West Papua

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On West Papua, it is important to say for the record that the United Kingdom retains its position on supporting the integrity of Indonesia. I will follow up with my opposite number in the Indonesian Government to get an update on the situation raised by the noble Lord. Let me be clear also that we are cognisant of the situation on the ground; that is why our ambassador has visited the region a number of times. I also draw to the House’s attention the fact that when the universal periodic review took place earlier this year, we raised human rights issues with specific reference to journalists who were not being allowed to report freely from the region.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that I have an interest in this because I advised BP on its gas deposit in West Papua and visited there regularly for seven years? Can the Minister say whether journalists, both Indonesian and international, now have free access to West Papua? Do they have the ability to shine some light on the accusations of human rights abuses—and, if not, will we continue to press the Indonesian Government to give that right of access?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord speaks with great experience of the region and the country. I can assure him that, as I alluded to in an earlier response on this Question, President Jokowi has granted many more open rights. He has granted an equalisation of rights of access for journalists reporting on West Papua. Of course, the situation continues to be monitored on the ground. To answer the noble Lord’s question directly, there certainly is reporting. That is why we raised in the UPR that the free access to which the President has certainly committed is not translating itself on the ground. I assure the noble Lord, and your Lordships’ House more generally, that we will continue to raise not just the freedom of journalists within the region but all issues of human rights in West Papua.

Middle East (IRC Report)

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I suspect that it was clear to all of us on the International Relations Committee that we were going to need a strong injection of humility as we embarked on an analysis of a Middle East in chaos, confusion and rapid movement. If we demonstrated that humility in the report—I hope that we did—it owed much to the wise leadership of our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whose introduction to the debate was a good summation of what we have tried to say.

After all, we need that humility because Britain’s interventions in the Middle East region since the Second World War have not been a series of unblemished successes: the overthrow of Mosaddegh, the Suez fiasco, the bungled occupation of Iraq and the power vacuum in Libya. There have, of course, been some successes: the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, persuading the European Union to champion the two-state solution for Palestine, the reversal of Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait in 1991, the saving of the Kurds from Saddam Hussein’s wrath and the nuclear agreement with Iran. So there is a balance, but there is plenty on the negative side, which is what pushes the case for humility.

It also pushes the case for a complete review of Britain’s policy for a period ahead more likely to be characterised by continuing tensions and turmoil than by stability. That case seems to me to be unanswerable. I have to say that we found the Foreign Secretary’s rather bombastic claim that Britain was back east of Suez pretty unconvincing. That is a slogan, not a policy. The advice given by an experienced American witness, Dr Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations—“Above all, do no harm”—seemed closer to the mark. It also seems clear to us that all the outside players who dominated the Middle East region throughout the 20th century—the United States, the Soviet Union and then Russia, Britain, France and Turkey—are no longer in a position to call the shots and they should not be trying to do so. However unpromising the short-term prospects may be, the countries of the region should be given a greater say than in the past.

The single most worrying trend in a deeply troubled region is the mounting rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is often presented, rather misleadingly, as an age-old conflict between Sunni and Shia. The view that the report takes is that it is in fact fundamentally contrary to our own and our western allies’ interests to see that rivalry being perpetuated or, worse still, for it to spin out of control into open hostilities and that a fortiori we and our allies should not get involved on one side or the other of this rivalry. That is what makes President Trump’s intemperate and ill-judged remarks during his recent visit to Riyadh a cause of such deep concern. There is plenty wrong with many aspects of Iran’s external policies, which need to be resisted, but to launch a rhetorical onslaught on the newly and fairly re-elected President Rouhani, who had committed himself to a policy of deeper engagement with the outside world, was surely not a wise judgment and to be proved to have given to Saudi Arabia and its friends a blank cheque to accentuate tensions with its neighbours, a step uncannily similar to the blank cheque that the Kaiser gave to the Habsburg empire in June 1914, which did not end terribly well, seems to us pretty reckless.

Considerations are taking place, no doubt, about how to resolve the problem that has arisen with Qatar, but I hope that the Minister can say something in his reply about the consultations that presumably have taken place and are taking place between us and our closest ally over all this and over the heightened tensions within the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Then there is the matter of the Iran nuclear deal, in support of which the Government’s firm line, along with four of the five other members of the P5+1, is very welcome. But would it not be wise to seek to move on and to remedy at least one of the main defects of that agreement—its relatively short duration —by generalising and globalising the constraints that are set out in it for the future, so that Iran is no longer treated as a pariah but merely on the same lines as other non-nuclear states in the world? That course was recommended in our report. However, the Government’s response to it is Delphic to the point of obscurity and I hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, may have something a bit clearer to say on that.

No report on the Middle East can afford to neglect the issue of Palestine. To try to wish it away or to behave as if it does not exist has never worked in the past and will not work in the future, particularly not while illegal settlements in Jerusalem and on the West Bank are proliferating and making matters worse. That is why our report put forward a proposal that the Government should consider recognising Palestine as a state, which would be the clearest possible way of showing our continued firm support for a two-state solution. The Government’s response to that seems to me to lack any credibility and seems to be drawn from a set of briefings that I can remember from something like 30 years ago.

One other theme runs through our report, which is that we cannot and should not turn our backs on the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, set out clearly why that is not a viable policy. The region’s future development directly affects our own future prosperity and our security, whether as a source of refugees, a source of terrorists or a source of natural gas and whether as a potential source of dangerous, destabilising conflict or, if we can only make some progress in stabilisation, as a source of prosperity and reduced tension. We need a clear set of policies towards the Middle East region, post Brexit, and they need to be different from the failed policies of the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

In the interests of the issues that remain to be covered the time available, I will come back to the noble Lord on that if I may. However, as I said, it is on the Government’s agenda.

I turn briefly to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course we need to make progress on this. I listened carefully to the various contributions with their different perspectives on the issue from the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg, Lord Alderdice and Lord Grocott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My noble friend Lord Polak also raised important issues, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke from great experience. I make it clear that the Government’s position remains that we need to see a lasting solution to this crisis, which has gone on for far too long. We heard about the 1967 crisis, which occurred before I was born. This is an important issue which needs a resolution, and the Government’s position is consistent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, articulated it very well, saying that we need a negotiated settlement which leads to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state—and that is where our efforts will continue. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to work with France, the US and others to reinvigorate the peace process and support efforts to move towards a quick peace deal that meets the requirements of both parties and reflects our long-standing support for a two-state solution.

Stability beyond conflicts is the second key area where we are working for progress. We are promoting long-term stability beyond immediate conflicts across the wider region. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that at times there was a perception that this was a battle between Islam and the West. As a Muslim Minister and a Muslim of the West, I assure him that I am not self-conflicted. Indeed, I am proud that I am not the first Muslim Foreign Office Minister to stand at this Dispatch Box; I am the second to appear over a short period. That reflects the positive nature of Islam’s relationship with the West—it is a personal but, I think, practical example. The extremists who seek to create these battles need to be defeated by a unified front, and I assure noble Lords of our Government’s absolute commitment across all sectors. Whether it is the Foreign Office, the Home Office or other departments, we work hand in glove. We must defeat this menace, but we must do so with a unified response.

Finally, in addressing conflicts and sources of instability, we are also encouraging sustainable political and economic reform. We are taking a range of initiatives, including teaching Arabic in UK schools—a point that I noted from the valuable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. Equally, we are working alongside other regions through, for example, the North Africa Good Governance Fund. We have also looked to invest in new development zones in Jordan, and we have jointly funded a scientific programme with Egypt to bring more than 200 of their brightest students to study in the UK. I will write to noble Lords about other ambitious programmes that we are running, including supporting Saudi Arabia’s blueprint for reforms, Vision 2030, which the noble Lord, Lord Luce, mentioned.

In conclusion, once again I thank all noble Lords for their important and valuable contributions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so kind as to address one element which came up in innumerable contributions today and which is absolutely central to our report. I refer to the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. He has said not a single thing about our policy towards Iran—not a thing.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

If the noble Lord will bear with me, there is one more important area which I was about to mention in my concluding remarks. There is an extensive response on that issue. Of course we are working with Iran in expanding not just our diplomatic ties. There have been issues since the visit of the then Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and subsequent ministerial visits also focusing on trade. It is a policy of engagement. For example, we are committed to the full implementation of the historic joint comprehensive plan of action, the nuclear deal. The UK has always sought a productive relationship with Iran, and we see the nuclear deal as central to ensuring the long-term stability of the region and Iran’s role in the Middle East. As the noble Lord and others have said, it is crucial to the future stability of that region.

In the longer term we want Iran to play a very constructive role in the Middle East, ensuring an end to its continued support for terrorist groups and militias across the region. In having that productive and constructive relationship, some of the issues touched on by, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Collins—in particular the human rights issues relating to that agenda—will be addressed. On a wide agenda and on the wide report, if specific questions were raised that I have not answered, I will of course, as ever, seek to write to noble Lords in this respect.

This has been a wide-ranging debate, which has focused on conflicts and overcoming security challenges in the Middle East. It also requires us to work quite extensively in the region with interested parties on future generations, on economic empowerment and on educational initiatives, to really ensure not just the long-term security of the region but its long-term stability. We are equally committed to working very collaboratively to bolster stability in the long term. Ultimately, we want a peaceful, stable and prosperous Middle East, with all key players having a key role in the partnership. That is the key to combating security threats and terrorism in the region and achieving the economic prosperity and peace that we seek.

Gibraltar

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is because we take it so seriously that we did not mention simply one aspect in that letter, which, as the noble Lord will be aware—I am sure he has read it in detail—set out general principles, all of which apply to Gibraltar. We are taking our negotiations very seriously and taking every step along the way the opportunity to consult and reflect with Gibraltar on how the discussions will go ahead. Border issues are of course key to our negotiations.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not feel that the last people to give advice on this matter should be the people who caused the problem: those who incited the electorate of this country to leave the European Union, without which Gibraltar’s situation would be perfectly and totally secure? Could they perhaps encourage their supporters to give them some ideas on how to persuade Spain, which is in a strong position now, unfortunately, to reach an agreed position with us that will preserve the situation of Gibraltar and its prosperity?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Gibraltar’s position is as secure today—and will be in two years’ time, or whenever the negotiations are concluded thereafter—as it was on 23 June.

West Papua

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we should recognise that overall the human rights situation in Indonesia has improved significantly since the late 1990s. Of course, we have some specific concerns, including about respect for some communities, and the noble and right reverend Lord has raised specific issues about West Papua. Throughout all these issues of concern on human rights it is important to note that the President has made it clear that he pays more attention than his predecessors to the importance of the future prosperity of West Papua—and it is the case that prosperity tends to follow proper respect for human rights, which we uphold through the UN.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare a past interest as an adviser to BP on its big gas investment in Papua. Will the Minister express a view on whether it is correct to feel that these human rights abuses and the cases that are brought forward of such abuses are completely counterproductive to the Indonesian Government’s policy of trying to reconcile the indigenous inhabitants of Papua to being part of Indonesia? If she says that that is the Government’s view, do we convey that view to the Indonesian Government?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we convey the view to the Indonesian Government that we wish to work with them in their stated objective of improving the condition of people in West Papua. With regard to abuses, it is the case that the Indonesian President is committed to addressing the problems in the region. The previous co-ordinating ministry for legal, political and security affairs established an investigative team to resolve past cases of human rights abuse. However, we remain concerned by the slow progress that has been made and we are encouraging the Indonesian Government to prioritise a swift resolution. The fact is that where human rights are recognised and protected, prosperity tends to follow.

Recent Changes to US Immigration Policy

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I have never known my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to scramble or be undignified, and I have known her for some long while. She demonstrated her dignity and statesmanship when she was in the United States, and she will continue to do so as she fights for British interests. It is the case that the United States, as the noble Lord is well aware, is our oldest and strongest ally—historically, as I was always reminded by one noble Lord, Portugal beats them in time, of course—and certainly it is our strongest ally. For the sake of world peace, it is right that that alliance should remain so. However, as the Prime Minister said, she will make clear her views; when we disagree, we will make it clear.

Yes, indeed, Her Majesty the Queen has issued an invitation to President Trump. Details of the date and arrangements have not been announced, but I would judge that the people of this country will act with dignity as well at the time.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister say very clearly—I think she is about half way there—whether or not we regard the action taken by the US Administration, in particular the action on refugees, as consistent with their having signed and ratified the 1967 protocol to the 1951 convention? Secondly, would she say whether the British Government consider that the action that has been taken by the US Administration is likely to reduce the threat from terrorism or, possibly, make it worse?

Brexit: UK International Relations

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the first report of your Lordships’ relatively new International Relations Committee has been most ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I regret only that the indisposition of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has prevented him from taking credit for the way he has guided the fledgling committee, and I wish him a very speedy recovery.

The arrival of a new UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, in that office on the 38th floor of UN headquarters which I know so well, is, as changes of Secretary-General always are, something of a watershed moment. It is not getting the same attention as President Trump’s inauguration or the triggering of Article 50, but it is nevertheless an important moment for a country such as the UK, whose permanent membership of the UN Security Council is even more salient in its foreign policy than it was before the referendum.

The Government’s response to our report shows that there is a lot of common ground between us when it comes to identifying the priorities of the new Secretary-General. It is particularly welcome that the Government share the committee’s view that the UN, for all its weaknesses and failings, remains an essential global institution and the linchpin of a rules-based international order which it is in Britain’s interest to support.

That might sound a little bit like motherhood and apple pie, but with the arrival in the White House of a new President who did not have a single good word to say about the UN in his campaign, it is nothing of the sort. President Trump has now expressed his disregard for a number of the US’s international obligations—specifically, on torture, on refugees and on paying the UN’s assessed contributions for regular and peacekeeping budgets—which puts him at variance with our Government’s policy. If followed up with deeds, it will bring us into sharp disagreement with our principal ally. That is in addition to the other disagreements over NATO and free trade. It will inevitably affect efforts to establish a good relationship with the new Administration, but I shall not go further into that matter today, with the Prime Minister in the United States.

On what points, then, does the committee not agree with the Government? I shall identify a few. The Government seem to be underestimating the number of threats to international peace and security expressed in no-go areas for the UN. There is Syria, of course, which they recognise as such. Who could not feel a sense of collective shame and despair after the agony of Aleppo? But there are also Ukraine and Crimea and the tensions in the South and East China Seas. It is surely important that those no-go areas be reduced, not allowed to expand and spread like ink blots to cover the whole globe, as they did during the Cold War.

Secondly, there is the process of choosing a new Secretary-General. The Government deserve a lot of credit for the major contribution they made to reforming and improving the process that led to the unanimous choice of António Guterres. That this was achieved with greater transparency than before, without any pre-emption of a regional or gender kind—desirable though it undoubtedly is that a woman Secretary-General should emerge before too long—was a major achievement. But why do the Government feel the need to dismiss the idea of moving to a single, seven-year, non-renewable term for Secretary-Generals, and with such weak arguments? In a rather dismissive way, they suggest that that idea has been circulating for many years. Well, so was the reform of the franchise; so was giving women the vote; so was abolishing slavery. It did not make them bad ideas. They also say that re-election after five years makes the Secretary-General more accountable. That is a polite way of saying that it makes him more subject to a veto from permanent members—not necessarily a good thing. I hope that the Government will think again about a seven-year term.

Thirdly, although the Government appear to agree that the UN’s capacity for conflict prevention needs to be boosted, they qualify that by saying that,

“spending more is not the only way to achieve this”.

The committee did not say it was, actually, but it is rather difficult to see the UN becoming more effective at conflict prevention at nil cost.

Fourthly, there is accountability for sexual abuse by peacekeepers. The Government first rejected the recommendation of the Committee on Sexual Violence in Conflict that an international jurisdiction be set up to help root this out. Now, they have rejected even the less ambitious idea of convening a group of experts to consider its feasibility. The primary responsibility for dealing with such matters lies, they say, with the troop-contributing countries. Precisely so, but perhaps the Minister can say when she winds up which countries exercise that duty. I think the answer is zero.

Lastly, on the implications of Brexit for our work at the UN, the habitual paralysis that seems to afflict every government department when it is asked to think beyond the mantra of “Brexit means Brexit”, seems to have afflicted the FCO. It seems to accept that we share values and interests with the other members of the EU, but it says nothing about drawing the natural conclusion that we need to go on working closely with EU members at the UN.

I apologise if I have sounded a bit grumpy, but it really would not do if we always pretended to agree with the Government when we do not, and the points that I have mentioned are ones on which the committee came to a considered view. What matters is that the UN counts more for the UK than it has ever done before.

Populism and Nationalism

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it is hard to credit that anyone who follows international affairs can now be in doubt that the rules-based international order, so painstakingly built up over the 70 years since the disasters of two world wars, is currently under greater challenge than it has ever been; or that the response so far of countries such as ours, which has done so much to contribute to that rules-based order, and which still regarded its maintenance as a national interest—look at last year’s security review—has been quite inadequate in the face of those challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has done us a favour by bringing this matter forward for debate today, although effective collective action to those challenges is needed, not just debate.

Why is this situation so serious? I suggest it is because the challenges reach across such a wide area, encompassing peace and security, human rights, trade policy and climate change, to mention a few. Because the political will to face up to these challenges still seems to be ebbing rather than strengthening. The horrors of the siege of Aleppo, which is merely the most recent event in the abject failure of the international community to exercise its responsibility to protect the Syrian people, is fresh in all our minds, but the actions of President Putin to overturn the post-Cold War European order by seizing Crimea and destabilising Ukraine, are still open wounds. The trampling by Islamic State of every one of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an appalling reminder that those rights are not secure. Add to that the challenge of trade protectionism, which did so much in the 1930s to create the conditions for a global disaster, and the threat from nuclear proliferation, only temporarily held in check by the P5 plus one’s agreement with Iran.

That is a daunting yet incomplete list. What can be done to reverse those damaging trends? I suggest that there are four traps that we need to avoid. The first is to attribute all the damage being done to the rules-based international system to the surge in support for protest movements. That surge certainly makes finding solutions more difficult and could, if left to grow unchecked, make our predicament even worse. But we must not dismiss these large protest votes in this country and in the US last year, and perhaps elsewhere in Europe within months, as simply aberrant reactions that can be ignored. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, populism is as much a symptom as it is a cause. Where we can find some policy responses to the root causes of those negative protest reactions, we will really need to deploy them.

The second trap is to believe that we are engaged in some titanic struggle between nation states and multilateral organisations. The nation state is not under threat, nor is it the root of all evil, nor is it about to disappear. It is in fact an essential building block for that international co-operation which is required if we are to handle successfully all those policy areas where action by individual states is no longer adequate to the task.

The third trap is to do nothing apart from wringing our hands. Intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan may have been the misguided or inadequate but non-intervention is a policy choice too, fraught with consequences, as we have seen in Syria. Allowing world trade liberalisation, which has brought so many millions of people out of poverty in recent years, to founder in tit-for-tat retaliation would simply lead to impoverishment and destabilisation, as it did in the 1930s.

The fourth trap is to believe in all that loose talk about living in a post-truth world. We may indeed live in a world where it is easier than before to plant plain lies on the public consciousness, but we do not live in a post-reality world, so sooner rather than later we will find current trends, if unchecked, leading to real, serious damage to our prosperity and security.

If we are to avoid these traps, we will certainly need to make a better job than we have done in the past of setting out a compelling case for the benefits of a rules-based international order. That case will need to cover the whole range of our international commitments and obligations in the UN, NATO and the World Trade Organization. It will require making common cause with other like-minded countries—often our former partners in the European Union. Where will the United States stand in all this? That is not a question that can or should be answered with confidence one day before President Trump is inaugurated. But neither systematic compliance with US policies nor systematic opposition to them would seem a sensible approach. That means we—and, above all, our Government—will face some difficult choices in the months and years ahead.

Cyprus

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My noble friend raises an important point, naturally. The UK is willing to consider whatever arrangements the sides can agree upon to meet the security needs of a reunited Cyprus. Indeed, both sides recognise that future security arrangements will need to enable both communities to feel safe.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in the run-up to what could be a very important meeting it is necessary that countries such as Britain, which is a permanent member of the Security Council, pursue an active diplomacy in support of the United Nations, which needs support at moments like this? Further to what she said in reply to the noble Lord, will she confirm that, were issues relating to the guarantee treaty—to which we are a party—to arise, we would be prepared to show flexibility towards any solution that had the agreement of Turkey, Greece and the two parties in Cyprus?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this is, of course, a Cypriot-led process. I assure the noble Lord, as he wished me to, that we are willing to consider whatever arrangements the two sides leading this process can agree on to meet the security needs of a reunited Cyprus. We do not take a particular role for ourselves, except the one the noble Lord rightly stresses, which is our relationship with the United Nations and others involved in this process to bring it to a successful conclusion.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, because she mentioned something that has hardly been mentioned in this debate, which is NATO. I, too, want to say something about that at a later point.

Post-mortems are grim occasions at the best of times, but this post-mortem on the overturning by a relatively small majority of the policies which have guided 10 successive Governments during the past 55 years is about as grim as it could get. It is all the more so when one considers that the campaign which preceded the 23 June vote plumbed depths which public life in this country has not seen before, with the leave campaign relying on half-truths, untruths and straightforward bare-faced lies, the most notable being the claim that £350 million a week was sent to Brussels. Faced as they were with conclusive evidence not from the remain campaign but bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies that their claim was simply untrue, with it being illustrated carefully how untrue it was, the leave campaigners demonstrated that they had picked up a lesson in the Middle East, where it is always said: “If you’re going to tell a lie, you’d better tell a big one, because then more people believe it”.

That we are now required to respect the outcome of that vote is a fact of life, but it in no way discredits the view that the vote represents a major strategic error of judgment. It merely illustrates the folly of submitting an issue of this complexity to a binary choice and the folly, too, I fear, of the Prime Minister playing Russian roulette with the basic foundations of Britain’s foreign policy.

The question we now face is what can be saved from this shipwreck. How best can we mitigate the negative consequences of this decision to withdraw from the European Union, negative consequences which have already, in the space of one week, moved from being that airily dismissed Project Fear to being a daily reality? In considering our options, I hope that we can discard the relatively trivial issue of when to trigger the provisions of Article 50 of the treaty, which is the only legal way of leaving the European Union and the only way that is consistent with our international obligations. It is reasonable enough to delay for the period necessary for a new Prime Minister to take office and a new Government to be formed and then to have the ability to look carefully into the policy choices before them, but to delay artificially beyond that could be, and probably would be, to turn that issue into a completely unnecessary bone of contention with our EU partners, who after all we will require to respond positively to the ideas we put to them when we get round to deciding what they are.

When the new Prime Minister and the new Government take office, probably in September, let us hope that they will then be put through a crash course by their Civil Service advisers on the fundamental differences between, on the one hand, continuing in the single market and, on the other, leaving it and either seeking to negotiate a free trade agreement or relying on the WTO. I hate to disillusion the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but if he thinks that rejoining the WTO is a negotiation-free option, he does not know that much about the WTO.

The superficiality in this distinction between the single market and a free trade arrangement is, frankly, pretty startling. We have heard so far some very slippery concepts, such as “access” to the single market, bandied around. The leave campaigners do not seem to understand what that means or does not mean. For example, they say that the Americans have access to the single market. Sure, they export to the single market, but why on earth are all those American banks stacked up in the City of London? They are there because they need to get a passport to operate and they need to be within the European Union to do that. They do not have access for their banks if they are sitting in New York. That is a simple fact. Let us take the Japanese car industry. The Japanese do not send very many cars to Europe; they make a lot of cars in Europe, and thank heavens they make a lot of them in Britain. They do that because it is a gateway for barrier-free, tariff-free, no-inspection-required access to this huge market of 500 million. That is why they have all the factories here. So please do not let us confuse these slippery phrases like “access” with the real thing, which is what you get if you are in the single market. The Government’s White Paper in February setting out the alternatives, which was given scant attention, explained fairly carefully how these different alternatives played out on our trade, and, clearly, remaining in the single market was the best of the bad lot—the best lot, of course, being to remain in the EU.

However, I suggest also that any external relationship that we may fashion with the EU must surely cover one or two other key areas of policy, in which I would identify foreign and security policy and our protection against international crime. The advantages of continuing to work as far as possible in lockstep with the EU in handling the major foreign policy challenges ahead of us—Islamic State, instability in the Middle East, the new assertiveness of Russia’s foreign policy, climate change or the pressures from migration—are obvious. However, securing that will require much dexterity and will need underpinning with new procedures and new institutional links which would be greatly helped if this weekend’s meeting in Warsaw leads to a much closer relationship between NATO and the EU, which I believe it is the intention that it should.

As for justice and home affairs, the whole network comprising Europol, Eurojust and the essential instruments such as the European arrest warrant, the European criminal information record system, the Schengen information system and the Prüm agreements—all that, and much more besides—is really important for us. As recently as 2014, only 18 months ago, huge majorities in both Houses confirmed that it was in our national interest to remain in all those areas. So this too would require to be built into any new relationship with the EU as an integral and properly smoothly functioning part of it.

I wish to say one word about the vexed issue of EU citizens in the UK. So far the Government’s response to that has caused more alarm and despondency than it has allayed. That is really sad because in so doing the Government have betrayed the main values that I think we all hold very dear. I ask the Minister simply to state clearly in winding up that the object the Government will pursue in this matter is to protect the acquired rights of EU citizens in this country. It would not take much to say that, and if she did then a lot of people would go away on holiday without the concerns that they have now.

Are the objectives that I have set out negotiable? That is impossible to say at this moment. Would their achievement reduce the gap between the benefits—

[Noble Lords]

Time!

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am drawing to a close. Would their achievement reduce the gap between the benefits that we get from membership and those that we could get from them? We cannot tell that now. It is fruitless to try to answer those questions before negotiations have even started, or to speculate on what should be done if positive answers cannot be given to them. Suffice to say, if given the choice, I would not start this journey from here.

EU: British Nationals Resident Overseas

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I entirely agree with the noble lord and that will be the thrust of the work to be done by the unit being set up. I feel sure it will be at the forefront of the minds of those who carry out the negotiations later this autumn.

With regard to Gibraltar, my colleagues in the Foreign Office have of course been in contact throughout with the Gibraltarian Administration, and we have given every indication of full support for their sovereignty and that we will not let them down.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that the assurances given by the Prime Minister are a bit of a wasting asset, not because he will no longer be Prime Minister but because, as the negotiations go ahead, the people we are talking about will become increasingly anxious about the outcome? Will the Minister try to ensure, first, that these people are consulted when the Government are making up their position—it is not too difficult to have consultations and it will help—and secondly, that they are kept informed at each stage of the negotiations so that the rather complex arrangements they may have to make to take care of their interests are done in full knowledge of what is happening?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The noble lord makes an important point and anybody who carries out the negotiations will have in mind that, in bringing the country together, it will be vital to take account of the interests of those so directly affected. In the interim, as soon as the decision was known on Friday, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ensured that there was a system whereby anybody who phoned in with concerns about these matters was able to get an answer and a reassurance at that stage.