble friend will not feel able to accept this amendment in any way.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak, not that I intended to do so, because although we have been going over the same ground this evening that we have gone over before, and although no doubt many of these points will be debated passionately during the referendum campaign, I had rather hoped that the effect of these debates would be to separate out a bit the wheat from the chaff in the arguments and that those arguments that were found to be obviously unviable would be dropped by the various parties before the referendum campaign started. Therefore we would have a function here of hoping to clarify some of the essential arguments before the public debate begins in earnest.
In that context, I am quite amazed and very disappointed that two grossly invalid arguments continue to be put forward by the Eurosceptic representatives in your Lordships’ House. I thought that we might have seen the end of them. Those two arguments are so irresponsible and illusory that it amazes me that men or women of the world can seriously want to take them any further, even on an electoral platform, where I know the same qualities of intellectual analysis are not always deployed as they are in other contexts in life.
The first argument is the suggestion that this country might simply walk away from an international treaty in breach of that treaty. We have a long tradition going back over centuries of respecting international agreements, and it would be quite extraordinary for us seriously to propose to do that. We all know that Article 50 of the treaty of accession has a precise procedure to be adopted in the event that a member state wishes to withdraw; therefore withdrawal was properly and reasonably discussed at the time we signed that treaty. There was no material non-disclosure of relevant information or anything of that kind. No one was under any illusion. We signed that treaty with open eyes. Now, 40 years later, or whatever it is, suddenly to turn round and say, “We’re tearing it up and walking away”, is extraordinary.
I am amazed that anybody thinks that this country should behave like that. I would have thought that even those who are not influenced by the element of principle in this matter, which seems very obvious, or who cannot estimate or appreciate the diplomatic value—the soft diplomacy and soft power value—of having the reputation we have had until now of being a nation that takes international agreements and international law seriously might at least from sheer cynical pragmatism have realised that the last and worst thing you want to do when you are about to engage in a difficult negotiation with a group of countries, with whom we would be having a difficult negotiation to try to restore some access to the single market with our former partners in the European Union, would be, on the eve of beginning such a complicated, difficult and important negotiation, to tear up a treaty that we had previously had with them.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Has the noble Lord not missed the point, which is that the key to all this is when you invoke Article 50? Do you do it at the beginning of the negotiations, when we have just voted to come out, or at the end, after two or three years?
Lord Davies of Stamford
My understanding is that from the very moment you initiate the process you invoke Article 50, which sets out the procedure to be followed. I have certainly read Article 50, and that is the way I read it. I do not think that any interpretation we have heard this evening, including from the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, is inconsistent with that reading. The fact is that we must act in good faith in these matters. If we do not act in good faith out of moral principle, we should do so out of sheer selfish pragmatism because we will need to get a deal with the people who account for about 50% of our exports in the event that we want to leave the present arrangements we have with them. The idea that we start off by breaking an international agreement solemnly entered into is quite extraordinary.
The second extraordinary thing—I have heard this argument before and I hope I will not hear it again, although I am sure I will; I expect that it will be in the Daily Mail every day during the campaign—is that because we have a balance of payments deficit with the rest of the European Union, we have more leverage on them in these negotiations than they have on us. That is complete nonsense. I dealt with this argument before, and I used an analogy, which no one quarrelled with at the time, to try to make clear that the fact of having a deficit or a surplus is neither here nor there. What is important is the proportion of one’s total exports and, behind that, the proportion of one’s GDP which is exposed in a negotiation of this kind and which could therefore be subject to something nasty happening to it, such as having tariffs imposed or no longer being able to be sold at the same favourable terms as competitors could offer the relevant customers. The proportion of exposure of gross domestic product, and the employment that goes with it, is important.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am very sorry to ask the noble Lord a question, when he has made it so abundantly clear so many times before to the schoolchildren what the real situation is. However, when he says that what matters is the percentage of GDP represented by a market, does he seriously advance the position that Germany would not care if it did not get access to its largest customer for exports just because that is a smaller percentage of German GDP than our exports are to it?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Everybody would be a loser in this game. I do not hide in any sense my conviction that we would all be losers. It would be a very sad day if we broke up the European Union or moved out of it. Therefore my point is that the Germans would lose, but we would lose more.
Lord Green of Deddington
Does the noble Lord recognise that if the UK were to withdraw from the European Union, the Germans could then find themselves quite frequently outvoted by QMV by the southern members of the union, who have very different interests?
Lord Davies of Stamford
It is quite obvious. The Germans have made it very clear indeed, from the Chancellor downwards, that they do not want us to leave the EU, and that is one of the reasons why. In fact, in many cases we have very much the same view about markets as the Germans have, and on deregulation, an entrepreneurial economy, labour market reform and what have you. We have undergone the same kind of supply-side changes, they with the Hartz reforms, we with the Thatcher reforms in the 1980s. All of that is true and is appreciated in Germany. I repeat: the Germans think that it would be a great disaster if we left. However, it would be an even greater disaster for us than it would be for them. It would be a disaster for everybody. Sometimes you break up a relationship and all parties lose. It is an extraordinary idea to think that if you break up a relationship, some parties are bound to win. That simply does not happen. Therefore that is the logical situation.
When I talk about exposure, let me put it this way—I have used this analogy once before. If Micronesia had $1 million-worth of trade with China, and it sold the Chinese $100,000-worth of products every year and bought $900,000-worth from the Chinese, they would have a massive balance of payments deficit with China, which would have a proportionate very substantial balance of payments surplus with Micronesia. Would that mean that Micronesia would have the slightest leverage on China? Of course not. It is not, in fact, the deficit that counts but the extent of the exposure of exports, and the relevant dependence on exports is very simple. I repeat: our leverage—if you like to put it in mathematical terms—would be a positive function of their dependence on us and a negative function of our dependence on them. Our dependence on them is about 14% or 15% of our GDP, which is accounted for by exports of goods and services to other members of the European Union. If you look at it the other way round, there is no member state in the European Union other than ourselves, except for the Republic of Ireland, for whom that figure is higher than 3%. That literally means that there is a 500% greater degree of dependence on our part towards them than on their part towards us. That is an extraordinarily bad basis for going into a negotiation. I do not say that there would not be a negotiation or a conclusion to a negotiation, but I am quite certain that the terms we would get would not at all be the ones we had hoped to get when we started out.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am glad that I have his agreement—or perhaps I have not, but we shall hear in a minute. The provision seems fundamentally flawed. I do not see why the Government just picked up that legislation and incorporated it into this. It seems not to make any sense whatever.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Liddle, who apologises that he cannot be present today. Before I address the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his amendment and therefore agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Forsyth, said about it—that is an interesting axis of agreement across the Floor of the Chamber which does not often occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked why we should bring in political parties. I was astonished by that. No one is bringing in political parties; political parties are there; political parties are part of our democracy; political parties are part of every sophisticated democracy in the world. Political parties expect to take part in political campaigns, in elections or in referenda. It would be quite extraordinary if a political party was not interested in a major political campaign.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure that the noble Lord does not mean to misrepresent me. I was not suggesting that political parties should not participate—I defer to his experience of political parties, which is greater than mine—but I was referring to the fact that we should not have to bring in expenses from political parties.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I have an interesting experience of political parties. I have talked for some time about that in the past, but I shall not delay the Committee on that subject today.
I was actually quoting the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who asked, “Why bring in political parties?”. That was an extraordinary thing to say, because political parties are part of the structure of our system and part of our national life. It is inconceivable to me that you could have a body of men and women—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will give way in a second, but let me just complete my sentence, or my paragraph.
It would be extraordinary if you had a body of men and women who were interested in public life and the choices facing the nation and who wanted to play their part in determining the future history of our country, and a big referendum of the importance which this referendum represents came along and they did not take part in that campaign or have any views at all. The Conservative Party has of course decided to opt out of this campaign, but that is because of the peculiar situation in which it finds itself where the leadership of the party is terrified by the Eurosceptics. That has been the history of our relationship with the European Union during the past five years: everything is vetoed by the Eurosceptics and the Government are often paralysed by them. The Government are continually coming up with some ploy to buy off the Eurosceptics and, on this occasion, the Government have decided not to have their own party take part in a campaign. It is an extraordinarily anomalous position, in which a major party is supposedly silent on the great issue of the day. Just because the Conservative Party has got itself into this mess and this absurdity is no reason to deny the important role of political parties generally in a democracy or to handicap other political parties that are in no way responsible for the shambles of the Conservative Party and prevent them doing what they should have a natural right to do in any democratic election or electoral campaign.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will give way to both noble Lords but will do so first to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who has been trying to catch my eye for quite a long time.
Lord Davies of Stamford
That is not a sensible argument. If they are going to campaign, political parties need money. Campaigning needs money, so political parties will need money if they take part in it. If their members and supporters are willing to dig into their pockets and give them money, it would be quite absurd, in a democracy, if we used the legislature to try to prevent people campaigning in that fashion. The real problem is that the noble Lord cannot reconcile himself to the fact that there are more political parties in this country which support our membership of the European Union than there are which are against it. That is very unfortunate for him, but I have not created the situation, nor has he and nor has the legislature. It is a fact of life and it reflects the will of the people. They have decided to join parties, a numerical majority of which actually support our membership of the Union. They should be allowed to raise a reasonable amount of money in order to pursue the campaign and to continue to make sure that political parties play the part in our democratic life that they are entitled to. It ends up with the kind of arithmetic which he was quoting, except that the arithmetic used by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was completely artificial because it left out the Conservative Party’s potential use of £7 million. It is entirely a matter for that party if it decides not to use it and this cannot be blamed on anyone else.
Lord Tebbit
Does the noble Lord remember that the party to which he belongs had an election for its new leader not very long ago? It elected, overwhelmingly, a man who wanted to leave the European Union. How has it come about that the noble Lord now says that he belongs to a party which wants to stay in the Union?
Lord Davies of Stamford
That is an extraordinary question to ask me. I am the living embodiment of the fact that one can change one’s mind. I believe that Mr Corbyn has, in the light of events, learned wisdom which he did not possess 10 or 20 years ago. I assure the noble Lord that that wisdom consists in supporting—I repeat, supporting—our membership of the European Union. That is the official position of the Labour Party and will, of course, remain so.
Lord Flight (Con)
The noble Lord must be aware that a large number of members of the Labour Party—among those who are left—happen to have views about EU membership which are not that supportive. Although the Labour politicians at Westminster may or may not have strong views, they control the spend and the members of the Labour Party are not going to be very happy if the party spends all their money campaigning in a direction which they may not support.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I do not think that the noble Lord is a great expert on the views of the Labour Party. I would be delighted to take him to some party meetings in Lincolnshire where he would find enormous support for our membership of the European Union from people in all walks of life. The fact remains that the Labour Party supports our Members of Parliament in the other place who, by an overwhelming majority, have voted, and will continue to vote for our policy of believing that it is fundamentally in this country’s interests to remain part of the European Union.
I must move on to speak to Amendment 58. If there is a discordant element in my sudden change of subject, I say, in anticipation of someone rising to complain, that I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
Will the noble Lord enlighten your Lordships as to whether he would be taking the same attitude on the last amendment if the Labour Party was as split on this matter as the Conservative Party? UKIP got 8% of the electorate voting for it in the last general election, against 24% for the Conservatives—one third of their vote. We all know that the Conservative Party is pretty split on this issue. Would the noble Lord, Lord Davies, be taking the same attitude if his party was in the same position?
Lord Davies of Stamford
In relation to the principles of our public life and our constitution, I like to think that I take positions that are consistent. Therefore my answer to the question must be yes. Political parties have an essential part to play in our democracy and their position should be respected. They should not be in any way suffocated by being told that they cannot have any money for a campaign that they genuinely believe in and where their members are willing to support them financially.
As for the complaints that the noble Lord always makes about the treatment of UKIP, in this case he does not have the ground that he normally has for complaint, because the amount of money available to UKIP—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I must finish my sentence—and it will only be a sentence on this occasion. The amount of money available to the noble Lord’s party in the referendum campaign will be a function of the votes cast for his party and not a function of the number of MPs elected with his party label. If that was the case, he really would be in a bad situation. I give way once again to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Again I stress that this amendment I have been supporting has nothing to do with political parties participating. It has everything to do with spending limits. My question to the noble Lord is: if in a general election the laws provided that what each party could spend in a general election was related to how it had done last time, would he think that that was fair?
Lord Davies of Stamford
We could argue this for a very long time but we actually have a consensus. Until this issue arose, there was a general consensus in public life in favour of the 2000 Act. Therefore, it is quite right that we should base ourselves in this campaign on that consensus and on the practice over the last 15 years. With that, I will leave that subject—I will not take any more interventions on anything else—and turn to Amendment 58.
Amendment 58 is very important because it is all about the Government being straight with the public—which I do not think they are planning to be at the moment. They have launched a very complicated negotiation, which many of us have many thoughts about, and they hope that it will result in a deal. If it results in a deal, they intend to call a referendum and to advise the public to vote for that deal. If they do not get the deal, of course none of those things will happen.
I totally understand that while the Government are negotiating they do not want to give a running commentary—that is the Government’s phrase, not mine. I even understand why they are a bit reticent about saying exactly what their aims are in the negotiation. In fact, Eurosceptics will always say that they are not aiming high enough and will always say that whatever they get is not adequate. So they are wasting their time, but I can understand why they have got themselves in this position.
However, I cannot understand any hesitation about the Government’s duty, once they have a deal—if they have a deal—to be absolutely straight with the British public about what that deal is and to make an official, authoritative declaration to the British public of what that deal consists of. We cannot possibly have a situation in which knowledge of the deal comes out through unattributed and deniable press briefings from special advisers and spin doctors and so on. We need a clear government document when the day comes, if that deal arises.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will not give way for a moment. I will continue and give way later in my remarks. If, as a result of the deal, the Government call a referendum, they should give advice to the British public and the electorate. They owe to the public the duty of their judgment and the duty of declaring the facts. If they do that, it is important that they do that in a public, authoritative document and not by the back-stairs methods or spinning methods that are so beloved of this Government. That is the point of the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. When we come to the referendum campaign, if the Government recommend, as they did in 1975, a yes vote, they should explain to the British public in an authoritative document why they are making that recommendation and set out what they consider to be the essential facts on which that recommendation is based. At this point, I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I know how passionately he feels about these matters. But does he feel that his case is so weak that he is arguing that it is necessary to rig the whole thing in favour of his point of view? Looking at Amendment 58, he is suggesting that a statement from the campaign to leave, a statement from the campaign to stay and a statement from the Government, which may be to leave or to stay, should be sent to every household. From the point of view of people receiving this material, it is unbalanced. Why is the noble Lord so concerned about his case that he feels that it is necessary to have an unbalanced position in respect of his own amendment and in his opposition to mine?
Lord Davies of Stamford
For the first time since I debated on these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I am very surprised at the gaps in his historical knowledge, which normally is extremely extensive and accurate, and often brought to bear very effectively in debates in this House. He seems to have forgotten what happened in 1975, which I am old enough to remember. I had my first political campaign; I was part of the City in Europe campaign, and I am very proud of it. I have not rigged or invented anything. In this amendment, I am following precisely the wording we had in the Act which set out the basis for the 1975 referendum and entirely the practice that was followed. I am being the most rigorous constitutionalist. I hope that the noble Lord will approve of that—I think he normally does. I am following precedent and I am suggesting that precedent lays down the basis for fairness, and is always a good basis for credibility and legitimacy in public life. I will give way again, although I cannot go on giving way or I will be trying the patience of the House with the time that I am taking up.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord will never try the patience of the House. Perhaps he is a little older than me. I can just remember the 1975 campaign and voting in it. But is he suggesting that during that campaign, every household got a leaflet from a campaign to stay in the European Union, a leaflet from a campaign to leave the European Union and a leaflet from the Government saying that we should stay in the European Economic Community, or the Common Market, as it was then, all at public expense? I do not think that that is what happened at all. But that is what his amendment proposes.
Lord Davies of Stamford
It is very unusual that I am able to answer a quite lengthy intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, more than satisfactorily with a single word—yes. That is exactly what happened in 1975, exactly what my amendment calls for and exactly what I think is required on this occasion. I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Greaves (LD)
I merely intervene to say that I must be older than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I played an active part in the 1975 referendum. It was not a leaflet that was put out from each side and from the Government: there were three little booklets. Does the noble Lord, Lord Davies, agree with that?
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am most grateful for that intervention. I know that the noble Lord has a very long history of public life in local government before he came here and takes a great interest in these matters. He is absolutely right. Exactly what I have in mind is something that is an intelligent summary of the case which sets out the essential facts. There is far too much spin in the political world in which we live. We know that there is far too much dishonesty, suppression of material fact for the convenience of Governments and far too many back-stairs, deniable, non-attributable briefings and so on.
We want a situation in which any household in this country can have access if they wish to intelligent arguments both ways and can make up their own minds on that basis. Not only do I think that this would be an important element in the campaign and a great contribution to democratic transparency and democratic involvement, it would be a very good thing to go back to some of those first principles which we had in 1975 and make sure that this campaign involves serious consideration by as many people as possible of the real issues—albeit that we know that some people will be influenced by prejudices and emotive language, and some by the tabloids. But we hope that the number of those people is small in relation to our total democracy and that we have intelligent discussion, debate and consideration before we take a dramatic decision about our nation’s future.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Lamont. I say to my noble friends that if my preamble takes more than 11 minutes, please move a Motion that I no longer be heard ever again. This is a relatively simple matter. In any United Kingdom election involving the four countries of the union, there will be about a dozen major political parties and thousands of fringe candidates. Between them, the major parties will offer hundreds of different policies, and it is right that they have spending limits and are able to advance their arguments for all those hundreds of policies. That is why the political parties need to spend money arguing totally different cases.
However, in the case of this referendum, there are only two campaigns: one to remain and one to leave. In those circumstances, I cannot understand why the political parties will also get money to spend on campaigns. There is nothing to stop the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or any other party campaigning: let them join the “remain” campaign or the “leave” campaign. Let them put all their effort into helping those two options: leave or remain. In those circumstances, it is grossly unfair and illogical that the political parties are getting money to spend, based on their last election results, to campaign on a simple question: do we remain in the European Union or do we leave the European Union? Let the political parties weigh in behind either campaign, and keep it simple and fair.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, what the noble Baroness says is right. This would offend against the purdah rules. Even more, how will the Government produce a leaflet to set out their position? Would they set out the position of the majority in the Cabinet, or the position of two groups in the Cabinet? It would be a jolly task, would it not, to set out the views of the Eurosceptics in the Cabinet, as well as the—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The honest answer to his question, and certainly the answer that I have always envisaged, is that we should follow the precedent of 1975, when a single, coherent pamphlet was produced by the Government, justifying their recommendation of a yes vote.
Lord Tebbit
The noble Lord is terribly attached to this precedent. It is only one precedent from one occasion ever. To suggest that we cannot change anything that was done then because that set the precedent is totally absurd. I am a Conservative, but even I would not suggest that what had been done once would always have to be done again and again in vaguely similar circumstances. It is quite improper.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend is, again, conflating spending by a political party—which may not end up being a designated lead campaigner—with spending by a designated lead campaigner. To do that, we would have to change the whole nature of how this country allows its elections to be run. All I can say is that before PPERA was put into statute, matters such as this were considered, and the resulting Act tried to come to the fairest conclusion. With regard to the changes my noble friend referred to, the increase in the total amount reflects the fact that the Act received Royal Assent in 2000. The amount has merely been raised in line with inflation. No remarks were made about that in another place.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton cast scorn on his own amendment, Amendment 40. I appreciate that he tabled it because of the concern—expressed firmly here today but also in another place—about the capacity of well-funded individuals and organisations to use their spending power to influence the outcome of the referendum, as indeed might be the case in any election. My noble friend invited me not to go into too much detail on his amendment, and many of his concerns were aired in the debate on my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, so I am grateful to him for that.
The Bill includes additional controls on campaigners acting in concert, which means that where expenses are incurred as part of a common plan, they will usually count towards the spending limit of each campaigner that is party to the plan. This is supported by the Electoral Commission and aims to prevent groups of individuals or bodies colluding to circumvent spending limits. This is a well-established approach which is practical and enforceable but which also, most importantly, encourages participation.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, spoke to amendments on behalf of his noble friend Lord Liddle. I will explain the import of the amendments, were they to go into the Bill, and then address his pertinent point about how the Government should make their case in a statement and get information to the public. Amendment 58 would provide for every individual elector to receive a statement from each of the official lead campaigns, as well as a statement of the Government’s position through the post, although the amendment does not specify that the Government’s position must be contained within the same document. PPERA already confers a significant number of benefits on the designated lead campaigners. As I mentioned a moment ago when I was invited to list them by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, they include a free mail delivery to every household or every elector. We expect, naturally, that this opportunity will be taken up by the lead campaigners. In that respect, the noble Lord’s amendment duplicates existing provision.
However, I appreciate that the noble Lord perhaps intended his amendment to do something else: to hold the Government to account by requiring them to make a statement about what had happened in the negotiations and what the results were. We had a discussion about this on Monday in Committee in the three or four groups relating to information. The noble Lord’s amendment puts the Government in a position where they would be required to provide the statement during the period of purdah, which is not the Government’s intention. Our discussions on Monday made it very clear that the Committee wanted the Government to consider carefully how we should make a statement about our position. I made a clear commitment on Monday to look at these matters and to see what I could bring forward on Report by way of an amendment that would apply to the information being provided before the essential period of purdah.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth had the lead amendment in the last group we debated on Monday, which I think gave us a very good starting point to have a fair description of what the Government have achieved without using it as a campaigning document. I happily give way to the noble Lord if that does not answer his point on Amendment 58.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Baroness will have understood that the important thing in my mind is that the Government state clearly to the public what they think about these things. In my view, if there is a deal, there should be a clear document setting out the Government’s description of that deal. During the campaign, a document should be made available setting out the authoritative case the Government are making in favour—if they are making such a case—of our remaining in the European Union. We should not be in a situation in which we just have to refer to ministerial speeches, or to this, that or the other kind of leak or suggestion. There should be one authoritative document, to which everybody in the campaign can refer. The Government seem to be shying away from that, which I very much regret. It is rather like the chairman of a company refusing to make a statement to shareholders about an important event for the company at an EGM. It is an abdication of the Government’s responsibility. In my view, that statement should be made. It could be made just before the purdah period— 29 or 30 days before the vote. That would be perfectly acceptable and would get round the purdah point.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to address this question, as I have been very pleased to see many colleagues on both sides of the House have done today, on the basis that, although I do not like referenda very much in principle—I very much agree with the oft-quoted remarks of both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher on the subject—we now face a situation in which we have a Government who have won an election and who have an electoral mandate for this referendum, and we should settle down and do our duty.
As I see it, our duty is threefold. One is to make sure that the technical arrangements for the referendum are robust and fair. Secondly, we must have the appropriate franchise—a lot of very good comments have been made in today’s debate about that, particularly in relation to the franchise being given to EU citizens resident in this country and the reduction of the age of election to 16. I hope that those points will be taken further in Committee and on Report. Thirdly, and most importantly—vitally, of course—we must have an honest, open and comprehensive debate, so that the British public can make a choice which is considered and focuses on the essential facts.
For that purpose, and in the course of the debate which started here this morning and through the afternoon in this House, it is very important indeed that any kind of error, spurious or manifest, or any kind of spurious argument—any kind of what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, memorably called “tosh” this morning—should be exposed and challenged. Indeed, I intend to expose and challenge a certain amount of the noble Lord’s own tosh in the course of my brief remarks.
One of the essential facts that no one has ever been able to get away with ignoring, thank God, is that between 3 million and 4 million people in this country work for firms whose majority of customers are somewhere in the European single market. That is so important. The Eurosceptics have always accepted that they cannot possibly come forward credibly with policies that would involve us leaving the single market. Therefore, they have always said, “Don’t worry—we’ll leave the European Union, but we won’t leave the single market”. That needs to be probed very thoroughly indeed, because it goes to the heart of the national economic interest in the matter. A year or two ago, the Eurosceptics were saying, “That’s all right—we’ll join EFTA, or we’ll do a bespoke deal, rather like Switzerland”, which actually is not an offer. That was the sort of thing one heard from the Eurosceptics.
Then it came very much to their attention, and they could not avoid the fact, that to join EFTA or to do a Swiss-type deal would involve us being put in a position of impotence—indeed, a humiliating position—in which we had to accept all the rules of the single market as they were decided by other people, without any right or opportunity to take part in their formulation, and have to continue to pay a financial contribution to the European Union. Even the IoD, the Institute of Directors, which was a hotbed of Euroscepticism at one time, realised that that was a quite unacceptable solution for this country.
So the Eurosceptics have now started saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said this morning, “Oh no, we won’t go down that road; we’ll do a better deal, a better deal than anybody”. If anybody says that, one’s suspicions are naturally aroused. Why would we be able to do a better deal? “Well”, we are told, “because we actually buy more from the rest of the European Union than it buys from us”. In other words, they are more dependent on us than we are on them, so we have them around the neck and they have to accept our terms. Nothing could be further from the truth; nothing could be more damaging to us going into any kind of negotiation with the rest of the European Union because it is based on complete falsehood, on a logical fallacy. Trade dependence is a function of relative dependence on exports to the countries concerned—relative exposure to those particular exports in relation to the total GDP.
Let me give an example, so that everyone can appreciate the obvious logical point. Micronesia might be buying £1 million-worth of goods every year from China and selling China only £100,000 worth of goods in the course of a year but, of course, it would have absolutely zero leverage on China. It does not matter that there would be a 9:1 relationship between exports and imports between Micronesia and China. It does not matter that Micronesia would have an enormous balance of payments deficit with China. What is important is the relative position, and we know what the relative position is. The European Union’s exports to the United Kingdom are 2.5% of EU GDP, whereas our exports to the rest of the European Union are 15% of our GDP. So it is a relationship of 6:1. We have a 600% disadvantage in this matter—no basis at all for negotiating some special deal.
Even if we could negotiate some such special deal, which I think is most unlikely, it would not solve an essential problem which is the investment problem that is critical for the future. It is no use talking about the present; we have to talk about the future. The investment problem is that anybody who is putting new capacity somewhere into the single market to service the single market as a whole must be assured that they have a host Government that have some influence with Brussels in the legislative and regulatory process. Otherwise, of course, they would be completely unrepresented, which would be completely unacceptable. We have had that message clearly from, for example, Japanese car manufacturers based in this country and American pharmaceutical companies based in this country. They need to feel that, if they are coming here, the British Government will take up their cause when required in Brussels. It is even more important in financial services, where we have such an enormous amount of foreign investment. That problem can never be resolved if we walk away from the actual membership of the European Union and its constitutional legislative structures, which is what the Eurosceptics are proposing.
It may be because they are subconsciously so aware of the weaknesses of their case that, increasingly, the Eurosceptics try to move on from a discussion of the future of the single market to one outside the single market. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, this morning say, “Oh no, much more important is what is going on outside the single market”. I took note of one of his quotes, which I hope I still have. I must try to find it because it is really quite memorable. He said, “Because of our history, we have better worldwide links”. The idea is that the solution is: even if we do not do so well in the single market, we will do even better outside it.
That is based on three mistakes. It is based on a bad business policy; it is certainly based on an economic fallacy; and, it is based on an enormous piece of ignorance—quite extraordinary ignorance. The bad business judgment is the fact that the countries he was thinking of do not regard themselves as having a special relationship with us. I have met so many Indians who have told me that they have been so disappointed, frustrated and annoyed at British businessmen going out to India and thinking that they have an inside track because of British-Indian history. As a matter of fact, most Indians do not look at the Raj at all with the kind of rose-tinted, nostalgic spectacles that many Eurosceptics seem to wear.
China is a country where one has to be extremely careful because one is too easily associated with a country which imposed the unequal treaties and which burned down the Summer Palace in 1859. People are completely insensitive to this kind of problem. These countries are run by people who are highly intelligent, very sophisticated and who are going for value for money. They make hard-nosed economic decisions. So the idea that we have some special advantage in these areas is complete and utter rubbish. It is very deceptive and dangerous for British business. This pretentiousness is quite the wrong kind of advice to give to British business. They need to be much more realistic.
The economic fallacy is even more serious; it is very serious indeed. Far from there being a trade-off between being a part of the single market and having access to the worldwide markets beyond, there is a negative trade-off. It is not a question of having more of one and less of the other; if you have more of one, you have more of the other. The whole reason for the single market was because it would create a large internal market comparable to that which Japan and the United States enjoyed and which, at the time, we did not have in Europe. The idea that the single market would produce greater specialisation, larger firms and longer production runs has worked. It has produced economies of scale and enabled firms to carry higher overheads, particularly in the critical areas of marketing and research and development which are so important for the future. This has all come about based on having an effective single market. So the last thing we want to do is to say, “We do not need a single market; we can do better outside”. The opposite is actually the case. This is a very serious fallacy that clearly needs to be exposed thoroughly in the course of this particular campaign.
On the issue of ignorance, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is one of the most knowledgeable and brilliant human beings I know—it is only in this area of Europe where he allows his emotions to take over and defeat his very formidable intellect—but he showed an extraordinary piece of ignorance, or at least negligence because he never mentioned it at all when he talked about the outside world, about the situation in which we trade. Apart from the United States, the world outside the single market is primarily within free trade agreements or trade and investment agreements negotiated between the EU and the markets concerned. The most recent ones were negotiated with Canada and Japan, and we are now engaged in the TTIP with the United States. If we left the European Union, the next day we would cease to be able to benefit from these trade agreements. Such agreements sometimes take, quite typically, five or six years to negotiate. They are enormously valuable. If we left them, we would immediately be at a handicap. We would immediately find ourselves paying tariffs or suffering other disabilities which our competitors in the single market were not doing. To negotiate something of our own would take years, and under no circumstances would the terms be as good because we would be offering a market of 60 million people and the EU would be offering one of 400 million. We would be the “demandeur”, so anyone could say “Ha ha! This is our price”.
This is a hopeless way forward and, if we go down this route, we will be betraying the country’s national interest. In my view, it is very important that these matters are gone into in considerable detail. If not, the British people are likely to make a decision which they would live to regret.
Gaza
Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, there are five salient facts that ought to come out of any debate about Gaza, two of which I am glad to say have already been dealt with at some length and are generally recognised in the country. One is that Gaza is clearly a most unpleasant place to live: it is extremely poor and very violent. It is poor partially because of the blockades that have been imposed by both its neighbours, Egypt and Israel, for reasons that may be very understandable. One can realise that that immediately has very negative humanitarian consequences. There is obviously a sense of great despair in the population of Gaza. We have to recognise and start from that, and ask what has caused it and what we can best do about it.
The second salient fact that has come out and which is certainly recognised all over the world is that Gaza in its present state is a recurring threat to peace in the region. Rockets are continually fired at Israel. After some years, the Israelis inevitably lose their patience—they do so much less rapidly than I would if people were bombarding Lincolnshire with rockets on a regular basis—and intervene militarily. There is nasty military action, obviously with a lot of fatalities.
Those two facts are pretty well known. There are three facts about Gaza that are not so well known and which ought to be better known. One is that it is a very nasty, savage tyranny. The noble Baroness who introduced the debate—we are enormously grateful to her for doing that—did not mention this, but Hamas imposes its power by regular use of torture and execution of political opponents: so-called collaborators with the Israelis and so forth. I believe that the noble Baroness knows Gaza very well and often talks about it. I never hear her mention the words “torture” or “execution”. I wish she would, because her remarks on the subject would then sound a little more dispassionate than they generally do. She used the words “open prison”. I have been in quite a number of open prisons—not as an inmate, but as a visitor. On the whole, they are pretty humane institutions. Gaza is anything but a humane institution. It is a very unpleasant tyranny. We should not forget it.
The fourth point that ought to be much better known is one I tried to bring out a few weeks ago at Questions, when I asked the Minister whether Hamas could bring to an end, any day it wanted, the blockade imposed by Israel, simply by accepting the quartet conditions. These, as the House knows, are: the giving up of violence, the recognition of the state of Israel and the acceptance of existing accords, including the Oslo accord. The answer I got was yes, the Hamas regime could, any day it wants, get rid of these blockades. It chooses not to do so. Finally, I have met representatives of Hamas and they are of course in denial. They say, “No, we can’t possibly recognise the State of Israel”. They tend to say that they cannot recognise the State of Israel even with the 1948 borders; they certainly cannot recognise what happened in 1973 or 1967. So they are in denial.
The fifth point, which certainly is not as well known as it ought to be—because it affects the pockets of every taxpayer in this country, apart from anything else—is that this mixture of unpleasantness, tyranny, threat to world peace and denial is being actively subsidised by the international community to the tune of many billions of dollars a year. The World Bank reckons that the GDP of Gaza is about $1.6 billion and that the total subventions that Gaza receives is some 60% higher than that. In other words, this is probably the most subsidised community anywhere on God’s earth. The European Union makes much the biggest contribution to these subsidies, at about €1.6 billion, and the second largest contributor is Qatar, at about $1 billion. If we are going to go on subsidising the Hamas regime as we do, we have to ask ourselves whether we should introduce an element of conditionality into our relationships with Hamas. I put it to the Minister that perhaps it is time we did and that we say to Hamas that it would not be in anybody’s interests—least of all the peoples of Gaza—to simply carry on with these subsidies indefinitely with no political change, with no recognition, and with a continual “in denial” approach towards the problems of the Middle East on the part of Hamas; that it is time for Hamas to begin to take life seriously and to make sure that it recognises reality and the needs of the next generation of Gaza, which should not suffer the terrible incubus that the previous two or three generations have under the Hamas regime.