European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, this is a technical Bill with a simple purpose: to provide as much legislative certainty and predictability as possible as we leave the EU. In some ways, it is quite a boring Bill, but that does not mean that it is not important. To translate the whole body of European law into British law will be a massive task. To provide the certainty, the Government must be able to move fast at a time when, by definition, not everything is yet clear. But we have to balance that need for speed with making sure that the Government face proper scrutiny. No one knows better than this House the need for proper scrutiny—we are experts at being boring—and no one knows better than us the state in which legislation often comes to us from the other place.
I gently suggest to the Government that they look with an open mind at constructive suggestions as to how the process of scrutiny could be improved. This is an area at which this House excels and where we can burnish our reputation. We will damage our reputation if we try to use this Bill to play politics, slow the process down or seek to undo commitments given in manifestos or in parliamentary votes, so I was encouraged by the remarks made by the Opposition Front Bench that it sees the Bill in the same light.
I agree with the Government when they say that the Bill should not be used to increase uncertainty, but they themselves need to reduce uncertainty by taking some decisions and being honest about the consequences of them. Just as with any other change in politics, there will be winners and losers from Brexit. There is no point denying that basic truth. The Government need to concentrate on working out how to mitigate those losses and to accelerate the wins.
Business leaders increasingly say to me that it is the political paralysis caused by the process of Brexit that depresses them more than Brexit itself. They want the transition agreed with the minimum of argument and then to have clarity as to the future direction of travel. Instead of talking endlessly about Brexit, they want to know about life after Brexit. Here, the Government will have to choose. There is a reason why we have the saying that he is trying to have his cake and eat it; we know that it is physically impossible both to have your cake and eat it. So, to state what should be obvious by now, we are simply not going to be able to be both in the single market and free to make our own rules where we want to.
Although there is flexibility in the European system when it wants to be flexible, we will not be able to converge where it suits us to have continuity and to diverge where it suits us to be more competitive. During the referendum, one of the reasons why I voted remain was that I thought that it would make no sense at all for a service-based economy such as ours to be bound by rules over which we had no influence. Now that we have voted to leave, that same logic holds—actually, the logic is even stronger, because the act of Brexit is itself changing the dynamic in Europe. Contrary to one of the referendum myths, we had a lot of influence in the EU: pro-free trade, pro-markets, pro-business, pro-proportionate legislation. But that voice has fallen silent. As a result, Europe is already moving in directions that we have traditionally resisted, whether that is a financial transaction tax, more screening of overseas investment or more centralisation of supervision of financial services. For an economy that is as dependent as ours on services, how could we in all seriousness subcontract all rulemaking to someone else?
If, as I believe, we will have to choose, we must surely place a greater priority on being able to shape our own future than on preserving the status quo, particularly when technological innovation is itself going to change the status quo, whatever we decide on Brexit. We need speed, honesty and certainty. The Bill can help us on that path and it is in that spirit that I hope we can approach it in this House.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, since I stood down as European Commissioner back in the summer, I have had a self-denying ordinance on speaking about Europe in this House. The bad news is that today I have broken my self-denying ordinance, but I do not intend to do it too often.
I did not feel that I could sit out this debate without saying something about what seems to be missing almost altogether in many of our discussions about Brexit: the views of our European neighbours. Sometimes it seems that the debate about Brexit is one that only we Brits are allowed take part in and that, once we have sorted out our internal disagreements between leavers and remainers, all we have to do is present our demands to the European Union and it can take it or leave it.
We are not going to be able to proceed by diktat; it is going to be a negotiation. So I want to look at this Bill from the point of view of our European partners and what we need to do if we want a successful negotiation. First, they need to be able to trust the British side to be clear and consistent. They need to know that what our negotiators say our negotiators can deliver. They cannot sit there thinking that at any point the timing or the content might change, or indeed that the whole thing might be put to a second referendum.
Getting 27 countries to agree a common position is going to be hard enough, but how can they be expected to negotiate if the British Government have to say that they cannot undertake to deliver what they have negotiated because the British Parliament or the British people might vote against some or all the details at a later stage? That seems simply impossible from a practical point of view.
There is another crucial point that, however we voted, we have to take into account. The rest of Europe is not sitting there desperate to take us back. They certainly wanted us to stay, but they have now accepted that we have voted to leave. Their priority is to work out their own future at 27 and not to sit there putting everything on hold, hoping that one day the phone will ring and it will be the British Foreign Secretary saying, “Sorry, we’d like a different offer” or “Sorry, we’d like to come back after all”. Businesses here in Britain are also not sitting here just waiting for something to turn up. Every day, the facts on the ground are changing as they make their investment decisions and plan ahead. Their timescales and their shareholders will not permit a debating-house approach.
I know that most of us here want to remain on the best possible terms with the rest of Europe once we have left: to co-operate on defence and security to keep Europe secure; to continue to trade together to keep Europe prosperous; to collaborate on research and on science; to encourage our young people to learn from each other and to work together; and to have open minds even if we do not have open borders.
To increase the chances of this happening and to avoid the dangers of a mutually damaging political crash, we need to have a grown-up negotiation. That means that we also need to think carefully about the language that we use in this debate. The ludicrously polarised nature of our political and media debate and the chronically debased nature of our language, where everything is either a catastrophe or a liberation, are obstacles to working out not only how to overcome the challenges that we will face on leaving but how to make the most of the new opportunities that will also open up.
I believe that we need a political climate that is far more reasoned, calm and rational if we are to help bring the country together and lead it through the period ahead. That is why we need to be thinking more about how we can bring remainers and leavers together instead of constantly looking to drive wedges between us. We need to talk more about the things that bring us together with our European neighbours, rather than the things that drive us apart. Instead of endlessly rerunning the referendum debate, we need to spend much more time thinking constructively about our future. If that is not a job description for your Lordships’ House, I do not know what is.
I loved being Leader of this House. I saw how important it was that we should be different from the other place, with a different voice and a different set of experiences. I saw very clearly the contribution that we make to improving legislation and I had no hesitation in pointing out to my colleagues in the other place our right to perform that role, to scrutinise Ministers and ask them to think again. However, the truth is that the rest of Europe wants to get on with its post-referendum life, business wants to be able to get on with its post-referendum life and so, I gently suggest, do we.
Business of the House
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Woolf set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.
House of Lords: Question Time
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sharples
To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to improve the conduct of question time in the House of Lords.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, as a self-regulating House, we all have a responsibility to uphold our rules of conduct at question time. The rules on supplementary questions set out in the Companion could not be clearer: no reading and no statements of opinion. Supplementaries,
“should be short and confined to not more than two points”.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that Standing Orders should be compulsory reading for anybody who enters the House? If questions were briefer, would it not allow more people to enter the fray?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree very much with my noble friend that brief questions are to be encouraged: brief questions tend to elicit brief answers. I think that it is incumbent on everyone in the House to make sure that they understand the rules set out in the Companion. I think that over time behaviour sometimes slips. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of those principles to which we all say, “Hear, hear,” but which we need to put into action.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the Leader agrees that question time is both the best of this House and, sometimes, the worst. Does he also agree, as I think he does, that occasionally the transgressions come from the Dispatch Box? On statements of opinion, does he agree that from time to time opinion is expressed about the conduct of the Opposition, which is perhaps not always relevant to the Question being asked? Will he consider stressing to his colleagues how important these rules are?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will certainly stress the rules to all Members of the House, both Front Bench and Back Bench.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Does the Minister agree that question time is primarily for Back-Benchers? Does he also agree that, unless it has become obvious that nobody else wants to ask a question, it is not appropriate to have two or even three consecutive questions from any Benches?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree that question time provides an important opportunity for Back-Benchers. Noble Lords may be interested to know that, so far this year, 370 Members of your Lordships’ House have asked an oral or a supplementary question. That is an encouragingly large number, although it sometimes feels as though certain Members of the House ask more than that number might suggest. The House at Oral Questions is generally pretty good at working out whose turn it is to ask a question, but I agree with my noble friend that none of us should make an assumption that we automatically have a right to ask a question or a flow of questions from one side of the House.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, does the Leader agree with me that it is a rule of this House that, if a question comes from the Government Benches, it should go around the House? That was certainly always the tradition when I first came here. When, as now, two parties are in government, there should be a question from the Government and then questions from around the other Benches—not a question from each bit of the Government.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I hope that noble Lords who are regular attenders would agree that the way in which questions move around the House works pretty well. It is worth pointing out that over 50% of noble Lords who are the most frequent askers of questions are from the Labour Benches.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, surely there is one other issue: the jostling and bullying to ask a supplementary question, which is very undignified. Noble Lords who do not like that simply do not take part. People on all sides of the House feel that.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I certainly do not think that we should have jostling and bullying. Most of the time the House operates pretty well and noble Lords give way to other noble Lords and give them a chance. The House wants to hear from a wide range of people. However, I take the point. Sometimes we hear from some noble Lords more frequently than from others—they might all like to reflect on that. I had a thought that might help with that, which I would be happy to discuss with the Clerk of the Parliaments to see whether it is possible. If we could publish more frequently information on the frequency with which some Members ask questions, that might help us to draw the conclusion that we ought to share them out more widely.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that thus far the example set by the House on this Question is exemplary, in that not one word has been read?
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the Minister share the concern that perhaps women Members of this House do not get their fair share of questions? However, I carried out a little survey in which I calculated the number of interventions by noble Baronesses and discovered that they asked proportionately rather more questions than one would expect from their number in the House.
Lord Hill of Oareford
This House is full of all sorts of Members who are not shy of coming forward and I welcome that.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of a Speaker, we are told by the Government—indeed, by both Governments—from the Front Bench that it is for individual Members of the House to police the House and all its proceedings. However, does that not just create resentment and embarrassment between colleagues? The system does not work.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I disagree with the noble Lord very strongly. The principle of self-regulation that we have in this House is worth fighting for and preserving as strongly as we possibly can—all of us. I would not wish on this House the example provided by the other place. A few years back the House looked at the question of whether we would prefer to have a system here that mirrored more closely that of the other House, with a Speaker. It voted fairly clearly, concluding that it preferred to stick with our current arrangements. However, it is incumbent on all of us who care about self-regulation to make sure that we do it. I do not accept the noble Lord’s characterisation that most of the time it does not work. I think that most of the time it works extremely well.
Lord Avebury (LD)
Does my noble friend agree that some of the worst offenders in asking non-questions are those who have been here longest and should know better? It might be useful for him to write to some of those offenders and point out that they are breaking the rules, so that they do not repeat that.
Lord Hill of Oareford
It is incumbent on all the groups in the House to help to police this and, if they need to, to communicate to some of their members. The point that I make about publishing more information on the number of times people ask questions, and perhaps the number of words that they use, might help to shine a spotlight.
EU Council June 2014
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council.
Before turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, let me briefly report back on two other points. First, the Council actually began in Ypres with a moving ceremony at the Menin Gate to mark the 100th anniversary of the gunshots in Sarajevo which led to the First World War. It is right that we should take special steps to commemorate the centenary of this conflict and remember the extraordinary sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain has fitting national commemorations, including the reopening of the newly refurbished Imperial War Museum next month.
Secondly, the Council signed association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. These reflect our commitment to supporting these countries as they undertake difficult reforms that will strengthen their economies, bolster their democracies and improve the stability of the whole continent. President Poroshenko joined the Council to discuss the immediate situation in Ukraine. The Council welcomed his peace plan and the extension of the ceasefire until this evening. The onus is now on Russia to respond positively by pressing the separatists to respect a genuine ceasefire, to release hostages and return occupied border posts to the Ukrainian authorities. The Council agreed that if we do not see concrete progress very soon, we remain willing to impose further sanctions on Russia, which would not necessarily require a further meeting of the Council. But the Council will return to this issue at its next meeting, which has now been arranged for 16 July.
Turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, I firmly believe that it should be for the European Council—the elected heads of national Governments—to propose the President of the European Commission. It should not be for the European Parliament to try and dictate that choice to the Council. That is a point of principle on which I was not prepared to budge. In taking this position I welcome the support of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, in opposing the imposition of Jean-Claude Juncker on the Council. I believe that the Council could have found a candidate who commanded the support of every member state. That has been the practice on every previous occasion and I think it was a mistake to abandon this approach this time.
There is of course a reason why no veto is available when it comes to this decision. It is because the last Government signed the Nice treaty, which gave up our veto over the nomination of the Commission President, as well as the Lisbon treaty, which gave the Parliament stronger rights to elect the Commission President. So once it was clear that the European Council was determined to proceed, I insisted that the Council took a formal vote—something that does not usually happen. Facing the prospect of being outvoted, some might have swallowed their misgivings and gone with the flow, but I believe it was important to push the principle and our deep misgivings about this issue right to the end. If the European Council was going to let the European Parliament choose the next President of the Commission in this way, I at least wanted to put Britain’s opposition to this decision firmly on the record.
I believe this was a bad day for Europe because the decision of the Council risks undermining the position of national Governments and undermining the power of national Parliaments by handing further power to the European Parliament. So while the nomination has been decided and must be accepted, it is important that the Council at least agreed to review and reconsider how to handle the appointment of the next Commission President, the next time this happens, and that that is set out in the Council conclusions.
Turning to the future, we must work with the new Commission President, as we always do, to secure our national interest. I spoke to him last night and he repeated his commitment in his manifesto to address British concerns about the EU. This whole process only underlines my conviction that Europe needs to change. Some modest progress was made in arguing for reform at this Council. The Council conclusions make absolutely clear that the focus of the Commission’s mandate for the next five years must be on building stronger economies and creating jobs, exactly as agreed with the leaders of Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands at the Harpsund summit earlier this month. The Council underlined the need to address concerns about immigration arising from misuse of, or fraudulent claims on, the right of freedom of movement. We agreed that national Parliaments must have a stronger role and that the EU should act only where it makes a real difference. We broke new ground with the Council conclusions stating explicitly that “ever closer union” must allow,
“for different paths of integration for different countries”,
and, crucially, respect the wishes of those such as Britain that do not want further integration. For the first time, all my fellow 27 Heads of Government have agreed explicitly, in the Council conclusions, that they need to address Britain’s concerns about the European Union. That has not been said before. So while Europe has taken a big step backwards in respect of the nomination of the Commission President, we did secure some small steps forward for Britain in its relationship with the EU.
Last week’s outcome will make renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union harder and it certainly makes the stakes higher. There will always be huge challenges in this long campaign to reform the European Union but, with determination, I believe we can deliver. We cut the EU budget. We got Britain out of the bailout schemes. We have achieved a fundamental reform of the disastrous common fisheries policy and made a start on cutting EU red tape. We are making real progress on the single market and on the free trade deals that are vital for new growth and jobs in Britain. My colleagues on the European Council know that Britain wants and needs reform—and that Britain sticks to its position.
In the European elections, people cried out for change across the continent. They are intensely frustrated and deserve a voice. Britain will be the voice of those people. We will always stand up for our principles, we will always defend our national interest and we will always fight with all we have to reform the EU over the next few years. And at the end of 2017, it will not be me or this Parliament, or Brussels, that decides Britain’s future in the European Union. It will be the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful for and agree with what the noble Baroness said about the commemoration of the Great War and the extremely serious and growing problems in Ukraine. Notwithstanding everything she said subsequently about European policy more generally, I think we are as one in wanting to find a way forward and to handle that situation as sensibly as possible.
On her main point about the European Council and the outcome for the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister has not pretended, and I have not pretended for one moment, that the appointment of Mr Juncker was what the Prime Minister sought. However, I do not accept the way in which the noble Baroness characterised the Prime Minister’s policy towards the European Union, its future and the coming negotiations. First, I do not accept her characterisation of the situation when she said that the Prime Minister’s negotiations over the past four years in Europe had been unsuccessful. It was Mr Cameron who managed, for the first time, to secure a reduction in the EU budget—something that everyone, not least some members of the party opposite, predicted was not possible to pull off. That kind of negotiation cannot be successfully achieved unless one has alliances and influence and is able to negotiate successfully within the European Union.
I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of wanting to make sure that our influence going forward is secure and on some of the points she was making about appointments and having British officials working there. It remains the case that the Prime Minister’s wish is to negotiate hard for what he hopes will be a renegotiated agreement with the European Union. He would then be in a position to recommend to the British people that they accept it in a referendum in 2017.
It is clearly the case that the outcome of the discussions over the new president make that task more difficult, but the Prime Minister was faced with a position in which, given the way that the apparent positions of some of our colleagues in Europe changed over time, he could either go quietly and accept the imposition of Mr Juncker and the European Parliament’s land grab or to try to argue the principle. He took the view that rather than going quietly to spare his own blushes, he should seek to make the principled case that it was an appointment that should have been made by the European Council, not the European Parliament. The fact that in the conclusions after the meeting there was acceptance that that decision would be reviewed for the future underlines that the concern about that process is more widely spread than might be suggested by the noble Baroness.
There is also the point that, as it is the case that there needs to be reform, which the party opposite accepts, having as President of the Commission someone who in the past has not been associated very strongly with a reform agenda is not going to make the task easier for Britain. It was clearly the case that the party opposite and my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches shared those principled objections to Mr Juncker’s appointment. The Prime Minister was therefore right to stick to his guns.
There will clearly have to be a lot of hard work to continue to make progress with the reform process. I think some of the wording in the conclusions already signifies the recognition by many of our colleagues that they need to be sympathetic to and make movement on Britain’s concerns. I think the Prime Minister was right to make that case and to stick to principle. He will work hard over the next three years to negotiate the best possible deal for Britain and will then be in a position, he hopes, to recommend it to the British people in a referendum.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, on the appointment of the new President of the Commission, Mr Juncker, there has clearly been a transfer of power or competence, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, to an EU institution from national Governments. What is the position under the European Union Act 2011, in particular under Section 4(1)—paragraphs (g), (h) and (i)—which I had the privilege of guiding through this House at the time?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will have a go, although I suspect I may need to write further to be more accurate. My noble friend took the Bill through and enacted it, and I am sure he knows it far better than I do.
My understanding is that the Act applies to changes in the rules that transfer power from Westminster to Brussels. Under the EU treaties, the European Council, acting by qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for president of the European Commission. In this instance, we believe that the existing rules were pushed to shift power from the European Council to the European Parliament rather than any fresh transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels. That is the distinction. It did not represent a further transfer of power from Westminster. If I have got that wrong, I will make that clear to my noble friend in a letter that I will circulate to the House and place in the Library.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
The Leader of the House has spoken of policy and by the use of that word has inferred a strategy in the mind and conduct of the Prime Minister. Was it policy that produced the withdrawal of the Conservatives from the EPP in 2005—thus relinquishing, as they were warned, any degree of influence over the largest group in the European Parliament? Was it policy that made the Prime Minister proclaim his opposition to an individual candidate very early on in this procedure, thus removing any room for Chancellor Merkel or others to negotiate about the final resolution of the position? When the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament to varying degrees all favour reform, does the Leader of the House think that that mission is propelled forward by allowing one of his Cabinet colleagues to describe a heroine—a genuine heroine since her earliest years—Angela Merkel as a coward? If these are all policies, what hope is there for the Prime Minister to be the man to negotiate the change that is necessary and welcome in the European Union?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The point I was trying to make was that on policy grounds it was the view of the Prime Minister and others within the European Council that the decision about the next President of the Commission should be taken by the Council rather than by the European Parliament. That was the principled point that he was seeking to pursue. More broadly, in answer to the noble Lord’s question about the policy, if one looks back, the Prime Minister as a matter of policy has sought to influence and move the agenda of the European Union towards growth, jobs and trade deals with the United States, Canada and other countries. One can see, in progress on deregulation and all the rest of it, a shift over a number of years which reflects the policy that he has been seeking to pursue.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I first endorse the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister about the centenary of the conflict which led to the First World War. The question I want to ask is very brief. We keep hearing about the reform agenda. When are the Government going to spell out what this reform agenda is all about? Surely it is inappropriate not to know that particular matter until after the general election. Are we likely to hear what the Prime Minister and the Government have in mind in terms of this agenda?
Lord Hill of Oareford
First, as part of that agenda, the Government are pursuing the general objectives of progress on trade talks and on liberalising markets. This is something the Government have set up, and we have made some decent and solid progress. Other aspects will become clearer over time as the negotiation continues, but the Prime Minister set out the main strands and objectives we are pursuing in a number of areas in his Bloomberg speech. That is the approach to which he has been sticking.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister accept a mild change to the Prime Minister’s Statement that it was a “bad day for Europe”? It was a bad day for Britain in Europe.
I will not go too far down the road of asking the noble Lord how on earth the Prime Minister managed to find himself in Brussels last Friday with only one supporter, but perhaps he could tell us how he found himself in Brussels on Friday with only one supporter and no alternative President of the Commission. It was a little odd to have asked the European Council to reject someone without having the slightest idea about whom they might appoint.
To use a slightly more emollient tone, I do think it was a mistake—and I believe the noble Lord has already begun to comment—not to put all the emphasis on what is called the strategic agenda, which has come out pretty well. The text of the strategic agenda, to which the noble Lord referred, and to which the Prime Minister referred, has some really good points along the lines of a positive reform agenda. If the Prime Minister had put all the weight on that, and not gone for an over-the-top personalised campaign against Mr Juncker, we might have got a bit further. I wish the noble Lord would comment on that.
Finally, I was quite startled to hear that the Government are going to be the voice of all those who voted in protest at the European elections. Are we to be the voice of Golden Dawn? Are we to be the voice of the Front National? Are we to be the voice of UKIP? I hope not. Not in my name, please.
Lord Hill of Oareford
As far as the voice of UKIP is concerned, we have the voice of UKIP here, which I am sure we will hear later. I agree with the noble Lord on his remarks about the strategic objectives and his welcome of the language. There has been some solid progress, which I will not overstate. It is significant that the noble Lord spotted that and, being a fair-minded person, relayed that to the House. There is some good language in there which reflects the kind of reform agenda that not just Britain but other countries are keen to see taken forward.
As for the Prime Minister speaking for the whole of Europe, his point was that the scale of apparent disaffection with the European Union reflected in the recent elections needs to be addressed—and by those who are supporters and champions of the European Union more than anyone else. That was the point he was seeking to make: disaffection from the European Union is clearly evident and growing, and the best way to address it is to have a reform programme that responds to it rather than to ignore the popular discontent that seems to have been expressed.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is now incumbent upon the Prime Minister to come forward with much clearer detail as to what reforms he wants to see. One of the difficulties that allies and potential allies on the Continent have is knowing what it is exactly that he wants. He talks about reform, but he has not been very specific. Does he also agree that it is very important that the Prime Minister should convince our allies and potential allies on the continent that he wants to bring back a programme that he can recommend to the British electorate and that he is not primarily concerned with trying to reconcile the irreconcilables in our own party? The noble Lord may tell me that the Prime Minister is indeed concerned to bring back a programme he can recommend, but impressions are very important. The impression has gained ground that his principal objective is to reconcile the irreconcilables in our party rather than to conduct a successful negotiation. It is very important that he should push that impression into the background.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I know that the Prime Minister will want to carry out and, he will hope, complete successfully a renegotiation that he can recommend to the people of Britain that he believes is in the interests of Britain. That is not about a party political agenda or management task. In putting that package, whenever it is concluded, to the British people it would clearly need to command the support of the whole of Britain and all of those from any party who want to see Britain remain in a reformed European Union.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, does the Leader of the House recall that when a Labour Prime Minister wanted to achieve something at a summit, we arranged for the ambassadors in all the countries of Europe and our Foreign Office Ministers to do some preparatory work to move us in that direction? We also worked through the Party of European Socialists to get all our socialist colleagues into line to support us. Could the Leader of the House explain what the Prime Minister did along those lines?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will take it very happily from the noble Lord that that was how the previous Government operated. Unfortunately, they also gave up our veto through the Nice and Lisbon treaties. That made the pursuit of our national interest much more difficult in these circumstances.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House comment on paragraph 27 of the conclusions, which seems to give great comfort to the PM about the Commission process as the selection of the President is going to be reviewed? Has he noticed the wording that says it will be reviewed respecting the European Treaties? How is that any different to what was in the Lisbon treaty which referred to taking account of the treaties?. Given that the House of Lords European Affairs Committee warned of this situation in 2008—six years ago—does he not think he needs to tell us a little bit more about the reform agenda, because we will need to prepare the ground for some years before 2017?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My noble friend is right to point us towards that paragraph which contains a number of important points. Her point about the European Council considering the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission is set out in the way that she says. As it happens, that paragraph also says,
“the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further”.
That is quite a significant addition to the kind of wording one typically sees in these conclusions. That, in itself, is part of the answer to the point about the influence that Britain is still able to have. On some of my noble friend’s more specific points, if there is anything further I can say about the Select Committee, perhaps I will talk to her about that subsequently.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is hard to find a normal person who knows why Mr Juncker’s job is so important? Might it create public support for the Government’s EU reforms if they were to reveal the unelected Commission’s role, with its monopoly to propose and execute all EU law and to issue regulations which are binding in all EU countries? Or could it be that the Government share the BBC’s fear that, if the British people understood just how irrelevant this their Parliament has become, and how rotten and anti-democratic the EU really is, their clamour to leave it might become irresistible? If our leaving the EU leads to its collapse, so what? What is the point of it now? One can see the point of NATO, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, but what is the point of the EU? Can the noble Lord tell us that?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Not in the time that we have available, when I know a lot of other noble Lords want to get in. It clearly is an important job, and that is why we were determined to try to make sure that the process for appointing the person followed the approaches that we thought were set out in the treaties. However, the Government’s position is not the same as that of UKIP. The Prime Minister intends to work extremely hard over the next three years to try to negotiate a package of measures that he will feel confident in putting to the British people in a referendum, which we aim to hold before the end of 2017.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, in relation to the Prime Minister’s intentions and aims in this matter, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House recollect that last year in Kazakhstan the Prime Minister made a speech in which he said that he would wish to see the boundaries of the European Union extended eastwards to the Urals? He was not speaking of associate status. Is that still his intention? Is that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, there are generally a number of countries in discussion with the European Union about becoming members. We have had the signing of the association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and, obviously, Ukraine. There was a discussion at the European Council about Albania being able to apply for status. There is appetite for membership to continue to grow.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I express the hope that the Prime Minister will spend some time this summer in bilateral conversations with our friends, colleagues and neighbours in the European Union. Could we bear in mind throughout that isolation is rarely splendid, and is even more rarely successful or sensible?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I say to my noble friend that I know how much time the Prime Minister spends on bilateral relationships with a range of European partners in a range of different fora. I know from my time in Downing Street 20-odd years ago, when the European Union was smaller, how much time the Prime Minister of the day has to spend on those relationships. This Prime Minister will certainly do that, as have all previous Prime Ministers.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, whether we are in the European Union or not, we shall need the good will of our continental partners. Indeed, we shall need their good will even more if we leave, because we shall then have no more rights or entitlements under the treaty and every arrangement we have with its members will have to be laboriously negotiated. Does the noble Lord agree that in life, and particularly in negotiation, it is always a mistake to personalise an issue if you want your substantive points to be taken seriously? Does he also agree that in life, and particularly in negotiation, it is always a mistake to use public threats and blackmail, because no self-respecting human being feels inclined to make concessions under that kind of pressure? Is quiet, collaborative diplomacy not the best way?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I certainly agree that in normal circumstances, most of the time, quiet collaborative diplomacy is the right way to go. However, there are times at which, if that route does not work, you are faced with a choice of seeking to avoid embarrassment by going quietly, or of saying, “Actually, this is a point of principle about which I feel strongly, and I will therefore put up with that risk of embarrassment by arguing for it”.
On working with colleagues, I agree with the noble Lord’s point. That is how Europe works and how Britain pursues its relationships with other countries. I am sure that we will continue to do that. The noble Lord will already have seen the remarks made by a whole range of European leaders since Friday which demonstrate that they are keen that Britain should remain part of the EU. They understand our concerns and are keen to work with us to see what progress we can make in resolving them.
Business of the House
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Scott of Needham Market set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Walmsley to two hours.
Business of the House
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Taylor of Bolton set down for today shall be limited to 5 hours.
G7
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on last week’s G7 summit in Brussels.
This was a G7 rather than a G8 because of Russia’s unacceptable actions in Ukraine. Right from the outset, the G7 nations have been united in support for Ukraine and its right to choose its own future, and we have sent a firm message that Russia’s actions have been totally at odds with the values of our group of democracies.
At the summit, we kept up the pressure on Russia. We agreed that the status quo is unacceptable and the continuing destabilisation of eastern Ukraine must stop. We insisted that Russia must recognise the legitimate election of President Poroshenko, it must stop arms crossing the border into Ukraine and it must cease support for separatist groups. And we agreed that wide-ranging economic sanctions should remain on the table if Russia did not follow this path of de-escalation, or if it launched a punitive trade war with Ukraine in response to Kiev proceeding with the trade aspects of its association agreement with the European Union.
I made those points directly to President Putin when I met him in Paris on the eve of the D-day commemorations. The inauguration of President Poroshenko has created a new opportunity for diplomacy to help to establish a proper relationship between Ukraine and Russia. I urged President Putin to ensure that this happens. It is welcome, I believe, that he met President Poroshenko in Normandy and that Moscow and Kiev are now engaging each other again. It is important that we continue to do what we can to sustain the positive momentum. We also agreed to help Ukraine to achieve greater energy security by diversifying its supplies.
The G7 also continued the work we began last year at Lough Erne to deal with the cancer of corruption, with further agreements on what I call the “three Ts” of greater transparency, fairer taxes and freer trade. We made good progress in working towards common global standards of transparency in extractive industries. We agreed to push forward with establishing new international rules to stop companies artificially shifting their profits across borders to avoid taxes, and we agreed to make a concerted push on finalising bilateral trade deals as soon as possible. This included the EU-Canada and EU-Japan deals, but of course also the EU-US deal, which we launched at Lough Erne last summer. I believe this is one of the greatest opportunities to turbo-charge the global economy and could be worth up to £10 billion for Britain alone.
With these agreements, the Lough Erne agenda on transparency, tax and trade has been hard-wired into these international summits, I believe, for many years to come. There was also a good discussion on climate change, where the recent announcements by the US make a potential agreement next year more achievable, and we should do what we can to make that happen.
In my bilateral meeting with President Obama, we discussed what I believe is the greatest threat to our security: how we counter extremism and the terrorist threat to our people at home and abroad. We agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters travelling to and from Syria, which is now the top destination in the world for jihadists. And here in Britain, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a new measure to enable prosecution of those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. In Libya, we are fulfilling our commitment to train the Libyan security forces, with the first tranche of recruits arriving in the United Kingdom yesterday. And on Nigeria, we reaffirmed our commitment to support President Jonathan’s Government and the wider region in confronting the evil of Boko Haram. We continue to help address the tragedy of the abducted schoolgirls.
Finally, in all my recent meetings with European leaders, and again at the summit in Sweden yesterday, there was discussion about the top jobs in Europe. The European elections, I believe, sent a clear message right across the continent: the European Union needs to change. It is vital that politicians across Europe respond to the concerns of their people, and that means having institutions in Europe which understand the need for reform. And it means having people at the head of these institutions who understand that if things go on as they have done, the European Union is not going to work properly for its citizens.
Quite apart from the entirely valid concerns about the proposed people in question, there is a fundamental point of principle on which we must not budge. As laid down in EU law, it is for the European Council to make its own nomination for President. This is the body that is made up of the elected leaders of the European nations, and it is not for the European Parliament to try to impose its will on the democratically elected leaders of 28 member states.
Prime Minister Reinfeldt, Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands, Chancellor Merkel and I also agreed on the work programme for the new Commission: completing the single market, energising trade deals and making further progress on deregulation—a clear focus on jobs and growth. We also agreed that the Commission must work together to address the abuse of free movement so that people move across Europe for work but not for welfare. These were important agreements from like-minded European leaders who share my determination to deliver a reformed European Union.
Finally, amid the various meetings of the past week, I was able to attend the very special commemorations for the 70th anniversary of D-day in Normandy. Attending the vigil at Pegasus Bridge—marking the moment the first glider touched down on French soil—was a fitting moment to reflect on the importance of our collective defence, something that will be at the heart of the NATO summit in Wales this September. Above all, it was a moment to remember the sheer bravery and sacrifice of all those who gave their lives for our future.
The veterans who made it to Normandy are quite simply some of the most remarkable people I have ever had the privilege and pleasure of meeting. I will never forget the conversations that I had that night and, indeed, the next day. Our gratitude for their service and sacrifice must never wane, and neither should our resolve to protect the peace that they fought for.
I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I very much agree with her opening remarks about D-day and the importance of continuing to honour the memory of those brave men and women. Perhaps there was a time a few years ago when people were worried about young people being unaware of the contribution people made in the past in the Great War and the Second World War, and that they might forget it. However, from the response there has been in the run-up to the commemoration of the Great War, and in particular from the response to seeing those veterans going to D-day, it is very clear that there is very little danger of that, which is extremely good news.
I welcome the support that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the principled stand that the Prime Minister is taking on the question of who should appoint the President of the Commission. I am grateful that the Labour Party made it clear that they support Britain’s position on that, as are my noble friends in the Liberal Democrat party. All three party groups are united in thinking that the proper procedure should be observed, and that that appointment should be made by the members of the Council and not by the European Parliament.
As regards whether progress on TTIP is on track, there have been a number of meetings between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, his colleagues in the EU and the United States to take that forward. A specific deadline for making further progress was not agreed at the G7, but it was certainly very clear that the pressure is being kept up on that, and that will continue.
The Leader of the Opposition asked whether there will be any danger to the NHS if we conclude that trade deal—which would have a huge beneficial effect on our economy. The way that healthcare is delivered would continue to be decided by national Governments; TTIP would not weaken regulation or lead to the privatisation of the NHS, or itself increase the rights of access to the NHS for private providers of clinical services. I know that there are concerns about that, and I am sure that the party opposite and others will want to keep a close eye on that. However, pursuing the trade deal and its conclusion should not carry the risk about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
On tax and transparency, I can report quite good progress. The UK’s position is that we want to make sure that countries sign up to the tax tool that was created so that we can see where profits are being earned. That is going quite well. Led by Britain, 44 countries have signed up to that already. There are also other measures, such as the small business Bill in the Queen’s Speech, which will include measures to establish a public register of company beneficial ownership information, which will be welcome. The Government have also just completed a consultation on increasing transparency in the extractive sector. So we can report solid progress on that.
On international aid, our position is that the target of 0.7% is being met and Britain is leading the rest of the world in its contribution to international aid. I know that the whole House supports that.
Climate change is an extremely important issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us. Britain and the EU can play a leading role in helping to achieve a deal, and President Obama has given some encouraging signs in that direction. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to make sure that the EU has the political will to ensure that collectively we are in the right position on that. There is a push to make further progress on that by September.
I think we are in broad agreement on the position that the United Kingdom has adopted on Ukraine. I welcome the noble Baroness’s support for the decision to exclude Russia from the G8 and to have a meeting of the G7. There is hope with the election of President Poroshenko; this is a moment where one might try to make some progress. I understand that the Prime Minister, in his discussions with President Putin, emphasised some of the points that the noble Baroness raised about the importance of continuing to withdraw Russian troops. However, he also raised particular points about the supply of weaponry. Reports suggested that the kind of weaponry available to the separatists is quite heavy-duty military weaponry, and it is fairly obvious where that comes from; he certainly emphasised that point as well.
Overall, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I hope that I have answered the points she raised in all these areas and that we can continue to work in the same direction.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in welcoming the decision to exclude the Russians from the G7 and G8 meeting, if only as a strong message, which I hope was firmly received, that we strongly disapprove of Russia’s behaviour in the Ukrainian situation. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister for an assurance that we and our EU colleagues will maintain a dialogue with the Russian Government, not least on the extremely dangerous situations in Syria and Iraq. Both the Russians and ourselves share a strong interest in warding off the infection that we are likely to suffer from that situation. In that context, can the Minister tell us anything about any movement to resume diplomatic relations with the Syrian Government in Damascus?
Lord Hill of Oareford
On the last point, I do not have any information to give the noble Lord. The Government’s position on the Assad regime has not changed. I take his points about the broader dangers across the region; we have all watched with great concern the developing situation in Iraq, which adds to those concerns. I take the force of the point that he makes.
As for discussions with President Putin, the noble Lord strikes the right note. We needed to exclude him from that meeting to send a very strong message, and to impose the range of sanctions that we did. With regard to the effect that they have contributed to the impact on the Russian economy, recent figures suggest that their economy has shrunk in the first quarter of this year. Capital flight has been considerable and projections of growth for the rest of the year are being reduced downwards significantly. So they are having an impact. But I also take his point that, at the same time as sending that strong message, to take an opportunity by having direct contact—partly to reinforce it but also to have a channel open on some of those broader issues—is the right way forward.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and add our tributes to the D-Day events in Normandy.
I have two questions for the Minister. The first relates to the Statement in relation to Boko Haram and President Jonathan in Nigeria. What is the involvement of other G7 countries in this matter? Since we have not received any further resolution on the abducted girls, what further action can we take to help Nigeria in that matter?
My second point relates to our involvement in the training of the Libyan security forces, which are in this country now. What assurances have we received from the Libyan Government about their co-operation in identifying those responsible for the fatal shooting of Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy some years ago?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise the importance of the point about Libya and the training of security forces. The first group of Libyans to come to the UK for training arrived earlier this week; we will train 2,000 Libyans and help them to prepare for their role. On the point about Yvonne Fletcher and the nature of those discussions, I need to see whether I can provide him with any further information.
As for Boko Haram, Britain has been playing a leading role, along with others. I know that it was discussed in the margins of the meetings that have been going on this week, led by the Foreign Secretary, to deal with the whole question of violence in war and conflict. If I have any further specific information, I shall come back to the noble Lord. The general position is that we are continuing to do all that we can, but at the moment there is no further specific information on the latest developments.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I welcome the growing clarity on the G7’s reaction to Russia in relation to east Europe. Where I am much more troubled is on the lack of a clear foreign policy response by the G7 to developments in the Middle East, which are not new. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been occupying parts of Iraq since the beginning of this year, and it is almost inevitably moving towards a wider regional war within the Middle East. Therefore, I am concerned that the G7 is not paying the sort of attention to this that it needs to pay. A number of western countries, including our own, need a clear foreign policy on this, which will take quite a bit of working out. It will not be easy, but we really need it, as it is a very serious situation.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much agree with the noble Lord on the importance of doing that. In the short term, I know that the Minister in the Foreign Office is meeting the Iraqi Foreign Minister today. Clearly, we need to do what we can to provide what assistance we can. In the first instance, this is very much the responsibility of the Iraqis to take the lead on; they have a properly elected Government and they have their own security forces. But on the noble Lord’s broad point about the need to focus on this within the G7 or EU or whatever, and to work up a concerted approach and devote energy to doing that, I agree with him entirely.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, clearly, the action by the Russian Government in relation to Crimea and Ukraine has totally changed the position on the G7’s relationship with Russia. That being so, it is obviously important to look at our defence position. While I hope that we have a clear position with regard to NATO and military matters, we appear to be absurdly vulnerable on economic matters, where President Putin is said to have shown a considerable interest in the ability of countries to use economic pressure to achieve their aims. That being so, was our response to the Russian actions not really very inadequate? Indeed, the only real sanctions were largely imposed by the markets, rather than by Governments. The vulnerability of Germany in particular, and other European countries, to the control by the Russians of gas to those countries, means that we have not been able to respond as would have been appropriate.
The Statement refers to diversification of supply of gas. I hope that my noble friend can spell it out a little more that we really are taking positive action to make sure that we are not dependent on Russian gas within the G7 countries generally, as we are at present.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much take the point about the importance of ensuring that there is diversification around energy supply, and a number of measures are in hand in the EU and through the G7 to try to take that forward. On sanctions more generally, I would argue that the steps taken so far have made a contribution. I understand my noble friend’s point about the importance of the power of markets to drive that, as well, but the combination of sanctions and markets is having the effect that I alluded to on the Russian economy. It is also the case, with regard to the adequacy of that response, that work is going on through the European Union. If Russia either destabilises the situation further or causes more difficulties with Ukraine over its signing of the accession agreement, urgent work has been going on to work up a range of sector-wide sanctions to hit various areas, whether it is defence, finance or energy. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that we need to do that work and make it clear to Russia that, if we have to take further steps, we will do so.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House recognise the tactical problems and dangers to the national interest of this country in our taking such a strong personal lead against M Juncker? He is, after all, the favourite candidate, Chancellor Merkel still appears to be supporting him and he will offer us no favours if eventually he is elected. On Ukraine and relations with Russia, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said. Yes, Russia annexed Crimea and is already paying a price economically in terms of market confidence and the rating agencies, and diplomatically in terms of its isolation. However, there are many areas where we need to engage with Russia, such as on arms control, Syria and Iran. During this difficult period, in what ways will we seek to engage with Russia on areas of mutual interest?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will not reiterate the points I made to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on striking the right balance between ensuring that there are consequences of taking action of which the entire international community disapproves and accepting the need to make sure that channels are kept open. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord’s basic point. On the point about the top job, I think it is fair to say that from the beginning the Prime Minister adopted a position of principle both on who should make the relevant decision and on the attributes that one should look for in selecting someone to do the job. His argument was that the recent elections clearly show that there is widespread appetite for a different approach. However, for there to be a different approach you have to have someone leading the Commission who is open to that. That is the argument that the Prime Minister has made. It is an argument based on principle, not personalities. I accept that the media have reported the issue as one of personalities, but it seems to me that it is quite right for a Prime Minister to argue for something that he believes is right. One needs to make those arguments in a number of ways and sometimes you need to lead from the front.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree with what the noble Lord has just said and I agree with the Statement that he was good enough to repeat. In particular I agree that the power of nomination rests with the Heads of Government meeting in the European Council. They get the first word. Everything that was said in the Statement is true and I support it. However, it is important to bear in mind also that the Parliament gets the last word. Whoever is nominated by the European Council does not take office unless they are approved by an absolute majority in the Parliament. It therefore follows that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is important. The company the British Conservatives choose to keep in Strasbourg may affect the chances of a nominee known to have British support securing the necessary absolute majority in the Parliament. My second point is that for the very first time the nominations of the European Council will be made by qualified majority, so tactics that were appropriate in the past when the decision was made by unanimity, and every Head of Government therefore had a veto, are not necessarily appropriate to the world of qualified majority.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I know from my dim and distant memory of the Maastricht process, when fortunately I was sitting quietly in a little back room while the noble Lord did all the heavy lifting, what a wily tactician he is.
Lord Hill of Oareford
That was meant as a compliment, my Lords. Obviously the way the noble Lord explained the recent change in the process was correct. However, I come back to the point that the Prime Minister felt that he needed to argue from a position of principle in relation to the approval process and the kind of person one should look for. I am sure that the noble Lord’s successors and others made the same arguments about how to go about doing it. The Prime Minister thought that the right way forward was to set out his case and argue for it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, on Ukraine, what assessment did the Government make of President Putin’s offer in 2010 to set up a free trade area from Lisbon to Vladivostok? Would that not have been the way forward? Do the Government think that the EU was wise to reply by instead offering Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and Ukraine free trade and association agreements, with their defence implications for the road to NATO, when Russia had been saying for years that it could not tolerate Crimea coming under the sphere of influence of Brussels or NATO? So, was it not the EU’s specific later offer to Ukraine that sparked the unfortunate situation in that country? If, as I suspect, the noble Lord replies that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was illegal under international law, would he care to comment on the legality of our disastrous invasion of Iraq, when at least China and France were against it in the Security Council?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I simply do not accept the underlying point that I suspect the noble Lord makes—namely, that the current travails in Ukraine and Crimea were caused by the EU. If one is looking to attribute blame—if that is the right word—for recent behaviour, it is far more straightforward to consider the illegal and unrecognised referendum in Crimea, the other action that was taken and the support given to people to destabilise it than to lay the blame on the EU. I note the wish expressed by the people of Ukraine to have a closer relationship with countries in the West, which was restated in the recent election.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, the chances of Russia surrendering Crimea, short of by war, must be nil. However, it seems to me of the utmost importance to make it very clear to Mr Putin that there must be no more Sudetenland initiatives in relation to any part of the former Russian empire. I very much bear in mind what Mr Putin said some years ago concerning the G8—namely, that Russia’s accession to the G8 was the defining achievement of his public career. He may very well have been totally sincere in that. Therefore, there should be not only negative sanctions, if needs be, but positive allurements as well, which may result in him accepting that it is not too late to come to the stool of penitence and to show that he has respect for international law and international obligations.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much agree with that; it is what everyone would want. Whether it is the stool of penitence or somewhere else, I hope that we can get to a point where we normalise relations and Russia rejoins the G8. However, certain things need to happen before that can come about.
Business of the House
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That Standing Order 40(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 11 June to enable the adjourned debate on the address to resume before oral questions.
Affordable Childcare Committee
Lord Hill of Oareford Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider issues relating to affordable childcare, and to make recommendations, and that the Committee do report by 5 March 2015.