EU Council June 2014

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[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.

European Council

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I think I agree with every single point that my noble friend Lord Tugendhat has made. He has underlined the importance of alliances, which is clearly right, and he has drawn particular attention to the strength of the relationship that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has worked hard to develop with a number of allies, including Chancellor Merkel. It is also true that in domestic politics the level of commitment is not related solely to the size of a budget. Given his experience, I have listened with particular care to my noble friend and I endorse his conclusions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will get some pleasure from somebody who is normally a critic of the Government’s European policy saying that I thought an extremely good deal was sealed last week. I am also delighted that the Prime Minister, in his Statement, drew the right conclusion from it, which was that you can get a good deal if you work carefully with your partners.

Was the noble Lord the Leader of the House not slightly surprised that one thing that no one has commented on so far is that the Prime Minister has committed himself to a budget that goes three years beyond the date of the referendum which he has said he is going to call? On this vexed question of the rebate, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House perhaps confirm that the change in the British rebate that took place in 2005 was simply Britain agreeing to pay its fair share of the structural fund spending in the new member states? Does he think that we should not have paid that fair share? We were the primary protagonists of those member states joining.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

First, I very much welcome the noble Lord’s welcome for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s achievement, from a different perspective from that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am obviously very aware of his background and experience in these matters, so am glad to receive it.

On the noble Lord’s point about the rebate in 2005, my understanding is that the other side of that deal, as it were, was supposed to be reform of the CAP, which, sadly, has not been forthcoming. That will cost the taxpayer in the region of, I think, €8.5 billion. From the point of view of wanting to defend the interests of the British taxpayer, I am extremely glad that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken a robust line on Britain’s abatement. He was pushed to surrender more of it but felt that to do so would be wrong. I am glad that he resisted that pressure.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I wonder if I can put a couple of questions to the Leader of the House about these time limits that he is proposing to have today. I know it is early days in his tenure of his present post, but does he not recognise that the business managers are imposing limits today which are severely testing the sense of humour of Back-Benchers to a point of destruction? Does he not also recognise that he is moving these time limits pretty close to the time limits imposed in the European Parliament—not an example normally thought good for emulating by this House? Finally, does he not recognise that there could be occasions when the national interest—and I think the two items on the Order Paper today are genuinely of national importance—does not require the House to rise at a fixed time on a Thursday evening?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the House has taken the decision over time as to how long it wants to set aside for debates. I take the point about the importance of some of the issues being discussed this afternoon, and the number of speakers who have signed up to discuss Europe is an indication of the great deal of interest that there is in that subject. If there is appetite for a debate of that nature, my noble friend the Chief Whip is always available to discuss that, and one could have a discussion through the usual channels as to whether we could make more time available.

Algeria

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 21st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Does the Minister accept the endorsement of what the Prime Minister said: it really is shameful that, at a moment like this, after these horrific events, so many attempts are made to look for people who are responsible other than the terrorists themselves? The events that took place were not provoked by the invasion of Mali. They were not provoked by any behaviour that could possibly be regarded as justifying it; it is right to say that.

Will the Minister also address the need to mount a really successful international operation to restore the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Mali and, hopefully, a properly functioning governance system there? This will not be easy or short. Is any thought being given to a recommendation made by two UN panels that, where the UN asks a sub-regional organisation, such as ECOWAS, to undertake a very tough business like this and where keeping the regional powers in the fore must surely be the right thing to do, the costs should be met under the UN assessed contributions and not simply through having to rely on carrying a hat around, invariably, to the European Union? Why should countries such as Japan, Russia or China not contribute?

That proposal has been made on a number of occasions. I do not think that it has ever yet born fruit. Surely, an operation such as this demonstrates the need to provide ECOWAS, which has no any financial resources of its own, with a proper underpinning for the task we are asking it to undertake.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, first, I very much associate myself with the first comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about who was responsible for this attack and with his point about those attempting to say that it is the sensible and appropriate action being taken as regards Mali that has driven this. He is clearly right that there is not that linkage. As far as we can tell, the attack, which was extremely well planned, must have been some time in the making. The idea that it was triggered by recent events in Mali does not seem to make sense.

On his broader point about Mali and how we can take it forward, I listened with great care to what he said. I know that discussions are going on at the UN on precisely those issues. I will follow those points up subsequently.