Government of France: Meetings

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

These are challenging demands, and they are obviously creating great strains and tensions in the countries affected. In a way, my noble friend has asked me to comment not so much on Monsieur Hollande’s wish to see expansion, which we all share, as on the German wish to stick very rigidly to certain austere budget disciplines. Somewhere between those two, and perhaps in talks between Monsieur Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel, there will emerge a sensible balance. We hope that there will and we shall certainly contribute to anything that achieves that.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, will the Minister accept a mild rebuke from me on the pronunciation of the names of French Presidents? I declare an interest. It seems a failing of successive Governments to get the names of French Presidents properly pronounced. The previous President was inevitably and almost always referred to as Mr Sarkozy as if it was meant to rhyme with tea cosy, when in fact it does not; and President Hollande is President Hollande and not President Hollander.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I totally accept those extremely wise rebukes from the noble Lord about my French pronunciation. It has never been very good; I will practise a lot more to see whether I can improve it.

Eurozone

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is not for me to advise the media on their priorities but clearly the eurozone crisis could have considerable impact on all economies in the region and certainly on the United Kingdom. We are right to be concerned about it and the media are right to examine it and to bring home—through their experts and commentators, in addition to the expertise already in this House—that if there are further difficulties and the problems in the eurozone are not resolved, it will certainly hurt the British economy as well. That is inevitable.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, as regards those who are pleading for not one single cent more of British money to be spent on sorting out the problems in the eurozone, will the Minister bear in mind what the consequences might be if a newly elected Greek Government after the next elections wish to tear up all the agreements made, which would almost certainly provoke an exit from the eurozone leading to extraordinary problems for Greece? But the most important point, which has not been much discussed, is whether we are prepared to consider seriously the impact of a failed state in the Balkans and the probability that this will provoke a resurgence of nationalism in the region. It is the Balkans that we need to think about and not just Greece.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is right that there are serious political implications. He mentions the Balkans. One only needs to think of the problems facing Cyprus, for instance, and the whole south-eastern region of the Mediterranean. Further instabilities there on top of all the existing instabilities would certainly be against our interest. These things must be examined very carefully. But that is a different question from who steps forward with the financing for a problem which is strictly for the European countries to sort out and on which they are working now. But at the political level we fully recognise, as I am sure everyone does in this House, that serious political developments are ahead if the whole stability of the eurozone is not secured one way or another.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am longing to get on. I have taken too much time already and not met in sufficient detail some of the very profound arguments that have been made. We may perhaps have opportunities later.

On Amendment 47, by including the relevant item in Schedule 1, we are ensuring that the British people would have a say before the UK gave up the current practice of voting by unanimity on these particular areas. We, as well as the previous Government, and several partners in the member states—I would suspect the majority—would view that with very great sensitivity indeed. That is all I have time to say on these vital issues, but that indicates that these are not chance items that were just bunged into Schedule 1, but very serious issues on which there would be a very serious situation, should it come to giving up the veto, that would certainly demand the referendum lock.

I will say a word on Amendment 46 and then I will try to close because there is a great deal more to say, particularly on Amendment 47A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Flight. Amendment 46 refers to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is the engine room of the EU. As we know, the Treaty on European Union sets out provisions of principle in a number of sensitive areas, such as common foreign and security policy, and the TFEU sets out the bulk of policy areas and the extent of the competence in which the EU can act. It has considerable read-across to areas on which we in Parliament would otherwise legislate and which are of vital importance, such as social policy, criminal policy, tax policy, police matters and other things that the British people rightly regard as very intimate domestic issues. Some of the articles in the TFEU have been moved over to QMV. We have previously made clear that this Government have no intention of giving up any veto in the EU treaties, and nor have several other member states.

I reiterate that, for many member states and perhaps for ourselves, Lisbon was passed and is a fact, but it took a great slice of the issues into QMV and a great slice of them was also preserved. They were preserved because member states did not wish to give them up. Some vetoes are plainly not within the bracket that will be a vital issue at all—for example, Article 219(1) of TFEU on the setting of the Euro exchange rates with third countries. A number of vetoes fall within the sensitive policy areas defined by the last Government and successive administrations as so-called “red lines”. Those vetoes should be subject to a referendum lock, if ever there was a proposal to give these up in the future.

Finally, I must say a word on Amendment 47A, which my noble friend moved. The provisions here, in respect of Article 207(4), are narrowly defined types of EU trade agreements, requiring unanimity. I considered this amendment very carefully, as did my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe. The conclusion was that it did not make sense—and this, I hope it will be recognised, is evidence of some flexibility—to include this in Schedule 1. That does not mean that we intend to agree to give up this veto in the future, but the treaty base is not of as great a level of sensitivity for the United Kingdom, as it is for some other Member States, for whom it certainly is sensitive. An Act of Parliament would therefore be sufficient here, rather than the referendum lock.

I hope that I have given some evidence that we are looking at these matters very carefully, and that we are acting in a proportionate way. There is a scale here. The vital issues are in Schedule 1, and the less vital issues are not in Schedule 1 or would not attract the referendum lock. We have sought to increase ministerial accountability. We have not sought—contrary to the views of some noble Lords—to squander money and time by seeking to legislate for a string of referendums on matters of relative insignificance. Those matters are not in the schedule. Instead, we ask for the British people's agreement when transferring further powers from the UK to the EU in areas which define who we are as a nation and as a people.

These transfers are unlikely ever to be proposed on an individual basis—whatever noble Lords may argue—and only in the context of a package, given the opposition from several member states to moves to qualified majority voting in these areas. Indeed, articles in Schedule 1, where unanimity needs to be safeguarded, are there precisely because member states—including ourselves—have resisted going to QMV to protect our national interest. That is why they are there.

In conclusion, Schedule 1 provides clarity in the Bill, not confusion. It is a definitive and unambiguous list of treaty articles that we believe should concern the British people, if ever there is a proposal to give up a veto in those areas. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Government are obliged to seek the approval of both Parliament and the people before they can agree to the removal of the vetoes present in each of these articles in Schedule 1.

It is Schedule 1 that gives Parliament and the people assurance and therefore is a key element in rebuilding trust. That underlines why the contents of Schedule 1 are the right ones and why we argue strongly against moving from these areas towards what the Opposition call flexibility. To do so would allow a number of areas to generate the kind of doubt and distrust that we have seen in the past, which is now widespread quite a lot in this country and throughout Europe.

The declining popularity for the great European Union, which many of us have worked for and in for decades, is a bad development. Sensible Europeans need to recognise that and take moves to shore up and reassure the public support for the European Union project in the 21^st century. That is what this Bill is about. That is what we are trying to do. To begin picking little exemptions and holes in the Bill is the way to undermine its central purpose. I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Grenfell]

Before my very good friend the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put one very quick question to him of a practical nature. He mentioned that we were not the only country in the European Union that had referendum locks. Does he agree that it would be very helpful to the House if, when we get to Report, he could provide us with the list of countries and how many referendum locks that they have. I have a feeling that their number, collectively, may not add up the number of referendum locks that are being proposed by the Government.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I must hurry because time is running out, but I have in front of me a long list of countries both which have various forms of filter, referendum lock and mandate reference and which have opposed at every point any abandonment of unanimity on a whole range of issues, many of which I have covered this evening. Under my hand, I can see 15 to 20 countries straight off. I shall try to provide for noble Lords as much information as I can on the details of other countries doing what we are doing.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is simply because the simplified revision procedure involves changes in the treaty. In many cases I have described, particularly where the significant test is applied and is not satisfied under paragraphs (i) and (j) in Clause 4, there would not be referenda here or in many other countries. But in other areas, through the simplified revision procedure and part of what we called the passerelle in our impassioned debates on this issue in the House at the time of the Lisbon treaty, it is possible to generate either transfers of competence or transfers of power. These are things on which there would be a natural incentive for the better use of existing powers in order to achieve certain objectives, like better co-operation over civil nuclear power or one of the other things that has been raised. They would also be matters where a real effort would be made by all countries because of the complexity they all face in pushing through treaty changes of any kind; even some quite small changes would trigger elaborate procedures in other countries. There will be a natural and sensible tendency to avoid changes and developments that involve treaty changes.

We simply do not accept that there is an appetite in the European Union for a further round of treaty change, given the arduousness of the ratification process, let alone one that would transfer further power from the UK to the EU. We certainly do not subscribe to the view that the addition of the simplified revision procedure will launch a new culture of regular treaty changes that seek to transfer power on a single issue. That is not the way the system has worked or will work in the future, as those who have been involved in it will know. My last involvement was many decades ago, but I had my share of it back in the 1970s and 1980s. Nations will know that when they come to deal with these issues, they have political capital to spend and they will spend it carefully, not rush into treaty changes at every opportunity. It is highly improbable that all 27 member states will push to agree a treaty change unless it was considered both urgent and important, such as the European financial stability mechanism, which the noble Lord rightly mentioned. But even then, that urgent treaty is expected to take two years—I repeat, two years—to be approved by all member states. The proposition that tiny little treaty changes would somehow be pushed through and promote a referendum here when they take two years for any country to get through is an absurdity.

I know that this is complex but it is a comprehensive approach to the whole question of the transfer of competences and powers. I beg noble Lords to understand that that is the reality of the position. Otherwise, individual issues are bound to be deferred—this is going to be the natural way; it has worked in the past and it will work again—until a whole raft of issues requiring attention can be wrapped up and packaged. That would ensure one treaty change which would cover a multitude of issues and one ratification process and, where relevant, one vote, as was the case with the Lisbon treaty. We recognise the kind of creature that comes along—it is the Lisbon treaty. That is just the sort of amalgamation of small and large issues, some of which under this Bill would certainly require a referendum, that should be and should have been put to a referendum.

We disagree most strongly with the proposition—this House disagreed with it and I think we carried sensible public opinion with us in doing so—that the Lisbon treaty should be somehow brushed aside and not put to a referendum because of the arguments about whether it did or did not parallel the European constitution beforehand. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said it would not but he remembers, because he was a doughty campaigner in all those Lisbon debates, that there was a very strong sentiment the other way which remains to this day, enlivened and reinforced by the fact that if you actually read the words in the two documents, the constitution and the Lisbon treaty, they turn out over a broad stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, knows very well, to be identical. We are not fools, and nor are the public when they are told about this matter.

I see that the noble Lord wants to intervene again.

[Lord Grenfell]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Could we please try to get this straight once and for all? The constitution prepared by the EU Constitutional Convention was meant to be a constitution. The Lisbon treaty was in fact a series of amendments to two existing treaties, and the novelty of this was that when it was ratified, the Lisbon treaty disappeared into thin air and did not exist any more. It would have been odd to have a referendum on something that did not exist. What we were left with was amended versions of the two original treaties. That is very different from having a full-blown new constitution.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will call the noble Lord my noble friend because he is that. He will recall how we went around and around this debate. It is perfectly true that when the Lisbon treaty was brought forward, its drafters had taken care to change the basis so that it could not be packaged or described as a constitution, but there was an awful weight of evidence, supported by the similarity of wording and by many European leaders such as Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. I do not think I am misquoting his words when he said that it was, “identical down to the last comma”. We could argue about that, but let us please not do so again tonight because I seem to remember that we spent many evenings on it. That is the fact of the matter.

In short, including the simplified revision procedure in the scope of the referendum conditions would not unleash frequent trivial referendums. In the same way, we do not accept that there are likely to be regular treaty changes in the future under the ordinary provision procedure. That is one set of reasons why there will be nothing very different from these large treaties coming along on which there is a basic division of view. We say that these things should be put to the British people. Others disagree, including my noble friend sitting further along the Bench. They think that somehow Parliament can continue to be relied upon to be the safeguard to prevent the further ceding of powers and competences. We have considerable doubts about that, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has even greater and stronger doubts than the Government.

However, we recognise that the simplified revision procedure has been set up to allow for amendments to specific parts of the treaty to be made in a more streamlined way, which is the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. We recognise that on occasion an Article 48(6) decision might be used to agree a change that might involve a small transfer of power but on which it would not be appropriate to hold a referendum. We have therefore gone one stage further and proposed a mechanism to assess whether certain types of transfer of powers under the simplified revision procedure should be put to a referendum. This is known as the significance test, which we will no doubt debate in further groups of amendments. It applies to any decision that falls under the criteria of either Clause 4(1)(i) or (j), both of which I have mentioned.

If the decision is deemed not to have a significant impact, a referendum need not be held, although an Act of Parliament—and this is a considerable addition to what went on in the past—would still need to be passed in all cases before the UK could approve any treaty change. We have built in this mechanism, the scope of which we will return to, to provide a further safeguard to prevent referendums being held on trivial matters. For example—I am asked for examples all the time—a new power under a future use of the simplified revision procedure that compelled Governments to provide annual statistics to the European Commission would not necessarily be considered significant enough to warrant a referendum, but a new power to compel UK businesses to adhere to further regulation might well be deemed significant and might turn up in some package or treaty that we would have to deal with in a better way than we dealt with the Lisbon treaty when that went rushing through.

India: Commonwealth Games

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will certainly follow the advice of the noble and right reverend Lord. I do not have any details on the other allegations but I will look into them. He might be interested to know that the sum diverted was £94 million. We are monitoring the situation very closely, and the British high commissioner is in discussion with the Indian National Commission for Minorities about these and other issues.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Dalits. Now that the Delhi state government have finally acknowledged this diversion of funds which should have gone to projects such as schools, healthcare centres and, most importantly, the eradication of the demeaning manual scavenging which is the means of livelihood for so many of the Dalits, does the Minister—who I know has long been a great champion of the Commonwealth—agree that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth should ensure that the lessons to be learnt from this very unfortunate incident should be placed on the agenda of the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, next October so that there can be a full discussion of whether it is correct and sensible for a country which has more than half its population living in absolute poverty and is a recipient of development aid to be seeking to host an enormous event at such colossal cost?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I certainly recognise the validity of the noble Lord’s introduction of the Commonwealth into this issue, and I think that the Commonwealth has a very valuable role to play. However, I am not so sure whether it is a question of drawing it to the attention of the Secretary-General and the Heads of Government Meeting or of drawing it to the attention of the Eminent Persons Group which is now looking at ways in which the Commonwealth monitoring and policing of human rights generally can be greatly upgraded. I suspect, on reflection, that it might be best to put it before the EPG. Either way, the concern of the Commonwealth in upholding, monitoring and strengthening human rights through all its member states, including the world power which India is, is very important indeed.

Argentina: Falkland Islands

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I mentioned the difficulty of getting co-operation, which we certainly have on offer, over the two items that the noble Lord mentions. But on other things we are engaged. We are dealing with Argentina as an important country, which, incidentally, is a very beautiful country and is, potentially, a country of great wealth and prosperity. We are dealing with it on science, mining, education and energy. This is a very positive agenda, which we welcome. But on these difficult issues involving the Falkland Islands, we have seen the non-co-operation which we deplore and we would like to see it replaced by active co-operation.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who appeared before the decolonisation committee many times in the 1970s, defending the World Bank’s position that it could not lend money to the PLO because it was not a sovereign state. Does the Minister agree that the empty-chair policy is not very enlightened? As we have heard, many Commonwealth countries are members of that committee. Would it not be appropriate for at least the United Kingdom to be present?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord obviously has considerable experience on this issue. If he is talking about the decolonisation committee, I am not sure that we are even entitled to be on it. Two members of the Falkland Islands Government have a place on that committee and have made their views clear. I am not sure that those views prevail or are the majority view, but they have made them very clear indeed; namely, that Falkland Islanders do not wish to end their present status. They wish to remain as they are. That is the right approach. If the noble Lord is talking about another committee, perhaps I should have a word with him afterwards about that.

Korean Peninsula

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 28th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, my Lords, I agree with both those propositions. We want to get the six-party talks going again to bring China back in. China has a different agenda in some ways from the rest of us for the Korean peninsula, but it, too, shares the broad view that the long-term aim must be the denuclearisation of the whole peninsula.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a temptation in some quarters to dismiss North Korea’s pronouncements as sabre rattling, when history has taught us that the step from sabre rattling to sabre thrusting can sometimes be very short and unexpected? Does the Minister also agree that it is the habit of unstable dictators who feel that they are not being taken seriously to act irresponsibly and unpredictably? Does he agree that talk of sabre rattling is totally out of place in this situation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord speaks wise words. The North Koreans are capable of really dangerous acts. They have the Taepodong missile, which in theory has an intercontinental range. They have tried one—it did not work, but it might have done—and they are prepared, under pressure, to do very dangerous things. This is a very dangerous situation and we should have no illusions that it is just a question of sabre rattling. It is right that the entire community should recognise this and that the Chinese should realise that, although North Korea is their neighbour, they should be as worried as the rest of us to have a neighbour with these inclinations.

Korean Peninsula: “Cheonan”

Debate between Lord Grenfell and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That would, in theory, be the ideal. It is basically up to the nation states involved: North Korea and South Korea. In practice, there are, to put it mildly, a few difficulties.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, I join those who have expressed words of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on his return to the government Front Bench. He is my old roommate from Cambridge and I think that I was almost in short trousers when he first went into government. I am delighted to see him back.

Do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to try once again to persuade the United States to recognise the International Criminal Court? It would be helpful if the United States could overcome its shyness on this, because it would carry a great deal of weight in dealing with rogue states such as North Korea.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank the noble Lord—indeed, my noble friend, as he is—for his compliment, if it was a compliment. We must keep trying. The United States has deep-rooted objections, as we discovered when we debated this matter in the House some years ago. It is nervous that its troops and personnel around the world might be unfairly attacked and charged. However, we must keep at it and I agree with the noble Lord that this is a good way to go.