European Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that it is a pity that so many of these amendments have been lumped together; it would have better if they had been somewhat disaggregated. We are talking more about Clause 6 than about Schedule 1, and whatever the objections in general to the Bill and the things listed in Schedule 1, I find it difficult to understand why people do not regard Clause 6 as eminently reasonable. That clause is about a substantial increase in competence and transfers of power.

All the areas listed are where Britain has special arrangements or opt-outs. It is true that they do not require treaty change but they are none the less significant and affect us in different ways, so, given the Bill, it is logical that they should be subject to the referendum provisions. Those issues include the euro, the European army that was referred to, border controls and the European public prosecutor. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with great respect, as I always do, but I think that the establishment of the European public prosecutor is actually a very big issue, one that would be suitable to have a referendum on. I shall say a bit about that in a minute.

An argument was put forward from the Benches opposite that in having Clause 6, which deals with the passerelles, we were going against the Lisbon treaty after it had been ratified. That is not really the case; although those passerelles exist and were in the treaty, they say that we “may” do this, not that we “will” do this. These are significant changes.

I may add that I am told that the Germans have altered their treatment of passerelles to give more say in any ratification of parliaments in future, so this does not go against the Lisbon treaty. In any case, the argument that the passerelles represent the will of Lisbon may sometimes be true, but sometimes passerelles were put in the treaty simply because countries could not agree; one group of countries wanted to go ahead faster while another group did not, so they decided to compromise and have a passerelle to leave the issue for a later date. I remember it being reported that one of the Finnish participants in the Lisbon treaty said, “The passerelles were where we failed, where we couldn’t agree”.

[Lord Dykes]

When my noble friend referred to the Germans, he would accept, wouldn’t he, that, like us and other member states, they are very keen to enhance the involvement of the national parliament in European decision-making at various different levels, including therefore making that process easier for the parliament to be involved in, but at the same time with the expectation in Germany, which is natural there, that the parliamentarians will be voting enthusiastically for any changes if they come to a vote? In the mean time, the basic law repeats the important clause on continued European integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Risby]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

As I hope my noble friend will agree, I have put my name to the amendments and wish briefly to address the House on them, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Although the noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber, he should receive the thanks of the House for revealing the shocking irony that Clause 6 is in many ways more obnoxious than Clauses 2, 3 and 4 in terms of what it does to weaken Parliament and, ironically, government and ministerial decision-making in European meetings which would take place as a result of the clauses.

Amendments 32, 33, 34, 35 and so on, including my noble friend’s amendments on the EPPO, try again to appeal to the Government to respond reasonably. There has already been a hint, to which the Labour spokesman referred, that the Government were beginning to listen to deep and genuine arguments from all parts of the House against the details of the Bill.

Amendment 32 and subsequent amendments remove the referendum condition from the beginning of Clause 6, to deal with items not covered in Clauses 2, 3 and 4. These are specified decisions postulated in the TEU or the TFEU that do not need a new treaty or Article 48(6) treatment, because the two categories listed mirror the list set out in earlier clauses; and the second category relates to the so-called one-way decisions that are by definition irreversible. Similarly to the previous clauses, especially Clauses 3 and 4, it would greatly improve the efficacy and good faith of the Bill if those subsections were either eliminated altogether or substantially amended to soften the harsh impact of the provisions.

The subsequent amendments in this cluster, under the names of the same promoters, would remove the referendum condition in other areas of decision-making. I will not go into great detail, but Amendment 33 omits the whole of Clause 6(2) to (6) and cancels the need for referenda on QMV, EPPO, social policy items, the environment and so on. Those are all worthy of consideration by the Government once again to reinforce and return power to the British Parliament, which has been seriously undermined by the constant nagging by the anti-Europeans that Parliament has somehow let down the British people about Europe. That is not the case in any evidential way, and we now need to restore the balance to the British Parliament—both Houses—in future. Incidentally, it is interesting to muse that according to page 9 of the Constitution Committee's report, if change in the House of Lords were covered by the definition covering abolition of either House of Parliament, then change in a fully elected House of Lords also should be the subject of a referendum. I bet that it will not be, bearing in mind what happened last Thursday.

Under the clause, no ministerial judgment is exercised on the transfer of power argument, because the primary legislation and referendum are automatic. There are no exemptions. Hence, on Europe Day, I am wearing the Europe tie in honour of the Schuman day. There is one European flag in Parliament Square—that is because it is Europe Day—and the member state flags as well, but Britain is the only leading member state where the European flag does not routinely fly on any government building. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Wallace would try to do something about that in future for the coalition Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I intervene to say that the Daily Express said that the British Government were being forced to fly the European flag on government buildings. The noble Lord has just demonstrated that that is a slight exaggeration.

[Lord Dykes]

I entirely accept that. Indeed, no member state is forced to fly the flag. It is interesting that in Germany, France, Italy and other countries, routinely, all or most government buildings fly the European flag as well as the national flag. We know that President Sarkozy, when he has a television interview, always has, alongside the tricolour, the European flag.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Will the noble Lord admit that the absence of the European flag on most of our public buildings reflects the wishes of the British people, if not the wishes of our Europhile political class?

[Lord Dykes]

The British people have not been consulted on that in any way. If they were, they would probably be very much in favour of it. I think that the younger generation, in particular, would like to see the European flag flying alongside the national flag. You can be a patriotic Britisher and a keen European as well, and there are plenty of them.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not give way again at this stage.

The feeling about Clause 6 is mounting that it will have a worse effect than the previous clauses. Yet again, I do not believe that the Government have thought out the dangerous subsections. Any British Government of whatever colour or, in the case of a coalition, whatever combination of parties, could find to their dismay that the communitarian habit of working together by positive and constructive consensus for the greater European benefit and that of the national member states would be stymied by a sudden, brutal UK stop-all on routine matters of state business in the Council of Ministers. We would therefore paralyse ourselves for no good reason other than the propagandistic appeasement of the Daily Mail, the Sun, my noble friend Lord Hamilton and a few other headbangers in the Commons on the Conservative side. I did not mean to say that my noble friend Lord Hamilton was a headbanger; far from it, he is a very respected Peer who succeeded me as chairman of the European Atlantic group, so he must be a very good bloke indeed. We would also bring the whole European Council process to a stop. We recall that in the first section of the coalition agreement on Europe the Government wanted to play a leading role and to be a positive participant in the EU, but this amazingly stupid clause is a funny way of dealing with our aspirations. If it were passed, the Government would henceforth face regular clashes with their partners for no good reason other than to have a clash, and this would come from the member state that insisted on no artificial hurdles and, quite rightly, full QMV for the single market—indeed, full integration in all aspects of the single market.

Lisbon went wider on the machinery of collective decision-making than previous treaties. It included similar techniques to the ones first introduced by the Single European Act, when huge new powers were agreed for the Union without the UK authorities and indeed Mrs Thatcher, in particular, running away, as was alluded to earlier. Why were we so surprised to see other member Governments appreciating our zeal for the Single European Act and wishing to apply its mechanisms to other areas as respectable normative integration between friendly, like-minded and patriotic member countries? Why are we so insecure that we have to agree with Bill Cash and John Redwood on these issues? If the Government were sensibly to accept all or some of the original main amendments in this rather unwieldy and elaborate cluster, they would be doing themselves and Parliament a big favour in sparing us from the agonies that will surely arise under this dotty clause.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in his criticism of the way that these amendments are being handled. Altogether, 19 amendments have been put into one group, but I believe that a better debate would have been had if we had been able to discuss amendments on individual clauses. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that it would have been far better if we could have had our Ministers tied to the mast with their ears waxed up, as they would not have hit the rocks. We have hit so many rocks during the past 40 or more years that we have been a member of the European Union. Of course, when we joined it, it was not a European Union but a common market, and no one ever thought that it was going to be the sort of European Union that we have now. It was sold as a common market.

Throughout this debate and in previous debates we have heard a great deal about parliamentary democracy. I believe very much in parliamentary democracy and I have been around it for quite a long time. However, we gave away our real parliamentary democracy when Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972.

[Lord Dykes]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Should he not address himself specifically to this clause and the amendments thereon, rather than make yet another Second Reading speech? He makes exactly the same speech on every single occasion.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I explained why it would have been far better if many of the amendments had been grouped differently. Perhaps we could then have spoken to each and every one of them according to what they were proposing. It is difficult to speak to this conglomerate of 19 amendments, and that is why I want to take up the matter of parliamentary democracy at this stage, particularly as we have heard so much about it. I repeat that we gave away parliamentary democracy when the House of Commons and this House passed the European Communities Act 1972, which of course gave European law superiority over British law.

European Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I would say that the setting up of the European financial stability mechanism using Article 122 of the TFEU is extremely questionable. I am deeply puzzled how that can be regarded as in accordance with the treaty, but I am sure that that matter will be raised at some point later during our proceedings.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Lamont was doing himself down when he referred to 1998 and possibly earlier periods when on the debates that were always going on about Europe he had not given any illustration of being in favour of much to do with the European Union. I remember that in the 1970s, he, like others of us, was an enthusiastic European. I cannot remember the exact years, but I believe that that was the case. He was doing himself down, because I vividly remember—I stand to be corrected, but I believe that my memory is pretty safe on this and I am happy to look at the Hansard reference as soon as I have the chance—that in the early 1990s, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, at one stage he said, “Of course, when you are a member of a club, you have occasionally to do what the other members want as well”. I thought that that was a rather impressive way of saying that he was in favour of some aspects of not only international co-operation in general, but the international co-operation that comes from the mechanisms—the integrated parts of the structure and the sovereign government parts of the structure—of what was then the European Community and is now the European Union, enlarged and with Lisbon as its basic fundament.

That is a phenomenon that we witness in the case of the present Foreign Secretary and others who were viciously anti-European in all sorts of aspects. We remember the role of William Hague when he was leader of the Conservative Party in opposition: his “10 days to save the pound” campaign and his attitudes then. Inevitably, in government, his attitudes have become more modulated as a result of both the basic requirement of working with colleagues, partners, fellow Ministers from other countries in all the European Union mechanisms and the logic and common sense of always garnering general support from the public. The idea that there is huge anxiety in this country about competence creep, mission creep, the European Union taking over too much or the Commission becoming overmighty is to my mind grossly exaggerated. There is very little evidence of that. As we said on Second Reading, it is a campaign that has been got up in the press and by a small number of very anti-European politicians of all kinds, mainly in the Conservative Party and UKIP, but also politicians outside Parliament. We think of the BNP and other rather dubious organisations in that context as well.

If we could gauge the attitude of the public, it is one of general acceptance of all these matters. This debate has been going on for some time both in the Commons and here, and it is interesting to note that there has been no public reaction of support for the Government. I do not think that Ministers could cite messages that they have received from the public saying, “Thank you very much. You’ve done a wonderful job. We are so glad that you are resisting the encroachments of the Commission”. I do not want to upset the Minister by going too much into Second Reading points, because this point was made then by several speakers, but can we get away from that canard?

The Commission remains in number of both officials and senior officials a very modest sized body, despite enlargement. It gets the general support of the European Council and the Council of Ministers, because it does a very good job with all the difficulties built in of blending 27 national cultures of public finance and administration. That is a complicated task and it takes time to get habits to coalesce in joint working. None the less, there is no sense that the Commission is exceeding its powers or has done too much in any way with either the connivance or the resistance of the member Governments. Indeed, apart from its own delegated powers, which are either from the treaty or from the exhortations and requests of the various ministerial Councils, the Commission is a modest part of the total.

The main panoply and structure of the European Union remains the sovereign member Governments in the European Council and the Council of Ministers making their sovereign decisions collectively, enhancing both the individual sovereignty of every member state participating automatically and the general sovereignty of the European Union itself. That is why common sense among the public accepts that as a natural process.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

When I was a Commissioner, we made it imperative to listen to the many people who had views about Europe, and I think that that continues today. Is that not an expression of faith in the democratic process by the European Commission?

[Lord Dykes]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention because it reminds me of the series of visits by individuals and groups—schools, universities, students, blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, business community groups, trade unions and all sorts of public and private institutions—not only to the European Parliament but to the Commission to see how they work. Taking Eurosceptic and anti-European individuals from the British Parliament on their first visit to Brussels, I have had the personal pleasure of witnessing how they change their mind when they see how it works. It is in no way a threat to our country.

[Lord Flight]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In view of his assessment of public opinion, is he therefore a supporter of having a referendum on staying in or not staying in so as to resolve the issue once and for all?

[Lord Dykes]

I assume that my noble friend was present during the Second Reading of the Bill.

[Lord Flight]

I was not.

[Lord Dykes]

If my noble friend looks at the report of the Second Reading in Hansard, he will see that that point came out a lot. Many speeches on this side of the House, as well as on the opposition and Cross Benches, were very much against the referendum concept, particularly in the Bill but also in general. There is widespread anxiety about it in this country, which I share. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, recently said publicly that he was against referenda of all kinds. He is not here today—he is abroad this week—but he told me that he is very sceptical about referenda and their misuse. The whole of Parliament has been undermined by this obsession—this referendumitis—and it is therefore essential to try to get away from it or to have referenda only on crucial occasions. That is what I consider to be the very respectable reserve position of the Liberal Democrat Party. I believe that some members of the opposition Benches and some Cross-Benchers share the view that we should have referenda only on crucial existential occasions and not on other things.

I must not tax the Minister’s patience—he is a very patient person—by making too many general points but they do take us back to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The best way to undermine Parliament is to say that we are going to badger the British public all the time and ask them about these minor points. Of course, accession is not a minor point but we discussed minor points in previous Committee sittings. Accession is a more major matter and therefore the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct to say that it is illogical not to include it as an item on which a referendum should be held. However, I am glad that on this occasion, in their wisdom, the British Government have decided that it should not be on the list of such items. I only wish that they would kindly consider a lot of the other matters that we have been discussing—particularly the Article 48(6) list of items under Clause 4.

We will find that Clause 6 is even more obnoxious in its menacing effect on Parliament, even though Parliament will still be involved in the decisions. Of course, if there were an accession matter to be decided, under the existing suggestions Parliament would have the right to hold a referendum if it thought that it was correct to do so. However, I hope that that will not be the case, and I think that a lot of people will now have second thoughts about this referendumitis.

We should remember that huge, earth-shattering decisions have been made by this Parliament—one of the greatest Parliaments in the world—on matters ranging from the Second World War, joining NATO, the atom bomb, the formation of the UN and, before that, the League of Nations and the First World War. All those matters were decided by Parliament, as is the British tradition. It is not the British way to say, “Dear hapless members of the public, we want you to make a referendum decision on whether we should have more passerelles and what you would like to be included in those passerelles”. That would be the big society gone mad in European terms and I hope that we will get away from that.

I think that sometimes the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, are unfairly attacked in this House. They are entitled to their views, although I think it is sad that they persist in wanting this country to be on its own and not be a member of the European Union. That is very sad for them personally, as well as being a matter of policy and viewpoint; none the less, in all the amendments that they will be putting forward from now on, they deserve to have a proper and respectful hearing in this House.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I express my appreciation to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so far. I suppose I should apologise for having risen too early to make this intervention. I would have denied myself some 20 minutes of edifying discussion.

I start by making it clear that we oppose the amendment. It is entirely possible, as my noble friend Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, have said, to see exactly why it has been moved. The credibility of the amendment rests in large part on the worst provisions in the Bill. In many respects, the Bill is illogical and intrinsically foolish. Many of the 56 or so bases for holding a referendum would be almost incredible in any mature democracy and those provisions litter the Bill. I understand its function in placating some of the harsher critics of Europe. I suppose I take a little comfort from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that many of the provisions would never be used even if they were carried, but I think that it is hard to fathom the Government’s intentions on the lock, as with much else in the Bill. The provisions have been made, if I may say so, without any sensible notion of proportionality or practicability and, as I have no doubt further debates in the House will illustrate, they would remove or abandon, in many instances without good or sufficient reason, the full and proper role of Parliament in the kinds of discussions that we would normally expect to have on such provisions. Yet on the issue which might have very significant implications —my noble friend Lord Richard made the point a while ago—the use of a referendum is specifically excluded.

When I thought about what should be said at this stage in the debate, I also went back to the founding treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, did, and to the provisions that it made and the rights which it introduced for enlargement. Like him, I thought hard about the consequences on our international relations were we to exercise some form of veto as a systematic way of undermining the founding treaty. The founding treaty is far more eloquent and far more reliable than President Chirac's view of it, which was known to change from time to time.

I want to dwell, as others have, on the value of accession. The economic advantages, the anti-corruption measures, the rule-of-law measures, the role of civil-law measures, the development of courts and proper civil-law coding and the democratic principles have all been absolutely fundamental in all countries seeking to join the European Union. As my noble friend Lord Tomlinson said, by no means all of them fall backward in the economic area—many of them are wealthy and very successful countries—but some of them, without question, have fallen backward and have a chequered history because of the political regimes within which they have been forced to live for so many years.

A fundamental point which was made by my noble friends Lord Radice and Lord Dubs is absolutely right: enlargement has been a huge success. The process undertaken before countries join the European Union has driven consistently for better outcomes and for outcomes which have been more willingly embraced. Old enemies and ancient antagonisms have largely been removed. Going back a couple of years, I can remember thinking hard about the ways in which a war-torn Europe—most of its history it has been war torn—has been moved significantly into a peaceful Europe of nations which co-operate with each other and which have a great deal of mutual interest in each other's economic, political and social success.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, correctly listed the countries that are seeking membership, I thought of the names of many of those countries and remembered that it was not that long ago that we read about those countries largely because of the wars that were taking place, for example in the former Yugoslavia, and the continual history of appalling violence and degradation of human rights. Broadly speaking, we do not talk about those countries in that way any more. We have seen development to a point where they are more concerned with the acquis than with killing each other. That has been a fundamental change in one of the most difficult and troubled regions of Europe, and an enormous success. The process has policed, assessed and evaluated progress.

[Lord Dykes]

I will be brief. The noble Lord referred to the acquis. Would he not say how ironic, interesting and bizarre it has been that many anti-Europeans in this country welcomed artificial enlargement as a way of loosening and widening rather than further integrating the Union, and yet all the applicant countries accept enthusiastically both the concept of the acquis and that of future integration?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the observation is completely accurate and adds weight to the point that I make, namely that it is in these areas where people are trying to work through the provision of stable legal systems and better democratic systems that we have seen the replacement in many cases of conflict between those states. That is a huge success.

Of course, we have supported accessions from their initiation through to full EU membership. Major parties on all sides of the House have done so, despite the inconveniences that have sometimes occurred but which were minor in the overall context. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that not all these gains can be washed away by tales of cynicism, whisky, chocolates or anything else. By and large, in my experience, people have sought the gains because they have wanted a better and more peaceful life, and have wanted their children to enjoy a better future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for very long. At first sight one might think that this amendment was a bit of a fuss about nothing. Why should anyone fuss about the codification of the practice of an existing competence? However, when one comes to examine the matter, the implications are serious. They were spotted by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which reported in these terms. It said, referring to the exception in Clause 4(4):

“In our opinion, this exception is significant: it would cover the practice of EU institutions pushing at the boundaries of their competence (competence creep), sometimes supported by judgments of the ECJ, and subsequently codified in a revision of the Treaties”.

I give your Lordships a simple example of what I am talking about. We are talking about, for instance, converting a non-binding intergovernmental agreement, which can be revised or revoked by another simple intergovernmental communiqué, into a treaty law which can never be changed except with the unanimous agreement of all member states. We are talking about what is in effect a transfer of power or competence because we are enshrining in the treaties an obligation that was not in them before. All this is not fanciful: conversion of simple agreements into what is to all intents and purposes permanent and irreversible Community law, backed up by sanctions against backsliders, has happened and does happen. In particular, parts of the Lisbon treaty were justified as mere codification of practice.

For instance, our own European Union Select Committee, in the 10th Report of the 2007-08 Session, on its assessment of the impact of the Lisbon treaty, found that new Article 43(1) of the Treaty of European Union, inserted by Lisbon, which set out the task for which the EU could deploy military and civilian missions under the common security and defence policy, codified in the TEU the tasks that had been agreed by member state Governments in 2003, as part of the European security strategy. However, the wording of the report, which I have here, hardly demonstrates that the committee had a clear understanding of what was happening. Rather surprisingly, at paragraph 12.127, the report stated:

“The Treaty will not change the scope of the CFSP or transfer any additional powers to the EU in this area. The new provisions in the Treaty could lead to a more active role for the EU in the area of CFSP, but much will depend on the degree of consensus among Member States regarding such a role”.

In fact, a non-binding intergovernmental agreement that could have been revised at any time by a simple intergovernmental communiqué was becoming virtually irreversible treaty law. It was not a mere codification, but a clear example of well concealed competence creep.

We are not debating whether the common security and defence policy is good or bad; I am pointing out that Clause 4(4)(a) would allow the conversion of a non-binding practice into binding and irreversible community law. The Bill is saying that when that happens, there is no need for a referendum.

Finally, the amendment and the situations that I have described should make us wonder whether the provision in the Bill for referendums, far from being an attack on parliamentary democracy, may mean that Governments have to take more care to ensure that they are open with their own Parliaments as to the implications of proposals, because of their statutory obligation to hold referendums, if there is a transfer of power or competence. I shall certainly not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that Select Committees will in future be alert to the possibility of new law being made under the guise of codification, and report accordingly.

[Lord Dykes]

I apologise for interrupting. Can the noble Lord give any other examples, apart from the CFSP?

[Lord Waddington]

That is the example that comes to mind. There are three or four of them in the Lisbon treaty, but I do not have that information and, unfortunately, I cannot give it to my noble friend, but I will write to him, if he wants it. There were two or three other occasions; I am not saying that they were earth shattering, but it is alarming that the Select Committee did not spot that new law was being made here. That is the point I am making. It is alarming that new law could be made without holding a referendum, and it is doubly alarming that one of our expert Select Committees in this House did not spot what was happening on that occasion. It should not happen in future.

EU and NATO: Peace in Europe

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, with great moderation, that a beauty contest between these organisations is rather pointless. All one wants to avoid is immoderate statements claiming perfection for one against the other. All these institutions have played their part. Occasionally some enthusiasts get a bit too outspoken on the part that one institution has played and that is the time for moderation.

[Lord Dykes]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comprehensive reply to such a silly, childish and provocative question. Does he agree, further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the east European countries becoming member states of the European Union has contributed massively to continued peace?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think I heard a bit of immoderation the other way at that point. There is reason and sense in all these points of view and if anyone strives to go too far in claiming perfection for one organisation over the other it is bound to produce a reaction, which is just what we are hearing today.

European Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, I sense that it is the feeling of the Committee that the Question on Clause 3 stand part should be debated with this grouping of Amendments 16A and 16B, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I therefore invite the Committee to proceed on that basis.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I think that the Committee generally will very much welcome the Government’s suggestion.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, on the point that the noble Baroness raised, I do not think that I heard a loud voice saying that we should not debate Clause 3 stand part. So if anybody wishes to debate Clause 3 stand part, when the Question is put to the Committee, any Member can get up and speak to it. Is that not right?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Good. Thank you.

[Lord Dykes]

The Committee can now benefit from the correction provided by the Independent Labour Member on the Cross Benches. It enables us to make progress because, in a way, the linkage between Clauses 3 and 4 is dangerous, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the more we think about it the more dangerous it becomes. It is quite astonishing to reflect on the fact that Clause 4—even if it was included and referred to the Article 48(6) differences—would have been better as a brief clause of perhaps five lines at the most, without the long and lethal list of possibilities for passerelles and other areas of quite routine procedure within the European institutions which have to be automatically referendable in this system.

We forgive the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the length of his speech on 5 April, because on that occasion he said some very pertinent and welcome things that will help us to improve this Bill if the Government accept that improvements are necessary, as I hope they will. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for quoting his own material, but towards the end of the last but one paragraph in col. 1634, he put a question on which there has, as I understand it, been total silence despite a two and a half week Recess and time for the Government to give at least a provisional indication. I am ready to be corrected if it is not true that no answer has been given. Briefly, in that last but one paragraph, the noble Lord said:

“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”.—[Official Report, 5/4/11; col. 1634.]

If that is so, are they doing it because of a small number of active anti-Europeans in this country who hate the European Union? There is no indication that the public in general are very excited except by the concept of the remoteness of Brussels. That is certainly an issue, but it is an issue that the European Union is trying to address through various measures such as the Lisbon treaty and other means which are gaining ground.

The number of visitors to the European Parliament is massive compared with the numbers visiting even those national parliaments, such as this one and the German Bundestag, which get the most visitors. The number of people visiting the European Parliament has increased massively over the past 10 years, and especially over the past 20 years, and the vast majority of responses from those visiting the European Parliament —from people of all political persuasions and orientations and from people of none, who visit for all sorts of reasons—show that people are gaining a greater understanding of how the institutions of the Union work in a complicated matrix. There are now 27 member states of the Union, as opposed to six when it first started, and complicated machinery is inevitably needed to deal with all the possibilities and ramifications.

It seems to me to be a pity that the Government are persisting obstinately in not entertaining the idea of any substantial or far-reaching amendments, particularly to Clause 4 and the end of Clause 3. I share what I perceive to be the general approbation for the amendments, including the two new additions at the beginning of this cluster proposed by the Labour Front Bench today. We need to spend some time on this, aware as I am that there is a Statement coming along about a very important subject—Libya and the Middle East.

There are three conditions: the referendum condition, the exemption condition and the significance condition. The end of Clause 3 deals really with the significance condition but partly with the exemption one and Clause 4 gives an exhaustive and dangerous list of referendable items. By reversing the whole process and putting back into the list deliberately virtually all the Clause 4 list the Labour Front Bench and others who are in favour of these amendments, and Amendment 28 as well, can show the full absurdity by widening out fully ministerial discretion on everything so eventually nothing in Clause 4 would need to be subject to referendum apart from the very significant matters mentioned in one or two of those paragraphs—not very many of them, I hasten to add.

The clause does direct damage to the existing competences under the treaties and prevents any member state even responding within the powers already granted by treaty. That is the most extraordinary thing, hence the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and of my noble friend in front of me who expressed fears about an Act of Parliament then being overturned by a referendum. My noble friend Lord Goodhart emphasised that in the first Committee sitting, and I hope that he will have a chance to emphasise it again as this one proceeds.

Such treaty competences or powers surely have the reverse effect of what the Tory antis, UKIP and the Independent Labour Cross-Bencher say. In my estimation they enhance the intrinsic sovereignty of both an individual member country and the union. These provisions emasculate this country in these crucial areas but not the other member states. A British Government would have an automatic and hugely burdensome disadvantage built in. A huge ball and chain would be attached to the Minister’s leg every time he or she appeared in the Council chamber, whatever ministerial Council it might be—not just the European Council and the Council of Ministers. It would be the beginning of us being marginalised in the European Union, with the other member states saying, “The United Kingdom already has more grumbling and whining about Europe, more derogations, offsets, excuses, opt-outs, exemptions than any other member state and now it is inflicting this absurd and, indeed, crazy Bill on the body politic of its own country and inflicting it on the Council of Ministers as well”.

The Government are therefore, I suggest, effectively abrogating existing treaty duties even by interposing a new interruption or cancellation procedure which directly damages the capacity of a sovereign member Government to deal with routine treaty additions or changes. Many items in the Clause 4 long list are capable of further rational development in coming years. If we exclude defence, which some people would want to do, and particularly because of the recent bilateral deal with France, then the loss of sovereignty of us doing a bilateral deal with France is axiomatic. It is bound to be, yet there is no objection from the anti-Europeans on that matter. There is no objection from them to us losing our sovereignty seemingly by being ordered by an American general to carry out bombing raids in Libya or a NATO senior commander giving us orders. Why is just the European Union singled out for these absurd and self-imagined fantasies about the loss of sovereignty? What does sovereignty mean in the interdependent modern European Union and the world community at large?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

To assert that those of us who are a bit sceptical about the European Union are quite happy to accept defence arrangements with France and are prepared to take orders from the United States is simply not true. I do not want to take orders from the United States. We take far too many orders from the United States but certainly not with my consent as a European sceptic. There are and would be dangers of having too close an association with the French in matters of defence. What I want and what most Eurosceptics want is for this country to be free to make its own decisions.

[Lord Dykes]

I thank the noble Lord for intervening. I took a chance on including Independent Labour in these grumblings of mine and I should not have done so; he has a noble tradition of wanting us to be a solitary country on our own, making our own “sovereignty” decisions. That is a perfectly respectable view and I respect it. If people want to hark back to the past, however many hundred years ago it might be—maybe even only 50 or 100 years—they are entitled to do so.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I—

[Lord Dykes]

It would be a bit unfair to repeat the same subject.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I would not want the noble Lord to misrepresent me. I do not believe that this country should be on its own. I want it to be worldly and to make bilateral agreements; indeed, I want it to exploit the great Commonwealth of nations that we have built up over so many years.

[Lord Dykes]

That is an improvement, then. The noble Lord is now saying that this country should sign lots of treaties with other countries for all sorts of arrangements. Why can they not include the most sensible treaties of all—the treaties of European union and the two treaties listed in the Bill, which enable us to increase our own intrinsic sovereignty rather than reduce it?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Because those other organisations do not make our law without the consent of this Parliament or our people. That is the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

We do not want to get into a permanent Second Reading debate; I am sure that that would be very irritating for those gathered in the Chamber today. The sovereign Government of this country are asked to go to Brussels, within the international organisation, following the result of the latest general election, whenever that might be, and represent the people. That is the power that the people give to the Government and the Parliament. There is no loss of sovereignty in that process at all. We actually gain in sovereignty.

[Lord Janner of Braunstone]

I—

[Lord Dykes]

I hope the noble Lord will forgive me; he has not been here since the beginning of the debate.

I shall quote from the Lisbon treaty itself. One of the most important clauses of all shows the intrinsic respect for national sovereignty that comes into the treaty as well as the collective obligations and duties that any treaty applies to its members. That is the case in the European Union. It is nothing to be afraid of. One of the most important preambular clauses states:

“Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties”.

The tasks that flow from the treaties include the long list in Clause 4, the Article 48(6) items and others as well. There is nothing to fear from any of the minor extensions that come from there, and any of the significant ones can be referendable if the Government do not say what any Government of this country always say that they will do, which is to veto an unacceptable proposal in the Council of Ministers, meaning that a treaty obligation therefore lapses and is not carried.

The Lords Constitution Committee said on 17 March that most referendum-lock items would never be covered because of policy decisions. That would make some sense, but can we really rely on the Government being able to stand up to their very vocal lobby of Eurosceptics and chauvinistic characters, particularly in the House of Commons, who have got worse and worse, as we have seen in debates in the Commons on this Bill? If they wanted to maintain sanity in a difficult world, Ministers could therefore issue a non-significant decision every few weeks or months. Would that make sense? Indeed, the unique national British referendum requirement could actually be at odds with international law—but I suppose that we would not mind that too much, least of all the antis.

There is a great deal of doublethink and confused thinking here among senior members of the Government, including, I am sad to say, the junior partner—I never thought that I would say that in this House but that is the reality that we have to face—but it is time for the Government to consider these amendments seriously and accept them today.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, we have had a brisk debate so far, to put it mildly. I want to try to meet an argument that has been put today by two noble Lords opposite about the question of balance. It says that the Bill basically provides a sensible balance between the position that the European Union is not the most popular institution with the great British electorate and what should be done about it. The question of balance is being raised.

Let us just analyse this for two seconds. It applies to Clauses 3 and 4, to Clause 6 and to the schedule. The basis for the so-called balance is that if certain issues arise, the great British public will be reassured because there will have to be a referendum. That is the whole basis of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 set out which treaty amendments will require a referendum. I see that under Clause 4(1)(a) to (m) a referendum will be required. Quite how would you frame a question for a referendum on, for example under paragraph (d),

“the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States”.?

Will you ask, “Are you in favour of this new competence shared with the member states, which the Government have already approved and put to Parliament”? Does that make sense? Is that balanced? Of course not; it is a gross distortion of the whole process.

That is Clause 4—the height of the Bill. Go to Clause 6, which is unbelievable as far as balance is concerned. The Bill gets worse as it goes on but I will just deal with Clause 6, which says:

“The decisions to which subsection (1) applies are … a decision under the provision of Article 31(3) … that permits the adoption of qualified majority voting”.

Look at paragraph (c), which refers to,

“a decision under Article 86(1) … involving participation by the United Kingdom in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office”.

That will demand a referendum. What will we ask? Will we say to the British people, “Are you in favour of the United Kingdom’s participation in a European public prosecutor’s office”? Will it be feasible to have a referendum campaign on that? Will people be lined up on each side of that argument, saying “Yes, I am in favour of a public prosecutor’s office” or “No, I am not in favour of a public prosecutor’s office”? Look at the next one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think that that would be the case, for the very good reason that the great issues that concern our national interest can be delivered very largely by the co-operation and development of close working within the existing competences of the existing treaty. My noble friend has in her mind some thought that new treaty requirements would indeed come along that would somehow be in the national interest but which Ministers would be reluctant to push for fear that they would have to expose them to the British people. There might well be issues in the future, although I cannot see any countries at the moment being terribly willing to go through the complex treaty procedure for them, which Ministers believe are in the national interest and of value and which can be pursued only by treaty change. In that case, they would rightly be required first to come before both Houses of our Parliament so that it could be explained whether they were significant or not. If they were significant, they would then be required to be put to the test of a referendum, with the Government arguing that these changes, or this package of changes, were necessary to improve the national interest and the strength of this country. That is the kind of debate we should have had over the Lisbon treaty, but of course we did not.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords—

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

No, I am not going to give way again, I am afraid. We have had enough interventions.

I was concluding by saying that all the long-standing accusations of decision-making behind closed doors without public consent would therefore still hold true if these amendments were accepted and the wider and wider number of decisions were left to the judgment of Ministers as to whether they were significant. There are concerns, as I have said, that creeping power and creeping competence are not being properly debated and explained and not justified as being in the national interest, and have weakened the European cause.

People talk about the need for “reconnection”—that phrase came up. We have to be realistic and accept that reconnection has failed. It is failing here in this country, although we are not the only country in which it is failing. Some noble Lords seem to want to continue as before and seem to be happy to see a continued advance of European treaty changing, competence transferring and power transferring, which are precisely the trends that have so undermined public trust, weakened the European cause and made the European Union today in need of reform and less well positioned to meet the colossal challenges of the future than it should be.

I must say that I hope that some noble Lords who are my noble friends, and noble Lords who I greatly admire, will not be offended if I see them as the last knights or the lost lords of the old Europe, of the Euro elite. They are the ones who want to go back while the world goes forward, and indeed I myself sometimes have the same wish that things could go back, but they cannot. We are now in the information age. In the age of the internet and the website, the age of public empowerment, those ideas are as out of date as the Teutonic knights with their armour and their glories. So I urge the noble Lords who have moved and spoken to these amendments to withdraw them and to understand that we are living in a changed age in which the requirements of a strong and democratic European Union will change in themselves and will require new and agile legislation, understanding, and a new connection with the people of Europe.

Kyrgyzstan

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is a very positive idea. I will check with both those organisations to see what involvement they have. My half-memory is that they already have some involvement with promoting the beginnings and the embryo of parliamentary improvement and government in that country and associated countries. I will certainly approach them and check it out.

[Lord Dykes]

Can my noble friend say what the situation is with the freedom of the press in Kyrgyzstan at the moment?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot say precisely, but there are questions about how much and whether proper freedom is being observed. There have been some criticisms. These are the sort of issues that we monitor very closely. We are not at all reticent or backward in pointing out the vital need for greater freedom of the press if democracy is to develop there.

European Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it would be an implausible exaggeration to say that I have enjoyed this debate, but it is a privilege to hear the fine minds of many of your Lordships playing on these issues, which are undoubtedly complex. I do not make any apology for that, because much of the EU legislative scene is extremely complex, as are our relations with it. I strongly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that although this seems to be an abstruse issue, which I shall address in great detail in a moment, it is also central and raises fundamental points about the whole nature and purpose of the Bill. I should also put in a good word for my Belgian friends, who came in for criticism of the kind that, frankly, I do not like. I will let that pass for the moment.

As the debate has ranged a little beyond the central point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, rightly urged we return, I hope that I will be allowed a few paragraphs trying to explain the context in which we come both to adherence to the central issue of the amendment and to the Bill.

We believe that there has been disaffection among the British electorate in recent years. I think that it is a mistake for the most enthusiastic supporters and builders of the European Union and our membership of it to ignore that fact, because it has led, through the successive handing over of powers to the EU—often for excellent reasons but without consultation with or the consent of the British people—to a good deal of distrust. That works totally against good Europeanism and an effective development and strengthening of the European Union, which are certainly required today.

The competences and powers have been handed over, in many cases—this is an argument that we have heard buzzing across the Floor of your Lordships’ House this afternoon—for good reasons. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, great things can be and have been gained by the handing over of competences and powers, whether or not you call it pooling of sovereignty. Others would argue, as we have heard today and often before, that the handing over of those powers has not been for the good. That wider debate has gone on and will continue in future.

Of course, the Bill does not concern what has been handed over in the past. I know that that is a matter of criticism for some of my noble friends and others in the other place, where there was considerable criticism that the Bill did not try to wind things back into the past, although it is worth reminding ourselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, did, that the House of Commons passed the Bill and gave it to us for scrutiny, which we must perform in detail.

However, that fact of dissatisfaction cannot be dismissed or pushed aside by those who seek to understand the disquiet not just in the media and in the so-called anti-European or Eurosceptic papers but among a wide number of people and organisations, including some extremely learned people and leading lights in the legal profession. That is why the coalition’s programme for government gives the undertaking:

“The Government believes that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further powers should be transferred”.

[Lord Dykes]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his remarks. I apologise for interrupting him. Is he asserting that the Government have in recent weeks and months been in receipt of lots of e-mails and letters from members of the public advocating withdrawal from Europe or being strongly anti-European? Does he recall what, on the last day of the Committee of the Whole House in the Commons, the Member of Parliament for Ipswich, the distinguished son of my noble friend Lord Deben, Mr Ben Gummer, said? He said:

“Over the past few days, I have had nearly 100 emails and letters about forests, but since 7 May I have not had a single letter or email about withdrawal from the European Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/1/11; col. 793.]

Will my noble friend confirm that the public are not worried about this in large numbers? It is the comics that masquerade as newspapers in Britain that are stirring it all up.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have no idea whether that is the case with the excellent son of my noble friend Lord Deben, who is a lively Member of the other place. I do not think that that has any relevance to the general concerns expressed over the years increasingly and very vigorously in this House and the other place on all the treaties that we have debated. There is a lowering of trust, commitment and enthusiasm for the European Union, which is bad for the Union and bad for the future of our co-operation and relations with the rest of the Union and which needs to be addressed. That is the Government’s view. If it is not my noble friend’s view, that is, in a sense, bad luck, because we believe that to be so.

Inter-parliamentary Scrutiny: EUC Report

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I too welcome very much the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has tabled this Motion. I also welcome the fact that he has explained the background to it as well as the background to the Select Committee report and the recommendations. We on these Benches, and I as a member of the EU Select Committee, very much endorse Appendix 1 and the details of the proposal. We thank the noble Lord for having had oversight of this matter. He followed it through in painstaking detail. Without wishing to embarrass him by heaping too much praise on him, which is deserved none the less, I can think of no one more suitable or with a longer pedigree of knowledge on this subject and this particular theme than the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He mentioned his work in the Assembly in the early 1970s. I remember vividly having a long meeting with him in Paris to discuss these matters in the early days of the development of the WEU and the rest of the apparatus.

It is a very good way of viewing the gradual development of this new architecture, bringing in the European Union, as a result of the two recent treaties, into the oversight of defence and security policy for European Union member states. Originally, there was resistance from certain senior members of NATO and various member states about the idea of the EU being involved in some aspects of the other subordinate bodies that the EU proposed to be established to deal with these subjects in detail, including the defence agency. I think now that there is a much more contented atmosphere between the two. There is a feeling now of reciprocal aid and support in psychological terms between NATO and the EU on these subjects, which I hope will continue without me being too complacent about the difficulties therein, because old habits can die hard.

This is a moment too to pay tribute to the WEU and what was achieved over the years with it and the great experts among parliamentarians of all countries who developed a profound knowledge. I recall, over many years, quite a few laudatory comments from the RUSI, the Royal College of Defence Studies personnel and so on about the quality of the investigations and reports of WEU committees and the work that they did. It was inevitable that it would end. That is quite right and people accept that now. We move on to the new ESDA structure and we wish Robert Walter, the new chairman, and his colleagues well with those functions.

Now that NATO is in areas other than just western Europe, there will be more and more areas where the EU will wish to follow what is going on as a united body. Equally, it is right that it should remain primarily in the intergovernmental cockpit because that is the nature of the subject. Gradually, the European Parliament will also extend its activity and architecture in the whole area of defence and security. That is a decision which will, I am sure, in friendly consultation with national parliaments, reflect the worthy sentiments of the Lisbon treaty. It specifically built into the development of the European Union—and the integration that we are now seeing being accelerated, I am glad to say, in various fields—the idea of a much bigger involvement of the national parliaments in all sorts of European policy forming areas. The involvement was not just in this particular area. The way in which the European Parliament responds to that now will be much more encouraging than we might have feared in the past. For all those reasons and for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his initial remarks, we very much hope that this Motion will be supported today.

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to give broad support to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in opening the debate. There are some people who look back with great nostalgia on the work of the WEU over the years, and there is no doubt that it has done some extremely useful work. But over the last few years I have heard the WEU described in a rather rude way as being similar to an old dog who is much loved but for whom sentimental affection prevents it being gently put to sleep. It has been right to put it to sleep over the course of the last year or so.

Little objection has been made to the view that there really must be some form of parliamentary oversight over both the CFSP and the CSDP. The question is what form that should take. The Select Committee report—the House may recall that I happen to be a member of that committee—is absolutely on the right lines. The first point is that national parliaments must take the leading role in this. I notice that the latest Belgian proposal suggests that there should be not six but four Members from each parliament. Personally, I do not mind that very much. Bearing in mind that someone spoke earlier of the quality of the likely representations from the UK Parliament, I am sure that we shall be extremely well represented whether it is four or six, but my preference would be for four representatives. I imagine that if there were only four representatives, the two from your Lordships’ House would be the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the chairman of Sub-Committee C, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. They would represent us extremely well and bring a great deal of expertise to the conference.

One of the contentious issues, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, was what the role of the European Parliament should be. Of course it should have a presence, I am entirely in favour of that, but most emphatically not of the first proposal made by the Belgian Parliament. It suggested that one-third of the membership—54 members—should come from the European Parliament. It modified that figure in the second proposal to bring it down to 27. My suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, is that when he goes to the meeting in Brussels next week he would do well to insist on 12 representatives from the European Parliament. I think that that would be ample. It would mean that the European Parliament had 10 per cent of the membership and that the total membership of the conference, with 108 representatives from the various member parliaments, would be 120. Thus, if the conference meets for one and a half days twice a year, at 120 members, those representatives would have an adequate opportunity to make a contribution. I should have thought that that number was entirely adequate with no need for any more.

My own view, which I know some people do not agree with, is that a small representation as observers—I insist on that—from candidate states to the EU should be included, and from European states that are members of NATO, which is in the amended Belgian proposal. I would have thought that that was reasonable. If the proposal is pressed on the noble Lord, Lord Roper, I hope that it will be written into the rules that they can speak but that they do not have a vote and cannot put down amendments to motions. They should be there entirely as observers with the opportunity, if they wish, to speak.

There is no need to set up a new institution with a galaxy of officials if it is only to meet twice a year. The suggestion that it be organised through COSAC is reasonable. I am bound to say that I have never been a huge enthusiast for COSAC. Over the years, I have attended various meetings. I remember going to some of them as chairman of Sub-Committee C, the foreign affairs and defence committee, years ago. My experience is that that body is not as well directed and effective as it should be. I hope that its new responsibility for organising COFAD meetings twice a year will give it a new objectivity and we are right to give it a try.

I am not very happy with the latest Belgian proposal that the COSAC secretariat organise meetings in conjunction with the troika and the European Parliament. I do not really see why the European Parliament needs to be involved in the organisation of the meetings. It should not be left like that, with just the COSAC secretariat in Brussels and the troika. The troika does not give a feeling of continuity; it is a transient thing, as we all know—although it takes 18 months to get through it. If these meetings are to discuss defence and security matters, it is very important that military/defence expertise is somehow attached to the organisation. Unless it is, we could have trouble ahead and the work of the conference in future would not be sufficiently oriented to defence and security matters. Perhaps it would be possible temporarily to attach specialist defence consultants to the secretariat to add that expertise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, will be able to insist on that when he is in Brussels next week. I am perfectly confident that he will look after the United Kingdom’s interests in those meetings and the interests of this House. I certainly wish him well. However, I must stress to him the need firmly to set the new body up so that it is tied into various conditions and rules which prevent the sort of mission creep which has befallen some international bodies in the past.

I am concerned that some of these international bodies do too much travelling, and to places which are unnecessarily distant. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example which irritates me to death. I have to leave home at six o’clock tomorrow morning to fly to the Azores for a meeting of the standing committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is meeting on Saturday and we come home on Sunday. That seems an enormous waste of time and money, when the meeting could perfectly well have taken place in Brussels or even in Lisbon. To have to go through Lisbon to go to the Azores to be there for 48 hours seems to me an absurdity and a waste of money. It is the sort of thing that we have to try to correct. Certainly, that will be one of the things that I say to the standing committee at our meeting on Saturday.

Yemen

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course, as the noble Lord knows, these dangers are there all the time; there is no doubt about that. The al-Qaeda threat is there but is not the only threat. Al-Qaeda is most active in the north. Many of its members are being pushed over the frontier from Saudi Arabia. They are a problem and no doubt they are thinking of ways of exploiting any trouble or disturbance they can find. That is why it is essential that the president and the people of Yemen move away from the threats of violence and towards an orderly pattern of transition which they can decide for themselves.

[Lord Dykes]

I thank my noble friend for the care with which the British Government, other European Governments and America have handled these difficult situations with Arab countries. Bearing in mind that the evidence is now massively overwhelming that Arab populations want freedom, democracy and human rights, as in other countries—we have been told for decades that they did not want this and did not mind oppressive regimes—will my noble friend consider the British Government having some serious conversations with the Saudi Arabian Government to get rid of that oppressive regime and introduce some democracy there, including allowing women to drive cars?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

These are all very serious social problems but I think my noble friend would agree that if there is to be change, the aim must be to achieve the most peaceful and bloodshed-free transition. That is what we want. Obviously, we are in talks with all our opposite numbers in the Arab world and in the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, as my noble friend suggests. These matters have to be dealt with and we raise them, but if we can make progress in a peaceful, orderly way, that must be the best way forward.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they and the Middle East Quartet have made of the effects of recent civil unrest in Arab countries on any resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

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

My Lords, at a time of great regional uncertainty, the quick resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians is more vital, not less. We need to show that legitimate aspirations for statehood can be met through negotiations. The entire international community, led by the Middle East quartet, should now support the 1967 borders as the basis for resumed negotiations.  The result should be two states, with Jerusalem as the future capital of both, and a fair settlement for refugees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is this not exactly the right time when the Netanyahu Government could now display some wisdom by responding to the EU part of the quartet’s suggestions for a freeze on settlements and the immediate resumption of talks with the Palestinian Authority, to lead to a solution equitable to both new states?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is quite right that now ought to be exactly the right time. It ought to be very much more the time than was the case even a few weeks ago. However, we have to face the reality that obviously the Israeli Government feel extremely nervous and uncertain about what is to happen in Egypt, while we are urging more decisive action and firm decisions. Still, that does not deter us at all from pushing very hard on this central issue.

Israel

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will work with the Government of the United States to ensure that Israel complies with United Nations resolutions and international law.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, this is again a very important moment to have a debate on this matter. I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity this evening.

Over the weekend it was good to see for once—unusually, and I suppose sadly—the unanimous decisions of the UN Security Council calling on Colonel Gaddafi to account for the abominable behaviour that he is wreaking on his own people. In contrast, how depressing it was to see—once again, and probably for the 42nd time—the previous weekend’s United Nations Security Council session being ruined, even recklessly sabotaged, by another US veto concerning the Israel/Palestine issue. A seemingly unanimous decision in a moderately worded resolution asking Israel to obey its international law duties in occupied Palestine was deliberately—I am sad to use the verb—wrecked by the US. This time it caused universal resentment, even hatred, towards America among some of the other Security Council members. Some of them kept silent counsel, but they did so with great sadness.

Once again the US refused to condemn behaviour which even President Reagan repeatedly described as totally illegal: the continued colonisation of the West Bank and, of course, East Jerusalem. Once again the Arab street sees the double standards of the US. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and was quite rightly expelled after a year. The UN, quite rightly, did not hesitate then. Israel invaded the West Bank 44 years ago, but it is still there.

I warmly congratulate the UK Government as well as the EU on their much more decisive stand in contrast to the still lingering, miserable and self-inflicted humiliation which is further eroding America’s already tattered so-called leadership of the western world. Indeed, Barack Obama made it even worse by allowing the long-suffering Department of State—and I have enormous sympathy for many of its senior officials dealing with this matter—to leak the sad news that he imposed the veto with a heavy heart. The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was even allowed to make some harsh comments on the illegal colonisation policy. Even the former Israeli consul-general in New York, Alon Pinkas, said that this should be the last-ever veto since Americans in general were sick and tired of the continuing charade carried out in their name. Even Israel military radio carried a reaction of disbelief.

The cynical use of the veto by America so blatantly and so often is a madness that must not continue. Furthermore, against the background of the momentous events now in surrounding Arab countries, where the essence of the people’s democracy is rising up against tyranny and the abuse of power, we see just how monumental have been the mistakes made by the US and by us, too, the West as a whole, in the frenzied, relentless search for oil at any price—any political price and any price of freedom. The whole history of the West’s presence in Arabia is indeed a saga of wretchedness and despair for ordinary citizens in most of these countries, much of that manifested now in the words used by the rioting crowds in the various squares in the various countries when they are interviewed by the media.

As in Latin America for so many years, we remember with pain that the US in particular has always preferred the brutal dictator regimes, as it does now in Arabia. Surely now is the time for the former imperial powers and the US to restore the balance of hope in this crucial area by following an ethical foreign policy, as well as by curbing arms sales and stopping support for unacceptable regimes, even Saudi Arabia with its corrupt royal dictatorship. Above all, now is the time for Israel, too, to show decency and wisdom at long last in its policy towards the cruelly treated Palestinians.

Make no mistake, Israel is a country that I greatly admire, and I have done so for many years. I admire many of the people there. It is a great country. It has a great contribution to make in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, however, across the fence, we see Fatah struggling for the legitimacy that it lacks in the Arab street. That is one reason why it will not join in negotiations until Israel acknowledges its offences under international law and the Geneva conventions on the treatment of civilians and shows a complete change of heart. That is a responsibility that is as solemn for an occupying power as it is for a country that actually owns the territory legally. Can the present Israeli Government—who so sadly include a number of rather extremist members, though I will not mention any names tonight, and who have been such a disappointment —accept this reality at long last? I hope so. In doing so, they would be meeting the fervent wishes of millions of decent, fair-minded Israeli citizens who want peace and security and good relations with their Arab and Palestinian neighbours.

With the Palestinians seemingly prepared to accept that a two-state outcome will accord them a mere 23 per cent of the original combined mandate territory, there is no longer any rational reason for Israel to prevaricate even if aided by a totally incompetent American support stance. That will mean that the settlers have to leave the illegally occupied lands. Let us repeat that loud and clear. The Israeli Government can easily provide financial assistance for resettlement back in Israel proper. There is, for example, plenty of spare space if the Negev, too, is properly developed with infrastructure and modernised in the future. This process has not yet even begun to take place on a massive scale. While they are about it, surely the Israelis can modernise their hopelessly outdated election system and reduce the blackmail of the tiny extremist parties in the Knesset.

Yes, it will mean that the international community has to accept the inclusion of Hamas in any fundamental, realistic negotiations for peace. It is outrageous that it has been excluded when it is the main Palestinian political grouping capable of securing a genuine democratic majority. What a contrast to the Fatah president’s desperate and lamentable efforts to secure street support, having already blatantly exceeded the mandate period. At long last elections are now in the offing, thanks to the pressure that he was facing, but it will be outrageous if the Palestinian Authority seeks to exclude Hamas from the West Bank election activity—or, indeed, per contra, if Hamas seeks to consolidate one-party rule in Gaza, which is surely just as unacceptable, preventing other parties there from having a say. Leading Palestinian political commentators of all groups were certainly too eager to express support for the dodgy dictators, some of whom have now been removed, in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. We are also now observing the events in Yemen.

Any elections in the near term must restore the confidence of the street in the West Bank. They must help local voters feel that they are playing a full part in the wider Arab uprising which we are now excitedly witnessing. Huge problems are still being caused by the long-running American stupidity and carelessness in the Middle East, and they will take time to sort out. Israel must show it can rise to the occasion at last. As William Hague stated on 14 February:

“We are calling for both sides to show the visionary boldness to return to talks and make genuine compromises … the entire international community, including the United States, should now support 1967 borders as the basis for resumed negotiations. The result should be two states, with Jerusalem as the future capital of both”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/2/11; col. 716.]

After all the tears and madness of history, cannot the world work for the two friendly states, side by side, erasing the tragedy of Israel’s failure to be magnanimous and generous after its spectacular 1967 victories? Then we could perhaps see a rewritten version of the Balfour declaration. Let me try this one to see if it is congenial: “As long as it is not to the detriment of the 62 year-old state of Israel, a renewed homeland will be created for the state of Palestine, a modern democratic and progressive republic, with financial assistance from the international community, the two neighbours respecting human rights and their reciprocal friendship, producing in due time the near east common market for the prosperity of all”.