European Commission: President

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. There were some elements of that in the press over the weekend and indeed this morning. It is important that the right person fills the role. In terms of portfolios, these matters are still up for discussion. It would be inappropriate for me to try to comment on that at this stage.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the position of Her Majesty’s Government is not in any way personally related to Mr Juncker but rather to our desire to bring forward the reform agenda? In that context, for example, is it not the case that Article 5 of the treaty—on subsidiarity, which was supposed to ensure that no decisions are taken by the Union that could be better or well done at a national level—has been more or less neutralised over the years? One of the points will be to make that article, which is already in the treaty, as effective as it is supposed to be.

[Baroness Warsi]

I think the overwhelming message delivered by the electorate across the European Union in the last European Parliament election was about citizens in individual member states wanting to feel as though their voice was being heard and that the views of individual member states were rightly being heard. We saw that in the United Kingdom and across the European Union. My noble friend is absolutely right to raise that point.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Friday 10th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that this Bill is, in my view, otiose. That is, I hope, a polite way of saying that it is unnecessary. Two things seem abundantly clear. If, as I hope, the Conservative Party wins the next general election, there will be a referendum. It will appear in the party manifesto and that is quite good enough for me. If the incoming Government is not Conservative or Conservative-led and is not committed to a referendum or enthusiastic about this Bill, all they need is a guillotine Motion and one day to dispose of it in the other place. Therefore, I ask myself: what is the point of all this? Is there, perhaps, a hidden agenda? Could it possibly be an effort to bounce the Labour Party into lining up behind the Conservatives on this matter, or perhaps an effort to attract potential UKIP voters?

I confess that I am something of a Thatcherite where referenda are concerned, but I accept, picking up the point that my noble friend Lord Howell has just made about Lord Salisbury’s remarks 100 years ago, that we have moved on. The Prime Minister has given his word on this matter and I accept that. However, in the unlikely event that the British people vote to leave the European Union, far from it being the end of the game it would be just the beginning. Following a withdrawal vote, the Government of the day would, one assumes, enter into negotiations with our former partners on a treaty setting out the terms and conditions of our relationship with our largest trading partner. I do not propose today to enter into the complexity of such negotiations. Suffice it to say that they would bring into sharp focus the real issues that would arise in such a situation.

Let me give just one brief example. Whatever the detailed outcome of the negotiations might be, there can be no doubt that Britain, like Norway, would be obliged to follow EU rules on the single market. In reality, this would mean that any changes in the said rules—they are, by their nature, constantly evolving—would be made in a forum where Britain was not represented. Any new directive emerging from it would be sent to the UK Parliament and we would have 90 days to comply. It would be goodbye to parliamentary sovereignty. In the trade, I think this is known as “fax diplomacy”. As in so many other walks of life, the devil is in the detail. Those who believe that a vote in favour of withdrawal would signify the end of the game are mistaken—the game is just beginning. I mentioned compliance with single market rules, which is just one of many hugely complex issues that would need to be settled.

I firmly believe that the Prime Minister is right to seek change. Indeed, I believe that many of our partners would be sympathetic to the proposition that “one size fits all” is not always the best way to maintain relations between 28 countries. Again, I give just one brief example. The principle of subsidiarity needs adjusting to ensure greater and smoother involvement by national parliaments. Therefore, I very much support what the Prime Minister seeks to do.

Some noble Lords may be surprised that continued membership of the European Union remains the official policy of the Conservative Party. I just wish we could be a little more robust in setting out the advantages of membership and a little more aggressive in setting out the real dangers of withdrawal. You do not pander to UKIP; you confront it with a barrage of facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be delighted that we are close to the end of what has been a very long debate. It has been a good one, with a number of very interesting contributions. A number of noble Lords have referred to the problem of those British subjects who live on the continent of Europe. As someone who lives in France, I strongly support the principle of this Bill so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Dobbs.

Among the other contributions—unfortunately, there is not time to mention many—I shall refer to two. To show my complete and customary impartiality, there will be one from each side of the House. I single out those noble Lords because they made good points that, remarkably, have not been made by anyone else, and they each drew the wrong conclusion from them.

The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, who alone referred to the importance of banking, finance and the City of London to the British economy, and the relevance of the regulatory proposals that are coming out of Brussels that will affect us. However, he then said that if there is something we do not like there, we can veto it. I have to tell the noble Lord and indeed the House that we simply cannot do so. This is a very serious point because in my opinion the destiny of this country is not European; it is global. In the City of London, we have one of the only two global financial centres, and it is the only one in the European time zone, which is tremendously important. I have to tell noble Lords, and to some it might come as a shock, that even if we were to leave the European Union we would still be within the European time zone. Our global reach is particularly important—this point has frequently been made by my noble friend Lord Howell—given the great opportunities that will continue to arise in the coming decades in the emerging world.

The other point was made by my old friend— I do not see him here but I am sure he is—my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones. Oh, he is here. He likes to come close to me, I know. He made the important point that there needs to be a debate about how we as a nation are going to conduct ourselves should there be a referendum and should we choose out. That needs to be considered. His mistake was to say that we will be in the position of Norway. No way Norway! I have a high regard for Norway and the Norwegians. I got to know them very well when I was Secretary of State for Energy and we had a lot of discussions about North Sea oil, which we shared. They were very amicable discussions and I was immensely impressed by the calibre of the Norwegians. But Norway is a very small country while we are a pretty sizeable one, and anyone who is as interested in realpolitik as my noble friend will know the enormous difference.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My Lords, will my noble friend give way?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

No, I do not have time to give way.

European Union Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Lords Chamber

The question for a referendum must surely be, “Do we want to join the euro?”. The Government lose nothing by adopting my amendment because they could still let events follow the sequence described in the Minister’s letter to me if that is what they prefer. I therefore believe that precedent, honour, prudence and common sense point to the language of Amendment 22. I beg to move.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already said—he has more experience than me—there are three very distinguished ex-Chancellors sitting below me. Would not the rate at which we enter—such a delicate matter as far as markets are concerned—normally be decided after markets had closed, say on a Friday, and revealed before markets opened on Monday? The risk of doing it any other way would be substantial. Perhaps former Chancellors have something to say on the matter.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones. I was Private Secretary to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, when he used to chair EMS realignment conferences as Chancellor of the Exchequer when we were not a member of the EMS. The standard form is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, lays down. One tries to avoid a market rumour on a Friday—that would be quite difficult if we had held a referendum on the Thursday—ECOFIN would meet on the Saturday, and one would have a decision on the rate very early on Monday morning or late Sunday night as the Japanese markets open. In this case it would be highly desirable to move fast after our referendum because there would be a lot of movement in the market. However, if you have decided that the rate is to be a matter for an Act of Parliament and a referendum, you are stuck with several months of volatile movement.

European Union Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

I was referring to the opt-out and am describing what happened subsequently. I am not here to defend the Major Government, of which I was a member at that time, although not later when it came to ratifying the treaty. I am just describing the history of the matter.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

For the record, would my noble friend confirm that the phrase we have just heard was not uttered by Prime Minister Major?

[Lord Waddington]

I hear what my noble friend says. I have not the faintest idea whether it was uttered or not. By the time all these great events were occurring, I was reading the Royal Gazette in bed in Bermuda and not the Times or the Telegraph here in Britain. All I am telling noble Lords now is what the history of the matter is. The history that I have related so far is entirely correct. The Conservative Government were obviously not happy about many aspects of Maastricht, which was precisely why they, with considerable perspicacity, negotiated the opt-out. However, having opted out, there were still great dangers ahead. Therefore, when the Danes rejected Maastricht there was an opportunity to block the treaty and work for a fresh start in which energies would be concentrated not on trying to manage the economies of the member states but on extending the borders of the EEC and creating a fully competitive common market within those borders. But that opportunity was all thrown away. If it had not been and there had been a fresh start, the EU would not be in the mess it is in today, bailing out countries which are “broke” as a result of having been put in the straitjacket of the euro.

This amendment cannot affect how we should react if there are further defeats of proposals for treaty changes in other countries, although I hope that we have learnt some lessons in that regard, but it would prevent a British Government going along with EU bullying if the people voted no in a referendum—and that would be a very good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I was not going to speak for very long on the amendment, which is in my name as well, until the intervention of the noble and Europhile Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, who informed us that John Major did not say, after the Maastricht negotiations, that he had achieved game, set and match. That is generally accepted and I must ask the noble Lord: if Mr Major did not say that, who did, or is the whole thing just a figment of Eurosceptic imagination?

[Lord Garel-Jones]

I have some advantage over both the noble Lord and the British press: I happened to be there at the time. First, Prime Minister Major never said any such thing. Secondly, if it was said, it was said by a high-ranking civil servant, whose name, for obvious reasons, I will withhold.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

That would be just typical of the Eurocrats.

However, it is true that the Conservatives forced through the Maastricht treaty, so presumably they were quite pleased with it. Some of us resisted it in this House. In his defence, one has to say that Mr Major had discovered the error of his ways by 12 November 1996, when he wrote a letter to M Jacques Santer, who was then, whatever it was called at the time, the boss of the European Commission. The letter shows how Mr Major, and possibly the Conservative Administration at the time, realised how they had been deceived by the cunning and duplicitous octopus in Brussels. His letter is very brief, and I have read it to your Lordships before—in 1998, I think, so it bears repetition now. It reads:

“Dear Jacques,

My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.

However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a”—

that is, health and safety at work, and things like that—

“is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a”.

The following is a good paragraph:

“This is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied”.

He then says that he will table amendments and so on to it. His penultimate paragraph says:

“I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined”.

That was in the run-up to the Amsterdam treaty. The Conservatives then lost the election and the new Labour Government signed up to the Social Chapter anyway, so we have the working week and so on.

That is the full picture behind the noble Lord’s intervention. At least we can see that, by the time he left office, Mr Major had understood the nature of the beast with which he was dealing, although of course when poor Mr Blair came along, he went back to the whole business of being at the heart of Europe—being nice to them and so on. We get everything that we want and that is why we are where we are today.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that the reason the French voted against the Giscard constitution was that they wanted a more social Europe. My simple question to him is: why did the Dutch then vote in exactly the same way two days later? I support the amendment.

European Union Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kinnock]

I am sure that they would fulfil that duty with alacrity. The problem then arises—attention has been drawn to this so I need not dwell on it—that, in the event of refusal to have a referendum on this issue, the Government would attract great odium from sections of the press and some people engaged in politics. As a consequence, odium might be mobilised— if you can do that with odium—among the general public.

That would not be the only problem because this ministerial decision—the need for the Government to make a decision is made explicit in the Bill—could be subject to judicial review. We are in a situation where we have moved deeper into farce. Here is proposed a piece of legislation, boldly intended to put the referendum lock on any loss of sovereignty from this sovereign nation and from our sovereign Parliament, but which, in the very course of exerting that, subjects itself to the additional possibility that power could move in these circumstances from that sovereign Parliament to judges. It is just another illustration of the fact that the coalition does not lack a sense of humour. It would not be possible to get any film company to accept this as a serious documentary and I do not think many publishers would be willing to accept it as credible fiction.

My final point connects directly with that. The Government have defined the conditions that would trigger a referendum, not only in the case of treaty changes but also in the case of changes that could be produced under the provisions relating to Article 48(6) and therefore the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Minister for Europe, David Lidington, pointed out as long ago as September 2010 that the background note produced at the time by the Government said:

“The use of any major ratchet clause which amounts to the transferring of an area power to the EU would be subject to a referendum”.

I have a question on that which I have not seen answered satisfactorily anywhere given the interest that I have taken in this piece of legislation. What is “major” in the context of a major ratchet clause? If in this first examination of the Bill in Committee we can get from the Minister a definition of a major ratchet clause that could be required to be subject to a referendum, I am sure it will guide our deliberations commendably and illuminate all our discussions.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My Lords, I can be very brief. My concern about this Bill centres on one issue alone: parliamentary sovereignty. I am opposed to referenda as a matter of principle, and many noble Lords have made that point. I know that giving the people a say has become the political equivalent of motherhood and apple pie but I will resist the temptation now of drawing to the Committee’s attention why this particular pie contains a poison that strikes at the very heart of our parliamentary democracy.

I hope I am sufficient of a realist to recognise that when a coalition is formed, concessions have to be made, not only between parties but between various factions within parties. My noble friend Lord Deben referred to them, rather generously, as head-bangers. My own view is that this has been and is a price worth paying as it has delivered a Government who are following, at the moment, a sensible and pragmatic approach within the European Union, always—as is Britain’s traditional role—with a degree of cautious, pragmatic scepticism. But if this Bill, as drafted, goes through, the kind of sensible approach to the European Union that we have seen from the coalition so far will be virtually impossible. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, if referenda are to be introduced in matters that do not involve a treaty change and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, has just pointed out, decisions taken by the Government are subject to judicial review, then the group of friends to whom my noble friend Lord Deben referred will for certain cash in on that, if I may put it that way, and the sensible and pragmatic policies that are now being pursued by the coalition will become impossible.

Foreign Policy

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My Lords, one inevitably follows the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, with a certain amount of trepidation. Noble Lords who listened to his magisterial speech today will understand exactly what I mean. That feeling of trepidation has been further compounded in my case by a number of very distinguished interventions from noble Lords. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Maples on his maiden speech. He and I share what I think I might call a criminal past in another place and I know that the House will anxiously look forward to many distinguished contributions from him.

Today’s debate poses a fundamental, underlying question: what are the objectives of British foreign policy as we face the challenges and hazards of the 21st century? I believe that we stand at a crossroads where we have to ask ourselves a basic question. Do we believe that Britain’s interests and the values that she seeks to uphold warrant a global diplomacy? My answer is yes.

However, I fear that over recent years we have failed to give our foreign service the tools for the job. Punching above our weight, to quote my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, who certainly did just that, is fine, but you need, at the very least, some boxing gloves to do it and not a cricket bat, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

The cost of the Diplomatic Service in 2010-11 will be £865 million, which is 0.1 per cent of the national budget. In today’s straitened times one hesitates to describe that or any other sum as paltry but, just to put it in context—I intend no criticism of the programmes concerned with these comparisons—that figure is less than one-third of what the Department for Work and Pensions spends in a week, it is almost identical to the £823 million spent by the Government on the National Lottery and it is well below, almost half, the £1.6 billion that is estimated to be spent by devolved Administrations to underpin the Marine and Coastal Access Act. I sometimes ask myself whether it is worth the Treasury’s time spending even a morning negotiating with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Can Britain or should Britain have a global diplomacy? There are three possible answers to that question. The first is no. Let us face the fact that we are a second- division power. Let us stop dancing around the world kidding ourselves that Britannia rules the waves. Let us try to manage our decline into the second division with as much propriety as we can. We may even gain a few brownie points as we go: we could offer up our seat on the Security Council to the European Union.

The second answer, and perhaps the most cynical, is what I suppose one might call the middle way. We could say nothing and keep trimming. The man on the Clapham omnibus will not notice. It has been going on for the past few years. I focus on Latin America, but this scenario is replicated in other parts of the world. Between 2003 and 2005, we closed our embassies in Paraguay, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. I have a horrible nightmare that somewhere down the road, in 50 years’ time, we will end up with two embassies in the whole of Latin America—in Mexico and Brazil—and, in any other country, British citizens and companies with problems or interests will be invited to go to the EU representative, who by then, no doubt, will be described as an “ambassador plenipotentiary”.

I bow to no one in my support for the European Union. I am an unashamed Europhile. I strongly support the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the new European Foreign Policy Unit. However—I am confident that this view is widely shared in your Lordships’ House—I do not see the European Union as a substitute for the nation state. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who will reply to this debate, may, along with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, share my view that we need a global diplomacy and that Britain’s interests and values warrant such a foreign service.

An increase of 2.5 per cent in the diplomatic budget year on year for the life of this Parliament would cost £21,625,000 this first year. Again, just to put that figure in context, the Department for Work and Pensions spends more than 20 times that every day and it is less than we spend on combating infectious diseases of livestock for international development.

My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is as ingenious as he is clever. He will not, I am confident, want to announce that he is leading Britain down into the second division, nor will he wish to opt for a continuation of the surreptitious decline that we have witnessed over recent years. I am afraid that it is Hobson’s choice for the coalition Government, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor. It is: find the money, William, and pay up, George. In the previous century, Britain moved, I think with a certain dignity, from “Rule Britannia” to “Cool Britannia”. Failure to act now in strengthening our Diplomatic Service could well mean that the 21st century will earn us the noble title of “Fool Britannia”.

Latin America

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, not just for initiating this debate but for his life-long promotion of Latin America in your Lordships’ House. He is, as they would say over there, “un amigo leal y constante”.

All of a sudden Latin America is in fashion. In my day job in the City, I am frequently approached by leaders of industry with the question, “Do you think we ought to be looking at Latin America?”. The answer is yes, and it is hardly surprising if you look at what is going on down there. I wish to give a few snapshots. Peru’s economy is expanding by more than 6 per cent and foreign direct investment will double in the next five years. It has investment-grade status. Colombia’s GDP is expected to grow by 5 per cent in the next four years. It has never defaulted on a sovereign obligation and should recover investment-grade status any time soon. Chile has investment-grade status, no public debt to speak of, is a member of OECD and has a level of economic, political and social development which rivals that of most European countries. Growth is projected at around 4.5 per cent. Brazil is predicted to be the sixth largest economy in the world by 2015 and is the guardian of one of the largest reserves of natural resources in the world. Growth is predicted at around 8 per cent. Mexico is a member of the G20, is the eleventh largest economy in the world, a member of OECD and has a growth rate of 4.2 per cent. Even in these times of unprecedented difficulty, Argentina is tackling its debt overhang with the firm intention of returning to the international markets at the earliest opportunity. It has a growth rate of 5.5 to 6 per cent. I pick out just one of a whole host of smaller countries, Uruguay, with projected growth of 5.1 per cent this year. It is a small country but about as serious and proper a place as you could hope to find along with other smaller states such as Panama, which has investment-grade status, Costa Rica, which may become the first carbon-free country in the world, the Dominican Republic and others.

That economic success, as the noble Viscount pointed out, has been accompanied by democratic consolidation. In Brazil, the transfer from President Cardoso to President Lula has been exemplary and the upcoming elections will be hard fought, but with one certain winner—the democratic process. In Chile, the deservedly popular left-of-centre President Bachelet handed over to the centre-right President Piñera. It was a real sea change after 20 years of centre-left government. In Uruguay, there was no such ideological shift, but impeccable behaviour by both candidates. As the noble Viscount pointed out, this very weekend Colombia, a country that has been challenged by criminal terrorists for more than 30 years, has upheld its position as the most longstanding democracy in Latin America. There were two interesting and intelligent candidates; there was a proper campaign, a proper process and a President-elect Santos who is eager to build on President Uribe’s record.

Noble Lords might think that people such as myself would be deeply satisfied. Well, not quite. Why, I ask myself, does this great continent with a gross domestic product, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that is almost twice that of India and only a tad short of China’s, remain no more than a bit player in world affairs? Is there some congenital deficiency? By no means. If one steps outside the political world, in almost every other field of human endeavour, we are talking about first division players.

In literature, there are Octavio Paz, Neruda, Vargas Llosa, García Márquez and Borges. The only surprising thing is that only three of them have a Nobel prize. In art there are Botero, Diego Rivera and Oscar Niemeyer. In music, there is what is known as El Sistema in Venezuela, which is perhaps the most exciting classical music experiment in the world, embracing every town and village in the republic and showcased by the Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolivar, led by Gustavo Dudamel. The recent appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court is just the latest example of citizens of Latin American origin occupying the highest positions in the public, industrial and intellectual life of the United States. We are talking first division here.

So what is wrong? Why is Latin America no more than a bit player? Latin American countries are prisoners of the 19th-century Westphalian model of the nation state—as we all are, up to a point. Here in Europe, after the loss of 60 million lives in two world wars, we have begun to move on from that model. But it is difficult. How does one identify those areas where the pooling of sovereignty with others is the most effective way of advancing our interests and values without losing that all-important and underlying sense of belonging and social cohesion that the nation state provides? It is no easy task.

In Europe, we are moving in that direction. I will not dwell on our successes or many failures. Suffice it to say that Latin America has yet to embark seriously on that journey. For all the Mercosurs, the Andean pacts, the ALBAs, the ALCAs, the CAFTAs, the FTAAs, the bilateral free-trade agreements, and Brazil's membership of the BRICS, the continent remains a collection of 19th-century Westphalian states competing macho-like against one another. It would be impertinent of us here in Europe to lecture Latin America on how to go about its business. There are a number of senior prestigious former presidents— Bachelet, Lacalle, and Zedillo, who are soon to be joined by Lula and and President Uribe. My hope is that they might come together to start the process of really bringing this continent together, because we need them.

In another place, I was sometimes described by political foes as the “Member for Madrid Central”. It was a badge that I wore with some pride. Spain and Portugal have led the effort to put Latin America on to the European agenda. However, as the noble Viscount pointed out, we British have a history there, too. The British Legions fought with distinction in the battles of Boyacá Carabobo, Pichincha and Ayacucho—earning for the British the title of “saviours of my country” from Bolivar. It was here in London that Bolivar, along with Miranda and others, planned the struggle for independence.

There are encouraging signs. The European Union has agreed to set up the EU-LAC Foundation, whose aim is to strengthen EU-Latin American partnership and to encourage further knowledge and understanding between us. The new coalition Government have appointed the honourable Member for Taunton as Minister of State for Latin America, and I know that he is approaching his responsibility with all the relish and enthusiasm that the noble Viscount could wish for.

No doubt, Canning exaggerated a little in 1825 when he famously claimed:

“I have called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old”.

That balance has yet to be redressed and I call on our Latin American friends to do just that, and on our Government and the European Union to support them in that endeavour.