European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Of course—but the noble Lord will know well that the late Lord Hailsham described government as an elective dictatorship. I view what will happen as being very much more in the hands of the Government than of Parliament. I take the point that we are talking about Parliament rather than the Government. However, it is an entirely different matter when you give powers to people in the form of a referendum, because if you then take them back you are taking them from the people. That is different from all the other sunset clauses that we have in our legislation.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I put forward five simple propositions. Many of them will be regarded by noble Lords as entirely unexceptionable. The first is something that most people would regard almost as a platitude; every human institution must be able, in order to survive, to adapt to changing circumstances, and to change from time to time its decisions, procedures and way of doing business. I think people would accept that proposition for the private and public sectors, and for any realm of life. The Government have not attempted to argue that this principle does not apply, for some extraordinary and miraculous reason, to the institution known as the European Union, and no such argument could cogently, coherently or credibly be made. I will leave the proposition there in the hope that it will not be challenged; I shall be fascinated if any noble Lord chooses to.

My second proposition is one that I have already put forward in these debates, and about which the Government have not succeeded in persuading me that I am wrong. It would not be credible, or possible in practical politics, to have a referendum on 90 per cent of the issues listed in Schedule 1, such as the appointment of judges or the prosecutor general or something of that sort. The British public would consider these matters to be of tertiary importance and interest. We all know how difficult it is to get a respectable turnout in general elections, even when they are the high point of political controversy in a five-year parliamentary period.

The Government have not attempted to argue that I am wrong about that. They have said that, in practice, referenda issues would be bunched. There would be a referendum on six or 12 issues—they have not come up with a figure—at one time. That is not practical politics, either. You cannot ask the British public to answer yes or no to a dozen different questions; you would have to ask for a dozen different considered responses, which would mean that you would have to have a campaign running in parallel on a dozen separate questions, many of which will have a complex technical background. That is not a practical proposition at all.

That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I often agree with the noble Lord in this Chamber and always appreciate his interventions. He asked why noble Lords on this side should be worried about referenda, because if we think that something is in the national interest, the public will vote for it. That was the noble Lord's argument; there will be a referendum and it will be won, and the result will be in favour of, for example, greater integration in a particular area. My response is that those referenda will not occur, because it would not be practical politics to have a referendum on at least 90 per cent—or some such very high figure—of the issues set out so conveniently in Schedule 1.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he suggesting to me that it is in the national interest that we should integrate more greatly with Europe?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am suggesting that sometimes it may be and sometimes it may not be. We need to be pragmatic about these things. I believe that the noble Lord is in favour of our membership of the European Union and of the single market. I believe that he voted for the Single European Act, so he is in favour of qualified majority voting. He therefore considered that it was very much in the national interest to integrate policies in those areas. It may be that he is on record as having been in favour of other forms of integration on equally respectable pragmatic grounds. I think the noble Lord’s record would be quite inconsistent with any suggestion that it is never in the interests of this country to integrate our policies with the rest of the European Union.

I have a third proposition to put forward. Most noble Lords have had some experience of decision-making bodies in the private sector, company boards and so forth, or in the public sector. Anybody with any background in affairs of any kind will agree with this proposition as well. It is a very simple proposition. They might also think it is a platitude. In normal circumstances, it might not have been necessary to put it forward. Often in life, in order to make substantive progress in any human institution or to achieve a particular substantive decision, it is sensible and expedient to move via a procedural change. If you want to get members of your board to come to a particular agreement on a particular matter, you might suggest that you do not take the decision then but set up a committee to take it, or you have some other arrangement that will lead in the right direction.

That applies to the way the European Union works. It works as a horse-trading body. I do not think that is a disparaging comment. Human life is like that. People have different views about different questions and sometimes take some time to realise that they might have an interest in concerting and integrating their policies. It is sometimes quite difficult for Governments to change publicly the way they vote on an issue. It may be that declarations have been made in the past, in their Parliaments and so forth, saying, “We will never agree to vote this way”. We all find ourselves with that kind of commitment on our backs, in our luggage, and it is very embarrassing and trying. Sometimes when you are doing business with somebody who has this kind of problem, he would quite like to agree with you, but finds that he cannot because of some prior commitment of that kind. The way round that often is to change the procedure and say, “Let’s have qualified majority voting”. Then your counterparty may well say, “That’s fine. Nothing wrong with qualified majority voting in my Parliament. Maybe the British Parliament has neuralgia about it, but our people don’t, so we will agree to have QMV on this matter from now on”. Then you can make progress and achieve your common purposes. The single market, of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is a strong supporter, was achieved in precisely that way. That is why Margaret Thatcher came out with qualified majority voting in the first place. That is my third proposition. It is often sensible, if one wants to make substantive progress, to have available to one the opportunity for procedural change and for changing the method of decision-making. It therefore makes no sense to block off that possibility altogether in the way that is often suggested.

You would think that my fourth proposition would be a platitude as well, and I hope it will not be challenged. It is that it is sometimes in our interest to change things. It is sometimes in our interest to get a new decision. It would be very odd if there was a systematic and entirely symmetrical position in which the British national interest always coincided with no, if whatever the question was, it was always in the British national interest to say no. We could save a lot of money if that was the case. We would not need highly paid, highly talented people such as the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, living in Brussels. It would be very simple because the answer would always be no. That could be delivered electronically with no expense at all whenever it was required.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Noble Lords may laugh, but it is an absurd idea that the answer regarding the British interest is always going to be no. But if the British answer is not always going to be no and we need to think about it intelligently, and sometimes it might be yes, then does it make any sense to paralyse ourselves, to tie ourselves up, to put handcuffs on ourselves? I do not think it can. That is my fourth proposition: that the way that the Government are going forward with the Bill is profoundly not in the national interest.

At the end of the Committee stage, a lot of us on both sides of the House evidently feel very strongly that serious damage could be done to the national interest. It can make no sense whatever to say that, for the rest of time, the British answer to everything must be no; or that the British answer to everything must be a referendum, because there will not be referenda so that comes back to saying no. The Government say, “No, in fact, if we have this lock on ourselves, the compensation will be that the British public will have greater confidence in the European idea”. The implication of that argument, which we have heard several times from the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace, is that at some point in the future we will not want these handcuffs on us. We will want to revert to normality and be able to take a pragmatic view as issues come up of where our interests lie and whether we should go ahead with colleagues in a greater degree of integration, have the normal arguments, use our veto when we want to, change the procedures and set up QMV where we think that that is in our interests, and so on. The implication of the Government’s argument is that we do not want to tie ourselves in for ever; we do not need to; it is a temporary problem, which they think will be resolved by the passage of the Bill. That is a matter of judgment; I will not go back over that; it is obvious to the Government that most of us are not persuaded by that argument, but they could be right.

As, sadly, I do not think that we will be able to defeat the Bill—I would like to; I do not disguise that fact; I have never disguised that fact from anyone—is not the sensible solution simply to say, “Let the Government have the Bill for this Parliament. Let them have it for four or five years. Let us see whether they are right and that there is some improvement in national sentiment towards the EU as a result of the Bill being enacted and being part of the law of the land”? Let us hope that over just a few years no cataclysmic damage is done to the national interest by preventing us from taking rational decisions in the way that I just described. Is that not a sensible compromise? I think it is. At this stage of the proceedings, it is probably one that we could all bring ourselves to live with, coming from different points on the spectrum and different parts of the argument.

I commend noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in particular—on the amendments and I hope that they end up enshrining the solution which this House brings to this complicated problem.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Does the noble Lord accept that there is a clear distinction between changes in the rules of the EU and decisions in the EU? The Government's case is that extensive competences are provided within the Lisbon treaty. There is already extensive QMV within the treaties. The Government’s case is that there is plenty of opportunity for us to say yes, as we have done on a number of opt-ins and day-to-day decisions. We do not always have to say no in Brussels, nor do we always say no in Brussels. The question is one of competences. There is plenty of room for competences. At some point, there may be a need for further treaty change. That will have to be negotiated. But the time for further treaty change is not now or in the foreseeable future.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I was invited to comment before I sat down, so I shall. I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention and, in particular, for his comment, which is now on the record and which many of us will be pleased to hear, that he does not exclude treaty change in future. As he knows, the drift of my argument this morning has been that it is wrong to make the distinction between changes in decisions and changes in voting procedures. Often the best way to get the right decision will be via a change in the voting method. That is exactly the argument that I was making. I do not need to repeat myself, because I know that the noble Lord always listens to my comments with the greatest attention.

[Lord Radice]

We all do, Quentin.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful for that flattering comment from my noble friend Lord Radice.

That is exactly the burden of my remarks this morning. In adapting, as any institution needs to do, to the challenges of the future, we should not exclude doing so by decisions within the existing structures and rules, or the need, where necessary, to evolve those rules. That is a false and damaging distinction to enshrine in our law.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I notice that my name is attached to one of the amendments on the Marshalled List. I rise with rather a heavy heart to say anything at all. The kind of discussion that is now taking place—I rebuke nobody for it—and which has been launched by the Bill and beforehand, casts a shadow over an enterprise which deserves to have been given more wholehearted support from a much earlier stage.

I am on record in my own disreputable memoirs as having written a letter in 1948 commending the prospect of Britain taking part in the original negotiations on the formation of the European Community. I reproached the Attlee Government for not having then undertaken the initiative commended by Winston Churchill. It is sad that we did not join at the beginning. We were proud at the time, and entitled to be, of our survival and success in the war. However, at some points we have allowed that pride to be transformed into conceit and have staggered and stumbled in quite a less attractive way in joining this enterprise.

It was entirely right, when we had considered it carefully, to conclude as we did after the 1972 Act that the British people should be entitled to express their view on the major, fundamental change involved in the transfer and sharing of sovereignty, an enterprise that was already under way and working quite well. In that spirit, we were able in successive Governments to play a reasonable part in carrying forward an important and worthwhile policy. I was content and proud, for example, when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, we circulated a document around the Community entitled Europe—the Future, which visualised steady progress in enhancing the influence of Britain and Europe on the world stage as it was developing.

I have become less and less happy with the to-ing and fro-ing, which has been illustrated as a reductio ad absurdum in this debate. I find my name attached to a thing called a “sunset clause”, which is also a “sunrise and re-set clause”, and does not do justice to the enterprise on which we were embarked and to which we are still committed. The Bill is a response to anxiety among the British people and a tendency to think that we can resolve that lack of understanding if we have an immense clutch of referenda ad infinitum. It would be far better if we were to recommit ourselves to the original enterprise rather than find ourselves engaged in this kind of discussion on this kind of issue.

There is a great course still to be put under way. I grieve at the fact that the Bill purports to give the British people an opportunity that they ought not really to have because it becomes so complex that it is absurd. They were entitled to have that question put to them, as was done in 1975; it was the major step. It is on that foundation that I would prefer us to be going forward now rather than allowing it to get into this morass of multiple referenda.

I do not support my own amendment. I apologise for the fact that it is there because I have joined the rattling to and fro in a context which does not deserve it. I hope that the amendment is not put and that the Bill does not pass, but I am not going to challenge it single-handed at this stage. However, I think that I am entitled to express my dismay in the light of what could have been achieved and sustained, and what can be achieved and sustained if we commit ourselves more wholeheartedly to the European Union, about which Winston Churchill spoke with favour and where successive Prime Ministers have led us forward—even my noble friend Lady Thatcher. We worked together for 15 years, trying to enhance the power of the United Kingdom in the European Union. Our political marriage, which lasted for 15 years, concluded in a divorce, about which the less said the better. However, I reaffirm the legitimacy of that which we did together in those years, and the legitimacy of the objective to which we should be directing ourselves.

The sooner we allow this Bill to spread itself into the morass of discontinuity and die a death, rather than have a sunset clause fluctuating one way or the other, the better. We should let it die of senility because we have had enough of it. That is what I should like to see happen.

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

Therefore, my short answer to the noble Lord’s well intentioned endeavour to raise this issue is that I understand the sentiments behind the amendment but we do not need a statutory requirement in a Bill to make the point he is trying to make. For those reasons, I ask him, in, I hope, a good spirit, not to press the amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I put it to the Minister that this Bill will be seen by our partners on the continent of Europe and in Ireland as an example of terrible British negativity about the European Union. That is quite the wrong spirit in which to negotiate with friends and partners to defend the national interest and to achieve successful outcomes from difficult and complex negotiations. What do the Government propose to do to try to persuade our European partners that, despite the evidence of this Bill, the British Government are positively committed to making a great success of our membership of the EU, and to continuing to build up and strengthen the institutions of the Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I welcome the noble Lord back to our debate although I am not sure that I welcome the spirit of his contribution. He has certainly made a very lively contribution to previous debates and we missed him earlier this evening. However, his premise is wrong. We have clear indications that there are no difficulties. Jean-Claude Piris, the former head of the Council’s legal service in Brussels, has commented that he sees no difficulties with Clause 18, and that he also has no difficulties with the thrust of the Bill. We have checked with people around the European Union and we are not getting the picture that the noble Lord talks about. Of course, it depends who you talk to. If you find people who support your views, that will reinforce your argument as you can then say, “These people support my views”. However, I assure the noble Lord that throughout Europe there is a real desire on the part of different countries, with their different models and different ways, to seek to enhance the transparency, accountability and public support for the European Union, and to do it in ways not dissimilar to ours—which is to say that this great Union has all the competences it needs and can go forward in a whole range of areas. It does not need to draw new powers from the nation states through treaty changes, competence transfers or power transfers.

All around Europe there is a strong sentiment in that direction. It is a pro-European sentiment and I do not think that it does at all what the noble Lord says. On the contrary, this spirit shows that we are trying to make the architecture—I hope an enduring architecture; and we will debate that later—for a more democratically based Europe that is soundly build on a popular consensus, instead of one that is regarded with hostility and suspicion.

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I want to address briefly—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I have the greatest regard for the noble Baroness, but I think no one has spoken from this side of the Committee recently. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, will not be surprised to learn that I rise to speak on the other side of the argument and do not support his Amendment 47A. However, I rise in support or Amendments 45 and 46 and against Schedule 1 standing part. Before I do that, perhaps I could give a word of personal explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I did say to him that I would not be able to take part in today’s proceedings and I regretted that. I assure him that I made that comment entirely in good faith because, as I explained to him, at the time I had an engagement that I thought I ought to attend but I have managed to extricate myself from it. I hope he is not too disappointed to find that I have returned to the fray here.

I shall speak directly to these amendments, particularly Amendment 46, but before I do I must repeat that the whole progress of this Committee has thoroughly reinforced the conviction which I expressed at Second Reading: that the effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be twofold. First, there will not be any referenda. The idea that we are going to have referenda asking the British public to decide on moving from the ordinary to the special legislative procedure in relation to something involving the procurator-general is absurd. It was never going to happen and still less do I think it likely to happen that we are going to have 10, 20 or 30 referenda. The Government, in response to my Second Reading speech, said in desperation that these referenda would be grouped but you cannot possibly ask the British public to answer 10 questions of that kind in the course of one referendum, so there is no doubt about it: there is no intention to have any referenda and there will not be any.

The intention must therefore be, as I have said before, to adopt what I call a frozen policy in the EU. It is quite frightening that this country should adopt a frozen policy in any international organisation of which it is a part. It is not only deeply destructive of the national interest but not at all in accordance with public opinion in this country. Public opinion may well be sceptical in many ways about the European Union but it expects the Government to respond flexibly, pragmatically and intelligently to the challenges of the hour, not to adopt frozen policies.

This schedule has a whole list of absurdities in it. If I dealt with them all, although I should be delighted to do so in many ways, I would take up much too much of the Committee's time. Perhaps I might focus on two, because I want to illustrate how misconceived the approach encapsulated in the Bill is. The first item in Part 2 of Schedule 1 is:

“Article 19(1) (measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation)”.

If one looks up the relevant reference, Article 19 goes as follows:

“Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties and within the limits of the powers conferred by them upon the Union, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”.

It is, unfortunately, not impossible that there should be problems with discrimination in the European Union, particularly racial or religious discrimination. Racial discrimination is, sadly, not absent from any part of the human race and we have had some disturbing incidents and tendencies in the European Union, for example in Romania and Hungary—and, surprisingly and rather shockingly, in France—in relation to the Roma. We have had racialist remarks made by members of the current ruling party in Hungary and by prominent members of parties in Poland and Latvia who are now partners of the British Conservative Party in the European Parliament.

It seems to me that there would be a great advantage in moving from the special to the ordinary legislative procedure in this area of discrimination, so that once we had done that it would not be possible for one member state to hold out against a clear declaration, legal statement or piece of legislation that made it impossible to discriminate against people on those grounds. There was horror when the French Government suggested that it was a greater priority to get illegal immigrants out of France if they were Roma than if they were anything else. That is exactly the kind of problem that all of us, surely, have an interest in ensuring does not arise and does not disgrace or besmirch the European Union, to which many of us are committed. Therefore, if one had a problem involving a country there would be a real danger of a veto under the special legislative procedure.

I cannot for the life of me think why a British Government who are composed of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition should want to exclude the use of qualified majority voting without the block, which we know will never be overcome, of a threatened referendum. So it seems a thoroughly perverse consequence of the Government’s policy in this area.

Let me take another, very different, example, which shows how we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we pass this Bill. It is an area which I know a bit about, having been Minister for defence procurement for a while before the general election. The penultimate item in the list under Part 2 in Schedule 1 is:

“Article 346(2) (changes to list of military products exempt from internal market provisions)”.

In the relevant governing article in the Lisbon treaty, Article 346 states that,

“any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes … The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, make changes to the list, which it drew up on 15 April 1958”.

What the Government are saying is that they cannot change that and move from unanimity to qualified majority voting without a referendum. Let me explain what this clause does. It is a derogation from the single market in relation to military goods. It is a protectionist measure, which I believe was insisted upon by France at the time the original treaty of Rome was signed. For many years it was Article 46 of the treaty, but it has been overtaken by events. It is contrary to the interests of the British defence industry, which is the largest—that is not a value judgment but a fact—by volume of any defence industry in the European Union and, I think, the most competitive. It therefore suffers from this protectionist measure, which in my experience and to my own knowledge has often been abused.

Member states have argued that vehicles used for military purposes are military equipment and therefore have to be manufactured in that particular country—Italy, in this case. There are arguments the whole time about whether something is genuinely military equipment. This can sometimes be resolved, but the effect is a major derogation in the single market. I thought that it was a matter of consensus in British politics—certainly involving all three major parties—that we are in favour of a single market and we want to get rid of obstacles to it. Yet this Government are placing an obstacle in the way of extending the single market. This Government are using a referendum to block the removal of a derogation from the single market legislation. In effect they are supporting a restriction on the possibility of the British defence industry expanding its exports within the European Union. This is a crazy, crazy policy, there is no doubt about it. I do not know whether the Government have thought this one through. If they have, I hope that at this 11th hour they will think about it again.

I am proud that, as defence procurement Minister, for the first time I abolished protectionism. I said that Britain should buy the capability it needed, where it could get it best and at the cheapest price. I made that absolutely plain. There are certain areas where for defence purposes and strategic security reasons we would not buy military equipment. We would not buy from Russia or China, for example, because we would not know what was in it. If there was any software, we would have to be very wary indeed of allowing it into the country. Nevertheless, where security and defence considerations did not apply, we would buy equipment from the best and cheapest source.

I placed a contract for an armoured vehicle, the Warthog, in Singapore and I am glad I did. I have a record, if I may say so, of being liberal in defence procurement and it is deeply shocking to me that we have a Government who are trying to go against that liberalism and damage an important British industry. The defence industry, probably together with pharmaceuticals, is the manufacturing area in which we have the greatest international competitive advantage.

I hope that, as a result of the debates in this House—unfortunately these matters will not be explored properly in the House of Commons—the country as a whole, including, in this case, the manufacturing and defence industries, will be alerted to what is going on here. If the arguments that we bring forward from these Benches, and those of others with reasonable views on Europe on the other Benches, do not prevail, maybe the voice of British industry might be heard. If it is not heard soon, a very important piece of damage will be done. It will be extremely difficult for us to find a rational solution to this problem if we continue to have enforced unanimity in this area of single market legislation, because that is what it is.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I shall quickly follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. I plead particularly to those Members of the Committee who are women. Article 19, the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred, concerns discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, sexual orientation and so forth. The effect of what we now see in Schedule 1 is that a referendum would be needed to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting. I ask my colleagues to give a moment’s thought to a position where the discriminator is one of the members of the Council.

That was exactly the example in the case of the Czech Republic when it sought to join the European Union. It discriminated viciously against the Roma; in some cases they were assaulted in small Czech towns and, in one or two cases, burnt. The attempt to say to the Czech Republic that discrimination against the Roma must end would have been impossible had there been a requirement for unanimity—in other words, no movement towards qualified majority voting. In those European Union members where there is clearly discrimination against women—Romania is one example of that—it would be possible for that country effectively to veto an attempt to rule out such discrimination. I cannot believe that that is what the Committee wants to see.

Essentially, one of the great achievements of the European Union—one that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, totally fails to recognise—was the extension of human rights and democracy to central and eastern Europe. It is an astonishing achievement. In any country except Britain it would be recognised as such. The consequence of that, in practice, is that the Copenhagen criteria—laid down in 1993 at the European Council meeting in the Danish capital—specifically said that for a country to join the European Union it must meet requirements about human rights, democracy, the independence of the courts and the proper, non-corrupt provision and maintenance of the rule of law, all of which are fundamental pillars of democracy. All of these depended on the wishes of these countries to join the European Union, and the requirement on them to meet those political conditions in order to do so.

The success, in extending democracy to that huge part of Europe, has a great deal to do with the respect that many of us have for the European Union. I spent nine years as the head of an organisation based in Harvard University called Project Liberty, which argued time and again with the Governments of eastern European countries that they could not join the European Union unless they put right laws that were discriminatory and corrupt. I know this because I was involved at first hand. It was an extraordinarily powerful weapon.

I conclude by saying, first, that nobody in this Committee should underestimate the astonishing impact that Europe has had on democracy in this continent and beyond it. Secondly, to try now to limit opposition to discrimination by obliging it to be unanimous would be a huge step back for the European Union, and one for which I, for one, would hate to see my country be responsible.

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I speak in support of the probing nature of this amendment and wish to ask noble Lords on the government Front Bench to give some thought to an aspect that was not precisely raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It is what I call the chicken-and-egg problem. By definition, there cannot be a decision on these matters which are taken within Lisbon unless the Council takes a unanimous decision. There will not be a decision on which the Government can hold a referendum unless they have agreed to it, so you have a chicken-and-egg problem of a massive kind. What will the Minister do in the Council? Will he say, “My lips are sealed”? In that case, it will go through because it will be considered an abstention and he will have allowed it to go through. This is a bizarre situation and I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend to bring about.

Perhaps the Minister will confirm my understanding that the Government, in giving their agreement to a unanimous decision in the Council on matters that fall within the scope of Lisbon—not changing the treaty by the intergovernmental conference route—they intend that the British Minister will say that he is agreeing to this decision and that the agreement will be formalised only when in some cases our Parliament has approved it by primary legislation, or in others there has been a referendum. However, he will agree to it in the first place, otherwise there will not be a European Union decision that can be put to a referendum and you will find yourself in a fine old tangle. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify this as I cannot believe that the Government seriously wish to put themselves in a position where they cannot even participate in the debate about a decision in Brussels because, perish the thought, what they say might be interpreted as support. Oh, terrible and fantastic—everyone will fall down at that stage.

I do not think that makes any sense, and nor do I think necessary the requirement for a referendum that the Government are trying to impose. In a later set of amendments, I will argue that that requirement is excessively imposed. It is not necessary because all those requirements can be retained without preventing the Minister in Brussels behaving in a normal, sensible way—that is, participating in the negotiations. If the British Government think that, basically, it is in our interests for that decision to go ahead, they can say that it can go ahead but that the following national processes then have to ensue. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to clarify the situation.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, for the purposes of this very narrow amendment, we accept that the Minister of the Crown cannot agree anything without a draft decision being approved by an Act of Parliament and the referendum condition being met. That means that in the case provided for in Clause 4 there is a referendum if necessary and the referendum result is positive. Most of us on this side of the House think that that is a monstrous situation to put the country in. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the amendment, we accept that and that the Government will not be able to agree to any of those decisions without a referendum or an Act of Parliament, and in many cases both.

The amendment is designed to question the words “or otherwise support”. That is why I am just as shocked as my noble friend Lord Liddle that the Government cannot accept it. What is the purpose of including “or otherwise support”? Surely, throughout the Bill the Government have been arguing to prevent this country acceding to or being party to any decision on constitutional change, such as the introduction of qualified majority voting, without going over these thresholds of Acts of Parliament and a referendum. The words “or otherwise support”, as in the text, imply that it is an additional restriction. What does that mean? We would like specific answers from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, if he is summing up the debate on the behalf of the Government. Does it mean that a Minister would not be able to say, “I personally support this but I need the agreement of my colleagues before I can go along with it.”? Is the text designed to prevent that sort of conversation taking place? Is it designed to prevent the Minister saying, “The British Government support this, amazingly, but we’ll have to have a referendum because we have imposed this Act on ourselves”? Is that what “or otherwise support” means? Does the Minister want to intervene and perhaps answer my questions?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, perhaps it will help the House if I read the wording in Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. It states:

“A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under any of the following unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section”.

In addressing that clause and in resisting the amendment of the MP for Wells, Mr Jim Murphy said:

“If the European Council sought to come to a decision based on consensus, the provision in clause 6 would mean that we would have to vote to break that consensus by not abstaining. That is the important protection contained in clause 6(1)”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/08; col. 1669.]

All that we are doing is repeating what the previous Government put in the Act that ratified the Lisbon treaty.

Perhaps it will help if I go on to explain that this does not in any way mean that a Minister or their officials cannot express support for a decision in principle, pending the completion of the process of approval provided in Clause 6.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I must say to the noble Lord—I think that he will agree in principle—that it is a very bad excuse for a Government, when bringing forward legislation, to say, “This may be bad legislation with bad wording, but we copied it from a previous Government”. That is not the way that legislation should be brought forward in this or any other House. All proposed legislation should be justified on its own merits and on its own text; the Government of the day should be prepared to defend the texts that they bring forward and should not say simply that they are reproducing what may well be the errors of the past.

I move to the text before us. It would be useful to have on the record a clear statement from the Government of what this is intended to mean to Ministers. If the Act is passed, Ministers will need to know what scope they have for taking part in discussions. If the noble Lord says that they will be allowed to say, in the example that I quoted, “I personally am in favour of this, but I do not have support yet from my colleagues so I will take it back to them”, that would be useful to know. If they will be allowed to say, “The British Government are in favour of this in principle, but we need an Act of Parliament and a referendum”, that would be a very reasonable thing to say if this Act was passed. However, it is extremely important that we get this clear.

I will explain to the noble Lord why it is so important. There is an issue of good faith. We are parties to the treaty of Lisbon. The noble Lord probably voted for the treaty, and his noble friend Lord Howell probably did not. Nevertheless, we as a country are committed to the treaty of Lisbon, and we are therefore committed to the clauses of the treaty—including Article 31(3) of the TEU, which we will debate in a moment—which provide in certain circumstances for a decision by the Council to go to qualified majority voting to reach a decision. The treaty of Lisbon provides for these possibilities, but we are coming along with a proposed Act of Parliament—a Bill—that is designed to prevent Great Britain from ever being a party to mechanisms that we signed up to when we agreed to the treaty of Lisbon. If it appears that we are going to be censoring Ministers and saying, “You cannot take part in good faith in debates and discussion, you cannot have a normal exchange of views, you cannot make statements that you are in support of things and so forth”, this would constitute a determination to make sure that our contribution in the Council will be extremely negative and unproductive.

This is a matter of good faith and is about whether the Government—we had this discussion in another context during the debate on the Bill—want to bring about deliberately a degradation in the good relations between this country and our EU partners. I trust that they do not. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said on a number of occasions that they do not and that it was quite wrong for me to harbour that black suspicion. I hope that it is quite wrong of me, but it is therefore very important to see what kind of constraint will be imposed on Ministers. I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention, which has gone some way to explaining the practical effect on a Minister of the Crown who takes part in the Council of Ministers. Anything further that he can add would be of great practical importance when Ministers find themselves in difficult situations in future discussions where they have to have regard to the Act, if it is an Act by that point.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved his amendment, he was careful and modest enough to say that it was a probing amendment, following which it was possibly unwise for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to go in feet first when it was explained to him that the legislation was repeating what had been in previous legislation—apart from the referendum—and say, “That does not excuse it because it is bad legislation”. However, all the arguments that he applied about lack of flexibility surely would have applied before if his arguments were right.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, understood what I said. I stand by it, will repeat it and will ask him whether seriously he disagrees with it. This House and any serious legislature or democratic assembly anywhere in the world should look at the text of Bills proposed to it on their merits. It is no excuse simply to say, “We are just repeating mindlessly some formula that already exists”, without being prepared to justify it.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Yes, but the noble Lord's criticism might have been a little modified in the light of the explanation that the Minister gave, rather than being put forward in quite such an aggressive manner.

In an equally probing spirit—because I, too, would like to understand this—perhaps I might ask the Minister two questions. Is he saying, first, that there is a distinction between a draft decision and a full decision, and that a Minister could indicate an agreement in principle to a draft decision? That was what I understood happened when we debated the European financial stability mechanism—the first of the three bailout funds, if I may call them that, that were arranged—when my noble friend Lord Howell clarified a certain amount of confusion in the House. Some noble Lords thought that we were making a final decision; he made it clear that we were not, that Parliament would have to decide on the principle of the matter, and that there would be another debate later. If that is the correct example of how this operates, we can see that there would be plenty of time for flexibility and consideration.

Secondly, are the words “or otherwise support” meant to cover also a position where abstention on a decision occurs? Where there is a requirement for unanimity, abstention cannot stop a proposal going through. It may be that that, too, is covered by the words. I have seen the words of Mr Murphy that the Minister quoted, and I think that that was one of the points that he was making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am very willing to reflect on this point and see whether we can return to the House with any words of comfort, but I fear that we are chasing headless chickens around the yard a little. I will leave it to others to decide whether the eggs are headless as well.

To conclude, we are not the only Government who—I will give way once more to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but I hope that if he wants to criticise me in future, which he is very welcome to do, he will do so on the basis of what I actually said and not on what I have not said. I did not rubbish the Government of whom I was proud to be a member; I said that this was a general principle that applies to the Minister today and that applied to me when I was a Minister. If you bring forward a Bill in this House or the other House, you must be expected to defend the text on its own merits. It is no excuse to say simply that you are replicating text from the past. That was the point that I made. I made no normative statement about the text at all in that context; I simply made that general principle clear.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for making that so wonderfully clear.

I hope I have managed to persuade your Lordships that there is no sinister intent behind these words. They are not part of a dreadful right-wing Conservative plot, so there is no need to add the qualification that Amendment 32A would require. May I also say, since the Daily Express has been running a range of quite absurd stories—the latest being that government buildings are being forced to fly the EU flag—that we must recognise that we are operating in a world in which, for many years, previous Governments have failed to stand up to some of the complete nonsense that has spread through the British press. Unfortunately, we now find more and more nonsense spreading, and part of what this coalition Government intend to do is to spell out the advantages to Britain of being in the European Union in order to get back at some of the nonsense put out by the Daily Express, which unfortunately, as noble Lords will know, is no longer part of the Press Complaints Commission process and so the commission has very few controls over what it puts out, but that is another matter.

We will take this matter away and look at it again. However, as I say, the words used in the Lisbon treaty amendment Act were there for a good reason, and the words used here are also here for a good reason. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is not here; he was here earlier. I read what he said the other day. If I have in any way misrepresented his views, I am sure he will correct me. I read that he was very firmly one of those in the previous Government who took the view that the best way of dealing with international crime was not by the creation of new international authorities but through co-operation between national authorities. That was his very firm view. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for what he said about the European arrest warrant. I know he felt it should have been combined with a system of European bail, which would have made it very different.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

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

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

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

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

The words which state,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way, particularly after he spoke so eloquently about political dogmatism. He will of course know all about political dogmatism. He has not helped his arguments by his tone of incredulity that perfectly sensible noble Lords across this Chamber might disagree with each other on the importance of giving away power or competence to the European public prosecutor’s office. He should be able to disagree with that without descending to the level of incredulity.

I will tell the noble Lord why his argument does not work. If he thinks back, the article on the European public prosecutor’s office to which he referred, and which I have looked up, talks about the financial interests of the Union. It does not define, word by word, what those interests might be, or what acts those who go against the financial interests of the Union might have to perpetrate to do so. I remind him of the NatWest four and the extradition treaty with the United States. Many Members across this House and, I am sure, in the other place, are extremely uncomfortable about what happened there. Widely defined clauses can contain any number of provisions and can have all sorts of side effects. I just wish that the noble Lord would accept that the article is widely defined.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Baroness has made one of the longest interventions that I have ever taken in my time in either House. I shall not reply at such length, but I will say, first, that I have never made ad hominem or ad feminam arguments in this place; I have tried to address the issues and I hope that she will try to do the same. Secondly, by drawing an analogy with the people who were extradited to the United States for commercial crimes, she has completely misunderstood not only the point I was making but particular articles in the treaty. All the crimes foreseen in Article 86 as matters for the public prosecutor are defined as those that are,

“affecting the financial interests of the Union”.

It is a narrow category of crimes, and there is no way in which that category could be expanded without unanimity.

As I said, it is extraordinary for the Government to decide specifically to provide for a referendum on a matter that can scarcely be of great public controversy. It is very difficult for me or the public to see what national damage could be done. The most respectable explanation that I can think of is that the Government are acting in an utterly narrow-minded and dogmatic fashion. They are displaying the mentality of, if you like, the Spanish Inquisition. There is no flexibility or pragmatism. That would be a very frightening way to conduct our national interests abroad.

[Lord Risby]

My Lords—

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is right about that.

We are not talking about that but it could be, if we are going to have an effective force for this purpose, that we need to have a much more integrated force posture with common rules of engagement. That is a possibility that member states in these particular circumstances ought to be prepared to consider.

Look at north Africa, where the events occurring mean that the European neighbourhood policy and the Union for the Mediterranean require a complete rethink in their light. We need, as a European Union, to develop a coherent policy which particularly offers those countries in north Africa which are going down the path of strengthening democracy and human rights incentives for going further in that direction. I was interested in a piece that I read—I think it was yesterday—by Peter Sutherland about what might be necessary in order to make that policy happen. It involves tackling very sensitive and difficult issues, such as the need to have more flexible rules on immigration for people from those countries so that they can come and study in Europe, spend time here and then go back there. It requires having more flexible rules on trade so that trade with the European Union can boost their economies and jobs. That would do something about the appalling problems of youth unemployment in those countries. It may require a more common approach to asylum. We are potentially facing having 400,000 people in refugee camps in north Africa, so I read in a newspaper article the other day. These are issues that cannot be addressed in 10 years’ time but on which the European Union needs to develop credible policies, in its own interests, in the next year or two.

Most of the time, we obviously want Europe to use its existing powers under the existing treaties. Yet are we saying that we would not contemplate any change at all? This is the Williamson question which was asked earlier. The Government are getting themselves into a trap here. The coalition has pursued a positive approach to the European Union so far in its negotiations, but if they really believe that they are pursuing a pro-European policy, we urge them to be flexible on these issues and to recognise that we do not want to tie ourselves down with referendum requirements in areas where there is cross-party agreement and a general consensus that we need a stronger and more effective European Union. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the most important theme emerging from the contribution on this side of the Committee to the debate tonight is the need for the European Union, like any businesslike and serious organisation, to retain the capability for flexibility in responding to what are unpredictable and therefore, necessarily, unpredicted situations. That is enormously important and it is quite clear that the Government are, by contrast, saying of the European Union that we should remain rigidly anchored on the existing constitutional arrangements until and unless, by some enormous shift involving a public referendum in this country, there is a sudden, seismic change. That is the fundamental difference between the perception on this side of the House and that on the other side of the way that the European Union ought to be conducted.

Many of us on this side have the considerable suspicion that, because the Government’s attitude is so unrealistic in relation to what would be the requirements of any organisation that expected to survive in the modern world, there is actually a Machiavellian plan deliberately to make the EU inflexible, to cause crises and conflicts and, at some dramatic interlude, to stymie the whole of the EU. We know that many members of the Conservative Party have had that agenda for a long time.

There is a particular issue of flexibility facing me at the moment. As I understand my noble friend, he has suggested that in the interests of the House and of making rapid progress, we should debate in one session all the amendments from Amendment 23C to 23L. I understand that they cannot be formally moved together en bloc, but my noble friend’s suggestion was that they should be discussed and debated as such and I am happy to do that. If I receive so much as an eyebrow signal from either Front Bench that I am doing the wrong thing, I will sit down and try to address the House again under Amendment 23L, which is what I was intending to do. Unless I receive such a signal, I shall proceed to make a few remarks about that amendment against the background of the theme that I have just set out, which is the unifying theme in all the debates that we are having on this clause.

Amendment 23L deals with the issue of piracy. As my noble friend rightly says, this is a grave and serious problem that does not merely affect east Africa but, unless we get this right, could affect large areas of the world because, if piracy is shown to be something that pays and makes a lot of money with impunity, others will inevitably get involved in it. We will return to a situation that we thought we had left behind in the 19th century when the Royal Navy, above all, in collaboration with the navies of other civilised countries succeeded in more or less extirpating piracy, which had been such a threat to lives, to civilisation and to developing world trade, and I do not think anyone wants that to happen.

My noble friend Lord Liddle sensibly said—I agree—that there may be great advantage in trying to review and standardise the terms of engagement of our various naval units and fleets that are off the coast of east Africa at present. It is slightly absurd that we have three task forces there—one American, which we are supporting, one NATO and one EU. That does not seem a sensible way of making progress, but I leave that matter aside.

I agree with what my noble friend said about the probable need for greater operational co-ordination. I am not sure whether that raises the issues of the Bill in relation to changes in the competences or powers of the European Union, but I have a suggestion to make to the House. I listened with respect, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when he commented the other day that, by saying that in future the EU might need some particular power and it would not be sensible for us to deprive ourselves in advance of the opportunity of granting the EU that power in the interests of us all, I was raising hypothetical issues. He said that I did not actually come up with concrete scenarios or specific cases. I hope that I have his attention now because I am coming up with just such a specific scenario.

Anyone with a business or economics background will always look at the demand side before they look at the supply side, on the grounds that the supply side emerges only when there is a demand for something. I put it to the Minister that one of the big problems with piracy is that, on the demand side, people are prepared to pay the money. That issue has not been addressed at all. I have to tell the House that every week ransom payments are paid amounting to millions of pounds. Sometimes they are paid through banking channels, and sometimes they are paid literally with cash dropped out of chartered aircraft on to the coast of Somalia that is then picked up by pirates. As a result, some individual or ship is released from imprisonment by the pirates who have illegally hijacked them. This happens the whole time; I repeat, it happens every week. Every year tens of millions of pounds are paid in this way; indeed, the figure may well be getting into hundreds of millions in the course of a year. I have spoken about this to underwriters in the City of London, who confess that to pay ransoms to pirates is becoming quite a normal part of their business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord thought I was scowling at him. I was looking at him in some confusion. The question of how one deals with piracy off the coast of east Africa is rather different from how one might deal with piracy within the territorial waters of the European Union. Among the ships dealing with the anti-piracy patrols off the east coast of Africa are some very effective Chinese and Indian ships. The complications in co-ordinating ships from a large number of countries are considerable. How one should treat pirates whom one captures off the east coast of Africa is a large question in international law, but not under EU law since the EU does not extend to the Indian Ocean.

I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, spell out his conspiracy theory. It is useful to know which conspiracy theories underlie different views. I encourage him to compare his conspiracy theory with that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. They run in opposite directions. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, thinks that we are working secretly to undermine Britain’s membership of the European Union, while the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, thinks that we are not working hard enough by half to undermine it. The two of them could have a very enjoyable dinner together.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s contribution. I said that it was how some people felt. That was the formula I used; I did not myself endorse the conspiracy theory. The implication was that the conduct of the Government was such as to make it possible for constituents to develop that conspiracy theory. In relation to his most recent remarks to me, I accept that piracy is a matter for international law. Piracy has always been against international law. There should not be a problem there. His implication was that we needed to co-ordinate with the Indians and the Chinese, which we do to some extent. We might need to co-ordinate with them more. That is true and I acknowledged it explicitly in my recent remarks. I said that in this context, as in others—I suspect the noble Lord used to teach this to his students—it is much more effective, if we want international agreement and consensus on a matter, to act as the European Union rather than as one country or as 27 different countries. That is the point I was making.

However, there is a third point that I must make in relation to the noble Lord’s comments to me, which is that I was specifically addressing the need for powers to make it an offence to make ransom payments. I think that he, and anyone with any knowledge of the world, will agree that the chances of getting 150 or 193 countries to legislate identically for anything are virtually zero; that is not going to happen. If you wish to make it a criminal offence to transfer such payments, to collect money for the purpose of paying ransoms, to provide money for the purpose of paying ransoms, to make ransom payments, and to enforce those criminal offences, you need to obtain agreement throughout the European Union as an essential starting point. That is not a matter of international law; it is very much a matter of European law. If we do not have the powers to do that at present, it is very desirable that we should develop them. However, if we needed to develop them, we would run into the issue that, if the Government succeeded in passing this Bill, Article 48 would no longer be usable in that context if Great Britain were to be included.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, it might encourage your Lordships’ House to hear that I do not intend to talk about piracy; I seek to talk about the amendments that deal with the environment and climate change. These differ from earlier amendments. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, as it seems to me that most of the areas that he covered were unique competences of the European Union, whereas we are now talking about a number of areas where there is joint competence. I say to my noble friends that if we were arguing that the British Government felt that we had sufficient powers in the European Union to do most of the things that we wanted to do, if we saw no reason to extend powers, and if the Government were going to commit themselves not to do that, I would have real sympathy with that.

If the Government went on to say that there might be occasions on which we have to go along with things that seem to be sensible extensions, I would have sympathy with that too. However, I find entirely unacceptable the concept that we cannot go along with anything unless we have a referendum. I find that unacceptable with regard to the environment, for the reason that I gave when I interrupted the noble Lord. Many of the issues about which we are talking are almost incapable of admitting a question of the kind of which a referendum admits. I do not like referenda. As the Committee knows, I am opposed to referenda on any grounds in any circumstances. I am a believer in parliamentary democracy. One of the sadnesses of this Government is that they have betrayed what seems to me to be a fundamental part of our constitution.

Referenda have always been used in partial circumstances for particular reasons. Napoleon III was the best user of referenda before General de Gaulle. This is a foreign activity much disliked by sensible people in the United Kingdom. I yield to no one in my dislike of referenda. They are always partial and always undertaken for a particular reason. The provision that we are discussing is included because the Government want to make it difficult to do anything in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks that this is not so. The difficulty is that the Government speak in different ways to different people. They say to some people, “This is a wonderful step forward for those who are Eurosceptic”, and to other people, “This does not matter very much anyway because we are not going to need it”. Therefore, I find it very difficult to take this debate seriously. However, it is crucial with regard to environmental issues.

I have one or two suggestions as to why that is the case. For example, we are going to have a real issue with the transfer of electricity across the European Union. The superconductor systems, which will enable us to pass electricity very fast without losing power, will be very important in enabling us to meet our energy requirements and the requirement to cut the damage we do to the atmosphere and to mitigate climate change. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, does not believe in climate change. He is a sceptic on a wide range of subjects. It will not therefore worry him, but it worries me considerably if we cannot do something about this

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord and those of his view have been saying this now for 30 years. It has not happened and it is not going to happen. The solution for this country is to leave the common fisheries policy and take back our waters to the median line and whatever we had before in territorial waters into our own control. Then, when our own fishing industry, which has been decimated by the common fisheries policy, has been rebuilt, we can share any surplus and lease it out to people who want to buy it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I do not know in which amendment the common fisheries policy arises, but I have to tell the noble Lord that if he is interested in that policy, he will rapidly find that the only explanation consistent with the facts is that the common fisheries policy suffered from an excess of member state sovereignty and an insufficiency of federalism. At every stage the European Commission, being the regulatory agency, has proposed quotas that, if they had been accepted, would have preserved the stocks. It is the member states pursuing their own individual interests that have always resisted those proposals on the part of the European Commission. As a result, the quotas have never been sufficiently tight and all these waters have been overfished. Under all circumstances, whether we had our own fisheries policy or not, it would be necessary for us to have regulation, quotas and some effective enforcement mechanism. If we disbanded the European Union, the next day we would need to set up a new common fisheries policy by agreement with a set of quotas and a common enforcement policy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, when we leave the European Union, we will not do as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggests. We will take back those waters that were our waters, take back those fish that were our fish and re-establish our national fishing industry. That is what we will do. As the noble Lord has mentioned, this was not actually in the amendments but as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned it in connection with me, I thought that I would just touch on it in closing.

The noble Lord assumes, again, that some form of European common energy policy is in any way necessary for this country. We simply rebuild our own energy supplies. We do not let the European Union close down our coal-fired stations, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has mentioned, but build new ones. We might even consider incineration of landfill. We certainly consider nuclear power. We therefore supply our own energy. If we then wish to go on buying Russian gas through France, which is what we have to do at the moment, then we may be able to, but I entirely agree with my noble friend that this pursuit of wind power is madness of a dimension that only the political class could be guilty of. I think that that covers everything that I had to say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I shall sit down.

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

If one is talking about declarations or derogations within existing treaties and competences, that would not give rise to a referendum. If it was an occasion on which a whole range of new proposals were put forward, including some of those which noble Lords describe as minor or even trivial but which could in fact have highly significant effects on the powers, potentials, freedoms and obligations of this country, that would be a different matter. The kind of changes suggested by the noble Lord would not give rise to a referendum.

In line with all other treaty changes, an Act of Parliament would—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt him. This is a very important point. If the Bill is passed in its present form with its text unamended, is he confident that it could not subsequently be argued—if there are going to be judicial reviews of ministerial decisions on this matter—during the accession of a new member state that the mere fact of accession reduces the powers of this country because it dilutes our voting strength in the European Union under QMV and for other purposes?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It does not dilute our power to veto. Our power to veto is there unless it is removed by other transfers, which of course would trigger a referendum. However, if the power to veto is there, there is no dilution. We have heard from noble Lords who have spoken in this debate of the small but undoubted change in the proportion of the population of the total European Union that would result in this country if a number of other countries acceded. That is true, but the veto remains. There has been no transfer of power of any description or kind, which is what this Bill is concerned with.

I also wanted to say that any accession treaty provides Parliament with the full power and the opportunity to scrutinise the accession treaty, which we have done in the past. If it was so minded—a point that meets the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—a Parliament could legislate for a referendum. It remains the power of Parliament to do so. It is perfectly free to say, “Here is an issue on which we think there should be a referendum”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, in that case, perhaps I may give the Government’s response on this group. We will then be able to break for dinner and return to the others later. All afternoon this has been a rather untidy debate. I almost congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on actually mentioning in his speech the amendment under discussion. In the previous debate he did not mention the amendment we were supposed to be discussing. We are in a Committee stage debate at the moment in which one is supposed to address one’s remarks to the Bill under discussion rather than to the state of the world, the wickedness of the EU as such and all the other things he touched on in his interventions.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, raised large questions about global markets and global governance. As we address these amendments, we all recognise that what the EU does in competition policy, in negotiating on world trade and so on is part of a rather complex system of different intergovernmental organisations, of which the EU is one. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that money laundering is largely dealt with, for example, under the financial action task force, which is more closely associated with the OECD than with the EU. It does it rather well. Indeed, I have read a volume by one of the noble Baroness’s close relatives which refers to how well the financial action task force does in this respect. The EU is not responsible for all of the issues involved in managing a global market. However, it has a number of extensive powers, some of which have been discussed on this occasion.

This group of amendments and the ones that follow seem, in general, to contain a number of assumptions about the Bill, the EU and what the Government think about the EU which, I repeat, are erroneous. First, the EU has competencies in all of these areas. We are not talking about extending competencies. Opting in to the human trafficking directive does not extend competences; it merely uses the available competencies in a more effective way. The treaty of Lisbon provides ample scope for EU action in the areas cited in the amendments tabled under this group and the group that follows. The assumption that the United Kingdom is tying itself up in knots and is thus unable to act and that we are the only Government who wish to go through constitutional procedures of the kinds listed in the Bill is also erroneous. As we have said, the UK Government are in the forefront of pushing for new policies in a number of areas. As the noble Baroness said, we have just signed up to the human trafficking directive.

On the Doha round, it is not the EU that is causing the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, knows. Incidentally, when Britain first joined the European Community as it then was, one of the first things that I and many others learnt about it was Article 113 and the 113 committee, and the exclusive competence of the European Community in external trade. I am not sure what one can provide more than exclusive competence —perhaps super-exclusive competence is needed next.

We are now negotiating on services as well. The assumption that the EU is unable to act in all of this is part of the misunderstandings that others are raising. There is also the question that if the European Union suddenly found that it lacked these powers then it could rush through a treaty change in two months. Actually, we have discovered that urgent treaty changes take somewhere between 18 and 24 months. That is part of the process we have gone through. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly pointed out that in a crisis you are better off negotiating rapidly in an ad hoc framework, as we often find ourselves having to on a global level—G20 has emerged as part of this—rather than attempting to go through all of these very complicated programmes.

On competition policy, the European Union has now emerged as one of the two most important forums for competition policy in managing global multinationals. Until the EU developed its competition competence, the United States effectively managed the competition policy of multinational companies and operated through extra-territorial jurisdiction in imposing its judgments on multinationals operating elsewhere. The record of the EU in competition policy has on the whole been very good. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is quite right to point out that innovation constantly raises new problems. That is true for all jurisdictions and there is a constant race between one international organisation and another. So far, the EU has managed as well as the federal United States in that respect.

On the lack of competences, I have looked at what used to be Article 113 and is now Articles 206 and 207. There are two areas of reserved competence in Article 207. One is on audio-visual and cultural relations—not inserted by the British but by the French—and the other is on limitations on negotiations in health, welfare and social services—not inserted by the British but by the Germans. We are not always the ones who are hesitant about giving way on sovereignty; it is often others. On the single market and global trade agreements, the EU is well supplied with competence.

On financial regulation, the EU is one among many actors. The Bank for International Settlements, the financial action task force and the range of other bodies to which the United Kingdom belongs and in which the UK is a full participant also play a role in this area. Our EU partners play a large role as well. The Government want to see—we will stress this on all these amendments—the European Union using the tools it has under existing treaties and its now very extensive competence more effectively, bringing about the benefits that we want to see the EU delivering for the British people and everyone across the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, made an excellent speech on our previous Committee day precisely expressing those sentiments. Those are sentiments that the Government share. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, will be willing to withdraw his amendment. Then we will return to the next group on similar arguments after dinner.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord’s flow while he was speaking, but I have a rather important question. He referred to Article 207 and the derogation in that from the usual procedures on the common foreign policy that the council needs to act unanimously in these two matters involving, first, trade in cultural and audio-visual services, which he said was a provision put in at the demand of the French, and secondly, the field of social, education and health services, which he said was put in at the demand of the Germans. The noble Lord was really saying that here was a case when the treaty needed to be amended to accommodate the particular requirements of those two countries. They were not our requirements and we would rather have had no derogation in the common foreign trade policy. Let us suppose that the French and German were prepared to remove those two derogations or obstacles to freer international trade. Is it the case that under the Bill we would then require a referendum to allow the Germans and the French to agree to give up concessions which they had previously obtained?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have spent a good deal of my adult life studying and teaching on the European Union. I struggle to imagine a situation in which the French Government would suddenly decide, on their own and as a single action without asking for any concessions in any other area, to give up that. Hypothetically, in a parallel universe inhabited by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and a number of other people, it is always possible that these things might happen. In the practical life of the way that the European Union works, that seems completely inconceivable.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for that response which seems to reveal that there is potential for a complete absurdity, which must also exist elsewhere in the treaty. We would force a referendum on ourselves simply because some other member state was prepared to adopt more communautaire policies in the future and to withdraw concessions that previously they had insisted upon.

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Roderigo in “Othello”, Flavius in “Julius Caesar” and Bernardo in “Hamlet”—the House will instantly recognise what these three guys have in common. They get to start the play, they are completely unimportant characters and they have no influence whatever on how the plot subsequently develops. Afterwards will come the captain and the kings—I see that the names of five former Cabinet Ministers are attached to some of the more than 60 amendments that we are to debate—and of the 37 speakers at Second Reading on 22 March, more than 80 per cent were fiercely critical of the Bill. However, Shakespeare knew that, as the house shuffles its feet and settles down, first up should be a very minor character. The Bill has caused considerable concern on all sides of the House and the soliloquies from the stars will be worth waiting for. I hope that the play will not prove a tragedy, but I am merely playing Bernardo.

I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading about why I thought that the scale of the referendum requirements in the Bill was absurd in conception and damaging in effect, given that the requirements are for binding, mandatory referenda with no threshold on issues, many of them very minor and on all of which by definition the Government and Parliament have agreed. Nor will I say anything today about why I fear the chilling effect on our negotiators and on the perceptions of us in other EU member states or about the risk that, if we enact this Bill in this form, we will be repeating the Messina mistake and isolating ourselves from the future development of the European Union—I think that that is a risk, but I will not dwell on it now. Nor will I explain again why I believe that this is a bad Bill, which would damage both parliamentary sovereignty at home and our national influence and standing abroad.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord said that he would not say anything about the potentially damaging effect on our negotiating position or negotiating leverage if this Bill is passed into law. I was disappointed to hear him say that, because there are few people in the world who have greater experience of negotiation in Brussels than he has. Does he agree that, when you are negotiating in any context in life, you have a certain leverage if at the end of the day, when you are persuaded and you have done a deal, you can actually deliver? However, if it is known in advance that you cannot deliver because you need a referendum to deliver—the Government are obviously not going to have a referendum on some subject of tertiary importance—does he agree that you will not really have any negotiating leverage at all, because no one will make concessions to you in the expectation of getting agreement if you cannot give agreement in the first place?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord exaggerates my experience, but I think that he is quite right in his point. It is the case, I believe, that this Bill, if enacted, would oblige British Governments to oppose in Brussels reforms that were acknowledged to be in the UK interest, because they would not wish to have to face a referendum on the issue in this country. We are talking here not about big issues but about relatively minor reforms that most people in this House would find useful.

However, I do not want to be drawn any further down that track for the moment. What Bernardo actually says at the beginning of the play are words to the effect, “Midnight has struck; fly home to your bed”. We were after midnight when we finished Second Reading and I was rebuked fiercely from the government Front Bench for contributing to the length of our debate. Therefore, rather than going back over ground that I touched on then, I will concentrate on the amendment that stands in my name.

The amendment would delete the first reference in the Bill to Article 48(6), which concerns treaty revision procedures. I am sure that I do not need to refresh your Lordships’ memory of Article 48(6), which we could probably all recite—and perhaps should have recited before we began considering this amendment—but let me just recap for a second. We are dealing with two treaties: the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The first, the TEU, is about principles, values and institutions; the second, the TFEU, is about the competences and, in its Part 3, the policies of the European Union, how those are to be determined and how they are to be implemented.

There are also two amending procedures. The first, the traditional procedure, involves an intergovernmental conference, which is now to be preceded by a convention of the kind on which the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, served in 2002-03. That is the principal means of reforming the treaty. The second procedure is a simplified means—this is what we are talking about in Article 48(6)—which allows the European Council, or heads of Government, to decide without a prior convention or intergovernmental conference. Both means of course require absolute unanimity among the heads of Government of the member states and both means require ratification by member states by whatever means they choose. Since the treaty is a treaty and does not purport to lay down how we handle our domestic affairs, it says nothing about how we or anyone else goes about ratification.

So why are there two methods? The difference between the two methods is that the simplified procedure cannot be used to amend the Treaty on European Union—the treaty about principles—nor can it be used to amend the part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that is about the competences of the Union. It follows that Article 48(6), reference to which is what my amendment suggests be removed from Clause 1, cannot be used to effect any transfer of competences or powers from the member states to the Union. Adding belt to braces, it actually says that. Article 48(6), after referring to the previous steps in the process, says in its last sentence that the decision referred to in the previous paragraph,

“shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”.

This article is not about the famous or infamous passerelle; that is something completely different, dealt with in Clause 7. We are talking about Article 48(6), which is covered in Clause 3. The question for me is: why is it there? This is the question that my amendment is designed to probe.

I may have misunderstood something, as the Bill is extremely densely drafted and hard to construe, but I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said in his elegant and thoughtful speech at Second Reading and I confess that I am still puzzled. I am also now a little worried. In introducing the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described its primary purpose. He said that,

“where a treaty change is deemed to transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU, it will in principle require the approval of the British people in a referendum”.

After explaining very helpfully how Clauses 2 and 3 are concerned with the ordinary treaty revision procedure and the simplified revision procedure, the noble Lord went on to say:

“Both clauses also provide that, where a treaty change of either type would also transfer power or competence from the United Kingdom to the EU, such a change should also be approved by the British people in a referendum”.—[Official Report, 22/03/11; cols. 600-02.]

That is, indeed, an accurate description of the Bill, but it seems to me to reflect a misreading of the treaty. Article 48(6) cannot be used in a way that would transfer any competence or power from the UK to the EU. Therefore, it seems to me that the references to Article 48(6) and simplified revision procedure in the Bill are otiose. The only other explanation for them could be that the Government envisage referenda on EU issues where no transfer of powers or sovereignty is envisaged.

What did the Minister mean by a treaty amendment “of either type”? A treaty amendment is a treaty amendment is a treaty amendment. You amend the treaty whatever the process that leads you to the amendment, so what are we talking about? Why are we distinguishing a subset of treaty amendments? There are lots of other things with which I disagree in the Bill, but on this minor technical point I see no reason for any specific provisions in relation to Article 48(6) other than, possibly, the parliamentary ratification procedures. However, that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was talking about.

It follows that I see no need for Clause 3 or for the specific reference in Clause 1, which is the subject of the amendment standing in my name. In moving the amendment, I seek enlightenment. I apologise for troubling the House with these arcana; they are arcana, but the arcana are in the Bill and that is very troubling. Exit stage left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I have a great many objections to this Bill under three broad headings. The first is the constitutional damage this Bill would do if it was enacted. I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, has said but, as he said himself, this is not the moment to go into that as we shall have other opportunities on amendments relating to referenda in Clause 18.

Secondly, I am concerned about the honesty of the Bill. I made the point at Second Reading that although it purports to offer referenda on a vast range of potential subjects, it seemed quite clear that there would in practice be no chance of referenda ever taking place on some of these secondary or tertiary issues and that the Bill is therefore something of a fraud on the public. I am quite concerned that there is another fraud going on here, which I will come to in a moment.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the practical implications of the Bill and there I agree again with what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, just said. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made it absolutely clear in moving his amendment that there is a serious discrepancy between the way that the Bill was presented as protecting the British public against any further concessions of power to the European Union—the entire rhetoric was that there will now be this block with a referendum—and the inclusion of decisions made under Article 48(6), which quite clearly and explicitly excludes any extensions of the powers of the European Union.

In fact, we have been offered a Bill with so-called protection for the public against a threat but which includes a provision that, by definition, could not form part of that threat. One has to ask why that has been done. Is it a matter of drafting carelessness? Surely not; the references to Article 48(6) are absolutely clear and deliberate. There are several of them throughout the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his co-signatories to the amendment have gone through the Bill and addressed them wherever they arise. There is clearly a deliberate intention here to go beyond what is in my view—I know it is a value judgment, but it is my view—the already extreme rhetoric with which this Bill was presented. The reality is even more extreme and one has to ask: why is that? Why is there an intention to have a referendum on matters which, by definition, cannot involve increasing the powers of or conceding capabilities to the European Union? I hope that the Minister will address this issue, as I cannot imagine that we could have an honest debate on this subject without it being explicitly addressed.

I also hope that there might be more contributions from the Lib Dems in the course of debate on this set of amendments. I suspect that a lot of Lib Dems were dragged, kicking and screaming, into supporting the notion of the Bill on the basis that all it did was to provide for a referendum in the event that further powers were being conceded to the European Union. In fact, the Bill that has come up is much more restrictive and goes far further. I do not know whether every member of the Lib Dem party has appreciated the significance of explicitly including Article 48(6) as it is being done, or of what that means. It puts much more of a brake on the European Union’s day-to-day activities, which I will come on to in a moment, than was ever suggested in announcing the intention to move forward with this legislation. It is particularly important that the Lib Dems, both in this Committee and in the country as a whole, have an opportunity to think really carefully about Article 48(6) before they decide what their ultimate attitude is towards the Bill. It would be artificial if we did not hear from more Lib Dems in the course of our proceedings, including on this amendment.

The third issue that concerns me about the Bill in general—I come particularly to the issues covered by this amendment—is its practical consequences. Before we pass any legislation, it is terribly important for this House to think through what its practical consequences will be. If you are sitting on a board of directors at a business and deciding whether to take a particular decision, you think pretty carefully about its practical consequences. You may ask your support staff and so forth, or you may ask legal advisers or other outside advisers such as management consultants, “What would be the consequences of our doing X, Y and Z”? You ask people, come up with as many possible answers as you can and weigh them carefully before you decide on the balance of advantage or disadvantage in going forward or not. It is important to look at particular cases.

Since the Government have set out for us in Schedule 1 the sort of issues which would require a referendum under the Bill, at least by way of an illustration which is not exhaustive and does not exclude other issues, we should think through in the course of the Committee’s proceedings what would happen if this Bill became an Act and was now on the statute book, and practical decisions needed to be taken in any of these categories. I shall take a few at random, without taking up too much time. Take, for example, Article 77(3) on,

“provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits etc.”.

Some people would say, “We’re not part of Schengen so that doesn’t concern us at all”. If that were the case, why would we need a referendum on the subject? It baffles me. One can well imagine a situation in which we could not cut ourselves off from, let us say, immigration issues in the Schengen area. We remember the problems that we had with Sangatte, with a large number of illegal immigrants from France concentrating themselves in Calais with a view to trying to steal through the Channel tunnel in one form or another or on to ferries and come into this country. It was a serious practical problem for us. There was no point in using philosophical arguments to deal with it; it needed to be dealt with in a practical way. There are many possible scenarios that one can imagine where we will need to sit around a table with our partners and come to a sensible agreed solution to deal with, let us say, a massive and difficult immigration issue or threat that has suddenly arisen.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Surely the noble Lord would agree that if we had not pooled our sovereignty, as noble Lords like to call it, in the matter of immigration, which he has raised, if we had kept control of our borders and if the previous Government had not deliberately lowered our borders and our immigration, particularly to people from the European Union, the problem would not have arisen. Surely the answer is simply not to have been in the EU, not to be in the EU in future and to control our own borders. It is a no-brainer, isn’t it?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that by a “no-brainer” the noble Lord means giving the same answer to any question that is asked in any context whatsoever: that we should never have gone into the European Union. The noble Lord is fundamentally flawed in his analysis of the national interest in this area, but if I actually addressed his comments I should be making a speech about the reasons why we are in the EU. All I will say is that we have kept control of our borders. We have not joined Schengen although—and we should never forget this—we have a common travel zone with the Republic of Ireland, so we have a mini-Schengen. That is another reason why we cannot simply suppose that we can draw up the moat here and do what the devil we like; we need to discuss with the Republic of Ireland what it is doing in relation to Schengen at any one time, otherwise we should have to set up a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic or something of that sort, which would have all kinds of consequences that we would not want to contemplate.

I mention this to the noble Lord merely because, while I was not very optimistic that I would persuade him about anything, these matters are extremely complex and we cannot act as if we are in isolation in this world. There is a whole range of interdependencies—I was going to say “interdependabilities”—that we have with countries that surround us. That is a natural part of things and we should not reject it. We should be prepared to come to sensible, common-sensical, mutually advantageous arrangements with our partners on a pragmatic basis and we should not cut ourselves off from the possibility of reaching agreement with them—but that is exactly what the Bill does.

What would happen if there were a pragmatic, sensible solution of this kind dealing with, say, provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits and so forth? The British Minister would be paralysed and would not be able to take part in the discussion at all. If the British Minister even started entering the discussion, he would immediately be guilty of bad faith. Everyone around the table would say, “This guy’s not serious; he’s not for real. Il n’est pas sérieux. He’s not going to have a referendum on this but he can’t agree it without a referendum, so why’s he sitting in the room at all? What’s this guy doing wasting our time?”. No one would be so rude and undiplomatic as to say that out loud, but that would be the effect. We would be sending Ministers to Brussels to find themselves in that extremely embarrassing situation. Do we really want to conduct our international relations, let alone those with such important partners and neighbours as our fellow members of the EU, on that basis? It is extraordinary.

Let us look at police co-operation, covered by Article 87(3). It does not need very much imagination, for people who have had some experience of public life like ourselves, to know that out of the blue you can suddenly have a very nasty threat. It can be something to do with terrorism, and clearly we are all concerned about that; there is a Bill going through the House at the moment. I sit on a Joint Committee with the House of Commons examining the contingent terrorist detention Bill, as noble Lords will know. We are rightly concerned that something will happen out of the blue. I will give way to the noble Baroness; I am just finishing my sentence.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As a very interested observer in this debate, I would just like to know what the noble Lord’s latest comments have to do with the amendment. Surely we need just to get through this and see how we feel about it rather than have a great long diatribe about what might happen if we did not do anything else. His comments have nothing at all to do with this amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am afraid that the noble Baroness is completely mistaken, as they have very much to do with the amendment. The amendment would have the effect of taking out of the scope of the Bill decisions falling under Article 48(6). If such decisions were no longer subject to a subsequent referendum, which would be the effect if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was agreed to, the practical damage done to our country would be less. I hope that the noble Baroness can follow the logic of that. Perhaps she would like me to repeat the point. She is shaking her head, but I would be happy to do so if she does not understand the point because it is extremely important.

I repeat to the noble Baroness that the effect of the Bill as currently drafted is not merely, as she might have supposed from hearing the declarations of her Prime Minister and her Foreign Secretary, to ensure that there is a referendum if ever we have treaty changes or grant increased competence to the European Union. The Bill would have the effect of requiring a referendum on decisions such as those that I have enumerated, including, for example, on police collaboration. The effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his colleagues would be that we would not need a referendum on those other matters, which are decisions not involving a transfer of powers. That is an important distinction to consider.

I do not say that I would be happy with the Bill if it was simply amended in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his colleagues propose—I would still be very unhappy—but I would be less unhappy with it and the damage done to the national interest would be less, because the kinds of decisions that I am enumerating would be able to be reached. We would be able to take part in those decisions if this amendment went through. It is very important indeed that the noble Baroness understands that important distinction, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to go through it with her.

Let me carry on with the next example in Schedule 1, which is,

“Article 89 (cross-border operation by competent authorities)”.

Again, it is very possible to imagine scenarios in which some sensible, pragmatic arrangement needs to be reached with our European partners on cross-border issues, such as drugs, racketeering or human trafficking, which we are assured is a major problem. Under the Bill as currently drafted, such decisions could not be reached without a referendum, but they could be reached without a referendum if the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his colleagues was adopted. Perhaps the noble Baroness appreciates that point now.

Another example is,

“adoption of certain environmental measures”.

I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about that. It seems to me that it may very well be necessary, if we are to take any practical measures at all in defence of the environment, for us to reach agreement with our continental—and, indeed, Irish—neighbours. Once again, if we are half-serious about the European Union, that is an issue on which we should be able to do business without having to resort to a referendum the whole time.

Another example that is quite interesting—I will come on to “enhanced co-operation” in a second—is,

“changes to list of military products exempt from internal market provisions”.

Perhaps the coalition has not recognised this as yet, but we actually have a very major and successful defence industry—I know something about that—so it is very important indeed that, in so far as possible, our defence industry is able to sell its products within the European Union, where there are no problems of international conflict or anything of that sort. For that purpose, it could be a very good thing if the areas in which we are currently protected against single market legislation in the matter of defence goods should be reduced. That is something on which we may need to come to an agreement with others, so it would be absurd to have a referendum on a matter like that. Of course, once again, we all know that there never would be a referendum; if we enacted this Bill, we would simply be ensuring that, in practice, the Minister could never be party to an agreement.

As I said on Second Reading, it is clear to me that the consequence of enacting this Bill, including its present provisions whereby Article 48(6) decisions would be covered by the requirement for a referendum, would be not to bring the European Union to a halt or to stop the EU doing any business; the consequence would be that we would be de facto excluded from any decisions that were taken. We would simply find that we had a Minister present who had become an embarrassment to us and a joke to others. The Minister would be completely paralysed and unable not only to take part in a decision but to have any influence on that decision. We all know that you can influence discussion, negotiation or the exchange of views only if you can contribute something. I made that point in an earlier intervention. If it is known from the outset that whatever is agreed you will not be a party to it, by definition you have no leverage on the result.

The practical consequences of the Bill as drafted would be appalling. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his co-signatories on coming up with an amendment which would seriously mitigate the damage done by the Bill, though it would certainly not by any means remove all of it. However, it would at least reduce that damage, and in that sense is extremely welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I must say that I read the constitution and the Lisbon treaty and could find no fundamental difference between the two. That is why the people of this country believe that they were cheated when a referendum was not given to them.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

If the noble Lord reads the constitution and the Lisbon treaty, he will find that the whole of Part 3 of the draft constitution is not in the treaty.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I cannot confirm that now, but I will certainly check on it. However, there is little if any difference between what the constitution proposed and what was agreed in the Lisbon treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

How does that help to address the disaffection which the Government believe is the trigger at the heart of the Bill and the fundamental basis for bringing it forward? I am not suggesting that a degree of disaffection does not exist—although it can be exaggerated—but question whether the measures do anything to address that disaffection. Will a measure that hinders rather than helps transparency and accessibility in the law worsen that disaffection rather than ameliorate it? I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My noble friend’s amendment addresses a situation that I regard as a nightmare, in which not merely ministerial decisions in an executive capacity are open to judicial review—something that we have been used to in our constitutional practice for the last generation or so—but also a decision by Parliament. As I understand the present situation and as I read the Bill, were it to become an Act a ministerial decision to approve a treaty change under the significance rule without going to a referendum would nevertheless be a decision by Parliament, because Parliament would have to approve and ratify that treaty change. Parliament would decide that it was able to do that without a referendum. It would not be a ministerial decision. Quite clearly, if there was a ministerial decision to go the referendum route and not use the significance rule, that would be a ministerial decision, but it would immediately be ratified by Parliament, as I read Clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause 2(2) says:

“The referendum condition is that … the Act providing for the approval of the treaty provides that the provision approving the treaty is not to come into force until a referendum about whether the treaty should be ratified has been held”.

It is quite clear that the first decision of a Minister would be not to use the significance clause but to go to Parliament. Parliament would pass a Bill, which would come into force as an Act only when a referendum had been held. It would again be Parliament’s decision to have the referendum. As I understand it, it would be Parliament’s decision either to have or not to have a referendum. As is the present position, in all cases Parliament would have to endorse or ratify an agreement that we in some way change the treaty or add to the competencies of the Union. That is the position under the Bill at present and the position if it were amended as we tried to amend it earlier this afternoon.

That means that my noble friend’s Amendment 3 would apply in a situation in which Parliament had taken a decision. What was justiciable—the subject of a judicial review—would be a parliamentary decision. Surely that would be quite contrary to the Bill of Rights. To me, it would be a nightmare prospect and I imagine that that would be the case for many noble Lords on both sides of the House. It would be an almost inconceivable extension of judicial authority, way beyond anything that has ever been foreseen by the judiciary at present. Does the Minister agree with my interpretation and think that there is a prospect of a judicial review of what would be a parliamentary decision? Does he agree with me that we should do everything possible to exclude a priori any such possibility?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am happy to do so. I recognise that there are a number of complex judicial as well as parliamentary sovereignty issues at stake, some of which we will return to later, but I offer that assurance to the noble Lord and I hope that I have answered some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I would have preferred the previous Government to have taken an even more robust line on the Stuart Wheeler case and to have in no way taken account of the judicial review in proceeding with the ratification process or depositing the instruments of ratification. It seems intolerable that there should be any judicial oversight of the proceedings in Parliament. That seems to be explicitly excluded by the Bill of Rights. I would be particularly worried if the present Government went in for a process of slippage, going even beyond the insufficiently robust approach of the last Government and allowing the timetable for the parliamentary consideration of a particular Bill to be affected by proceedings in a court of law.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I foresee that when we get to the debate on Clause 18 we shall have a great many discussions on the exact relationship between the judiciary and Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. The time for that debate is not now but then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It was years ago, as the noble Lord says, but every time that I questioned it in opposition I was referred back to that statement. It says that on a number of occasions, there are a number of blurred edges to the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and these islands. I have scars on my back about this. On a visit to Jersey two years ago, I questioned whether the current constitutional relationship was sustainable in the light of globalisation in financial and other arrangements. I was subjected to attacks for a week in the local press, the best of which suggested that both my wife and I were French spies, so attempting to clarify the relationship can get one into deep trouble. I do not recommend that we go too far down that road.

If a treaty were to affect Gibraltar alone, we would certainly have some interesting questions but it is difficult to imagine a situation in which such a treaty change might happen. As the noble Baroness rightly suggests, there is a range of issues where the different, semi-independent entities around the European Union are affected. Monaco, Andorra and the départements and territoires d'outre-mer, or DOM-TOM, have a rather different relationship with the European Union from ours. As the noble Baroness will recall, we chose to encourage our overseas territories to fund themselves through becoming offshore financial centres rather than getting them to a closer association with the EU so that others could fund them. That might possibly have been a mistake but it is where we are.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that I heard the Minister say that if an issue affected Gibraltar alone, some very interesting questions would arise. That implies that the Minister wants to leave the legislation as it is currently drafted without those interesting questions, as he describes them, being addressed. Surely he would agree that it would be completely barmy for the people of the United Kingdom to have to vote on a referendum on a matter that affected Gibraltar alone. So why can we not simply change the text of the Bill in a common-sensical way so as to exclude that possibility completely? It would be very easy to do.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think that this is the point where I should refer to Protocol 3 to the 1972 treaty of accession to the European Union under which Gibraltar chose to become a member of the EU and the other Crown Dependencies chose to become non-members of the EU but with a number of associated areas. That is another complex area. I find it impossible to envisage a situation in which there would be a treaty change that applied to Gibraltar alone. Ultimately, this is a hypothetical question, but I see that the noble Lord wishes to pursue it further.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I ought not to be satisfied by that; when we are drafting legislation in this place, we should try to make it as complete as possible, just as one should with any legal document. We are after all talking about the laws of the land. The Minister may be brave enough to say that he himself cannot anticipate this possibility, but we know that possibilities can arise that were never anticipated even by the most brilliant minds. Surely we should just have legislation that makes it clear that there would never be the absurdity of the people of the United Kingdom having to vote in a referendum on a matter that affected Gibraltar alone.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have scars on my back from the extent clause. I have tried on previous occasions to raise the question of the extent clause and the conditions under which UK legislation applies to the Crown dependencies. This is a very arcane area.

Libya

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I imagine that I speak for many people on both sides of this Chamber when I say that, for all the hesitations that I might have had at the outset about our involvement in Libya, now that our forces are engaged alongside our allies I totally support this operation. Like all of us, I pray for the lives of our very gallant service men and women and for the success of our arms.

I thank the Government for giving us the opportunity to have this debate today and for essentially offering to listen to what Parliament has to say before important decisions are taken. I want to comment on three of the potential decisions that are coming up in the short term and then make another set of observations about the wider picture in the medium and longer term.

I am not one of those who believe that we have to have a Security Council resolution whenever we take military action anywhere. I do not believe that at all. However, it is important that, having gone to all the trouble that we have gone to and having used up our credibility in the United Nations and the Security Council to get these two resolutions, we observe the maximum good faith in complying with them. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that we should follow the spirit as well as the letter of 1973 and not deploy ground troops in Libya.

I have many reasons for not wanting to deploy ground troops. First, there are the practical difficulties, including the difficulty in extracting them and the complications that a ground campaign always involves. It is clear to me that we should take that view of the meaning of the resolution. Certainly anything more than the rapid insertion and extraction of Special Forces, if they are needed for some special operation, should not be contemplated.

Secondly, for the same reason, we have to take a clear view that the resolution bans the sale or provision of arms to anybody in Libya, so the idea of arming rebels must be out of the question. There are good practical reasons for not doing that, particularly if you do not know much about who these people are and to what use these weapons might ultimately be put in future years. That should be completely excluded.

Thirdly, there should be no question of our targeting Colonel Gaddafi. I deplore the remarks of the Secretary of State for Defence in the media when he implied that he thought that the UN resolutions were at least a cover or excuse for targeting Gaddafi. They are nothing of the kind. Again, it would be extremely damaging to our position in the United Nations and in the world if we were to breach the spirit of the resolutions in that way. It would be bad for the standing of the western world as a whole if it appeared that we were arrogating to ourselves the right to eliminate or assassinate any leaders of third-world countries whom we wanted to remove. It must be rather humiliating that the Secretary of State was contradicted and corrected on the radio the next morning by the Chief of the Defence Staff on that important matter.

Looking at the wider picture and the medium and longer term, I am not someone who believes in the concept of active, ethical foreign policies or liberal interventionism, as it is often called. One can always make a strong moral argument for intervention anywhere in the world to try to save lives or to help people; the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, with his usual eloquence, made a strong case for that this morning. Other motives also come into play. Unfortunately, such operations seem to have a fatal attraction for a certain type of Prime Minister as an ego trip but, whether the motives are very pure and very good or less pure and less good, we should exert a degree of self-discipline and use our arms quite strictly to defend ourselves and our allies when they are attacked, or in the necessary defence of our vital interests. We should be quite clear about that.

I have three reasons for saying that, two of which are permanent and long-standing and one of which is related to the present situation and conjuncture. The first of these is often given, so I need not dwell on it: it is almost impossible to predict in advance how a military operation will develop. There are always enormous risks in any kind of intervention. One can easily find oneself welcomed on day one as a liberator and then spat at or shot at only a month later as an unwanted invader. In the enthusiasm or moral conviction of the moment, it is easy to underestimate the risk of such operations.

My second reason, which is a strong one, is that a moral foreign policy almost certainly becomes a contradiction in terms. You get no moral credit for a moral foreign policy, nor can you. You are absolutely bound to end up in all kinds of contradictions and inconsistencies, which immediately undermines any ethical or moral conviction that you might wish to project. We are involved in Libya at present but, as has been said, why not in Ivory Coast, where there is an equally strong or an even greater case for humanitarian intervention? Why not in Zimbabwe or Somalia, or the Congo, where millions of people have been killed in civil wars over the past 20 years? Would we intervene in China to defend Tibet against destruction? The answer is clearly and obviously no. Immediately one is involved in these contradictions.

I have not been in the Middle East in the past two weeks, but I am absolutely certain that there must be many people there saying today, “Why is it that the West is supporting democracy in Libya against Gaddafi but not supporting democracy in Bahrain against the Khalifa Government?”. In answer to that, they say, “Ah, the Khalifa Government are the pawns of the West. They are the allies and friends of the West and Gaddafi is their enemy”. Ultimately, you end up with a reputation not merely for selfishness, which you get if you have a policy simply based on your own self-interest, but also for duplicity and hypocrisy, which is not helpful. One has to impose a certain self-denying ordinance on oneself for those reasons.

Unfortunately, there is a specific reason today why we should take a very restricted view of the extent to which we can extend our overseas military commitments. This Government, since they came to power some 10 months ago, have seriously eroded our defence capability. In just a few months, they have destroyed our maritime surveillance capability. They have decommissioned the Nimrod aircraft. They have got rid of battle tanks and helicopters. I am told that 10 of the 22 Chinooks that I ordered are being cancelled. Most horrific of all, they have decommissioned the Harriers and got rid of our carrier strike capability, a capability that could be very useful at the present time in Libya. When I denounced this decision a couple of months ago as short-termist and irresponsible, little did I think that within a few weeks we would live to regret it. Those Harriers could have been enormously valuable to us to support the operations on which we are now launched.

I fear that everything that I am hearing is that the coalition Government are determined to go on with these defence cuts, that this is not the end of the story and that they regard the defence budget as a kind of milk cow so that they can continue to get more and more money. I hope that it is a consolation for the pilots who have been laid off and for our defence forces that the Government see fit to give £200 million a year to India, which is twice what would have been required to maintain our own carrier strike capability. India is increasing its defence spending by more than 6 per cent per annum and is building up a carrier strike capability of its own. In my view, this is a disastrous policy. To extend our commitments while reducing our resources seems to me to be the very essence of irresponsibility and recklessness. The Government must understand that, if they wish to will the end, they must will the means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who spoke for the Opposition, for their very positive support for the overall pattern of government policy and for the trend and direction we are seeking to go in. No one is going to claim—I shall not—that there is complete certainty and that we can predict exactly what is going to happen. We cannot. There are risks and twists and turns ahead that none of us can foresee, but the general support is strong, and that is very gratifying. What is even more gratifying for all of us, and it will be gratifying for our Armed Forces, is the praise for the way they are performing, as usual, with efficiency, precision and determination. We have our debates across the Floor about equipment and resourcing generally—they have gone on almost regardless of who is in government—and we are right to be concerned about them, but our Armed Forces are composed of very dedicated, brave and courageous people. There is no question about that. That shows up in moments of crisis.

It is not physically possible for me to address every one of very many fine speeches that have been made this afternoon, so I shall just have to make my peace afterwards with noble Lords I do not mention. I will try to cover as best I can a number of specific questions that have very properly been put to me. I am sure I shall not achieve total satisfaction; in fact, I know I will not. We will just have to do our best and sort things out afterwards.

I shall deal first with the great general questions that have dominated the debate this afternoon. The first and central question is: are we sticking to the resolutions? We have the legal cover of the two resolutions: Resolution 1970 and Resolution 1973. Are we adhering to them? The answer is an emphatic yes. We believe we are in every respect. There were questions about how they should be interpreted and whether they allowed certain developments. I am not going in any particular order, but I come to the very authoritative comments on the resolutions by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I point out to her and to others who are quite properly examining this problem that Resolution 1973 authorises “all necessary measures” to protect civilians,

“notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970”.

That is why it is seen as a powerful resolution that fully covers what the allied coalition forces, including HMG’s forces, are doing. That is why there has been a wider debate on how much more it would permit. We must distinguish between legal advice from the expert lawyers on what it would permit and what is actually intended. One of the questions that came up, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister dealt with, is, “Would it cover the arming of the rebels?”, as opposed to, “Do you intend to arm the rebels?”. As far as the first question is concerned, there is a legal opinion, which may be disputed by other expert lawyers because—surprise, surprise—not all the lawyers agree with each other, that in certain circumstances it would permit the arming of rebels. Is there a policy intention so to do? No, that is not the intention at this stage, but nevertheless there is a resolution standing and that is how it could be interpreted.

The bigger question that has run through the debate is not so much about whether we arm the rebels as who the rebels are. What exactly is their provenance? Are they a mixture of people, are there good and bad among them, and how do we distinguish between them? The answer is that it is not easy. We are maintaining a regular dialogue with the Interim Transitional National Council in Libya. Both my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Mr Jabril, one of the most prominent leaders of the national council, when he visited London earlier this week. We have sent an initial mission to Benghazi which has been successful and plan to follow up with a second mission very soon. We will be exploring the humanitarian reconstruction and development needs as a priority, and we are actively considering what assistance we can provide within the provisions of UNSCR 1970 and 1973. That both answers the question about what we are doing and enables us to establish a channel through which we can assess more clearly the nature and resource of the people operating, whether they are people we would not wish to associate with, and so on. These things cannot be answered in precise terms from the Dispatch Box now or at any point in the near future, but this is what is happening.

Another general question that we have all asked each other during the debate is: what happens next? There is of course the first Libya Contact Group meeting in Doha in a fortnight’s time, which I described in my earlier comments. However, once again, it would be foolish for anyone at this Dispatch Box to claim that they could predict exactly what the course of events on the ground will be. In my opening speech I mentioned that the Gaddafi regime’s forces—including some mercenaries, a point made by one of your Lordships—had very recently made some substantial advances again. But the tide can flow either way and things may look very different in two weeks’ time.

I turn to the important point made repeatedly by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and many others: how do we maintain and mobilise this vast coalition of forces—forces which have their origins far outside the old traditional pattern of the western alliance—and how do we keep the momentum going? This is exactly what the contact group will address and increasingly focus on. Clearly, as was said at the London conference on Tuesday, the need is not just for involvement in the immediate problems of preventing civilians being slaughtered in large numbers, which is what the immediate mission is all about, but for mobilising to support Libya with a really cohesive and effective post-conflict strategy. Some people, looking back to the light and shade of the Iraq conflict, would say that that was what was missing in that campaign. A post-conflict strategy was not there and the whole pattern, which was declared wrongly in its first military days as one of total success then spiralled downwards into appalling years of slaughter and bloodshed. That we do not want to see again, ever.

Those are the general themes that emerged in the debate and these are my general answers, always with the necessary qualification that none of us can see exactly how this situation is going to pan out over the next few days or weeks. Our aim is the protection of civilian life and our political strategy has been openly declared by Ministers, by the Arab League and by many countries around the world, which is that the world would be a much better place and Libya would be in a much better situation if Gaddafi and his gang were to go. That is our political strategy which is being backed up by pressures of the financial and trading kind, and all kinds of other pressures which I cannot go into now. That is the pattern of activity as we go forward.

I now come to a range of specific issues that were raised by your Lordships and I will try to address them by name. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, made an obviously very learned and well-informed speech. She rightly said that we must be on our guard over the presence of dark forces such as al-Qaeda. As far as Yemen is concerned, she is absolutely right. There is a real al-Qaeda problem in northern Yemen. It is not the only problem in Yemen, which is in a very dangerous situation, as I said in my opening speech. We have advised British nationals, and I would advise all other nationals, to get out as quickly as they can, because if the explosive situation occurs, the first thing that will be closed and inaccessible is the airport. We have been advising for some time all our nationals to get out. But the al-Qaeda danger is there.

That danger may be in other of the countries where there is protest—there are only traces—but it is interesting how, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, was saying, Egypt and Tunis and, as far as we can tell, in the completely different situation in Libya, the jihadist extremist element has been invisible: it has not been there. That is not to say that al-Qaeda strategists—if there are such people—and those who are looking for the opportunity for more murder and mayhem will not be studying the situation and seeing what they can make out of it, but at the moment they have not been playing a leading part. They are not part of the cause of and motivation for what is happening.

The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, also said that I was a bit sanguine on oil prices. Her judgment may be better than mine, but it is a bold person who predicts oil price movements in the future. It is rather like currency movements: one does not know at all what will happen. Generally, at the moment, it seems that oil markets have not exploded in the way they did in some of the oil shocks of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. They have not even risen to the heights of 2008. There are factors, even as the world recovers from recession, that seem to be calming the overall energy markets. Of course, that could change.

How will Qatar go through the mechanism of trading and selling Libyan oil from the Libyan fields under opposition control and use the money for humanitarian support for the opposition forces? That has yet to be worked out and I cannot give the noble Baroness a precise mechanism by which that will be done, but a lot of work is going on at the moment.

My noble friend Lord Trimble and several other noble Lords all raised the question of the EU’s role in all of this. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the German abstention had been in his words “a major blow”. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to that in a well-informed speech. Obviously, this meant that the initial impact of the role of the EU was not as co-ordinated and focused as it should have been. But the EU has collectively and strongly condemned Colonel Gaddafi's policies and person. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that he hoped the EU would rise to the occasion. So do I. It seems to me possible and hopeful that that will happen. The EU Council conclusions welcomed Resolution 1973 and the Council expressed its determination to contribute to its implementation as well. That is where it has got to and maybe it will now develop further thoughts.

We had some debate this afternoon on whether the EU should develop a military dimension. I cannot comment on whether that will happen. For the moment, what we see is that NATO has taken the lead, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, rightly said. NATO is in charge; it is the one body that has acted extremely swiftly and effectively. I suspect that will be the way forward with it as the organising force. If there are additional humanitarian roles that the EU can play, those will be very welcome indeed.

My noble friend Lord Bates asked where the African Union featured in the pattern of things. We know that there will be a diverse range of views among African states. That is not surprising; one or two African states were always traditionally supporters of Colonel Gaddafi. He spread a lot of money around in Africa, no doubt in trying to buy other friends as well. However, the African Union has condemned what Colonel Gaddafi’s regime is doing and continues to support our actions in Libya, particularly our objective of protecting civilians and securing an end to the violence perpetrated by the Gaddafi forces. That is the African Union's position and while I cannot guarantee this, I understand that it will be represented at future meetings. We shall be working very hard to see that it is involved.

My noble friend Lord Bates made another interesting point which had not really occurred to me. He said that it was perhaps not right to refer to one possible outcome in Libya—it is not one I hope for—as a civil war, because that would somehow immediately give credibility to the Gaddafi side of it. As he rightly said, this is not a civil war but a very cruel and dangerous dictator inflicting hideous damage on his own citizens. Somehow, a civil war sounds a little more respectable than that, which it is not.

My noble friend also asked about Italy. The Italians have made a significant contribution to the military effort, including surveillance, air defence and ground attack planes as well as maritime assets. As of yesterday, we understand that Italy had 12 aircraft, four ships and one submarine under NATO command for use in Libya. Some air operations have of course been from Italian airbases as well, so the contribution has been substantial. I could go into the longer-term history of Italy's connection and involvement with Libya but that would take much too long. That raises investment and oil production issues but Italy has been active in recognising the need for the sort of action that we are seeking to take.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds asked about the Middle East peace process, as did a number of your Lordships. We are pushing as hard as we can for the parties to return to negotiations as soon as possible and we are co-ordinating closely with France and Germany as the so-called E3. We have set out our views on what the parameters for negotiations should be: the 1967 borders, with arrangements to protect Israel’s security; preventing the resurgence of terrorism; having a just, fair and agreed solution to the refugee question; and, fulfilling the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem. We have debated those matters again and again in this House and they are very familiar to us. If we can get some movement on that now, even among the general turmoil of the region, that in our view will be a major step forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked in addition about the Ivory Coast, which is not exactly in our brief today but indicates how broad a canvas we are dealing with. The situation in the Côte d'Ivoire is moving fast. We are committed to the crisis being resolved and President Ouattara taking up the office to which he has been democratically elected. The obstruction of the democratic process and associated violence raises broad concerns that affect the global community and democracy in Africa. As the noble Baroness can hear, I am reading out a suggested brief from officials in my department which does not give much information beyond what we knew already, However, from what I have seen for myself in the newspapers the situation in Abidjan is very dangerous and there will obviously great violence before President Gbagbo, who was declared to have been unelected long ago, finally surrenders. If more of his troops desert, that would finally bring him down. Côte d’Ivoire is perhaps an example of the general point that we cannot engage in everything, but that does not rule out our need to focus carefully on certain selected areas. That we are focusing on Libya seems to be entirely right.

Some, such as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, have asked whether we should not have the same sort of policy approach towards Bahrain. We argue that that is a completely different position. We have to be selective, use our judgment and accept that in Bahrain there is a different set of issues. We are clear that the Government of Bahrain and their security forces should respect the civil rights of peaceful protesters. We have called for an end to all acts of harassment by the Bahraini security forces. We are in direct contact with the Bahraini authorities and their leaders and have insisted that they show real leadership in promoting tolerance, equal access to justice and the rule of law. They are seeking a reform process and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, urged, we should be very firm in pressing it on them, as indeed we are. However, to compare the situation there with Libya is to make a large jump in logic that is not justified.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I entirely agree with the Government about Bahrain. The point that I was making was simply that there are inevitably going to be people misinterpreting the position. Once you get into an active, interventionist foreign policy, people will always try to find areas where we appear to be acting inconsistently and hypocritically.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is a fair point, which I think the noble Lord recognises is a point of argument rather than of policy, and I accept it.

The noble Lord, Lord Stone, comes forward in these debates with marvellously constructive proposals for really making things hum on the ground. He spoke about opening small businesses, retail shops and so on, which are the lifeblood of almost all the economies that we are talking about and without which they will never prosper again. He said that our powerful supermarket chains in this country could help. These are fascinating proposals; I shall take them away and study them as closely as his earlier proposals in a debate that we had a few weeks ago about Palestine.

The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, wanted to know what the Prime Minister meant on the recognition issue when he said that we recognise countries, not Governments. I would use almost the same words although perhaps I would say that we recognise states, not Governments. I do not see the difficulty that the noble Lord is having over this. States have Governments that are lawful; if there is not a lawful Government or no clear Government, there is no basis for recognition. At the moment we recognise those countries that have a lawful Government. Even if they are in a state of hostility, we still recognise them. I am not too sure that I see the problem. Perhaps he can explain it.

Inter-parliamentary Scrutiny: EUC Report

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roper]

My Lords, this Motion endorses the seventh report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which I chair. The proposal sets out the arrangements which we would like to put in place for the inter-parliamentary scrutiny of the common foreign, security and defence policy of the European Union, following the winding up of the Western European Union, and therefore its Assembly.

The proposal is in the same terms as one approved by the other place, on the basis of a report from its Foreign Affairs Select Committee, on 10 March. I am grateful to that committee and its chairman, and to the House of Commons European Scrutiny and Defence Committees for their informal co-operation, which has allowed the committees of both Houses to come to a common position on the matter.

It might be of assistance to the House if I briefly set out the context for the Motion before the House today. As many noble Lords will know, the member states of the Western European Union decided this time last year that the organisation should be dissolved with effect from the middle of 2011. I need not tell this House that the Western European Union and its Assembly has played a valuable and unique role giving international parliamentary oversight of European security and defence matters. About 30 years ago, in the 1970s, I myself served in the Assembly and was a chairman of its defence committee, so I know its work in that period very well.

More recently, as the first head of the Western European Union Institute for Security Studies, which was co-located in the Assembly building, I have seen how many noble Lords have contributed actively to the work of the Assembly over the years, and I pay full tribute to the important work which they have done.

The question now before us is: what should be done to replace it? The inter-governmental nature of decision-making in the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy of the European Union means that parliamentary scrutiny of those policies should not be left to the European Parliament. The significance of the CFSP and the CSDP activities is that those are decisions made by the European Council, which is of course made up of Foreign Ministers from the member states, who are held to account by their national Parliaments. It is therefore important that national Parliaments should be aware of and share in considering those matters at a European level.

As we state in our report, the European Union Committee is of the view that it is vital that some forum for inter-parliamentary debate on these matters is maintained in the post-WEU period, with national Parliaments taking the lead. The issue of how the forum should be structured is the principal subject for discussion at next week's conference of European Union Speakers’ in Brussels. As is indicated in the Motion, we ask for the House’s endorsement of the committee’s approach today, so that when, next Monday, I will be representing the Lord Speaker, I will have a mandate to agree to new arrangements.

The proposals are set out in full in our report, but I shall refer only to the principal points. We propose that the successor body should be a European Union inter-parliamentary conference on foreign affairs, defence and security, with the acronym of COFADS. It should,

“secure continued inter-parliamentary scrutiny of this area of EU activity”,

and,

“would not be an additional or autonomous institution”.

In fact, it would replace the current biennial meetings of the chairs of the foreign affairs and defence committees of national Parliaments. Therefore, it,

“would minimise costs, while adding value to the work that each national parliament does on its own in this field”.

Under our proposal, all the European Union national Parliaments and the European Parliament, but only those Parliaments, would have full membership of the COFADS body. Parliaments of official European Union candidate members would be automatically invited as observers—that is, Croatia, Macedonia, Iceland and, importantly, Turkey. We make it clear in our proposal that it would be possible for other countries to be invited on the decision of the presidency. In speaking to the matter next week, I shall of course refer particularly to the case of the other European members of NATO, especially Norway, which has made strong representations to us on this subject. Delegations from each country would consist of a maximum of six delegates per Parliament, including the European Parliament. That would be three per Chamber in the case of a bicameral Parliament such as our own.

The proposal is that the new body, COFADS, would meet once in every presidency; that is, twice a year. We propose that the meetings should as a general rule be held in Brussels or in the presidency country; but we feel that there would be some advantage in it not necessarily meeting in the European Parliament, to make quite clear that it is a distinct body of national Parliaments rather than something else. Organisational responsibility would be borne by the Parliaments of the troika countries—the country holding the presidency, the country about to hold the presidency and the country that had just held the presidency. They would be responsible for providing the secretariat function with support from the secretariat that already exists in Brussels and services COSAC, the conference of the national European committees of the Parliaments of the European Union.

This is the position of the European Union Committee and it has already been endorsed by the other place; and, as I said, next week I will go to Brussels for the Speakers’ conference, and if the House agrees to the Motion on the Order Paper, it will be the position of both Houses of the UK Parliament. The Speakers’ conference makes its decisions on the basis of consensus. Finding a consensus in advance of the conference has so far not been totally straightforward. However, I am pleased that a significant majority of other European Union national Parliaments broadly support the position outlined in your Lordships’ committee’s report.

On 24 February, the Belgian Parliament, as host of the forthcoming Speakers’ conference, circulated a draft proposal for the future of the CFSP and the CSDP scrutiny—noble Lords may have seen it in the very useful debate pack which the Library prepared for today’s debate. The proposal was a significant way away from the position that I have outlined today. It envisaged, in particular, a significantly greater role for the European Parliament than we would be prepared to accept, notably with the European Parliament holding a permanent co-presidency of the conference and providing up to a third of the delegates but not providing the secretariat.

In response to the proposal, I wrote jointly with Richard Ottaway, the chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, to the Speakers of the two Belgian Houses. We set out in our letter the positions of the two committees, and I am very pleased to say that many other national Parliaments have made similar representations. The Belgian presidency reflected on those responses and issued a revised proposal last Friday, which is also in the Library’s debate pack. It has obviously taken serious account of the representations made by the national parliaments and the revised proposal is heading in the right direction. We should be grateful for that. Thanks to its efforts, an agreement on a proposal next week, which will only be possible on the basis of consensus, now looks a more likely prospect.

However, there remain in the Belgian proposal some areas of concern. Most seriously, the Belgians suggest that the national parliamentary delegations should be limited to four members. In order to allow proper party political balance and Select Committee representation, we remain firmly of the view that delegations should be allowed up to six members per Parliament. Secondly, in our view, the European Parliament is still given too great a proportion of the delegates. In the revised proposal, the proportion has been reduced from a third of the total membership to a quarter of the total size of the national parliamentary delegations. Although there are other matters in the Belgian revised compromise proposal—such as the location of meetings—which also diverge somewhat from the intended UK position, it is these two issues on which we have the strongest views and on which we have been supported most strongly by most other national Parliaments. If the House agrees to our report today, I will argue strongly for the position in the report, and I will feel unable to agree to a proposal that does not come significantly closer to the UK Parliament's position than the revised Belgian proposal on these two points of substance.

As is clear from the report before the House, the European Union Committee's clear view is that the continuation of an inter-parliamentary forum is necessary to ensure that the demise of the WEU does not leave a serious gap in scrutiny. Should we have needed reminding, recent events in north Africa and the Middle East have demonstrated the fundamental importance of discussing and perhaps sometimes reaching agreement on common foreign, security and defence policies. The WEU Assembly will meet for the last time in June. It is therefore wholly desirable that the European Union Speakers’ Conference next week can reach a decision so that the new forum can become operational later this year. I am optimistic that, with further compromise, such a decision can be reached, and I will do everything I can to secure it.

The committee's position is clearly set out in the report. I believe that it is a sensible and appropriate response to the winding up of the WEU Assembly and, if agreed to, will make a good framework for inter-parliamentary scrutiny for years to come. I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am very happy with this proposal and delighted to hear of the progress which the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has made in negotiating it. I congratulate him first on having seen off Mr Lidington’s completely inappropriate and ill thought through proposal that countries other than members of the European Union, or even candidate members, should be members of this body. Part of this body’s function is to hold the Council of Ministers, the European Council and the high representative to account, so the idea of a body that is composed of states that are not even members of the European Union holding the European Council to account or sending instructions to the high representative is utterly absurd. It would be rather like us trying to intervene in the activities of the African Union or sending instructions to its director-general, if that is what he is called. I am therefore very glad indeed that the noble Lord’s judgment and that of his colleagues has prevailed over the Government’s initial proposal.

As the noble Lord said, one or two matters have been left open, but they are obviously secondary or tertiary matters and I hope that he will feel able to display whatever flexibility is required. Those on all sides of the House who know him—I have known him for many years: indeed, long before I got into this place—will have the highest respect for his judgment, and it is important that he feels that he can go back to the meeting with a degree of negotiating flexibility. Some of the outstanding issues, such as whether meetings can be held in the premises of the European Parliament, seem a little theological and indeed rather petty, so giving way on such a matter in order to get an agreement sooner and to establish quite clearly what the regime will be would be very much in the interests of this House and indeed of the country and the future functioning of this committee.

I conclude with one thought. Perhaps noble Lords will think I am slightly self-interested in saying this, and perhaps I am, but I do not necessarily apologise for that. The proposed arrangement is very good, but the noble Lord will appreciate that it leaves entirely in the hands of three Members of this House and three Members of the House of the Commons the important role of co-ordinating with parliaments of other member states on the vital issue of the future of the common and foreign security policy and possibly defence policy of the European Union. Is there some scope for having from time to time—certainly not as frequently as the meetings of the proposed new committee but at most once a year or maybe less—a slightly wider conference enabling those of us in both Houses who take a close interest in these matters to meet colleagues in the other European Union member states to discuss those matters and to see what the views are and how they are evolving, and where consensus might be possible and where it might not be possible? In other words, is there some scope for getting a flavour of the debate directly, as one could in the old days when there was the WEU Assembly? In much older days, long before I became involved in public life and before direct elections to the European Parliament, Members of both Houses attended meetings at which they could discuss matters of common interest with other members of national parliaments and the European Community.

Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, knows, I do not suggest for one moment going back on the decision to have direct elections to the European Parliament—far from it. That is an obvious and a great improvement. But I should be grateful if he could give some thought, and possibly discuss it with his British and other EU colleagues, as to whether there might be some opportunity from time to time to widen the circle a little bit in order that these important matters, which are sometimes extremely complex, are not left exclusively in the arcane hands of a small number of experts—great as the expertise will certainly be, at least from the, I think, six representatives which the British side will send to the committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roper]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and have made helpful contributions to our consideration of this topic. As the Minister said in his closing remarks, Norway has already played a very active part in a number of the missions of the CSDP so, whether this should be automatic or whether it should be the norm, by convention it would always be invited. We have kept the model as it is in the report because that is the practice in COSAC; that body has a framework in the protocol to the treaty. To make that a right could lead to problems. However, we believe that Norway should be invited on every occasion, and I will certainly make that point clear when we have the discussions next week.

It was quite interesting that the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Jopling, had different ideas as to whether the body should be larger or smaller. At the moment, given the pressures on budgets, it is going to be a case of keeping the size down. If we eventually move into a situation where more resources are available for inter-parliamentary co-operation, the possibility of having larger meetings from time to time of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to should be considered.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The figure of six is probably right but I would be perfectly happy with four; I do not feel strongly about that. My suggestion was that in addition to that there could be a rather more informal occasion where a rather larger number of people could take part for the sake of informing a wider range of people in all national parliaments, including our own, about the current agenda of these important discussions.

[Lord Roper]

I noticed that. However, I think that the issue at the moment is the impact of the present period of austerity on the budgets of national parliaments, as we discussed at the Speakers’ conference last year. The impact is such that one has some difficulty in making proposals for too much of that at the moment. Nevertheless, the idea should be retained and brought forward when there are more possibilities.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. I also very much appreciate the helpful advice—based on his great experience of inter-parliamentary co-operation in very many of these bodies—of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. As for the issue of four rather than six, we say “a maximum of six”. Some of the unicameral parliaments—Malta, for example—never send more than two or three members to COSAC even though they are entitled to send six. One will not have six from everywhere. We have had informal discussions with our colleagues from the House of Commons, where there is a wish to send someone from the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee. It would not necessarily be the case, as the noble Lord said, that this House would need to have three. However, if we were to restrict the number to four, there would be a feeling not only in the House of Commons but in some of the other parliaments that it was too restrained. We will obviously have to consider this matter with care next week.

I hope that we will be able to achieve the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for 12 members from the European Parliament. It is certainly a matter to be considered. As for his point on the secretariat, the COSAC secretariat has always had someone from the European Parliament as one of the members. It would only happen in that way and as part of the general secretariat, rather than as the European Parliament coming in and providing it, as was at one time suggested.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will see, we have in the report a “no committees” point, at point 15 on page 9. At point 18, on page 10, we take up the point that he made about the need for technical and military advice from time to time. We will certainly examine how that can be done.

I was grateful for the support from the two Front Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was—alas—only too briefly a member of the committee. Interestingly enough, however, in that short time, he was with us when we agreed this report.

Part of the problem with the European Parliament is that although we talk about the Lisbon treaty, there are in fact two treaties. Most of the stuff concerning the CFSP, the CSDP and the treaty which is purely inter-governmental is in the Treaty on European Union. That is of course what this is dealing with. On the other hand, if you turn to Part 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you will see a great wodge of other external activities of the European Union for which the European Parliament has responsibility and on which its external affairs committee legitimately takes the lead. That is appropriate as those activities are dealt with on a Community basis. However, the European Parliament would like to try to blur the distinctions, as it were, between the two treaties. The point we will be making next week is that that distinction must be maintained as it is made clear in one of the declarations that the relevant treaty will give the European Parliament no more power in the field of common foreign and security policy.

I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Howell, that it is highly desirable to have the meeting in Brussels. We have left a certain amount of discretion in this regard as a presidency should have some power but we trust that Brussels will be seen as the norm for all the reasons that were given. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his remarks. I have nothing further to say in that regard except that we were extremely grateful for the help we received from his right honourable friend the Minister for Europe, Mr Lidington, in the informal conversations which went on between committees of this House and of the other place in preparing the two parallel reports on this subject. We are very conscious of the point he made about the need to obtain value for money. That very much goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.

As I say, I am very grateful for the comments that have been made and I shall certainly take them with me when I go to Brussels next week.

Shipping: Piracy

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Our assessment is positive, both of the Indian naval operations and the naval operations of other countries, including China. This is a co-ordinated effort, and maybe the co-ordination can grow tighter still. We think this should all carry forward in a closely integrated way. As to the legal aspects of the situation, there are the rules of engagement and the operational duties under which a sort of constabulary context is conducted towards pirates. This might need to become more robust in our different countries, but we have to stick by the law of the sea and we have to proceed carefully for fear of involving ourselves in far more complexities in this area, rather than reducing it and maybe being more effective against the pirates.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on drawing the House’s attention to a very pressing problem that, in my view, has not had enough attention up until now. Is it not absurd that we in this country should be supporting no fewer than three task forces, potentially leaving our sailors and marines at risk of their lives there, and doing nothing at all to interrupt the constant flow of money into the hands of pirates? We have in this country an elaborate structure of criminal assets legislation and anti-money laundering legislation. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Justice and the Home Office to see whether we cannot use these existing mechanisms to interrupt the flow of money that is making piracy a growing and increasingly profitable industry?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not quite accept the noble Lord’s point that we are doing nothing at all. He is quite right that this is a growing concern. We had an excellent debate on it just before Christmas and he is right to raise it again now. These are all areas where progress can be made. There is a contact group and a highly effective operation throughout Whitehall involving all departments in tightening the situation. We have to tackle all these matters and are doing so in many areas very vigorously. To say we are doing nothing at all is going too far, but if the noble Lord feels we should go further, clearly we should because the piracy issue is getting worse and not better.