Piracy

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend, who has opened this debate with characteristic clarity. He certainly indentifies a situation that clearly calls for positive consideration in the context of UK foreign policy. We certainly have a substantial interest. We also have a significant capacity to try to help. We need to follow, if we can, the advice that I so often quote:

“Give me a place to stand, and I shall move the world”,

as Archimedes said. That is where my noble friend has started in this debate.

There are several helpful footholds for Britain in intervening in this. First, there is our Commonwealth membership, which gives us solidarity with the other Commonwealth states which surround the Indian Ocean, the African eastern coast and, indeed, the Aden Gulf—all of which look for relief from Somalia’s problems. Secondly, we are going there putting forth propositions with the backing of the European Union. That is important. It is the first European Union naval mission. EU NAVFOR is its codename, and the additional name Atalanta almost gives it a NATO benediction as well. Certainly it is right for us to be trying to intervene and be as helpful as we are.

Other interventions are taking place in teaching the Somalis how to improve their coastal defence and train their own soldiers more effectively. They are all clearly directed towards trying to enhance the ocean’s security, which will be helpful to Somalis themselves as well as to the rest of the world. We are supported in our advocacy of this approach by two major states, the United States and Russia, with whom we of course rub shoulders in NATO.

The propositions that we are trying to uphold are correct and useful. When I last spoke a year ago about Somalia, I discussed the social problems and tensions which still arose in those countries, and it looked like being a real problem for us to be intervening with it. However, their constitutional structures have at least held; they have changed substantially, as my noble friend has pointed out. Corruption and conflict have remained, not diminished. All of that increases the case for us to be trying in this way, not only to evade the risk of piracy on that part of the world, but also to enhance and improve the structure, lives and well-being of the citizens of Somalia itself. For all those reasons, I commend the analysis presented by my noble friend.

EU: Recent Developments

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I have to say a rather surprising thing: my intended observations are insufficiently organised for exposure today. The House will have to wait for another opportunity. I seek forgiveness for my modesty.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I welcome the debate on this subject. The Commonwealth is one of the few large, multinational organisations that have a very important position in the world in so many ways. This may be a surprising observation from me, as I am regarded—unjustly—as a eurofanatic and as caring very little about these things. In fact, as a Welshman, I go back to my days in the Sunday school at Carmel chapel, Aberavon, in 1935, when we were presented with a card from His Majesty King George V, celebrating his Silver Jubilee, which contained this sentence:

“I ask you to remember that in days to come you will be the citizens of a great empire”,

and I always have remembered that.

It fell to my lot, rather fortunately, some 12 years later, when I found myself commissioned in the Army— in the Royal Signals, though still having very little understanding of electronic science—to be posted to east Africa. I was stationed in Nanyuki on the equator, as second-in-command of the East African Signals troop, with 20 British NCOs and 100 Africans covering Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. I am reminded very much of the extent to which my black signallers had seen service in the Burma campaign with the 11th East African Division. Sergeant Mbela Kasema BEM was one of these. He had come to represent them in the victory parade, and was still corresponding with a girlfriend in Chalk Farm. Among other things, I had to instruct my African soldiers in the greater benefits of “Kingy George Five” rather than Bwana Joe Stalin. I became very conscious of the fact that we were all grown-up children of the same great Empire that King George had commended with his message so many years before. So indeed I found it during the six years which I had the privilege to spend as Foreign Secretary, because there was no doubt about the importance of the Commonwealth.

One particular feature, which I will come back to, relates to the fact that I was, on demobilisation to Cambridge in 1948, given the alternative of going as a captain to command the signals troop in Mogadishu. I did not take that up because the signals troop there was simultaneously giving service to the Somali Youth League as well as the interests of their own unit. That was a rather unfortunate episode, but it drew my attention to Somaliland and, subsequently, to the existence of British Somaliland—of which more in a moment.

As Foreign Secretary, I came quickly to realise the importance of the Commonwealth in so many different ways. One that struck me almost immediately was how much better informed I was in going to IMF meetings, or things of that kind, than the Secretary of State from the United States because I had acquaintance with a whole range of countries, many of which paid great tribute to Britain’s contribution. I recall one observation made by Yaqub Khan, the Foreign Minister for so many years of Pakistan, when he welcomed me to the country and said, “You will enjoy it here—you will find it peopled by the noble ghosts of Britain's past”. I found similar tributes would come in from the leaders of many Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth conferences, or Prime Minister’s conferences, are enormously valuable in finding agreement between the Commonwealth members with their great diversity. For example, it helped us in getting across to all the Commonwealth countries, notably in dialogue between my noble friend Lady Thatcher and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the sincerity of our attempt to bring the Cold War to an end.

I want to close, if I may, with a minute on the problems of British Somaliland, which are very serious because of its subsequent merger in the greater state of Somalia, where it has now suffered adversely as a result of corruption and worse in that country. A very valuable comment on the whole situation was made in the debate in the other place by Tony Worthington, who I think was on the Select Committee on International Development when it visited Somaliland. He pointed out that:

“Our foreign service hang-ups about recognition are getting in the way of us fulfilling our duty to pursue the millennium development goals for the poor people of Somaliland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/04; col. 273WH.]

The reason is that it would like to be admitted to the Commonwealth—comparable to the admissions of, for example, Rwanda and Mozambique, which have been a great advantage to those countries and to ourselves.

British Somaliland, as it was, is not getting the treatment that it deserves. I cannot spend any more time describing the history behind that but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will pay attention to the case being tenaciously argued by a number of people for the recognition of British Somaliland, so that we are able to deal with it more independently than it is now being dealt with, in the unhappy marriage that it agreed to make with the rest of Somalia some years ago.

Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree 100 per cent with the noble Lord’s remarks about the enormously successful state visit, which has no doubt struck a very positive chord and gives great hope to all of us who are familiar with and wish to see ameliorated and put in the past the great problems of Ireland of the past few hundred years. The noble Lord is absolutely on the right track there. However, I have to reiterate that the initiative on which he is questioning me—membership of the Commonwealth—really is a matter for the Irish Government to look at. In many other areas I suspect that the state visit has provided an impetus and a momentum on both sides of the water for new initiatives to bring the Republic of Ireland and all aspects of the United Kingdom still closer together. They are our good friends and we are theirs.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

In encouraging movement in the direction suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rana, may I remind my noble friend of the very different example of the great success with which the former communist Portuguese colony of Mozambique has become a fully fledged member of the Commonwealth, with great benefit to the Commonwealth as well as to Mozambique?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble and learned friend’s question gives me the opportunity to observe—I imagine that this will come as no surprise to noble Lords—that the Commonwealth club today is one which many people wish to join and be associated with in all sorts of forms. There is no doubt that, as we move into the 21st century, the particular nature of the Commonwealth, with its linkages, close associations, common elements of trust, understanding and friendship and its capacity to expand trade and investment, is the kind of club which many countries want to join. They look at the example of Mozambique and see a new Commonwealth pattern emerging, not necessarily precisely related to the old question of which countries were members of the British Commonwealth or the British Empire. It is a very successful platform for the 21st century and many other countries are queuing up to join it, which is very flattering.

European Union Bill

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I wonder if there is a special case in this. Some of us approach this question from the hypothetical case that in a few years we might join the euro when it has parity with the pound. It might be relevant to the referendum that people might think, “If you can’t beat them, join them. It’s been around a long time—you might as well join”. Frankly, that is the way referendum decisions are probably made—in the pub. We are talking about making something quite technical into a demotic sort of fact.

Might the discussion in the press get a debate going? Something like the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, might be relevant, maybe with some adjustment, to the idea that we need to have the proposition about parity with the euro as part of the question. Could somebody enlighten me as to how that scenario—it is probable rather than possible; it has some common sense about it—would fit with this Bill and with the amendment?

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Since my name stands on the Marshalled List below that of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, it is right that I should intervene at this point. There is a certain diffidence about my approach, because I am in the presence of two propositions with which I have been closely familiar for a very long time indeed. I refer personally to the noble Lord. As he has already hinted, our relationship with each other is antique. I first came across him as a bright young man in my early days as Chancellor of the Exchequer; he did not necessarily appear to know a great deal about the Treasury or economics at that stage. I learnt that he was on secondment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was already serving me very well in the more sophisticated Treasury environment and therefore in due course became my principal private secretary in that department. He continued in that job to serve my noble friend Lord Lawson. I do not think that he lasted in that humble job for long enough to be with my noble friend Lord Lamont. Certainly, we came to establish a respect for each other and a familiarity.

The noble Lord is a young creature in my memory, who has already made a lucid and compact presentation to this debate, which is frankly not a hugely politically controversial one. It is a debate directed to the ostensible, practical way of approaching this particular proposition —our accession to what used to be called the European monetary system. That also is a symbol of my antiquity. My two noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Lawson, who are alongside me, will not need much prompting to remember that our manifesto for the European 1979 election, preceding our own manifesto for the general election later on, had this quotation:

“We regret the Labour Government’s decision—alone amongst the Nine—not to become a full member of the new European Monetary System. We support the objectives of the new system, which are currency stability in Europe and closer co-ordination of national economic policies, and we shall look for ways in which Britain can take her rightful place within it”.

I am still looking, with an enthusiasm that has fluctuated over the years, as the stability of the currency has fluctuated as well.

In this context, I support the amendment. Although my relationship with the ERM, as it was then called, has been insecure, it was the cause of the less than friendly relationships between my noble friend Lord Lawson and myself and our noble friend Lady Thatcher before the Madrid summit, where our paths certainly divided. Remarkably, not many months after I had been subsequently moved on from the Foreign Office to become Leader of the House of Commons, a decision was taken for us to enter the European monetary system—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Will my—

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Not at this point, in the middle of a sentence, although I have often given way to my noble friend in circumstances like this.

The news that we were joining the system reached me in rather a remarkable way. In my role as Leader of the Commons, on that day it was my job to go to Balmoral with a number of ministerial colleagues for a formal meeting for which I was Lord President of the Council. When I arrived in the presence of Her Majesty, before having a chance to talk to anybody else, her first question to me was, “What do you think of the news today, Sir Geoffrey?” I said, “What news, your Majesty?” She said, “Haven’t you heard?” I had not, indeed, but we had joined the European monetary system on that day. Although my private office in London had tried to get the message to me before I met Her Majesty, that had failed. So I found the whole thing embarrassing—but I was in a way a pioneer, because I first commended it to the other place as long ago as when I was Shadow Chancellor, on 29 November 1978. So I am quite impatient to see it fulfilled, as long as it is fulfilled on the right terms at the right time, but fortunately that is not for me to decide.

I see my noble friend is looking anxious. I have said all I need to say—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I am sure that the whole House is fascinated by my noble friend’s trip down memory lane. I share a number of those memories with him, including sharing the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as principal private secretary when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was the first of a number of principal private secretaries whom I had as Chancellor, because I was there for quite a time. They were all good in different ways, but none of them was anything like as Machiavellian as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. That makes one wonder what he is really up to with this amendment.

This trip down memory lane, fascinating as it was, is about the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, which is a currency arrangement. This debate is about abandoning your own currency. There is absolutely no similarity whatever. So although I say with great respect and affection for my noble friend that what he said was of interest, it has absolutely no relevance to the amendment that we are discussing.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

With great respect to my noble friend, who always has a more ruthless and intellectual analysis of these questions than I do, it is broadly speaking the same thing. It was important, while that was the question, whether or not we joined the monetary exchange system; it is even more important whether we join the euro. Either way, we have reached the point where there has been a general acceptance of the need for a referendum on our accession to that currency. That arises not within the context of this Bill or this debate alone but has been on the agenda for a long time. The only question that we are actually debating now is the rather technical one of when precisely it should be required in the context.

I see my noble friend Lord Howell looking at me. When I reflect on his wisdom over many years, I am sure when he comes to wind up that he will recognise that is the flavour of the decision. Perhaps he is not winding up—he may be too nervous to handle this issue.

I am more than content to follow the wisdom and enlightenment of that splendid retired principal private secretary sitting over there. It was quite fun when we were together and I was presiding over the realignment of the European monetary system. It was quite nerve-wracking. We had one marvellously exciting day when it was agreed between the Germans and the French that there should be a 9 per cent realignment between those two currencies—2 per cent up and 7 down, or 3 per cent and 6 per cent down. That question, unhappily, for the first and only time, ran into a time when the currency markets were open on a Monday morning. That was our only failure. Apart from that, I am confident to give my backing to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of—I can never remember the other half.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene, even briefly, in this marvellous ballet of Chancellors, which has taught us all a very great deal. I apologise for having stepped in before the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, because I am sure he too will have a major contribution to make.

I want to raise one other issue before we move on to what one hopes will be the final remarkable occasion of this ballet, which we will all appreciate much. I want to talk for a moment, if I may, about being straightforward about the implications of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked with a degree of technicality I am incapable of following, and I am sure that he is probably right. It looks as if his former Chancellors, all of whom he managed to be a mentor to, will give him the full support that he needs on this amendment.

My point reflects more on our debate up to this point. We are showing an inclination to look more at the ways in which we can escape from some of the consequences of the growing interdependency of the world economy of which we are part. Quite simply, we all know that it is highly unlikely that there will be movement under this Government towards the eurozone or the euro. It will be important to take account in the future of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

We will not be able to escape the presence and the problems of the euro by not joining it. I recognise that most people in this Parliament and probably most people in the country at the moment would not wish to join the euro. However, I also recognise that the euro’s future and its strength are of crucial importance to this country whether we join or not. We now do something like half our trade with the eurozone. The positions taken by the eurozone are of major influence in global financial meetings. Therefore, although we may not belong to it we do not escape all the consequences of it. We should make it quite clear as we continue to discuss this part of the Bill that time and again we will be caught in the gradually increasing interdependency of the economic world whether or not we happen to already belong to some of its institutions.

Why did we help to support the Irish in the desperate situation that they encountered last year? Quite simply because there were so many British interests—banking interests, shareholder interests—affected by what happened to the banks of the Republic of Ireland that we felt it irresponsible and unwise to stay out of the discussions about it. In just the same way, we will find it irresponsible and unwise to regard the possibility of a major crack in the eurozone between its richer and poorer nations as if it did not in any way affect us.

We know already how close this is. Already there is much closer investigation of the European stability pact, with the possibility of mounting greater surveillance on those who are within it as well as the possibility of moving towards some degree of control over the group of countries within the eurozone. I will not go into all that now because there is not time and it is not appropriate, except to say very directly that this is bound to have implications for Britain as well. We simply cannot stay wholly outside these things.

When my noble friend Lord Goodhart was talking earlier about the European prosecutor’s office, one of the things he might well have pointed out, though he was too nice to do so, was that already we in this country had been caught up in the OECD’s Financial Action Task Force very directly on the issue of when we moved and finally passed the bribery convention. We cannot escape from some of the massive international institutions—the G20, the OECD and many more—which are bound to affect our sovereign right to do as we will. To pretend that we do not live in such a world, that it is not becoming more and more that kind of world, is to live in a world of illusion which we cannot possibly afford to. I simply make the point on this discussion on the euro that we have to look all the way through at how the United Kingdom will survive, strengthen and prosper in a world which, like it or not, is becoming increasingly global, increasingly interdependent and increasingly without room for people taking pure sovereign attitudes because those are no longer possible, whether you live in China, the United States or anywhere else.

European Union Bill

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I can add very little to the lucid presentation made by my noble friend Lord Williamson. I start from premises which I have described to the House before. My first premise is to regard referenda as unreliable things. The more complex the subject, the less reliable they become. I have said many times that the referenda which I have always been enthusiastic about were those which I was able to introduce at a meeting of the Welsh area council of the Conservative Party in the 1960s—namely, to determine, on a county basis and at seven-year intervals, whether public houses should be open on Sunday. That was put into law within a short time by Henry Brooke and remained there for 35 years, because after five seven-year lapses every county in Wales had finally been liberated, Caernarvon being the last. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris was then able to repeal the legislation. Nobody can argue with that.

Between 1974 and 1979, when I was on the opposition Benches in the other place and was able to do other things, I was on the board of a company called AGB Research, which was one of the largest and most effective market research companies in Europe, specialising largely in the measurement of television and broadcasting audiences. The whole process depended on trying to determine what people thought. In so far as we were dealing with quite simple things about broadcasting, it was easy enough to decide. In so far as we were measuring relative enthusiasm as between butter and margarine, we felt that we could rely on a referendum-style questioning and answering analysis. But unlike many of our competitors, we were always clear that we would never touch political opinion polls with a bargepole because we felt that in that area, however well one tried to do it, the outcome was likely to be less than lucid and less than decisive. For that reason, throughout this legislation I have been wholly lacking in enthusiasm for the introduction of referenda in substitute for decisions taken by Parliament.

We have reached the point when referenda seem likely to remain in legislation, but the least we can do is to try to make those referenda less ill founded than they might otherwise be. If we do not prescribe a minimum along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, then we are at the mercy of decisions being taken by almost invisible percentage votes. I do not regard there being much wisdom in a 40 per cent referendum, but I am delighted to be able to follow an example set by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was a colleague in the other place for many years and who, the House may remember, was also the author of the Rooker-Wise amendment on income tax legislation. So for the second time, although it is not like that Rooker-Wise legislation and his name does not even appear on this amendment, I am glad to endorse his wisdom, particularly when it is reinforced by the lucid, compact argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. It is the minimum we can do to exclude the unreliability of this unattractive device. It should be in the hands of Parliament. This amendment enables it to come back into the hands of Parliament if certain conditions are not fulfilled. I speak in support of the amendment.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I speak in partial support of this amendment. I cannot say I am very enthusiastic about part of it, but nevertheless I agree with the general thrust. Before I turn to the amendment, I would like to say how much I admire the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, particularly his actions in the 1950s in persuading the Conservative party in Wales to agree to a set of referendums on whether pubs should be open on Sundays. I say that because in the valley where I was brought up there was a Labour majority of 35,000, but the club with the biggest membership of all was the local Conservative club. Why? Because it was open on Sundays. He deserves to be commended for his altruism, which deprived the Amman Valley’s Conservative party of a considerable amount of beer money.

My Lords, I am not too keen on this amendment for one reason. We have a figure which, if it is not reached, then prima facie at any rate the referendum should not be valid. However, in those circumstances where the turnout does not reach 40 per cent, the result is deemed to be valid because the matter will come back to Parliament and, if each House passes a resolution saying that, despite the turnout being under 40 per cent, the measure should go through, then it will go through. I question the value of that. If you have that in the Bill, it seems to me it is slightly pointless having a 40 per cent plateau. If one is going to have a figure that the turnout must reach for the referendum to be effective, why should Parliament give the Government a second chance of getting their policy through? If there is a condition that you must have 40 per cent, surely if you get that 40 per cent the referendum is valid; if you do not, the logical conclusion is that the referendum is not valid. If it were as simple as that, I would support the amendment entirely. On the other hand, I must say that if the amendment is one the House is prepared to accept, I would certainly go along with it rather than not have anything like it.

European Union Bill

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful for that flattering comment from my noble friend Lord Radice.

That is exactly the burden of my remarks this morning. In adapting, as any institution needs to do, to the challenges of the future, we should not exclude doing so by decisions within the existing structures and rules, or the need, where necessary, to evolve those rules. That is a false and damaging distinction to enshrine in our law.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I notice that my name is attached to one of the amendments on the Marshalled List. I rise with rather a heavy heart to say anything at all. The kind of discussion that is now taking place—I rebuke nobody for it—and which has been launched by the Bill and beforehand, casts a shadow over an enterprise which deserves to have been given more wholehearted support from a much earlier stage.

I am on record in my own disreputable memoirs as having written a letter in 1948 commending the prospect of Britain taking part in the original negotiations on the formation of the European Community. I reproached the Attlee Government for not having then undertaken the initiative commended by Winston Churchill. It is sad that we did not join at the beginning. We were proud at the time, and entitled to be, of our survival and success in the war. However, at some points we have allowed that pride to be transformed into conceit and have staggered and stumbled in quite a less attractive way in joining this enterprise.

It was entirely right, when we had considered it carefully, to conclude as we did after the 1972 Act that the British people should be entitled to express their view on the major, fundamental change involved in the transfer and sharing of sovereignty, an enterprise that was already under way and working quite well. In that spirit, we were able in successive Governments to play a reasonable part in carrying forward an important and worthwhile policy. I was content and proud, for example, when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, we circulated a document around the Community entitled Europe—the Future, which visualised steady progress in enhancing the influence of Britain and Europe on the world stage as it was developing.

I have become less and less happy with the to-ing and fro-ing, which has been illustrated as a reductio ad absurdum in this debate. I find my name attached to a thing called a “sunset clause”, which is also a “sunrise and re-set clause”, and does not do justice to the enterprise on which we were embarked and to which we are still committed. The Bill is a response to anxiety among the British people and a tendency to think that we can resolve that lack of understanding if we have an immense clutch of referenda ad infinitum. It would be far better if we were to recommit ourselves to the original enterprise rather than find ourselves engaged in this kind of discussion on this kind of issue.

There is a great course still to be put under way. I grieve at the fact that the Bill purports to give the British people an opportunity that they ought not really to have because it becomes so complex that it is absurd. They were entitled to have that question put to them, as was done in 1975; it was the major step. It is on that foundation that I would prefer us to be going forward now rather than allowing it to get into this morass of multiple referenda.

I do not support my own amendment. I apologise for the fact that it is there because I have joined the rattling to and fro in a context which does not deserve it. I hope that the amendment is not put and that the Bill does not pass, but I am not going to challenge it single-handed at this stage. However, I think that I am entitled to express my dismay in the light of what could have been achieved and sustained, and what can be achieved and sustained if we commit ourselves more wholeheartedly to the European Union, about which Winston Churchill spoke with favour and where successive Prime Ministers have led us forward—even my noble friend Lady Thatcher. We worked together for 15 years, trying to enhance the power of the United Kingdom in the European Union. Our political marriage, which lasted for 15 years, concluded in a divorce, about which the less said the better. However, I reaffirm the legitimacy of that which we did together in those years, and the legitimacy of the objective to which we should be directing ourselves.

The sooner we allow this Bill to spread itself into the morass of discontinuity and die a death, rather than have a sunset clause fluctuating one way or the other, the better. We should let it die of senility because we have had enough of it. That is what I should like to see happen.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, it was on this day last year, and with some trepidation, that I stood as the first Liberal on government Benches in 96 years to support the Queen’s Speech. This party knew, as did the Conservatives, that Europe could create a huge rift between us. It is in the true spirit of what a coalition is meant to be, in European terms, that we have managed in this Bill to come together in pursuit of its fundamental objective of rebuilding trust between the British people and those who govern them.

Amendments 61 and 63 aim to do more or less the same thing: to suggest that the Bill is a complete waste of time and should therefore expire as soon as this coalition Government cease to exist. I have enormous respect for the noble Lords whose names are listed as supporting these amendments. They undoubtedly believe that this Bill is unnecessary and will do little to address the disconnect between the EU’s institutions and Britain’s. They are entitled to their view, but I regret that there has been no attempt on their part during the passage of the Bill in Committee to propose an alternative method of restoring trust.

Noble Lords on the opposition Benches have just been the custodians of power for 13 years. During their time in office, there were broken promises in consulting the people and precious little support for engaging the public in the European debate. Now, when confronted with the central aim of the Bill—to promise the British people that they will have a say in some matters to do with giving over more power to the EU, or at least to assure them that Ministers will have to justify their decisions—the response is to suggest that the Bill is an artificial construct intended simply to appease anti-Europeanism; and that it should therefore be dispensed with at the first opportunity, namely the Dissolution of this Parliament. This goes against the spirit of the Bill and we will resist that from these Benches.

I turn now to the principle of sunset clauses, somewhat anticipating what the Minister might say in response to the other two amendments.

European Union Bill

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

When I read Clause 18, I took the view that it corresponds to what is our practice in this country, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. That approach has been confirmed in at least two judgments in the courts, as well as in our general practice and how we describe the question of the status of EU law. Why is it here? I understand that clearly. There has been considerable discussion about parliamentary sovereignty, so I understand why the Government have proposed this. Discussion in the House of Commons confirmed that concerns over those issues and whether that should be covered in statute remain. The Government have put it into statute. That does not change the substance, but it must change something, because it is here for the first time in statute; whereas before it was the practice of the courts based on the European Communities Act 1972. That is how it worked. I fully understand all that.

Here we have two amendments. One would leave the text exactly as it is but add something which comes from the Explanatory Note. That point could be looked at carefully, but it does not change Clause 18 as presented by the Government. It is not being changed; something is being added to it. The other amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, changes to a modest degree the text which has been put on the table. It changes it by making explicit that it is by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 that we have recognition of availability in law of EU legislation. It is explicit on that point. It avoids the initial phrase in the Bill, which states:

“It is only by virtue of an Act of Parliament”.

It is a clarification of that point. However, it does not change the basic structure of the way in which we deal with Community legislation. We deal with it by the authority of an Act of Parliament. That is how we operate and it is absolutely imperative to stick to that. It is how we have operated ever since we have been in the European Community—or, now, the European Union—and recognition of that in statute is perfectly reasonable. There are two amendments but, in particular, we have to decide whether the wording of Amendment 59, which makes the situation explicit with the words:

“By virtue of the European Communities Act”,

and does not include the specific phrase:

“It is only by virtue of an Act of Parliament”,

is clearer and more likely to avoid misinterpretation. I tend to favour Amendment 59 for that reason.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, as I rise to support this debate, I sense a curious parallel of feelings. Quite recently I received in an e-mail, in the magic way that one does, a photograph of our eldest daughter holding in her arms her grandchild. That means that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and I have simultaneously become great-grandparents, and it is with that sort of sense that I now look back on this section of the European Communities Act 1972.

The remarkable thing is that from the outset it was understood that joining the European Community, as it then was, involved the arrival of a situation in which Community law was to be directly applied in this country. My noble friend Lord Howell knows that as clearly as I do because, as I have said before, we published a magnificent article written by Dennis Thompson entitled The Rome Treaty and the Law long before we were in a position to introduce legislation. The striking thing about that article was the same striking thing that we are discussing now—namely, the direct application in this country of existing law and law yet to be made in the European Community. For a more respectable origin than that, I go back to the White Paper produced by the Wilson Government in 1967 before we succeeded in getting membership of the Community. The White Paper says:

“‘If this country became a member of the European Communities it would be accepting Community law. By ‘Community law’ is meant the whole body of legal rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties or their instruments’”.

I am quoting from Hansard of 1972. I interposed, “So far, so good”, and then continued,

“it would be necessary to pass legislation giving the force of law to those provisions of the Treaties and Community instruments which are intended to take direct internal effect within the Member States”.—[Official Report, 17/2/72; cols. 650-51.]

That was foreshadowed in 1967.

Perhaps the most striking phrase in Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act is “without further enactment”. Therefore, the legislation that we were passing meant that laws made within the Community structure took direct application here as a result. There was, admittedly, some variation in that because that is how regulations took effect, whereas directives needed to be converted into English law, as they did not have direct application.

Therefore, there is no surprise about this provision. The only surprise that I have had has been the emergence of Clause 2 of the Bill. Speculation was rife throughout the country when we were preparing the Bill that became the European Communities Act about whether it was going to be a one-clause Bill, a 10-clause Bill, a 100-clause Bill or a 1,000-clause Bill. There was tremendous speculation along all those lines. In fact, this central provision was absolutely fundamental. It has been fundamental from the outset and has been part of our membership of the European Community. It is not a burden upon us; it is beneficial to us but within the framework of the European Union. To take the most obvious example, how would we have been able to ensure that the French withdrew their ban on BSE-tainted beef? The legislation that we were entitled to invoke to make that happen was legislation of this kind, particularly in France. It has always been fundamental and I really cannot see how one can question its importance and value. The question is how it is best expressed now in the light of the Bill before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

My Lords, I intervene as one who is not learned in the law, unlike most previous speakers. I put down an amendment that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to that and also put his name to the amendment.

I listened to those who are learned in the law dancing on the point of a legal pin. I shall take the matter away and look at what they said, because it seems to me—as it seemed when I tabled the amendment—that the clause is, as has been said, not just unnecessarily vague but unnecessary. As has also been said, it is declaratory in effect. However, the legal position is perfectly clear from Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I remember vividly the discussions that led up to that section. It has been buttressed by opinions in the Court of Appeal, if not in the Supreme Court—or House of Lords as it was—and I have not been convinced that we need Clause 18 in the Bill. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about the undesirability of declaratory provisions that do not change anything. Therefore, I have not yet been convinced that the law is uncertain or not absolutely clear already in this matter and needs to be reinforced or redeclared by the clause.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I ought to have been more courteous in my portrayal of our partnership in a form that he would prefer to support. The reason that I was impelled in the Scottish direction was in order to underline the importance of the 1972 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is right to argue that we do not need the clause. However, it can do no harm to have the overriding importance of the 1972 Act being manifest, and to remove the ambiguity of the original Clause 18 and move beyond the removal of the offending clause to underline the proposition and lay it further beyond doubt. That is why I am inclined to prefer to move in that direction. However, I do so with apologies to my erstwhile partner.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, for saying that. I do not feel any differently about underlining something from how I do about declaring something that is already in existence, is supported by the judiciary and is not in question. Of course, I shall read the interventions of noble Lords who have spoken previously on these matters, but I remain to be convinced that we need this clause in the Bill.

Government Departments: Soft Power

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, like others who have already spoken, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for starting off the debate. I also extend special thanks to my noble friend and neighbour here Lord Alderdice for the extent to which he underlined the necessity for us to have confidence in the value of the soft power which we have all been discussing. It has been echoed by many others. I do not feel, although the word features in the debate, that co-ordination is necessarily the most important thought to have in mind. I do not mean to dismiss the idea just offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but perhaps because of my experience in the Treasury, of which my noble friend Lord Fowler could not help reminding the House, I feel the real problem is that of allocation of resources, alongside discovery of the confidence in what we have, to defend and enlarge and expand with the right allocation there.

It will not be very popular to say this, but there is a problem because there are two candidates for the lion’s share of resource allocation in this area—the lion is not to the same scale in each case—the Ministry of Defence, which is as important as anything and does not have a very notorious reputation for skilful management or estimation of resources, and the other, I have to say with some regret, is DfID. The idea that it should have guaranteed access to guaranteed resources on the scale it does, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, pointed out, is a very powerful resource for that department. The fact that I am criticising it does not mean that I do not have a sufficiently bleeding heart. In my time in government we allocated not 0.7 per cent of GDP to the ODA, as it then was, but no more than 0.36 per cent because we felt ourselves constrained by the long running shortage of resources. One has to have that willingness to be flexible about it. I have always regretted—I would, wouldn’t I—the subsequent separation of the FCO from DfID or the ODA. I do not like one remark made by my noble friend Lord Fowler about the FCO. He suggested that it was the FCO which undervalued different aspects of it. The FCO joins with everyone who has spoken so far in recognising the value—it is the problem of allocating the resources. I feel we need to be willing to say that some things are so important that DfID should have some reduction in its allocation.

The partnership between DfID and the other Foreign Office departments was useful—it avoided duplication of bureaucratic establishments around the world: it enabled me to select rising DfID staff members and offer ambassadorships to them. I remember in particular, when I was with Her Majesty the Queen on a state visit to Nepal, feeling some pleasure that our ambassador there then, Tony Hurrell, was the first ambassador to be appointed to the Diplomatic Service from the ODA, with some pleasure being given to the department for that unification of respect. When the ambassador gave a picnic in the foothills of the Himalayas before we departed I was able to congratulate him on the knighthood conferred upon him on that visit by Her Majesty the Queen and to say that he probably did not imagine when he joined the Department of Employment as a clerk aged 18 that he would end up being knighted in Kathmandu. That integration of DfID, ODA and FCO is a virtuous state of affairs.

Beyond that, the question is how should one enhance and achieve the right balance of resources in other departments. I cannot avoid mentioning the foreign service. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, initiated not the first debate of its kind on, I think, Armistice Day last year, pressing the need for Britain to have a properly resourced and active diplomacy. That is all part of the concerted way in which we have to make the most of our soft power, as colleagues have already been pressing. It is an area, incidentally, where full exploitation of linguistic skill is important, helping the foreign service present our wider case.

Looking at the three substantive aspects of this topic that noble Lords have so far discussed, I join my noble friend Lord Fowler and others in emphasising the immense importance of the World Service of the BBC. The reductions that have recently been imposed are, quite frankly, foolish and unjustified, and the more quickly they can be restored, the better it will be for all of us.

I can offer some anecdotal insight into the extent to which the World Service has had its impact on affairs in a remarkable series of ways. On my second visit to Yugoslavia after Tito had gone, one of the things that one had to do was visit Tito’s former residence. One of the most striking features of going there was to find that the radio set was tuned into the World Service and to hear subsequently that Tito was able to protect himself against the risk of Soviet onslaught through the information that he had been getting on the World Service about what was happening to Dubcek in Czechoslovakia. In that area, the World Service was rendering a valuable cause.

I remember also visiting for the first time Prime Minister Papandreou in Athens with our ambassador there, Sir Jeremy Thomas. That was, I think, the first meeting between a British Foreign Secretary and the Greek Prime Minister since Anthony Eden had been there. When we went to Mr Papandreou’s house to see him, one suddenly heard from behind the wall the World Service theme—

“Ta-ta-tum, tat ta-ta tum, ta ta-tum, ta ta-ta tum”—

and so on. He was at pains to tell us just how important it was for him. We know also that Mr Gorbachev and his wife heard the first news of what was happening to them in the Moscow scene on the World Service. So I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of that.

I shall not add anything to what has been said about the British Council but I shall close with one word about a representative non-departmental public body, the Great Britain-China Centre, declaring an interest as the long-serving president of that organisation. It is a very good example of an agency that is not directly under government control. It is very well suited to the delivery of soft power, allowing work to be conducted at arm’s length from government but with the reassurance that the work is not intended to destabilise China. It allows us to call on professional expertise and initiate the discussion of important issues in China. The resources that we get from government are a grant-in-aid of £270,000, and a further £1 million is raised by us to go in support of three programmes. The first is a judicial studies training programme that has been running in partnership between this country and China for some years. I think that more than 60 judges in 34 different courts in China have recently received training of that kind. The second programme is pressing the case for better legal protection for the media. The third—this, again, is interesting—is common discussion on the use of the death penalty. As a result of that, we like to think that the legislative committee of the National People’s Congress is likely within a short period of time to reduce by 13 the number of offences that carry capital punishment in China— 68 currently do so. That is an impact of soft power in a rather unexpected place.

The final example, which no one else has mentioned but which I think can be categorised as soft power alongside the importance of Parliament, is our monarchy. In China, curiously, I had an interesting insight into the importance of the perception of our monarchy in countries around the world. At the end of our negotiations on the Hong Kong prospect and at my final meeting in that context with Deng Xiaoping, he was at pains to attach importance to the antiquity and history of our relationship. It did not start in a very good way some centuries ago but now he was anxious to pay respect to our Royals. He said:

“We have decided we can trust Britain and your government and therefore would like to invite Her Majesty the Queen to come to China on a State Visit to confirm our friendship”.

So, indeed, she did, two years after the signing of the Hong Kong Joint Declaration. On the Royal Yacht—a sadly discarded manifestation of our soft power; I think that it was soft rather than hard—we were able to entertain the entire Chinese Government in Shanghai Harbour. Tomorrow’s news, it may be thought, is another example of the importance of royal soft power among the many assets which we have and which we should promote as effectively and as strongly as we can with as many well-allocated resources as we can persuade the Treasury to undertake.

European Union Bill

Lord Howe of Aberavon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, it is ironic that I am speaking in this debate, which was opened by my noble friend Lord Howell. Many years have passed since we first addressed this question, at a time when he was handing over to me, or rather vice versa, the editorship of Crossbow in 1968. That distinguished journal is still with us. It published a 20-page supplement on the Rome treaty and the law, written by Dennis Thompson, which set out clearly the direct impact on the law of this country of accession to the treaty. There is no mystery; it has been there all the time. I congratulate my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on their speeches, in which they addressed the problem with lucidity and balance, although without agreement.

I find myself dismayed by the persistent degree of schizophrenia implicit in the Bill, which is foreshadowed in the coalition agreement. Perhaps the coalition is by definition likely to suffer from schizophrenia. There are two themes running through this. First, there is the oft-repeated proposition that we want Britain to play, in the words of the coalition agreement,

“a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of … global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty”.

The text echoes the comparable but much more dramatic phraseology of Winston Churchill in 1950, when he called on Europe to unite.

Alongside that encouraging part of the agreement is the negativity of two commitments. The first is that no further powers shall be transferred to Brussels without a referendum. That is an absolute, comprehensive proposition. The second commitment is to examine the balance of existing competences and limit the application in some respects, and so on. What emerges from that has been commended by some people on the basis that we will live in an atmosphere with a host of referendum locks. The phrase “referendum locks” distresses me in the approach towards referenda.

The noble Baroness, who has now returned to her seat, referred to the difficulty of understanding the purpose of referenda. All of us who are sincere about this would be anxious to see an enhancement of the understanding of the British people of what the Community is about and how it works. We have failed to deliver as much of that as we should over the years, although great statesmen have endeavoured to do so. It could be the case that referenda by the score would be instructive and educative, but I am doubtful about that in the technical context in which we live.

Referenda are not being commended in this legislation because of their constructive effect. I am afraid that they are there, in one way or another, as effective locks that illustrate the belief that the extension of European jurisdiction is more likely to be unwelcome than welcome. That is my anxiety, and that is why I am apprehensive about the concentration on them in the Bill. There is no reason, as several noble Lords pointed out, for concern or dismay about the nature of Community law as it applies to us and as it has applied since the 1972 Act. It was under Section 2 of that Act that the impact of Community law was established and has been sustained ever since. It has a direct application to this country to the extent specified. That is important for a very positive reason. It is not something imposed just on us. The heart of the treaty is that the body of Community law should apply throughout the Community. If it imposes obligations and rights on our country, so be it, because for the most part those rights and obligations are advantageous. However, likewise it imposes obligations and rights on our fellow member states and enhances the opportunity for the states to work together. That is the very concept of the single market.

Had it not been for that core provision for the direct application of Community law and our ability to handle that and negotiate on it through successive European Councils, it would not have been possible, for example, for my noble friend Lady Thatcher and me to go through various summit meetings and achieve by agreement and negotiation not just the easy—he said laughingly—propositions about recovering part of the “bloody British budget” but, more importantly, those in the Single European Act. We were not able to foresee every detail or pre-emptively to get the propositions reviewed domestically either in Parliament or in referenda; we were working forward, as has to happen in negotiations of that kind in that organisation.

Referenda can be used as a means of informing the British people or encouraging them to understand the way in which the European Union is working as Churchill hoped it would—enlarging and expanding our resources and our ability to work together, although that need not be seen as the dominant impression of the European Union. However, there might be adverse impacts in certain areas and in certain cases, which is why I am apprehensive about frequent and, in many cases, unnecessary referenda.

We had one referendum in 1975, which resulted from the fact that a succession of Heads of Government —starting with Churchill and going through to Macmillan, Heath and Wilson—all came to accept the need for Section 2 of the 1972 Act, which is reaffirmed in Clause 18 of this Bill. Until the 1975 referendum, Harold Wilson, who had challenged the concept of the 1972 Act—I made the winding-up speech at the end of that debate—had been trying to expound the proposition that it was quite unnecessary to embrace Community law into our own law, as we did with Section 2 of the Act. He had been advised to the contrary by distinguished lawyers such as Lord Gardiner and Lord Elwyn-Jones. It has always been necessary for that to be part of our agreement and that is where we are today.

I can see the importance of considering the possibility of referenda if one wants matters to be acceptable to the country when we are making negotiations, but I do not think that they play a really valuable part. I do not think that they can be justified on their educational role alone, but it is of course important, as my noble friend has pointed out, that, a fortiori in those circumstances, Parliament should understand what is being sought and agreed and what is going to happen. I suspect that sometimes in the past we may have gone to European Council meetings having been a little less than candid about what we were seeking to achieve in our pre-Council presentations to Parliament, largely because we did not know quite what we would be able to achieve.

It is certainly right that Parliament should be consulted and be allowed to intervene and there may be provisions in the earlier clauses of the Bill in which a parliamentary survey of what is going to be agreed and what has been agreed should be strengthened. I do not accept that with great enthusiasm. My fear is that the shower or flurry of clauses that require referenda mean that the referenda are going to be obstructive rather than instructive. That is why it is important for Parliament to be given a larger role as we move forward, building up the effectiveness of Community law and working together in the kind of Community that we would like to see.

However, I do not like the emphasis in the Bill—an emphasis not made, I hasten to add, by my noble friend —on having referenda locks. We do not need referenda locks. We may need some referenda considerations, but I suspect very few. We certainly need to ensure that Parliament is consulted and plays an effective role in the negotiations that take place. We need to exploit the existing conditions whereby Community law applies throughout the Community, to our advantage in many areas, in this country and in others, and the extent to which the Community can work as a collective organisation on behalf of the whole of Europe. If only it had been able to do so on the Iraq crisis, for example, how much happier we would have been.

Let us favour that and ensure that the Bill adds a positive component to what is necessary, but please let us not clutter ourselves with undue and unnecessary referenda in too many cases and too many places. I hope that that is not too simplified a summation of the way in which I think we should handle this important legislation.