Iran Nuclear Deal

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

At the outset of this debate, the whole focus is on the concept that we have benefited and will continue to benefit from being members of the single market, and that by being outside and only having access to it—like every other country that exports into the European region—we would be vastly disadvantaged. I am afraid I am going to say something that will probably be unpopular on both sides and which asks your Lordships to look more closely at what is actually happening in the patterns of both European and world trade currently. I am not talking about 1990, or the world of globalisation in the last century, but about the fantastic, revolutionary disruption and transformation of the pattern of trade that has gone on for the last five or 10 years. Unless we understand that, and the impact it is having on trade throughout the region and on the relevance and nature of the single market, which has changed beyond recognition from the single market of a decade or so ago, we will not reach very sensible conclusions.

Lord Keynes was quoted earlier. He said many things, but one of the interesting things he said was that his real quarrel was not with those who disputed his economic theories or arguments but with those who persistently failed to see what was actually going on. That is the theme I want to develop. We can expend enormous indignation on asserting that in the single market everything will be okay but that out of it there will be disaster. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has suggested that with great eloquence and clearly believes it to be the position. But we have to grasp what is going on and understand the nature of the flow of trade to see just what the disadvantages would be if, instead of having membership of the single market, with all the standards, regulations, access, tariff-free areas, co-ordination of regulations and so on, we were outside it, although still obviously able to trade into it like any other country.

I start from a rather remarkable statement made by the chief economist to the Bank of England, I think last week, that from his point of view whether we were inside or outside the single market would have no “material” effect on the UK’s growth over the next three years—he put a time on it. That is rather a remarkable statement from a very high authority, not someone known to be biased one way or the other but someone speaking totally objectively. I had to ask myself how he could come to that conclusion. Have we not been told that outside the single market it will all be disaster and we must somehow stay in as full members? This raises all the other issues we have so vigorously debated, including the problems in the island of Ireland and many other issues. If one begins to look at the detail, the answer is very interesting.

I suspect what he has seen, and what your Lordships might possibly turn their eyes to, is that the whole nature of international trade is shifting at record speed in two directions. First, there is the vast growth in services, digital information, data transmission and information exchange, so much so that McKinsey is telling us that more than half the wealth generated worldwide comes from the transmission of data and information and not from goods trade at all. The old world of trade being dominated by containers or great ships sailing out of Felixstowe, or whatever it was, is rapidly disappearing. Services are the huge growth area in every aspect of international trade, including into the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, is quite right that sales of services into the European Union have been large—they are about a third of our total export of services throughout the world—but frankly they are not doing very well. In so far as they have got in to Europe’s single market, services have gone through a bit of a struggle, not through tariffs—because you cannot put tariffs on those services—but through all sorts of local and national regulations and control. They have been pretty flat over recent years because there never was a glorious single market in services. We struggled for 40 years to improve one and got nowhere at all, and the chances are that countries outside the European Union have done rather better with our services and imports into the European Union than we have.

It may be that in future, outside the single market—this may be in Mr Haldane’s mind—we can do rather better with services in Europe. If we cannot do better in Europe—it is very difficult because of the all these local restrictions on how things are set up—we should look to the areas where service developments are growing at a very fast pace. This is certainly right across the part of the world that deals in the English language and has common legal, political, social, ethical and cultural practices, which tends to be a Commonwealth network in English-speaking nations, including the United States of America, which is our biggest export market of all. We have no single market and no free trade agreement with America, but it is by far our largest single market of any country.

That is the first point: services are growing at a phenomenal exponential rate and now dominate world trade and are beginning to dominate our own earnings overseas. Secondly, services know no boundary or tariff barrier, so the services we sell into Europe—this, again, may be in Mr Haldane’s mind—will not be very much affected by whether we are in the single market or not. It is a tough area anyway. We export £89 billion, gross, of services of every kind, including financial services, into the European market and that is about a third of the much bigger degree of service exports all around the rest of the world. It is not a question of tariff barriers. The tariff barriers are anyway extremely low, except for one or two things such as car components, which are at 10%. We would have to think about that, but generally we are moving into a zero-tariff world. It is quite different from 1990, when developing southern and eastern countries were taught that they would have to have high tariffs and heavy investment protection.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I shall just finish this sentence. The culture before 1990 was of high tariffs and protection against foreign investment, which was deemed colonial. The culture of the last 30 years has been the opposite, with low tariffs all around the world and direct investment agreements to encourage more investment. I give way.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am listening to him with great attention, as I always do. He is making the case for certain aspects of the digital services market; he does not say much about whether we are part of the single market or not. Does he not agree that for manufacturing, which is about 10% of our GDP, the imposition of tariffs would be extremely serious? Does he also not agree that for financial services—which, as I have already mentioned in a different context, accounts for about 10% of our GDP as well—the loss of the passports which enable us to trade in the single market would be equally catastrophic?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Although manufacturing is very important, it is a smaller and diminishing proportion of our export earnings. As I think the government White Paper points out, at least 33% of the value embedded in any manufactural product—I think the figure is 37%—comes from services. When you think about manufacturing, you have to think about something that is really not quite a manufacture or a service; it is a product of a service and high technology. A good example for the noble Lord is the Japanese company Uniqlo, which produces garments—not from Japanese manufacturing but from Japanese technology and services. All around the world, this pattern is developing. What I am trying to bring before your Lordships is the realisation—

Ukraine

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I feel that in a dangerous situation of this kind the first duty is to escape from hyperbole. This is not a renewal of the Cold War and the 20th-century ideological conflict, which has passed into history. It is certainly not the greatest crisis in Europe since 1945—that is an absurd exaggeration—let alone a repeat of the horrors of Sudetenland. If anything, it is the old 19th-century struggle involving unending tensions in the eternally disputed lands between Russia and Europe and the always unanswered question of where Europe ends, whether Russia is part of it and in whose sphere the regions and the lands in between should lie.

But there is a huge difference. In the 21st century, conditions internationally have totally changed. The world is now hyper-connected at every level, from schoolchildren in their schools, to universities, to business, to science, to major corporations and every conceivable interest in between. We are wound together in ways that not even some of our policymakers have fully grasped. Even in the past five years there has been a total transformation of the international landscape and huge shifts of power, with which some people in Moscow, and perhaps some even in the West, seem not to have caught up.

Of course there should be no appeasement of rough methods and treaty breaches, but nor should there be any hysteria. I have in mind the primitive outpourings in the New York Times and the ridiculous over-the-top piece in yesterday’s Financial Times saying that this was going to be the end of democracy in our time. Nor should we be driven by demands on the White House to show more machismo—“See off the Russkies”, and so on—and we certainly should not buy into the “weak Obama” story being spread about, although I must say that I think he made a huge mistake yesterday in using the word “never” about Crimea’s changing status. Rule 1 is never to use the word “never”. When I hear speeches of the sabre-rattling kind, I share the view of Bismarck, who said:

“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing”.

He went on to say:

“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia”.

But of course he was sacked after that.

I believe that we should view the current crisis in two perspectives, which are not totally separate but which comprise two distinct areas. For the medium term, I fully support making Vladimir Putin and the cronies in his circle count the full and very painful cost of trying to use force in the rest of Ukraine, should they be so stupid as to do so. Not only will force not work in an age of street empowerment, as former President Yanukovych found out all too rapidly, but it will ruin Russia even while it certainly will hurt us as well. My noble friend Lady Warsi rightly referred to that.

However, our leverage is far greater in the medium term than many people realise. The financial screws can bring down the weak Russian financial system, while the vital gas and oil revenues, on which the whole of Putin’s Russia and certainly his inner clique float, can be drained away in due course. That is his jugular vein. Russia today is living on the hopes of high gas and oil prices; I believe that the budget can be balanced if the price is $119 a barrel. That can easily be undermined and removed. It could take time, because of course the idea that USA shale gas can come to the immediate rescue is a fantasy. It has been a fantastic story—shale gas provided 3% of US needs four years ago and provides 30% to 35% today—but just at the moment US gas inventories are extremely low and the gas export terminals are not yet completed.

None the less, gradually and in due course Europe can live without Russian gas, or it will acquire the customer power to beat down the price substantially, thus removing Gazprom’s monopoly position in the central European customer countries—as long as it is not stopped by misplaced green zealotry, which of course could undermine even that. Piped gas can come from Norway and from Azerbaijan in the Caspian region, while LNG can come from just about everywhere in growing quantities. Eventually, shale gas will indeed change everything, as I kept warning my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during my time there, but it will not be tomorrow. That is the medium term, where we are actually in a very strong position. We should have the confidence to develop it and set it out quite clearly to Mr Putin and his advisers.

It is on the immediate Crimean vote where we really need a sense of proportion and a lot of creative diplomacy. To let the Crimean situation escalate into an East-West military confrontation with total Russian isolation—if that was possible, which in fact it is not—would be to abort world recovery and to create massive worldwide suffering and probably political turmoil all round, on an impossible scale. To say that there should, instead, be a search for a deal is not appeasement; it is common sense. If there is to be a search for a deal, it should include urging Russia to wait until there is a fully elected Government in Kiev—Russia of course completely rejects the current interim Government—before rushing to complete the 100% annexation of Crimea, although it looks very late in the day from Mr Putin’s speech this morning, and to work with and talk to the new Government in Kiev when they are elected.

Ironically, taking Crimea away from Ukraine makes a Europe-inclined Government much more likely. This is a curious twist of the situation, because it would return a majority in favour of those looking west rather than east. In exchange, there could be a lifting of the targeted sanctions that we have now put in place and joint agreement in the proposed contact group, which both sides have agreed on, to work for Ukraine’s economic recovery. That will be extremely expensive, because it is bankrupt, and will only work if both sides co-operate. The final part of any package could be the re-inclusion of Russia in the G8. We should remember that Ukraine is extremely rich in all kinds of resources including, ironically, vast resources of shale gas.

It is not beyond the wit of diplomats to find an interim status for Crimea as an independent entity, as some Crimean leaders themselves have suggested. It would be a superficially independent little nation, like many others that have sprung up in recent years. However, of course, while they talk about independence, they are all in fact completely interdependent in practice, as all small nations have to be nowadays and as Scotland would soon discover if it voted for the independence illusion—it no longer in practice exists.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am listening carefully to the possible package that he is outlining, which might be the basis for some agreement over Crimea. Some solution must of course at some point be achieved. Does he agree that an essential part of such a package is that if we recognise the right of Crimea to exercise self-determination and join Russia if it wishes to do so—if the procedures are democratic and so forth—equally the right of the people of the rest of Ukraine to self-determination should also be respected? If they choose in due time to join the European Union and NATO, they should be allowed to do so and that should be recognised by Russia.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that those would be the unfolding ideals. It is in the interests of Russia—although I am not sure that it fully understands this—to have a stable Ukraine that is confident and able to resolve its internal differences, with the Russian-speaking part and the Ukrainian-speaking part living together. However, even that is a ridiculous division, because many Ukrainian people speak Russian and many Russian people speak Ukrainian. Until recently—until the tensions rose and there was this polarisation—no one cared a damn what language they spoke in Ukraine. It is possible for these people to live together.

The kind of evolution for Crimea that I am talking about is possible. However, the fact is that the Crimean referendum has happened, with 96% or whatever it was voting in favour, and the previous unstable status quo cannot be magically restored. I agree that there is indeed a generalised separatist movement going on all round the world, which noble Lords have already referred to. It is not just in Russia—Nagorno-Karabakh is stirring again, we hear what they are saying down in Catalonia and we know what is being said on our own island in Scotland. However, this has more to do with local digital empowerment, which is growing everywhere, than specifically with Russian imperialism.

Eventually, if we keep our minds on the true goals and interests of this country, it should be clear that it is completely in our interests to have a prosperous, open, connected and stable Russia. Russia cannot just eventually become a pariah nation, if its rulers want to survive and be part of, for instance, the World Trade Organisation, as they are, and the global economic system.

Finally, some other lessons have emerged from this. First, the European Union collectively—and we can provide some help from London—should rethink the style of its approach to neighbouring states. The EU, as much as Russia, has, I am afraid, helped to polarise a nation that could have lived together and could still live together, with the language issues being put back in the box as being largely irrelevant.

Secondly, with most countries and peoples continuously connected nowadays with an intensity never before experienced in history, with the electronic empowerment of all kinds of groups, official and unofficial, and the consequent fragmentation in the whole pattern of state power in country after country, and with the rising influence and economic weight of the non-western world—the “rise of the rest”—the whole behaviour pattern of international affairs has started to shift. For America, as much as for Europe, and the UK within Europe, if we want to prosper in these new conditions it is time to shift our attitudes as well. Force and coercion alone can no longer settle borders, crush minorities or deliver clear-cut victories, as we have bitterly discovered in many theatres in recent times. Softer and smarter methods have to be deployed, and the sooner that is grasped in Moscow, Washington and, indeed, Brussels, the better.

Falkland Islands

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, who speaks to us from the heart of history. He was there and experienced the agonies and challenges of that time, 30 years ago. The country is grateful to him for that as well. As to his question about whether we have the resources to meet global problems, one has to be realistic. If all sorts of crises were to develop on all sorts of fronts—for instance, all the pinch points in the world traffic of oil, gas and energy—no one country could deliver a full Merchant Marine to cover that. Do we have the resources to defend the Falkland Islands against the dreadful, absurd and almost ridiculous prospect of a threat from Argentina again? Yes, we do, but I hope that Argentina will not be stupid enough to do that. We certainly intend to maintain those resources; there can be no doubt at all about that.

However, who knows what great world threats may develop in these troubled times? If they do, we obviously have to act closely with our allies. One could not expect one country alone—perhaps not even the mighty United States—to be able to mobilise adequate resources for all the troubles in the world. There are plenty, not least the piracy on the eastern side of Africa—and, increasingly, on the western side—which now take some of our resources. There are many other problems as well.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord has already received what he rightly described as robust support from my noble friend on behalf of the Opposition for the Government’s support for this referendum, and for his justified words in describing the recent behaviour of the Argentinian Government. I think he will get equally robust support universally, throughout the House this afternoon. I hope that he is able to tell the Argentinian ambassador about that personally.

However, I am afraid that the Government cannot escape a wide measure of responsibility for the very bad change in the situation over the past year, particularly in the behaviour of the Argentinians. It was the worst possible signal to send to Argentina when we got rid of our carrier strike capability. We sent a signal that if the Falkland Islands were ever invaded again in the future, next time we would not be able to retake them. That was thoroughly deplorable. In this very unfortunate situation, will the Government consider the possibility of regularly deploying a “Trafalgar”-class or, prospectively, an “Astute”-class submarine in the south Atlantic? It should surface from time to time to leave no doubt in anybody’s mind that it is there.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot comment on the movements of our submarines or on related intelligence matters. I applaud what the noble Lord said at the beginning but completely refute his later sentences. There are forces in the Falklands. We are perfectly well placed to rebut and repel any renewed invasion. Decisions about the strategic defence review, the future of our carriers and so on have no effect whatever on that sustained ability to defend the islanders against another invasion.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There is complete freedom outside the treaties to take any decisions we want. I will come in more detail to what I have just said in reference to the EFSM, and during the afternoon we can discuss what other mechanisms of support for economies, whether in Europe or the eurozone or not, are justified, but that is the position in relation to what we are discussing today.

It is not the first time that this treaty amendment has been considered by Parliament. Before the Prime Minister signed the treaty last March, a Motion in favour of signature was passed by both Houses, with no opposition in your Lordships’ House. At the time I committed to bringing the decision before Parliament again. Thus we are applying the more rigorous requirements for parliamentary control over European Union decision-making, as we committed to do in the European Union Act 2011. Parliamentary approval will enable the UK to complete its ratification process for this treaty amendment.

I recognise that 14 months is a long time in eurozone terms, so it may help your Lordships if I recap how the European Council came to decide to amend the treaty. In May 2010, in response to the first Greek crisis, two emergency instruments were established to respond to the financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility. This is an emergency facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states. It is used to provide loans to euro area member states in difficulty. The UK is not—I repeat, not—a member of the EFSF and has no exposure to the financial assistance provided by it.

The second is the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which I have already mentioned, which we inherited from the previous Government. Under this mechanism, the Council can agree, by qualified majority, to the Commission providing assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the European Union budget. It therefore created a contingent liability for the United Kingdom, which is a very important point.

As uncertainty continued in financial markets, the European Council agreed in December 2010 to amend Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. The amendment confirms that member states of the eurozone may establish a permanent stability mechanism. This mechanism—the European stability mechanism, or ESM—which I have already mentioned, will provide a permanent means for dealing with events that pose a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole.

Having gained Parliament’s approval in March 2011, the Prime Minister returned to Brussels to agree to the decision at the European Council. The decision must now be ratified by all 27 members before the amendment to Article 136 can come into force. The target date for entry into force, as set out in the European Council decision, is 1 January 2013.

As I have already mentioned, the Minister for Europe and I committed to further consideration of the decision under the terms of the EU Act 2011 when it came into force. Under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the Foreign Secretary laid a Statement before Parliament in October 2011. He indicated that in his opinion a referendum is not required to give parliamentary approval. The proposed amendment to Article 136 applies only to member states whose currency is the euro. Consequently it does not transfer further competence or power to the European Union from the United Kingdom. The statement was open to judicial review, but in the intervening eight months no one has sought to challenge it in the courts.

To comply fully with the requirements of the EU Act, I am now presenting this Bill to the House. Should Parliament grant its approval, the Government intend to ratify the European Council decision by the end of this year.

Now I turn briefly to the European stability mechanism itself. The ESM is a stability mechanism funded by eurozone countries to provide financial assistance to eurozone countries. The intention is that it will replace both the EFSM and EFSF. It is being set up under an intergovernmental treaty that was signed on 2 February by eurozone member states. It must now be ratified by all 17 member states and is expected to come into force in July 2012.

The treaty amendment does not establish the ESM. The UK, of course, will not ratify the ESM as we have not signed up to the intergovernmental agreement, and the amendment certainly does not commit the UK to contribute to any bailout fund. However, let me make it clear what the decision does. The treaty amendment that we are asking Parliament to approve will put beyond doubt the ability of eurozone countries to set up a financial assistance mechanism. It does this by adding a third paragraph to Article 136, which states that eurozone member states may establish a financial stability mechanism to assist other eurozone member states in financial difficulties. Article 136 applies solely to member states whose currency is the euro. Therefore, the provisions of Article 136 do not apply to the UK.

Alongside the agreement to enshrine the legal basis for the mechanism in the EU treaty, the Prime Minister secured an important agreement. Once the ESM is established, Article 122(2), on which basis the EFSM was established, should no longer be used for such purposes. Our liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget will be removed. This is strongly in the UK’s national interest.

The intensification of the crisis has led eurozone member states to agree to bring forward the introduction of the ESM to July 2012. When they announced this decision in January, we carefully considered the implications that it would have on our handling of the treaty amendment. Would it need to be ratified sooner, and was it still needed at all? We decided to proceed as planned, as it has always been the Government’s opinion that without the agreement to amend the treaty there would be no European stability mechanism. The clear message from eurozone member states is that they still need this treaty amendment.

That brings me back to the central point of why this Bill is important.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that it was the intention that the ESM should now enter into force next month. Indeed, we support the urgency of that, as I understand it. Therefore, why are we taking so long to ratify this? If we really support the initiative and recognise its urgency, why cannot we ratify it as soon as Parliament has approved this Bill?

Somalia: Piracy

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord will not be surprised at my answer that these matters are kept under constant review. We need to deploy in the most effective manner the forces that our resources allow us to deploy, and we will continue to examine all needs and priorities in that light.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am very glad that I gave way to the noble and gallant Lord because I thoroughly agreed with his intervention. If we are half-serious about dealing with this menace, should not the first and indispensable step be to cut off the flow of funds to the pirates? Every week literally millions of pounds are passed to the pirates from ship owners and particularly from underwriters. The largest share of this probably comes from underwriters in the City of London. The means used to pass the funds may be unconventional but the payments are perfectly legal. If we were to criminalise the payments and use the existing apparatus of criminal assets seizure legislation and money-laundering legislation to interdict them, would that not be a very substantial step in the direction of dealing with the problem?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I say to the noble Lord that actually the first step is to deal with the conditions on land that give rise to the piracy operation by sea; that is where we start. However, he is quite right that the flow of cash and finance is a very important part of this. We are working with Interpol and with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to see whether we can be more effective in tracing the patterns of finance. It is not easy but it is certainly an area where we should concentrate.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

With great respect for the noble Lord, whose experience in European affairs is enormous, that is widening the debate vastly from discussing the amendment before us at Third Reading. The noble Lord is raising all sorts of political issues, on which I am very happy to engage, but this would not be the appropriate process and your Lordships would rightly criticise me for going into those issues. I am pleased that we have seen an acceptance of the principle that there should be a referendum on future treaty changes which transfer power and competence from the UK to the EU. That is a step forward, although I repeat that I fully respect my noble friend’s intervention to the effect that she does not accept that for a vast range of activities.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord has been talking at great length about referenda and justifying the use of referenda in the 56 cases listed in this Bill. What is the rationale for going for referenda in all these 56 cases, some on very esoteric grounds, and not having a referendum on the very substantial and dramatic reform of our legislature as proposed by the Government?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have debated this at length. I have enjoyed some of the noble Lord’s interventions—not all of them—and this one is based on a total fallacy and misunderstanding of the Bill which I have tried to disabuse him of. Clearly I have not succeeded. There is no question of having referenda on 56 different items. As we have debated at enormous length, the items included in Schedule 1 and Clause 6 all relate to a handful of very big, so-called red line issues which the people of this country do not want to be dealt with other than through popular consultation. That is the reality. The 56 story is a wonderful myth. It should be utterly dismissed and I hope that we do not hear anything more about it.

Perhaps I may return to the amendment. Clause 18 would not alter the rights and obligations of the UK by virtue of our membership with the European Union.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect, this amendment is about having a referendum, or not having a referendum, on matters the effect of which—to quote the Bill—

“in relation to the United Kingdom is not significant”.

Nobody in the world would argue that setting up a finance ministry for the European Union was not significant for the United Kingdom; the question is why we should have referenda on matters which are not significant. The noble Lord has cited a lot of possible scenarios, all of which involve dramatically significant events which would obviously be significant events for us, but the big issue concerns why we should have a referendum on matters which are known not to be significant for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that we are arguing in a circle because the Bill provides the significance test and matters in paragraphs (i) and (j) of Clause 4(1), which I have described, might well be ruled by Ministers not to be significant, and therefore there would be no referendum. Furthermore, in Clause 4(1) there is a whole string of exempt conditions where no referendum will occur. Therefore, I do not see what the noble Lord is worried about. As regards issues that are deemed to be insignificant, or issues that are deemed to fall under Clause 4(4)—sorry, I said Clause 4(1), whereas I meant Clause 4(4)—Clause 4(4) states that:

“A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section merely because it involves one or more of the following”.

There is your list. There are the things that are not significant which will not attract a referendum. The noble Lord was speaking with great feeling and fervour but I cannot see that his worry is well founded. I am clear that this amendment would not assist the purposes of the Bill and would undermine certain values and aims of the coalition’s European policy. On that basis, I strongly urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

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”.

Libya

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Friday 1st April 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Shipping: Piracy

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

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.

Libya: Bribes

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any payments which could constitute bribes within the meaning of the Bribery Act 2010 have been paid from public funds to Libyan employees or officials in recent weeks.

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

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government do not pay bribes. In relation to fees incurred for charter flights, the payment of handling fees at airports, including for the landing and departure of planes, is an established practice. Like all countries and carriers, HMG had to pay them. These charges increased at Tripoli airport as the situation in Libya deteriorated. Paying these fees was essential to be able to evacuate British and other nationals by plane.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the whole House will be grateful for the assurance in the first sentence of the Minister’s response. However, the rest of it reads rather strangely in the light of what the Prime Minister said in another place last week:

“The point I would make is that in getting people out of Libya, we did have to pay some facilitation payments for the services in the airport”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/11; col. 298.]

“Facilitation payments” is a bizarre way of describing regular airport handling fees. Can I therefore press the Minister and ask him to be absolutely clear about this? Were any payments made which were in any way irregular? Were payments made to individuals, or were payments simply made to the appropriate authority in a routine fashion for the flights that took place?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The latter is the answer. The noble Lord mentions regular situations, but the situation was far from regular. The situation was one in which these fees were rocketing because there was a desperate queue of aeroplanes to get in and people to get out. There is absolutely no doubt that the fees went whizzing up as very brave pilots and crews managed to get their aeroplanes down, slotted and then off the ground again. I sometimes think that we do not appreciate fully the extraordinary bravery and courage of those getting these aircraft in and out in very dangerous situations. So I can tell the noble Lord that nothing irregular was done of any kind, but it was a far from regular situation in which brave and courageous people had to move very quickly.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Howell of Guildford

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My personal hope and, indeed, the hope of the Government is that that is the way things will unfold. However, we have to see the steps ahead. First, there is a military Government and the change of constitution, and then we have and must continue to press for their commitment to create the conditions for a democratic new Government in Egypt, with different attitudes from the Government of the past but with the same attitude to the treaty with Israel. Then that new democratic Government have to be incentivised, just as my noble friend was saying, to feel that they are going to get a constructive response from Israel. All these are sequences ahead for which we must work. My noble friend describes exactly what we want to happen. Now we have to see what forces can enable it to happen. Indeed, we have to be realistic and see what forces may prevent it happening.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, does prima facie evidence—