European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Owen
My Lords, I know that other important business awaits so I will be very brief. However, there is a procedural question of some importance under the European Union Act 2011, which we are discussing, and the Explanatory Note relating to referendums.
Treaty referendum is becoming a very live subject now that the Finance Minister of Germany has announced that there could be a referendum on a rather more urgent timescale than has been considered—presumably in relationship to the single European banking supervision system which is being proposed by some people. However, my point goes much wider than that. Under the circumstances, it is possible for a Minister under the simplified revision procedure to make a statement under Section 5 of the Act that, although a transfer of power from the UK to the EU falling within Section 4 of this Act has taken place, the proposed change is considered not significant. There are circumstances in which it might be very urgent, during the present crisis over the eurozone, for the British Government to give powers, and I think that they have overall adopted a very conciliatory attitude to those members of the eurozone to the effect that we do not wish to stand in their way on making changes that we may not ourselves wish for but which are related purely to the eurozone. So it is quite possible that a decision might come that is not considered significant in terms of the Act, but if passed by this House would allow the European Union treaties to be amended and action to take place urgently. That might be helpful.
However, in the same circumstances, the Government, not using the 2011 Act, might consider that the implications of these changes are of such importance that they wish to call a referendum under the general powers, although not in a way that would stop the rest of the European Union living under the treaty amendments they had agreed. When the Bill comes back on Third Reading, will it possible to clarify the not-significant clause in a helpful way towards the European Union? We could also hold our own referendum under different legislation which, if you like, would deal with our own political problems but would not stand in the way of a resolution to the eurozone crisis, which we might all agree might be necessary in a matter of days.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised wider issues of great importance, ones that your Lordships will no doubt wish to debate. Indeed, it is possible that he may have an opportunity to raise them at Third Reading. However, this Bill is concerned merely with amending Article 136 of the Lisbon treaty, and there being no amendments to it on Report, I beg to move.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I had better explain briefly the opposition Front Bench position on this amendment and some of the speeches we have heard. It was a great pity that my noble friend Lord Foulkes could not make Second Reading, because he would have made a strong pro-European speech in that debate. He was right that my noble friend Lord Radice made an excellent speech as well. However, from our perspective I do not think that we can support the thrust of his amendment. I see the logic of his position. In the European Union Act, which we debated over many hours last year, we got ourselves in a situation where, if it was decided to establish a European office of paperclips, we would have to have a referendum on it, because it would involve a transfer of sovereignty to Brussels.
For our part, we believe that referenda should take place only on issues of major constitutional significance, as the Lords Constitution Committee recommended, and that we should be consistent with that principle. As far as the Labour position in the Commons is concerned—and I say this with some trepidation because my dear noble friend Lord McAvoy has a great record as a party loyalist and defender of party discipline in the other place—the shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, in the Commons debate last autumn on the question of a referendum, said:
“I urge opposition to the motion because I do not believe that Britain’s national interest would be served by spending the coming months and years debating the case for Britain leaving the world’s largest single market”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/11; col. 60.]
The leader of the Labour Party made it clear only last week or the week before that Labour’s position had not changed from that view in the mean time.
That is where we stand. The EU Act is a contradictory piece of legislation. The measure is not defined under the terms of that Act as a transfer of powers to Brussels, and we therefore do not have a referendum—but there is no point in reiterating our debates on that Act. Our view is that this is an emergency situation in Europe; the stability mechanism is a necessary part of tackling the problems of the eurozone, which is very much in the British national interest. Therefore, this legislation should go through in the speediest possible time.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we all admire the lone role that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has cast for himself in bringing forward these amendments, and his boldness in bringing forward an amendment with which he does not, in fact, agree. This is bravery on a high scale in this debating Chamber.
The amendment, as he pointed out, seeks to insert into the Bill a requirement for a favourable vote in a national referendum before the UK could approve the European Council decision amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council decision amends Article 136 of the TFEU. It was adopted in accordance with the simplified revision procedure in Article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union. The decision added a paragraph to Article 136 which confirms that EU members whose currency is the euro may establish a financial stability mechanism. The provisions of Article 136 and the proposed new paragraph apply only—I repeat, only—to member states whose currency is the euro. They do not, therefore, apply to the United Kingdom.
The Bill is required under Section 3 of the 2011 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred, to give parliamentary approval to the decision. The other two requirements of that Act were, as noble Lords will recall, a statement by the Minister giving his opinion as to whether a referendum is required—I will come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on that in a moment—and compliance with the so-called referendum condition, exemption condition or significance condition which we debated when we considered that Bill some time ago.
The 2011 Act makes it clear that decisions adopted under Article 48(6) of the TEU are not subject to a referendum under that Act if its provisions do not apply to the United Kingdom. The 2011 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, rightly drew attention, provides:
“A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section merely”—
I come to that word—
“because it involves ... the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom”.
The “merely” is intended to indicate that other conditions are also taken into account—for example, the exemption condition or the significance condition. It is not only the fact that it does not apply to the United Kingdom and is outside the application of the United Kingdom; it involves other conditions as well. The decision amending Article 136 therefore clearly falls within the exemption set out in Section 4(4)(b) of the 2011 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised again the doubts of his own party and colleagues about that Act, which was vigorously debated. I do not think that it would be in order to debate the Act again, although I am always happy to reopen these great issues. I happen to think that it was an immensely important Act which has been a considerable reinforcement to the concerns of the British people that there will be no further transfer of competence to the European Union without a referendum. It is an important safeguard, and my right honourable and noble friends have drawn attention to its importance.
The Government have been clear that a referendum is not required under the 2011 Act right from the very beginning. On 13 October 2011, the Foreign Secretary laid a Statement before Parliament in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, in which he confirmed that in his opinion a referendum was not required under the Act. The Statement was open to judicial review but, as my right honourable friend pointed out, in the intervening eight months, no one has sought to challenge it in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whose position is consistent and which he has put with admirable consistency over the years, said that in his view there was some practical implication of transfer of competence— although he did not put it in quite those words. But no judicial review to make that point has been launched. The noble Lord referred to the aspect, to which I will refer again in a moment, that in exchange for this going forward, the British liability to be exposed under the European financial stability mechanism is released, and the mechanism falls and is no longer in use. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was concerned that that was just a political decision and not enshrined in law. He is perfectly correct, but it is a decision by all 27 members, and it is a firm commitment. To unravel the whole of that would be to throw the entire arrangement of the EFSM into complete chaos. It would be a total reversal of a firm commitment made in good faith by 27 members. We believe that it is a substantial and supported condition.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I am most obliged to the Minister. Can he deal with the point that I made concerning the article in the Times? I have given it to Hansard so I cannot quote from it again. The Times queried whether the European Court of Justice could interpret our passing of this Bill as an agreement to future financing within the European stability mechanism. The point being made by the Times was that perhaps the European Court could interpret what we are doing as being consistent with having to make future contributions.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The European Court proceeds in ways which some of us do not always understand, but it is required to interpret the law. There is no issue with the European financial stability mechanism in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. When this Bill is passed—I can boldly say when—and the amendment of Article 136 is ratified by all 27 member states, that will be the law, and the Court will interpret it. I do not see how the noble Lord could argue that this political decision, which is immensely valuable to the United Kingdom, could be somehow embroiled in the legal interpretations of the Court. I do not see how it comes into the interpretations of the law as embodied in the treaties.
When we debated the provisions of the EU Bill, as it then was, in this House last year, many Members were concerned that we might be bringing referenda into disrepute by requiring them for small changes to EU treaties and by being explicit about when a referendum was and was not required. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a proposition that something to do with paper clips, I think it was, could cause a referendum.
I spent a lot of time at this Dispatch Box explaining why we felt the provisions for referenda were not trivial. I explained that one of the reasons the European Union Bill was so long was so that it could be crystal clear about when a referendum was not required, and why issues which appeared small in the schedules to some of your Lordships were in fact the core of red-line considerations involving transfers of competence which we believed were not desirable and would certainly require a referendum.
The way in which the European Union Act 2011 applies to the treaty change we are considering today is clear. The provisions of this decision, amending Article 136 of the TFEU, do not apply to the United Kingdom, so the decision simply does not attract a referendum. What is more, there is no transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU involved. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart may feel that that is questionable; if that was his determined view and he thought he could mobilise the evidence for it, there would have been an opportunity for a judicial review, but no such review was brought forward.
The amendment to Article 136 simply recognises the ability of eurozone member states to establish a permanent stability mechanism—the European stability mechanism—by means of an intergovernmental agreement. The ESM is established by an agreement. This is not the ESM treaty. This is a treaty merely noting the amendment to the existing treaties, to Article 136.
I have listened very carefully, and I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for which I am grateful. I hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—who is a considerable expert on these things—that his party does not stand against this Bill, but believes it will make a contribution. We can have a debate on what sort of contribution it makes to a rapidly changing scene where there are many issues that cannot be resolved at this stage, but holding a referendum on this decision would contradict the clear provisions of the European Union Act 2011. It would introduce confusion about the circumstances in which a referendum would be required in the UK, and that is, to my mind, the reason, above all, why it should be—and, I hope, will be—resisted by your Lordships’ House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, while I agree with the Minister that I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend, Lord McAvoy, I can honestly say that it did not contain any words with which I agreed. I was very pleased that my noble friend from the Front Bench gave what might almost be described as a muffled, mild rebuke to my noble friend Lord McAvoy about the importance of loyalty. I think that my noble friend is only too aware of that, because he has managed to follow the party line on many occasions when he did not agree with it, and has been an inspiration to all of us.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend—because he is my friend—Lord Stoddart. We are not on the same Benches now, but we were for many years and we agreed on almost everything except Europe. I agreed with everything that my noble friend on the Front Bench said, including his remarks quoting our shadow Foreign Secretary and our party leader on the question of a wider referendum. It would be unnecessary and wasteful. It is not covered in the amendment and not something that I dealt with, but I will say that I agreed with my noble friend completely.
If I had not already intended not to press my amendment, the speeches of the Minister and my noble friend Lord Liddle would have convinced me. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I will not detain the House on this for more than a couple of minutes. As I found out, trying to devise amendments for the Bill is not easy. It is very tightly drawn and cleverly done by the usual draftspersons. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said in relation to the ESM:
“The intention is that it will replace both the EFSM and EFSF”.—[Official Report, 23/5/12; col. 802.]
I wanted to devise an amendment that would make that clear. It would have said that by agreeing to the ESM we would have replaced the EFSM and the EFSF. However, I was told that that was not competent within the terms of reference of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister—this is the only point I shall raise on the clause stand part debate—will give an assurance that it is the understanding of Her Majesty’s Government that those two mechanisms will be replaced. There is a tendency in my beloved European Union to keep things going when they are not necessary—actually, there is such a tendency in successive Governments. I hope that we will have a clear assurance on that.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, briefly, I will give a clear assurance that it is our intention to replace the EFSM and the European Financial Stability Facility. That has been the aim all along. The Bill does not do either of those things but merely amends Article 136. However, those intentions were stated absolutely clearly and supported by all members of the European Community. That is what is proposed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would reconsider his suggestion that Greece might be forced to leave the eurozone purely because of the action of the speculators. Is the real reason why Greece is in trouble not because it has been spending money it does not have, it has been borrowing money that it cannot pay back, and it is basically bust?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, recount how he was accidentally drawn into the adventure of currency speculation. I hope that that is all in order, and I am sure that it is. However, having heard my noble friend Lord Sassoon say earlier, rightly and correctly, that he was not prepared to be drawn by the noble Lord into a discussion of Rangers’ tax affairs, I have equally to recognise that I am not prepared to be drawn into a discussion about the noble Lord’s own tax affairs either.
The purpose of these amendments is, first and obviously, to delay the entry into force of this Act until January of next year. Secondly, they would stop the Act coming into force at all if the membership of the euro area were to change between now and 1 January 2013. This Bill gives parliamentary approval to a European Council decision amending Article 136, as I am afraid I repeated ad nauseam in my earlier comments. This, in Her Majesty’s Government’s view, is firmly in the UK’s best interests. Once the European stability mechanism is established, the UK will not be exposed to any future programmes of financial assistance for the eurozone through the EU budget, specifically through the European financial stability mechanism. The mechanism will contribute to helping our neighbours in the eurozone in the continuing search for financial stability in the currency area. Delaying the coming into force of this Bill until 1 January is therefore not in our interests. It would create uncertainty about the UK’s intentions in relation to ratification of the decision.
In turn, as a knock-on effect, a delay would destabilise the European stability mechanism, which may or may not come into use in the times ahead depending on what occurs. It is not for me to speculate on any of the points that have been raised about whether there will be exits from the eurozone or whether there will be banking unions, insurance unions, fiscal pacts and so on. This move on the part of the House and this Parliament is intended to be a contribution to a very complex jigsaw of requirements. If the Bill were not to come into force at all, that would be even more damaging to what is without doubt a very difficult and challenging situation with many complex and component parts to it, which is what the eurozone states are presently confronting. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to speculate further on that aspect of what is going to happen. However, what is certain is that, regardless of whether there is a change in member states whose currency is the euro, having a permanent stability mechanism, which is the decision of the eurozone states, is essential for those that remain.
If the Bill were not to be enacted and come into force, the UK would not be able to ratify the treaty change —the Article 136 amendment—and that amendment would not be able to enter into force. This instrument is the change that will provide eurozone members with the legal certainty they want in relation to the ESM, and it is very much in our interests that that at least should be in place.
We want the euro to sort out its problems, of course, as a strong and stable euro area is in the UK’s national interests because of our close economic links. I think that everyone realises that now. Setting up a permanent stability mechanism is part of the solution to the current crisis and this Bill confirms the ability of eurozone members to do that. Failing to approve or delaying the approval of the treaty amendment decision would further contribute to instability across the eurozone, of which there is plenty around already, and have a negative impact on the UK economy. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor have all repeatedly made clear, a stable eurozone is directly in the UK’s interests. It is a major market for our trade, and some would argue that its stability is key to unlocking the prospects for recovery and expansion in all the European and, indeed, global economies, and certainly including this one. Accepting these amendments would risk undermining that prospect of stability and growth further.
Falkland Islands
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in another place today.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Government of the Falkland Islands announced yesterday their intention to hold a referendum on the political status of the islands. The decision, which was taken by the Falkland Islanders themselves through their elected representatives, has the full support of the British Government. The referendum will be organised by the Falkland Island Government and will take place in the first half of 2013. Independent, international observers will be invited to observe the process.
In the past, the Falkland Islanders have made it clear that they wish to remain a self-governing British overseas territory and to continue living in the same peaceful and neighbourly manner which has characterised their long history on the islands, which stretches back some nine generations. They have no interest in becoming a province of Argentina. But, regrettably, not everyone is willing to accept this reality. The Argentine Defence Minister recently accused the UK military of holding the islanders as hostages. The Argentine ambassador to the UK has claimed that the islanders would be quite happy living under Argentine rule on the basis that some of them have been on holidays to Argentina. The islanders regularly rebut these baseless allegations and have embarked on an extensive campaign of public diplomacy around Latin America and more widely to make their views known. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has offered extensive support to them in doing so. Despite this, the Argentine Government continue either to misrepresent their views or to disregard them as irrelevant.
Elsewhere in the region, the islanders are often surprised by the lack of understanding about their wishes and outlook on life. Because of this, the islanders have decided to hold a referendum to eliminate any possible doubt in the eyes of the world as to what future they want. This will provide a legal, fair and decisive means for the people of the Falkland Islands to express their views. The Minister of State responsible for the Falklands, my honourable friend the Member for Taunton, is on the islands at this time and has discussed the matter in detail with the islanders’ elected representatives. They are excited about the prospect of showing the region, and indeed the whole world, what future they want for the islands.
As the House will be aware, tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands by British forces. Events will be held both on the islands themselves and here in the UK to commemorate the extraordinary series of events which unfolded 30 years ago. We will remember all those who paid the ultimate price in defence of basic freedoms. For the Falkland Islanders, tomorrow will bring mixed emotions: thankfulness to those who fought and won, sorrow for those whose lives were lost, and anger that an attempt should ever have been made to invade their home and deny their basic rights. It is fitting that around the anniversary of their freedoms and rights being restored the islanders should announce their intention to give these freedoms further expression through a referendum. In a region that advocates democracy and human rights, it is entirely appropriate that the islanders can express this fundamental right. The principle of self-determination is a key part of the United Nations charter, as we and the islanders have repeatedly made clear and will continue to make clear.
While the current Argentine Government insist that they will seek to recover the islands only via peaceful means, their behaviour towards the islanders remains aggressive in many other ways. They have placed a ban on charter flights through Argentine airspace to the islands. They have banned Falkland Islands-flagged vessels from their ports and prevented cruise ships which have visited the Falklands from docking in Argentina. They have introduced domestic legislation to penalise companies that wish to do business with the Falkland Islands. They have sent threatening letters to those engaged in the wholly legitimate business of hydrocarbons exploration around the islands, and recently they have attempted to politicise the Olympic Games by screening a deeply offensive television advert showing images of an Argentine athlete training on a war memorial on the islands.
These actions, directed by the Argentine Government towards an innocent population of 3,000 people, are not those of a responsible power on the world stage. While the Argentine Government offer threats and misleading rhetoric, the islanders have responded with dignity and determination. For our part, the British Government will continue to offer unequivocal support to the islanders by maintaining a defensive military posture on the islands, by supporting their growing economy and by protecting their rights and wishes today as we did 30 years ago.
The forthcoming referendum will provide further evidence, were any needed, that the islanders alone will decide their future. It will offer a simple but powerful expression of democracy. I hope that Argentina, and indeed all in the international community, will take note of the islanders’ views. Further details will be announced by the Falkland Islands Government in due course, and I will keep the House informed of developments”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the robust support which he, on behalf of his party, has given to this move, and the way in which he roundly and rightly emphasised the need to speak out against the very regrettable misrepresentations by the Argentinian Government of the situation. As the noble Lord said, his party wants good relations with Argentina. Of course, so do we all. It is a country of great potential with which, were it not for this situation, we would be able to work effectively to great benefit of the people of Argentina. That is apparently not the wish of the Argentinian Government, who have persisted with the aggressive attitude that was mentioned by my right honourable friend in his Statement.
As to the international scene, we of course work with all our EU partners, but there is no wish in Her Majesty’s Government to involve other countries in a bilateral relationship on a bilateral issue, which is fully confirmed under international law in accordance with the rights of self-determination which nations across the globe fully recognise. We have made major strides in the past year or so in developing excellent relations with Latin American countries. Latin America is emerging, as are all the great developing nations of this earth, as a major and significant player in world affairs, as a vital new market for our goods and as a source of the generation of wealth and political influence. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and my honourable friend the Minister of State, Jeremy Browne, have been tireless in their work in that region in establishing—or re-establishing, because this is part of history—very good links with these great and important nations. Work is going on at various international conferences. Some very firm lines have been taken about the need for self-determination. This has been a very robust response, even when Argentinian diplomats have tried to involve other countries in their cause in various ways. That is the situation at present.
The noble Lord talks about a strategy for the future. The strategy rests on the rock of our commitment to the islanders’ wishes and their determination to be a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom. That is what they wish to remain to be, and the referendum will no doubt establish beyond doubt that there is no change in these wishes, and that they are determined to assert their preferences. That is all I have to say on the matter, beyond, again, to thank the noble Lord for his robust support.
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the more disturbing developments has been the way in which the Argentine Government have persuaded many other countries in the region, even great friends of ours such as Uruguay and Chile, to deny entry to British naval vessels? Can he reassure us that our embassies in those countries are working hard to refute the unsubstantiated messages put forward by the present government in Argentina? Also, can he agree that as in the case of the Gibraltar referendum a few years ago, a clear message from the people of the Falkland Islands would be most helpful? Will he also be kind enough to convey to the people of the Falkland Islands the fact that we are all fully behind them, especially at this time?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, I will certainly do that, and convey that in clear and simple terms. As to the efforts of Argentine diplomacy to persuade others to support their posture and their claims, I can assure my noble friend that our embassies, our diplomatic machinery and my ministerial colleagues are fully engaged in countering some of the misrepresentations that are being aired around the place. We have had a good response from responsible friends that they are not going to be automatically pushed by Argentina or by claims that go flatly against the basic principle of self-determination for the peoples of the Falkland Islands. This is the 21st century, in which overriding the self-determination of peoples is not the custom or the desirable pattern, or indeed in accordance with full international responsibility. We have made that very clear and will continue to do so.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, 30 years ago—almost to the day—I sat in some sorrow writing letters to the mothers, wives, siblings and children, of the 22 boys who were killed when my ship was sunk. This task was made a little easier, first because I was very proud of them, and secondly because I felt we had been involved in a just war. I am appalled by the behaviour of the President of Argentina in making outrageous statements about the Falkland islanders purely to distract attention from what is going on in her own country. She seems to forget that the only reason she is there democratically is because we won that war. However, the Minister will be glad to hear that my question does not relate precisely to aircraft carriers and warships but rather as to whether he would join me in agreeing that we owe a huge amount to our merchant marine, 73 of whose vessels were involved in the Falklands War? Does he believe that we have sufficient British merchant mariners today to ensure that if there is trouble globally, we are able to provide the merchant ships, which are so crucial for global operations? They are after all the “fourth service”, as they were referred to by Winston Churchill.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, who speaks to us from the heart of history. He was there and experienced the agonies and challenges of that time, 30 years ago. The country is grateful to him for that as well. As to his question about whether we have the resources to meet global problems, one has to be realistic. If all sorts of crises were to develop on all sorts of fronts—for instance, all the pinch points in the world traffic of oil, gas and energy—no one country could deliver a full Merchant Marine to cover that. Do we have the resources to defend the Falkland Islands against the dreadful, absurd and almost ridiculous prospect of a threat from Argentina again? Yes, we do, but I hope that Argentina will not be stupid enough to do that. We certainly intend to maintain those resources; there can be no doubt at all about that.
However, who knows what great world threats may develop in these troubled times? If they do, we obviously have to act closely with our allies. One could not expect one country alone—perhaps not even the mighty United States—to be able to mobilise adequate resources for all the troubles in the world. There are plenty, not least the piracy on the eastern side of Africa—and, increasingly, on the western side—which now take some of our resources. There are many other problems as well.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord has already received what he rightly described as robust support from my noble friend on behalf of the Opposition for the Government’s support for this referendum, and for his justified words in describing the recent behaviour of the Argentinian Government. I think he will get equally robust support universally, throughout the House this afternoon. I hope that he is able to tell the Argentinian ambassador about that personally.
However, I am afraid that the Government cannot escape a wide measure of responsibility for the very bad change in the situation over the past year, particularly in the behaviour of the Argentinians. It was the worst possible signal to send to Argentina when we got rid of our carrier strike capability. We sent a signal that if the Falkland Islands were ever invaded again in the future, next time we would not be able to retake them. That was thoroughly deplorable. In this very unfortunate situation, will the Government consider the possibility of regularly deploying a “Trafalgar”-class or, prospectively, an “Astute”-class submarine in the south Atlantic? It should surface from time to time to leave no doubt in anybody’s mind that it is there.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I cannot comment on the movements of our submarines or on related intelligence matters. I applaud what the noble Lord said at the beginning but completely refute his later sentences. There are forces in the Falklands. We are perfectly well placed to rebut and repel any renewed invasion. Decisions about the strategic defence review, the future of our carriers and so on have no effect whatever on that sustained ability to defend the islanders against another invasion.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I express our gratitude to the families of the service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice. On behalf of others in the House, I say how grateful we are to hear from the noble Lord, Lord West, when he speaks with such passion about the events of 30 years ago.
My question is about the conduct of the referendum. The Falkland Islands Government have obviously been very bold in making this move to demonstrate their confidence in their ability to determine their own future. I note that the Statement says that international observers will be invited to observe the process. I wonder whether my noble friend might suggest to the Falkland Islands Government that it is important to have observers from Latin American countries to demonstrate the rigour of the process. That would be most helpful in countering Argentina’s public relations, which are of course inaccurate.
Lord Howell of Guildford
If I may say so to my noble friend, that is a very interesting thought, which I will certainly pass on to my colleagues. It will be important to establish beyond doubt that whatever emerges from the referendum is absolutely and properly established, and that the whole process is properly conducted. Of course it is undeniably on a very small scale, and therefore the monitoring and checking should be absolutely 100% proof that this is a sensible and precise expression of the wishes of the islanders.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I welcome the Statement by the Minister, and declare an interest in so far as I am the chairman of the South Atlantic Council, a body established after the war to try to improve the triangular relations between the islanders, Argentina and the United Kingdom. The degree of success that we have enjoyed has been variable, but it must be made clear that sabre-rattling by the United Kingdom at this time is irrelevant, because democracy followed the war in Argentina and that, in turn, resulted in the demilitarisation of its economy and the country. The defence cuts of which we are talking this afternoon in the United Kingdom are as nothing compared to what has taken place in Argentina. It is therefore totally unrealistic to talk in terms of a military threat from Argentina. The Malvinas mania going on in Buenos Aires and across the country is concerned primarily with disguising the economic chaos engulfing that country.
We should take Gibraltar as a pointer. When a clear expression of democratic opinion was made, Spain began to think again about how it dealt with the problem of Gibraltar. In the kind of triumphalist rhetoric in which we sometimes indulge regarding the Falklands, it would be unfortunate if we failed to think about what should happen after the referendum. Now, for the first time in several years, there is an ambassador to the Court of St James’s from Argentina. Let us take advantage of that, and start a dialogue rather than just the haranguing which has been carrying on for the last few years. Let us use the opportunity of what I am fairly confident will be a clear expression of the opinion of the people of the islands that they wish to retain the status quo. There are many things—fishing, hydrocarbons, tourism, shipping, flights to the islands—which should be the subject of clear and straightforward negotiation. This could provide us with an opportunity to start afresh after many lost years—largely lost, I have to say, due to Argentine intransigence.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is extremely well informed on this and has followed it very closely. Of course, leaving aside sovereignty and the wishes of the islanders to remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom—very clearly expressed, and I am sure they will be again—a whole range of things have been offered to Argentina. There is much talk, of course, about the hydrocarbons explorations around the island. Thirty years ago, when I was involved in some administration of this country on energy matters, one of the files on my desk was concerned with exploration of the hydrocarbons around the Falklands—and that was right at the start of this, in 1980. All along, and increasingly and very specifically in the 1990s, offers were made to the Argentinean people to co-operate very closely and to share the benefits of anything that emerged. That was just one example; the noble Lord gave many others. There is a whole range of areas where there could be extreme benefit to the people of Argentina, but they must not include—and in fact must exclude—the consideration of the sovereignty and the self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands.
Lord Deben
Is my noble friend aware that the Argentine Government have been arguing against the referendum on the basis that those taking part will be settlers, or the children of settlers, on the Falkland Islands? Will it be possible for him to bring to the attention of the Argentine ambassador the fact that she is a settler and the child of settlers, that there is no voter for the President of the Argentine who is not himself or herself a settler, and that if we are talking about settlers we are all in it together?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend makes a very acute historical point that many of the inhabitants of almost every country on earth are settlers; one thinks, not least, of the United States. I believe that the ancestors of many here were also settlers. Indeed, I often hear divisions between the arriviste Norman settlers who came in in 1066 and those who were here already, so my noble friend makes a very good point. However, I do not intend to pursue it with the Argentine ambassador. I have had the opportunity to meet her and I believe that the view that we should express in this country is not one of tit for tat but a dignified intention that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands people must be preserved, that we wish Argentina well, and that we would like an end to this distracting quarrel and the restoration of the co-operation and links which we once had with the Argentine.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, it will be within your Lordships’ knowledge that unfortunately down the years we have not always enjoyed the full support of our American friends with respect to matters relating to the Falklands. The situation is slightly different now. If the reports are accurate, the present American Secretary of State is so disturbed at the irrationality of some of the decisions being made by the Argentine President on a whole range of subjects, a lot of which have nothing whatever to do with the Falkland Islands, that there may well be a change in American attitudes to the situation down there. Therefore, I press on the Minister the desirability of inviting our American friends to give their full support to this referendum and say that it demonstrates that democracy works.
Lord Howell of Guildford
We shall certainly seek to follow that advice. The noble Lord is absolutely right: there are big changes in the region. Not least is that, with the revolution in world gas discoveries and developments, Argentina in due course could be a major beneficiary and have huge reserves of shale gas. This ought to be of benefit to the Argentinian people. That is the path they should follow rather than distracting themselves with complaints and aggression against the Falkland Islands.
Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government were not anxious to involve other Governments in the Falklands problem, which I quite understand, but is that altogether wise? The European Union has a treaty obligation to defend trade from EU countries, wherever it occurs. As I understand it, it has taken a very dim view of the Argentine nationalisation of Repsol. I believe that the Foreign Affairs Council met about two weeks ago to decide what the European Union was going to do about it. This is relevant for us because, as the noble Lord quite rightly points out, the Falklands may prove to be a very substantial offshore oil province and if there is any intervention the EU as well as ourselves should be there to defend it. Can he tell the House what the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union decided with regard to Repsol at its meeting about two weeks ago and whether we are going to involve the European Union in defence of the Falklands offshore hydrocarbon exploration?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think, from memory, that the Foreign Affairs Council deplored the nationalisation of the Repsol-connected subsidiary in the Argentine. I will check on that to be 100% sure and if I am wrong I will contact the noble Lord. However, he is really making a broader, very profound point that there are all sorts of reasons, as have already been raised this afternoon, why responsible democracies, whether in the EU or elsewhere, should be concerned about the actions of various kinds being taken by the Argentine Government. The nationalisation of the Repsol subsidiary obviously greatly affects Spain. Any other measures interfering with free trade and trade with European Union powers affect them very greatly.
As far as the specific matter of the Falkland Islands’ wish to remain a self-governing territory under the United Kingdom is concerned, that is a bilateral issue. However, it is perfectly sensible that we should work with other EU countries on policy and general matters towards Argentina and towards hydrocarbon development off the coast of Latin America or anywhere else. It is certainly something that would become involved in our discussions. On the specific point of the last FAC meeting, I will check and confirm what I have said.
Lord Tordoff
My Lords, some years ago I had the pleasure of visiting the islands with the South Atlantic Council, under the aegis of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. On that visit, there were a number of people from industry and the arts with various connections here. In particular, there were two colleagues of mine from the oil side of the Anglo-Dutch company which I served for many years. They made it very clear that political instability in that area was a real disincentive to exploration. Perhaps the Argentines can be reminded of this, with the things they have been doing recently. There is no great incentive for oil companies to go into areas like this which are difficult enough geologically, but are made worse by political instability. They are probably doing themselves a lot of damage.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is entirely correct. This applies not merely to drilling for exploration. As those—including my noble friend—who are familiar with it know, then comes development, which is expensive, and after that production, which is also extremely expensive. Vast sums of money have to be invested and big investors will not move if there is a severe threat of political instability. He is quite right that it therefore affects the prosperity not just of the Falkland Islanders but of the whole area. In various ways it damages the interests of the people of Argentina and we should point that out.
Government of France: Meetings
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what principal issues they intend to raise in their forthcoming meetings with President Hollande and members of the new Government of France.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, France is an important partner for the United Kingdom and our dialogue is wide-ranging. The Government look forward to continuing their close co-operation with new French Government, including on foreign and defence policy, energy and immigration. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had a warm first meeting with President Hollande in Washington. He has invited him to visit London after the French parliamentary elections this month. Other Ministers across government have also met or contacted their new counterparts.
Lord Dykes
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. With the French Government securing ever greater support for their EU-wide growth agenda, particularly now that they are armed with decisive strength in the French Parliament, including when next Sunday’s results are taken into account, does he agree that it would be very fitting for HMG to join that European-wide effort, because there is now an increasingly urgent need to offset the threat of an international slump?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, we all have to join in the efforts to bring about recovery and end recession in our region and globally. These are matters that we discuss closely with the French. We agree with some of the ideas behind the various projects which Monsieur Hollande has put forward—what has been called the “Hollande vision”—but disagree with others. We have a perfectly amicable difference of view on, for instance, a financial transaction tax, which we believe would be damaging and would, according to the European Commission’s own analysis, take €200 billion out of the European economy. However, on other ideas of Monsieur Hollande—project bonds for infrastructure expansion, for instance—we concur. We reject the idea that there are two alternative strategies that are exclusive: austerity or growth. The answer is that sound budgetary discipline and growth all go together in a sensible and balanced programme.
Lord Peston
My Lords, do I understand the Minister to be saying that Her Majesty’s Government do not intend to tell off President Hollande for pursuing his foolhardy expansionary policies and not following our contractionary policies with all the enormous benefits of rising unemployment?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord should not understand that, because I find his question rather hard to understand as well. The polarity of argument that he poses simply does not exist. The aim of Governments throughout Europe and throughout the global system is to restore expansion. We welcome the ideas of the French and of Monsieur Hollande where we think they would go in that direction, just as I think France and all responsible countries recognise that there has to be tight budgetary discipline as well, otherwise the efforts to expand if they immediately jack up interest rates would simply cancel out the policy. There is a matter of balance, and the noble Lord is better than most at understanding the need for balance in economics rather than one side or the other.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while a pro-growth pact in Europe is welcome, it seems to be a bit of challenge to reduce a budget deficit supposedly exceeding even Italy’s by 2017, while magicking up 3.5% growth next year and massively cutting unemployment? It is a very ambitious project. If it is likely to succeed, will we listen very carefully to the ideas that bring it about, particularly after next Sunday when we might see a few more details of these plans?
Lord Howell of Guildford
These are challenging demands, and they are obviously creating great strains and tensions in the countries affected. In a way, my noble friend has asked me to comment not so much on Monsieur Hollande’s wish to see expansion, which we all share, as on the German wish to stick very rigidly to certain austere budget disciplines. Somewhere between those two, and perhaps in talks between Monsieur Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel, there will emerge a sensible balance. We hope that there will and we shall certainly contribute to anything that achieves that.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, will the Minister accept a mild rebuke from me on the pronunciation of the names of French Presidents? I declare an interest. It seems a failing of successive Governments to get the names of French Presidents properly pronounced. The previous President was inevitably and almost always referred to as Mr Sarkozy as if it was meant to rhyme with tea cosy, when in fact it does not; and President Hollande is President Hollande and not President Hollander.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I totally accept those extremely wise rebukes from the noble Lord about my French pronunciation. It has never been very good; I will practise a lot more to see whether I can improve it.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Does my noble friend accept that the Question goes generally to our relations with France, and in this connection to the very important issue of defence co-operation with France? I hope that we can see the continuation of the co-operation envisaged under the previous President.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, that is certainly the intention. Those matters have been discussed both between the Prime Minister and Monsieur Hollande and between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and Laurent Fabius, the new French Foreign Secretary. Obviously a question was raised by our decision to go for the JSF variant rather than the original pattern under the strategic defence review. That has been discussed. Any suggestion of misunderstanding has been removed and both sides fully intend to co-operate very closely in the future on all defence matters.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, in an earlier reply, the Minister talked about the policies for constraint in public expenditure as well as those for growth. Can he give us a quick summary of the steps that Her Majesty’s Government are taking to promote growth at the moment?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Not in the time allowed, no. There is a perfectly sensible proposition that, although the growth of public expenditure has been restrained—in some areas, not actually cut at all—this is a necessary part of getting a balanced, suitably relaxed monetary policy in as far as it can be relaxed, paving the way for further expenditure on infrastructure, of which some has been authorised. One hopes that in future there will be more. This is the rebalancing of the economy that all sensible people are aiming for.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
The Minister will recall with a certain amount of embarrassment that we on this side of the House welcomed candidate Hollande to London during his election campaign.
Going back to defence co-operation, the Minister well knows that we and France are the serious players in defence within the European Union. We both face economic difficulties. Has there been any signal yet from the new French Government that they wish not only to continue our substantial defence co-operation but even to enhance it?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the second point, there has been a signal that they wish to enhance co-operation in a number of areas. On the question of welcoming opposition candidates to London, my right honourable friend is not physically in a position to be able to meet every opposition candidate. Other leaders such as Chancellor Merkel and Mr Monti in Italy did not meet Monsieur Hollande before he became President, but that was not taken as a snub or an offence; it was a perfectly normal procedure. Now they have met and have got on very well.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, will the Government discuss with the French President the problem that the present programme of imposed austerity offers no prospect whatever to either Greece or possibly Spain of ever recovering from depression?
Lord Howell of Guildford
There is emerging an understanding, not least from the contribution of the new French President but also from discussions with Germany—and, indeed, from the latest moves in relation to the banking union and the proposals for bank recapitalisation for Spain—that some balance has to be struck. Whether that will mean some easing of the conditions for Greece or not, I do not know. These matters are now being discussed between the eurozone countries. There is a sensible way forward and obviously my noble friend makes the perfectly valid point that if the cure is so violent that it kills the patient, it is not much of a cure.
Syria
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made earlier in the other place:
“Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on Syria. The whole House will be united in support for the Syrian people, who have endured 15 months of fear and suffering. Eighty-seven thousand people have fled to neighbouring countries and up to 500,000 are internally displaced. As many as 15,000 people may have died and thousands of political prisoners are imprisoned and at risk of mistreatment and torture.
Each day reports emerge of savage crimes. The Syrian military is surrounding and bombarding towns with heavy weaponry, and then unleashing militia groups to terrorise and murder civilians in their homes. These deliberate military tactics are horrifyingly reminiscent of the Balkans in the 1990s.
Two weeks ago in Houla, 108 civilians died in this manner, including 49 children under the age of 10. A similar atrocity appears to have been committed last week in al-Qubair, where 78 people were killed, including women and children. UN monitors attempting to report on these events have been shot at and obstructed.
These grotesque crimes have illuminated to the world the nature of the events in Syria and the conduct of the Assad regime, which is attempting with utter inhumanity to sow terror, break the spirit of opposition in Syria and try to reassert control. This is as futile as it is morally reprehensible. By branding its opponents terrorists and using tanks against them, the regime is driving Syrians to take up arms to defend their homes; by singling out particular communities, it is inflaming sectarian tension.
There are credible reports of human rights abuses and sectarian attacks by armed opposition fighters, which we also utterly condemn. We also have reason to believe that terrorist groups affiliated to al-Qaeda have committed attacks designed to exacerbate the violence, with serious implications for international security.
As a result, today Syria is on the edge of civil war. This could lead to thousands more casualties, a humanitarian disaster, human rights violations on an even greater scale and instability in neighbouring countries.
We are working intensively to find a peaceful means of resolving the crisis. Our approach, in close co-ordination with our European partners is, first, to push for implementation of the Annan plan as the internationally agreed road map to end the violence; secondly, to increase the pressure and isolation felt by the regime; and, thirdly, to ensure justice, accountability and humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people. I will take each of these in turn.
First, the UN and Arab League envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan, has set out a six-point plan to end the violence and to start a political process to address the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. It is backed by two UN Security Council resolutions, 2042 and 2043. The latter mandated the deployment of the 300 UN monitors who are now on the ground in Syria. I pay tribute to them for their difficult work in dangerous circumstances.
As Kofi Annan has made clear on many occasions, the onus is on the regime to call off its military assault, to adhere to a ceasefire and to allow a process of political reform. Political transition must be based on democratic principles and reflect the needs of all Syria’s minority communities, including the Kurds, Christians and Alawites.
On 1 April, the Syrian regime committed itself to implementing the Annan plan and on 12 April announced a ceasefire. It has not kept to either of these commitments. Two weeks ago, I discussed the situation with my Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Moscow. I made the case for Russia using its crucial leverage with the Assad regime to ensure the full implementation of the Annan plan, since the collapse of Syria or descent into civil war would be against Russian interests as well as those of the wider world. I also raised the issue of arms sales to the Syrian regime, which we believe should be stopped immediately.
In Istanbul on 1 June, I held talks with members of the Syrian National Council and other opposition representatives including Kurds, and I returned there last week for discussions with Secretary Clinton, the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Foreign Ministers of 12 European and Arab nations. I am in regular contact with Kofi Annan, and preparations are in hand for a meeting of the Friends of Syria group, which now numbers more than 80 countries, in early July.
Last Thursday, the Russian Government put forward their own proposal for an international conference on Syria. Such a meeting could help generate momentum behind the Annan plan. However, it would have to be a meeting that led to a change on the ground and did not just buy time for the regime to kill more innocent people. In our view, any such meeting would need to be based on a common understanding that it would lead to a political transition; it should include genuine steps to implement the Annan plan; and it should involve only nations that are committed to being part of the solution in Syria. We will discuss with our partners whether it is possible to agree concerted international action on this basis, discussions which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will take forward with other Heads of Government when he attends the G20 meeting in Mexico next week.
Making a success of the Annan plan also requires the Syrian National Council and other opposition groups to put aside their differences, to unite around the common goal of a democratic transition and to assure all Syria’s minorities that their rights will be protected in a multiethnic and democratic Syrian state. This has been my consistent message in all my discussions with opposition figures. We welcome the meetings with opposition groups that will be held in Istanbul later this week and subsequently in Cairo, which have our active support.
The Annan plan is not an open-ended commitment. It cannot be used indefinitely by the regime to play for time. If the Annan plan is not implemented, we will argue for a new and robust UN Security Council resolution aimed at compelling the regime to meet its commitments under the plan, and requiring all parties to comply with it. We have already begun discussions at the Security Council on the elements of a resolution. We do not want to see the Annan plan fail but, if despite our best efforts it does not succeed, we would have to consider other options for resolving the crisis and, in our view, all options should then be on the table.
Secondly, we are taking steps to increase the isolation of the Syrian regime. On 29 May we expelled three Syrian diplomats from London, including the chargé d’affaires, in co-ordination with the US, Canada, Australia, France, Germany and Japan and other countries that took similar steps. We are in discussions with Arab League and like-minded countries about measures to tighten the stranglehold on the regime’s resources and external sources of support, building on the 15 rounds of EU sanctions that already target 128 individuals and 43 entities.
Thirdly, we are acting to help end impunity for atrocities, and we are supporting the humanitarian needs and legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. Britain co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council resolution of 1 June, which was carried by 41 votes to three. It condemned the al-Houlah massacre, mandated the UN commission of inquiry to investigate and gather evidence about it, and highlighted the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’s recommendation that the UN Security Council refer Syria to the International Criminal Court. We are working on a further UN Human Rights Council resolution to reinforce these objectives.
We also sent a team of British experts to Syria’s borders in February and March to gather testimony from Syrians. The team found evidence of violations of international law and international human rights law, including murder, rape, torture, unlawful imprisonment, enforced disappearance and persecution. This work to document abuses is being continued. The team of Syrians which has helped document the al-Houlah massacre was trained by the United Kingdom, and we are working closely with the United States and the UN commission of inquiry to ensure that any evidence is collated and stored for use in a future legal process. We are increasing UK funding for the Syrian opposition and civil society groups, including £1.5 million of assistance in this financial year to help provide human rights monitoring and media training for activists, and other non-lethal support such as communications equipment.
My right honourable friend the International Development Secretary and his department are working with the UN and international community to ensure that urgent humanitarian assistance gets to the 1 million people estimated to be in need. The Syrian regime has now agreed a plan to respond to humanitarian needs. There can be no further delay in its implementation, and humanitarian agencies must be allowed full and unhindered access to all areas in Syria. Britain has helped provide emergency food supplies for nearly 24,000 families inside Syria, safe drinking water for 30,000 people, blankets for 5,000 people, medical assistance for up to 25,000 people and support to refugees in neighbouring countries.
The coming weeks must see an intensified and urgent international effort to stop the violence and restore hope to Syria. The British Government remain absolutely focused on this goal. If all the efforts that I have described fail, then Britain will work with the Friends of Syria group to increase the isolation of the regime and to adopt sweeping new sanctions across the world.
We will not rule out any other option which could at any stage stop the bloodshed, We will not relent in our efforts to ensure the political transition, justice, accountability and security that the Syrian people need and deserve, and to support greater political and economic freedom in the Middle East. This freedom is not only the legitimate right of all the peoples of the region; it is the foundation of lasting peace, stability and prosperity.
The time has long passed for the Assad regime to stop the killing and torturing of its people, and it is time now for all nations on the UN Security Council to insist on the cessation of violence and political process which remain the only peaceful way to resolve this mounting crisis”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the work of the UN and the broad thrust of what the nations, including this nation, are seeking to do, and for her candid and telling analysis of the grimness of the situation, on which she fully concurs with the Government.
A great many of her questions touch on the position of Russia—I counted four or five—so I shall deal with those first and then her other questions. First, the key matter is: what can we do to reinforce or reassert the momentum of the Annan plan, which has clearly been ignored—disavowed, indeed—by various parties in Syria? The answer begins and ends with the question of Russia and, to some extent, China. It is the Russian position in, apparently, continuing to supply arms and the Russian and Chinese reluctance to see a UN Security Council resolution of the kind we wanted to go forward that prevents the council from bringing forward any such resolution and, no doubt, gives licence and encouragement to other countries such as Venezuela to carry on supplying and trading with Syria.
As the noble Baroness knows, my right honourable friend went to Moscow. He talked to Sergei Lavrov. The idea now from the Russians is that there should be an international conference. The Statement which I read indicates that that might work, that might be worth taking forward, but we would have to have a very firm agenda and make sure that it was not just an excuse for a lot more talking and no further action while people continue to be murdered in hideous and evil ways.
That is the assessment we have to put before our Russian friends and the Chinese. They are great and responsible nations in the community of nations and in the world civil order, and we believe that they should be brought to see that if there is a combined front, there is the possibility for much tougher action to close down the loopholes and routes by which arms and equipment are procured and oil is traded out and the stranglehold made increasingly effective. That is the broad answer to the whole question of what we should now do to invigorate the aims and aspirations of the Annan plan and the ideals behind it. It had six very clear aspirations, all of which in general terms are agreed, but they must be made to work and that requires action of the kind which many countries want but, apparently, not yet the Russians and the Chinese. That is where we have to work. The oil embargo could then be tightened up and there could be tougher moves on international communication.
The noble Baroness asked about defections. There could be more encouragement there. It is obviously reassuring that senior people are moving across, abandoning the Assad operations, and we want to encourage more of that. Whether we could make the names of targeted individuals more widely known is something that we certainly would consider as we try to work out with our EU colleagues how tougher sanctions can be developed.
The assessment of al-Qaeda involvement is difficult. Basically, one has to understand that al-Qaeda is interested in more violence and stirring up everything, regardless of size, causes, suffering or anything else. These are unrestrainedly evil people and they no doubt take some delight in the bottomless evil of the outrages of those human beings who can destroy and murder children in cold blood. We have no illusions about that. They may well be swarming around—swarming is too strong a word, but they may be present in numbers to involve themselves in and promote and exacerbate the position. We have no doubts that that is their motivation.
I have mentioned the Russian position and the international conference. We will certainly seek to have Syria kept on the G20 agenda and the Prime Minister intends to raise it. Like the noble Baroness, I read the report this morning on the union of doctors. We were a bit surprised by it. It did not really tally with what we are seeking to do, both through the international agencies and global humanitarian aid, where we have made a substantial contribution, and through direct efforts.
If I can be associated with the matter of enclaves, although the noble Baroness did not ask about them—she talked of humanitarian corridors—for them to work it requires organised force, troops and a political will that they should be allowed to operate. That political will is not there in Syria at the moment. The stage where we would have to talk about troops has not been reached. As my right honourable friend says, all options are on the table. However, as the noble Baroness recognises, there are steps that can now be taken to toughen up the sanctions, increase the stranglehold and, we hope, bring Russia and China into stronger co-operative action. That should be tried first and is what we are now working on. We hope—indeed, we insist—that more should now be done to put the pressure on the Assad regime and on all those who are in the killing business to halt their hideous destruction and pave the way for a better Syria.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while the Statement is extremely detailed and sets out where the Government believe they are, it is nevertheless a sign of the impotence of the international community that we have found ourselves in a position where the Russian Government have been able to propose an international conference in Syria which will undoubtedly push the situation into the long grass? That is not least because, as my noble friend repeated, the Statement says,
“it should only involve nations that are committed to being part of the solution in Syria”.
When we have Russia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have all been on different sides of the argument, arming combatants in the regions, it is hardly likely that they would be able to achieve a consensus behind the Annan plan or, particularly, to protect the rights of minorities in the region. Will my noble friend tell the House what we will do when that open-ended commitment to the Annan plan is dropped and what steps might we take? Would we then look to our own duties under the norms of responsibility to protect?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I understand my noble friend’s feelings, which are largely mine, that the Annan plan is not working and has to be reinforced. We think that is the pathway forward and that the principles behind it are right, but clearly the killing and the horror continue on a totally unacceptable, impossible and outrageous scale, so something more must now be tried. When my noble friend talks about nations not being committed, she should bear in mind that the one uncommitted nation actively promoting the arming of the Syrian regime is Iran. The Iranians are the ones who should not be included in any further conference, although it has been suggested by some that they are clearly actively opposed to any kind of path towards peace and settlement. That is what that phrase is really aimed at; that Iran is on the side of violence, and more violence.
I do not necessarily share my noble friend’s view that the talks with Russia and with the Chinese are never going to work and that there will never be some understanding that this cannot go on and that there must be a united effort to close up the loopholes and stop the arms supplies by the really big powers, such as Russia and so on. I do not share her view that this is an impossible aim. I do not say that we have got there but this has to be worked on, combined with all the other sanctions and proposals that we are now committed to, to end the violence and repression.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, everyone will recognise that Her Majesty’s Government are dealing with a tragic and complex situation. Again and again in the Statement that the Minister repeated, the rights of minorities were drawn attention to. Have Her Majesty’s Government been able to make direct contact with the substantial Christian minority, who are 10% of the population of Syria and whose influence on the Russian Government is not inconsiderable? There is certainly direct contact between the Christian minority and the Russians. If there is, as the Minister underlined, an absolute commitment to defusing the fears of the minority communities in Syria, which must be part of any kind of moving forward, have Her Majesty’s Government been able to use the channels of communication that exist with the various Christian communities that make up that 10% minority in Syria?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that the Christian position is important. All along, we have heard suggestions that while the Christians may find repulsive what the Assad regime is doing, they also fear alternative regimes. Instability might jeopardise their position even further, so they are definitely an important part in the jigsaw of possible pressures in the future. I think that is as much as I can say.
As far as direct contact is concerned, I am not in a position to say exactly what contacts HMG have had with the Christian minorities. We have encouraged all of the Syrian opposition groups to reach out to minority communities and maintain a clear commitment to a peaceful, non-sectarian approach. We have insisted that they reassure all Syrians that they are working towards a Syrian state which is inclusive, representative and respectful of the ethnic and religious minorities. That is the line we have consistently taken but I cannot really promise that it will be an absolutely guaranteed condition in a situation where bloodshed, hatred and violence are prevailing on all sides. However, it is a matter very much in our minds. Another part of the jigsaw, which the right reverend Prelate rightly raises, is that the Christians in turn could have some kind of contact and dialogue with the Russians to persuade them that the situation requires a more unified approach. That is a possibility but I do not think I can put any more flesh on these ideas at the moment.
Lord Gilbert
While I agree entirely with the Minister that Iran forms an important part of this problem, I disagree with him entirely that that is a reason for it not to be at a conference. I thought there was every reason for the Iranians to be at a conference to let them hear what other people think of their attitude and behaviour, and to make it clear to them that it is in their best interests to get the situation solved and to stop supplying arms to the Syrian Government if they are doing so. It seems to me that the Government’s logic is upside down on this.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Well, my Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. His views are usually very challenging and make one see things a different way, but in this case he is asking for the inclusion of a power that is actively concerned to delay and screw up—if I may use the vernacular—conferences and talks and to promote violence and is continuing to supply arms direct to the Syrian regime. It does not seem as if that would be a very good voice to have at the table at a time when we are trying to persuade other nations, such as our Russian friends, to realise the vital need for a unified approach to close off the loopholes. I understand the psychology of what he is saying—that perhaps it could work the other way around—but the best guess for the moment must be that to have the Iranians at the table and welcomed at any new conference would be a guarantee that it would produce nothing whatever.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, in the debate in this House on 16 March, I asked the Minister if he could give us the Government’s assessment of the assistance in terms of finance, arms and “foreign fighters” being given to the opposition in Syria. I do not know whether he is able to answer that question now, but I note that the frequent reports of assistance being given to the opposition in this area in terms of finance, men and other assistance have not been denied in the Gulf. I think that it is now accepted, certainly in the Middle East, that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have arranged between them for a massive supply of military assistance to the opposition in Syria, not with the aim of, to quote the Statement, stopping the violence and restoring hope to Syria but rather in order to replace the Shia secular regime in Damascus with an extremist Sunni regime enjoying the support, ironically, of al-Qaeda. Coincidentally, the “Today” programme this morning reported that the casualties of the regime’s forces in the past few days have outnumbered those of the opposition—a reminder, surely, that we should not immediately put all the blame for the terrible things happening in Syria on the Syrian regime.
Syria is being plunged into a secular war, with potentially disastrous consequences for the security of the Middle East and, incidentally, for the future of the Christian community to which the right reverend Prelate referred. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government will not only resist the understandable pressure to intervene ourselves but will do all in our power to discourage any further military intervention by our friends and allies and will continue to do everything we can to support Kofi Annan’s mission, however unpromising its prospects.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord’s presentation of, if not the immediacy then certainly the possibility of, this being a religious regional civil war between Sunni and Shia is perfectly valid. That is what it could become and perhaps in some aspects, although the situation is very complicated, is becoming already. That may well be part of the picture that he also describes of arms going to the Syrian opposition forces, though whether in massive quantities or not I do not know—I cannot give him precise figures. We do not know to what extent Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders have talked about the need for arms, are actually supplying them and whether they are doing so officially or whether it is being done by various other channels. We simply have not the means to know. We know that some arms are getting through, though whether they could be described as massive I could not corroborate. That is how the situation is developing.
My right honourable friend’s Statement made clear that not all the grim violence has been on one side. He rightly condemns any manifestations of similar horrors and outrages by the opposition. Whether or not this is a civil war between the religions in the region, this is rapidly becoming, as my right honourable friend has said, a civil war within Syria, and I am afraid that it is a matter of history that it is sometimes in civil wars that the worst atrocities of man against man and man against woman are exercised. That, I am afraid, is unfolding before our eyes. So it is correct that not all the blame is on one side. That it could become a gigantic Sunni and Shia war within Islam is a possibility; it is one of the concerns underlying our attempts to put out this monstrous consuming fire before it devours many other people in neighbouring regions.
As for the details of what arms are being passed, it is very hard to track down how many arms are going from Russia to Syria, and there was mention of Venezuela possibly supplying arms as well. Then there is what Iran is doing; we know that it is pouring arms in on the regime’s side. On the other side, there are arms going to the opposition. These are difficult things to pin down in a very confused situation.
Lord Inglewood
Do the Government believe that the militias that are carrying out these murderous activities are under the ostensible control of those under whose metaphorical banner they are marching?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My right honourable friend made a comparison with the horrors in Bosnia at the end of the previous century, when militias claiming to be acting in the name of one side or another may or may not have been condoned or even have been instructed by the authorities. To answer my noble friend’s question, that comparison reflects on the assessment that we have to make of the present situation. It is hard to tell how much these murderous attacks—village against village, region against region—are, at the very lowest level, simply the settling of old scores or, at a higher level, people who are inspired by one side or another to think that they can put a label on themselves and go and murder everyone in sight. Perhaps, at the highest level of all, they are actively receiving orders and encouragement from the Syrian regime. Those are all possible, and there is evidence that at all levels there are those sorts of motivations. However, you cannot distinguish and draw lines in all these cases; you cannot say that all these horrors and the revolting, outrageous and evil killing of children are ordered from the centre. If they were, that would reinforce everything that we fear about the nature of the regime, but I do not think that that is the case in every instance; there are probably other evil motives at work as well.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, at a time of the cooling of the right to protect and humanitarian intervention, I was puzzled by one word in the Statement. It was the word “compelling” in this passage:
“we will argue for a new and robust UN Security Council resolution aimed at compelling the regime”.
Given the Russian and Chinese position, surely there is no prospect of such a resolution. If these are not just empty words, that could mean only military intervention outside the UN framework, which is most unlikely to happen. Who would lead that? There was talk this morning about drones targeting or showing the way for the targeting of opposition areas. Do the Government know who provides and controls these drones?
Amid all the horror, there is increasing concern about the way in which a likely Sunni-dominated successor regime would deal with minorities. Do the Government share this concern, especially with regard to, as the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, the Christian minority within Syria and the many refugees from Iraq who are there? If so, what are the Government doing to ensure that as far as possible there will not be a regime that persecutes minorities, as other Sunni-led regimes in the area do?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the last point, I addressed that very point when it was raised by the right reverend Prelate. The position of the Christian minorities is of great concern. To answer the question about what the Government are doing, as I said earlier, my right honourable friend, officials and representatives of HMG have constantly urged the Syrian opposition to extend tolerance and a full place to ethnic and religious minorities, and that embraces Christian minorities. That is what we are doing.
As to the word “compelling”, the noble Lord is very skilled and active in these areas, but I think he is slightly misreading its meaning. I go back to my earlier point that with the full co-operation of the Russians and the Chinese—if we could get it, which at present does not look very promising, but great efforts are being made—there would be a compelling and effective stranglehold. It is possible to switch off a society and to close down a regime altogether and make further governance impossible by cutting off basic utilities, power and all ingoing and outgoing supplies, but that is impossible as long as these two great nations, Russia and China, and a few others, are carrying on with trade and supplying equipment and arms. It is not realistic to imagine that without Russia and China we would resort to arms. That is pointless. It is a dead end. Russian and Chinese co-operation are essential for the stranglehold to work, and that has got to be the path of compulsion that we go to before we come to even grimmer possibilities. However, as my right honourable friend repeated, all options are on the table. There are steps ahead that we can take and which we will take, and we will work night and day to hold dialogue with Moscow and Beijing because they have a vital role in this process.
I cannot comment on drones. I will not comment on intelligence aspects, but if I have any more knowledge, I will gladly write to the noble Lord; at the moment, I have none.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
Following my noble friend’s answer, surely the difference between this and Bosnia is that in Bosnia we could act but chose not to, whereas in Syria we would like to act but cannot because we cannot get agreement from the Security Council. Surely the lessons that we should have learnt from Libya are that getting agreement from the Security Council and, above all, making sure that the Russians and the Chinese do not exercise their veto are far better served by letting the coalition of local voices lead the call for action and that we should concentrate on humanitarian action, not regime change. So why have we abandoned them? Why have we reverted to the prospect that the West leads the charge and is seeking the removal of the one person, the one friend, Russia has by seeking regime change up front? Has that not made it easier for the Russians and the Chinese to cast their veto? Is the consequence of that not that we now find ourselves in an impasse which is in part because of rather unwise diplomacy, which will not only lead to greater bloodshed in Syria but to the even more baleful prospect of a widening Sunni-Shia conflict throughout the whole of the Middle East?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I listened very closely to the noble Lord who has enormous expertise, certainly on the Bosnian scene, but I do not think we have abandoned the idea that the regional powers—the Arab League and Turkey and other responsible powers in the region—should be right up in the front and leading the pressure. This is not just a western story; this is a story where the global order is looking with horror at what is happening. Responsible nations are actively helping. We are arguing with Russia and China, which we hope will become fully responsible nations—they should act as responsible nations, as they are great powers—in the same vein and on the same path. That is what we are trying to do. I do not think there is another path of diplomacy that somehow would magically put certain regional powers in a forward position, and I do not think this is seen just as a western show. That was last century stuff; today, no one moves in international affairs, as my noble friend knows perfectly well, without full consultation with the African Union and the Arab League and increasingly with Beijing and Moscow, which play crucial parts, and with many other countries as well. This is not the century of the West; this is the century of Asia and Africa and the new international and multinational organisations which are reinforcing the ones we inherited from the 20th century. So I do not accept my noble friend’s analysis, but the wisdom behind his thought is correct.
NATO
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, let me begin by joining in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on promoting this short debate and on his work with his colleagues in the so-called top-level group, which tackles these issues. The profundity of his questioning is a very good way of promoting the debate in a context that is not replicated anywhere else. The only sadness I have to note is that although much wisdom has been put into one hour’s debate, the media coverage is unlikely to be dramatic because they have a shallower and shorter range interest beyond these vital and profound issues. However, this is a valuable moment. I shall not, of course, be able to satisfy completely the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and his colleagues for the longer term, or those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, because that is not the posture that the deterrence and defence posture review took up. However, there are some very important questions, which are in a stage of evolution and development and which I would like to comment and respond on as clearly as I can.
We know that the review was agreed at the last NATO summit in November 2010. It was commissioned to examine the multiple and complex threats that the alliance faced in the 21st century—so it was a forward-looking intention—and to ensure that NATO’s range of capabilities are fully appropriate to the political and security context in which we live today, here and now, and in which we are likely to live in future. The review was agreed and published by alliance Heads of State at the Chicago summit last week. It is not too long, so for those who have not read it is not too time-consuming a read. It sets out the role that NATO’s defensive capabilities play in collective deterrence, burden sharing and reassurance.
The review concludes that NATO’s “existing mix” of nuclear and conventional capabilities is appropriate to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. In that sense, it can be asserted that it confirms and consolidates the status quo, but, as I shall try and show, it also has an evolutionary and ongoing element that is realistic in that we have to meet the here and now but think about tomorrow. It lays the ground for future work in NATO on its nuclear posture and on supporting non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control. The British Government were closely involved in the development and negotiation of the review, together with our 27 allies in NATO, so it is fairly obvious that I will not say anything but that we endorse the conclusions, approach and thrust of the review.
First, let me address the points that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, makes, with some tone of disappointment in his voice, about a perceived lack of progress in reducing NATO’s short-range nuclear weapons. It is worth noting that, since 1991, NATO has reduced the types and numbers of its short-range nuclear forces by over 8%. There is a strong long-term record on disarmament in the alliance, which cannot be completely brushed aside.
However, let me also make it clear why 28 allies have agreed in this review on the maintenance of NATO’s short-range nuclear forces. I will make four points on this. First, the presence of US nuclear forces based in Europe provides an essential political and military link between the European and North American members of the alliance. Secondly, the B-61 nuclear weapon forms an important element of those nuclear forces and the national US life-extension programme for the ageing bombers, which incidentally is paid for entirely by the United States, will ensure that it continues to be a safe, secure and credible nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing. That is an important benefit, or condition, of the LEP.
Thirdly, at the same time, the participation of non-nuclear countries demonstrates alliance solidarity, a commitment to maintaining collective security and the widespread sharing of burdens and risks. Most of your Lordships, and many outside, would agree that we need to encourage a burden of sharing as much as possible. Fourthly, as the review makes quite clear, future decisions must also take into account the far greater Russian stockpiles of short-range nuclear weapons stationed in the Euro-Atlantic area. It would not be right for NATO unilaterally to disarm, nor to disarm by, as it were, default—in other words, by not modernising the essential equipment. Future steps must be taken in the context of reciprocal steps by Russia. NATO as an alliance, and individual allies, will continue to work towards this common and worthwhile goal. I will say a little more about Russia in a moment, in the light of the comments of my noble friend Lord Jopling and others.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted, the review reiterates its long-standing principle that to face the ultimate threats to our collective defence, however remote the contemplation of nuclear weapons, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist. It also reiterates that the alliance is resolved to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. The alliance’s nuclear posture must evolve—this is the point that I made in my opening remarks—to meet current and anticipated threats and wider geopolitical developments, as it always has done and must continue to do.
In this context, it is worth noting that the review sets out what NATO can do to help create the conditions in which further reductions are possible, in line with our shared long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. While it is legitimate to say that the review stands on the status quo at the moment, it opens up the creation of the conditions in which further reductions are possible. That is important. It underlines the alliance’s role in supporting wider international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, and announces the establishment of a new committee to focus the alliance’s contribution in this important work. In that sense, it is part of the evolving process, as it has been and must continue to be.
These efforts have been an inseparable part of NATO’s contribution to security and stability since the late 1960s. The review takes this further, not least in setting out for the first time in an alliance context the declaratory policies of its member states. Of course, my noble friend Lord King was absolutely right in his wise contribution that the US and Russia in particular, with their still enormous arsenals, must go considerably further.
The missile defence issue was mentioned by several of your Lordships. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned it. He also raised a point about Georgia, which I just have time to comment on. NATO partners agreed in Bucharest in 2008 that Georgia will one day become a member of NATO. Georgia’s path to NATO is a matter for agreement between NATO and Georgia, and no other country has a veto on this. We welcome the progress that Georgia has been making, and point out that NATO’s ongoing enlargement process poses no threat to any country. It is aimed at promoting stability and co-operation, and building a Europe whole and free and united in peace, democracy and common values.
On missile defence, the alliance and the UK remain committed to a positive NATO-Russian relationship. Although this obviously has its challenges, good practical co-operation is in fact taking place on a range of mutual security issues, including Afghanistan, counter- terrorism and theatre missile defence. The review considered how co-operation, transparency and, I emphasise, reciprocity with Russia can help Euro-Atlantic security.
NATO will continue to develop its partnership with Russia. We are committed to continuing our dialogue on missile defence. The United States in particular has been clear with Russia that NATO missile defence is neither intended nor designed to undermine, nor is capable of undermining, the Russian strategic deterrent. The best way of allaying Russia’s concerns is for it to work with NATO through dialogue and practical co-operation in the context of the need for the defence of Europe as a whole. This sort of co-operation also requires a functioning conventional arms-control regime, in which Russia must play a full part in offering transparency and political will. It means reciprocity and confidence-building measures as we look to future reductions in short-range nuclear weapons.
In response to, and as a reinforcement of, the points made by my noble friend Lord Jopling, I should say that all sorts of reassurances have been offered to Russia. Those reassurances are not about the legal requirements that the ambassador is writing about in today’s newspaper—that is not possible for the obvious reason that it would never get through Congress in the United States—but are all sorts of other reassurances of a detailed kind, and we are now entitled to look for a response from Russia: that is, a commitment to joint defence, as my noble friend Lord Jopling put it. This is something that we should press for and try to create the atmosphere for by elucidation, illumination and constructive dialogue rather than by some of the more negative and rigid response that have emerged.
The threats that we must be ready to counter come from many different directions and in many different forms. The capabilities available to us have certainly broadened. The DDPR has presented a timely opportunity to reassess NATO’s defence and deterrence capabilities to ensure that they are able to respond to the modern, multipolar world. That means not only where they have come from and where we are now, which is the realistic moment that we live in, but the future as well.
Publishing the review at the NATO summit in Chicago demonstrated to the world the alliance’s commitment to the collective defence of all alliance members through a mix of nuclear, conventional and missile defence; to sharing the responsibilities and risks of delivering those capabilities; and to addressing new threats together. This outward-facing resolve and renewed demonstration of alliance solidarity remains critical to NATO’s effectiveness and unity, which has been one of the underlying drivers in the whole of this operation.
The Government fully share with your Lordships and a much wider audience a desire to make progress on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. However, in doing so we must be clear about the reality of the evolving security environment of the 21st century and the wider political context, both of which are full of dangers, some of which are outside the immediate security area but often have major potential security repercussions. NATO needs to provide strong defence and deterrence in challenging times, while being open to ways in which we can reduce both the risks and challenges that we face together as an alliance.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for raising some challenging questions. I hope that the challenges will continue. I have stated the Government’s view in response to these challenges, but it is an open-minded response that allows for continuing debate and examination as the uncertain future unfolds before us.
Syria
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we are outraged by the appalling events in Houla and have condemned these in the strongest possible terms. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear that we are working with international partners to make the Annan plan work. This aims to bring an end to the violence and drive forward a political process in Syria.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I share the outrage expressed by the Minister. The massacre was appalling and deplorable, and it is difficult to find words to express the revulsion at the slaughter of vast numbers of innocent people, including 49 children and 39 women. UN condemnation is welcome but it is not enough. What is the Government’s assessment of the potential changes in policy by the international community following the clear change of position by the Russians, both at the UN and in discussion with the Foreign Secretary?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Baroness is quite right that words are difficult and certainly condemnation alone is not enough. She speaks about the change in the Russian position. It is perfectly true that Russia has joined in condemnation of these revolting events—as all civilised and responsible nations must do—but the question goes beyond that, to whether the UN Security Council is prepared in a united way to take a variety of further actions, including referral to the ICC, tougher sanctions and other pressures. That requires the support of the Russians and the Chinese in the UN Security Council.
My right honourable friend is in Moscow and has had discussions this morning with Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Various views have been set out by Mr Lavrov, and discussion continues internationally about exactly what happened and precisely who is to blame. But we are quite clear that the Annan plan, requiring an immediate laying-down of weapons on both sides and action by the Syrian Government to withdraw their heavy weapons and tanks from all the areas they have been bombarding, is an essential step to taking this forward. The key is to get agreement in the United Nations Security Council, and the key to that is what my right honourable friend is working on at this moment.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there is any discussion within the Security Council, and indeed with the Syrian Government, to increase the number of UN monitors from 300 to potentially significant figures so that they may be able to carry out their tasks effectively?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes. My right honourable friend spoke to Kofi Annan over the weekend and they discussed increasing the size of the monitoring mission. It is just about coming up to its initially agreed 300 but there is certainly further discussion of whether a more effective and larger commission could be developed.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister has seen an interesting article by Patrick Seale in today’s Guardian. First, can the Minister give the House the Government’s assessment of the amount of financial and other assistance being given by the Gulf countries and other members of the Friends of Syria to the rebels or terrorists—call them what you like—with the aim of bringing down the Syrian Government?
Secondly, can the Minister please give the House an assurance that any assistance that the British Government are giving, and have been giving, to any faction in Syria is being given exclusively through the United Nations and international organisations?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I have indeed seen the article by Patrick Seale that the noble Lord mentions. It is very difficult to answer precisely because we do not know the amount or nature of the assistance that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are giving to the rebels. There is also the question of the suitability of the recipients. Are they people who will continue to protect human life, or will they promote further terrorism and destruction? There are real doubts on this matter, as the noble Lord will well know with his expertise in the area. Non-lethal assistance is being given to civilians and the Syrian rebel forces on humanitarian grounds at the moment. It is going ahead through non-governmental international organisations and the agencies of the United Nations.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, the situation in Syria is certainly very complicated. I read recently an account of very harsh treatment being meted out to Christian communities in Syria by forces other than government ones, whether you call them rebels or terrorists—I am not certain. Can my noble friend say whether these reports are true?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Again, I have to tell my noble and learned friend that it is very hard to come by precise records of exactly what is happening, who is committing these atrocities and to what extent they are intertribal activities by Alawite villagers against others. All these things are possible and they may well have happened. I cannot give a clear answer to my noble and learned friend except to say that there are many different cross-currents and many different groups who fear for their future whether Assad remains entrenched, rebel forces take over or the country descends into civil war. The future of groups such as the Christian communities is challenged by any of these eventualities; so, too, is the future stability of Lebanon.
Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, Syria is likely to go into a civil war, as the Minister has said. We have been involved in the bombing of Libya and went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. To what extent do the Government believe that we have helped the people of those countries by our involvement?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The obvious answer is that each one is a completely separate and different situation on which one has to make a sensible judgment. The Government and I believe, as I think most people do, that the intervention in Libya to prevent hideous massacres—although we are now looking at another hideous massacre—was constructive and led to a new start for Libya which we hope will lead to democracy, liberty and freedom. I could stand at this Dispatch Box well beyond your Lordships’ patience and analyse the prospects of leaving Afghanistan in a better condition than it was when it promoted al-Qaeda and the horrors of 9/11. I could say the same about Iraq. It is now free of one of the worst killers of the Middle East but it had to pay a very heavy price. All these are separate issues and we have now to look at Syria to see what can be done. The willingness for the allies together—we have to act together as no single country can do this—to mobilise military might on a massive scale is obviously not there, not least because it is not clear exactly who the enemy are and where the sources of instability are coming from.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, given that Turkey is on Syria’s doorstep, perhaps I may ask about the role that it has tried to play in the past year in bringing about a solution. What support is being given to Turkey to play a more prominent role and to prevent a potentially explosive situation whereby it could be dragged into a war with Syria?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We are in close touch with the Turkish authorities, which face some difficult dilemmas. They are taking a lot of Syrian refugees over the border. There are fears that the violence could spread across the frontiers. There has been talk about the possibility of buffer zones on Syrian soil to prevent the situation getting worse. We are working closely with all our allies, and certainly with a great nation such as Turkey, to ensure that we act responsibly, effectively and, if possible, together.
Lord Richard
My Lords, to clarify the position, will the Minister say that the Government are satisfied, first, that a massacre took place; secondly, that the deaths that occurred in that massacre were of the order expressed in the press; and, thirdly, that those deaths were caused by Syrian government forces with the connivance or indeed at the orders of the Government in Damascus?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Frankly, the word “satisfied” is difficult to put into this context; it is very difficult to be satisfied precisely. General Robert Mood, the head of the UN mission, has said that the situation and the circumstances are still unclear. What is almost certain, and what we are ready to accept, is that horrific killings took place. There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that dreadful things were done. Children were slaughtered, perhaps by bombing and artillery fire but also by shots in the head, throat-cutting and other horrors. One has to analyse who on this planet can be so uncivilised and evil in intent to do these terrible things. We cannot yet be satisfied that the situation is clear; if I said that we were, I would not be believed.
International Criminal Court
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in securing the arrest of Joseph Kony, Omar al-Bashir and others indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the International Criminal Court relies entirely on state co-operation to ensure enforcement of its arrest warrants. The British Government, together with our EU partners, frequently raise the importance of states fulfilling their international obligations and taking the necessary steps to bring to justice individuals indicted by the court. Those currently fugitive from ICC warrants should be reminded that they, like Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic, cannot evade the international justice system indefinitely.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, given that Kony was indicted in 2005, and that Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted in 2009 for crimes against humanity in Darfur, is now waging a new war against his own people in Southern Kordofan, does not a failure to bring those indicted to account risk compromising the ICC and bringing it into disrepute? What resources are we committing to the work of the ICC? When a head of state is indicted by it, how is that reflected in the conduct of our economic and diplomatic policies? Either this is genocide or it is not. Either it is crimes against humanity or it is not. Either they are indicted or they are not. Either it is business as usual or it is not.
Lord Howell of Guildford
It certainly is not business as usual. The noble Lord, who follows these things very closely, is perhaps not taking into account the fact that this system has taken some years to get going. The indictments are out but there are real problems in pinning these people down. He mentioned two cases. We know that Mr Joseph Kony is highly elusive and can slip across borders. At least the Government of Uganda were very successful the other day in capturing his deputy, Caesar Acellam. Uganda is a signatory to the ICC and I am sure that it will fulfil its obligations in accordance with international justice.
As for the leader of Sudan, we know exactly what the position is. We and our EU colleagues seek to keep contact with Khartoum because all the parties—South Sudan, Sudan itself, the opposition parties and, indeed, the Opposition—believe that we should do so. However, the problem of fulfilling an ICC charge against Mr Omar al-Bashir is obviously a practical, physical one in that he is not in reach unless he were to leave the country.
Lord Chidgey
My noble friend will be aware that since April, when Bosco Ntaganda’s rebel troops defected, they have managed forcibly to recruit more than 150 child soldiers and caused 40,000 villagers to flee, thereby causing more chaos in that region. The United Nations Security Council is absolutely clear about MONUSCO’s mandate for its mission in the Congo: it has the authority to assist the Government to arrest indicted war criminals. MONUSCO officials on the ground say that they have not been asked to do anything and are not involved, yet ICC officials have asked the Government to pursue the matter. However, nothing has happened. Overall, this is a case of prevarication.
Lord Howell of Guildford
It is very difficult to ascertain exactly what is happening on the ground. No one could expect there to be full information, full access or full details. However, we fully support the work of the ICC in bringing Bosco Ntaganda to justice and bringing additional charges against him. I think the implication of my noble friend’s question and the preceding one is that somehow the ICC should have further powers over and above the existing situation in which national Governments have to seek to co-operate and take the initial action. That, of course, would raise fundamental questions about the workings of the ICC and whether we should go back to square one and revise the legislation. I do not believe that we should; I think that we should give the present process more scope and more encouragement. However, I understand what is behind my noble friend’s question.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, given that crimes against humanity are defined by the United Nations as,
“a widespread attack on a civilian population”,
does the Minister not agree that Robert Mugabe should be investigated by the prosecutor and subsequently indicted by the ICC? Is it not tragically clear that there is evidence of his responsibility for the Matabeleland massacres in the 1980s that were committed by his army brigade, continued state-sponsored violence against political opponents, and ongoing atrocities in the diamond fields in Zimbabwe? What pressure is Her Majesty’s Government using to ensure that this wicked man faces international criminal justice?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not dispute anything that the noble Baroness has said, with her acute understanding of the situation there. However, the realities are these: Zimbabwe is not a party to the Rome statute and to get an ICC charge against Mr Mugabe would require a UN Security Council resolution. That means getting past all five of the permanent members. We know what the view of some of the permanent members is: they should not take such action. Until we can get past this problem of the permanent five, and particularly the reluctance of China and Russia, to name two, to see these matters taken up by the UN and remitted to the ICC for charges, these people who have committed most unsavoury acts—the noble Baroness mentioned Mr Mugabe as one—are outside the reach of the ICC.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only is President al-Bashir indicted by the ICC but he actually deposed the elected governor of Southern Kordofan, replacing him with Ahmad Harun, who is also indicted by the ICC and has since been carrying out systematic slaughter and aerial bombardment of his people, leading to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people? What reassurance can Her Majesty’s Government give to the victims of those policies? I have spoken to people in the refugee camps and—I am afraid this sounds harsh—many have said to me, “Why does Britain not intervene? Our suffering is far worse than that of Libya. Does Britain really only do business with Khartoum and those indicted by the ICC?”. That is the feeling among many people in Sudan.
Lord Howell of Guildford
With respect to the noble Baroness, that is unfair because she knows better than most of us that the real problem is access. We cannot get access to these very ugly and difficult areas to establish what is happening. She quite rightly mentions that the governor of Southern Kordofan and one other are already indicted by the ICC and need to face justice. The UN has ruled through the Security Council that they should be referred to the ICC, which has issued warrants against them. The question is: how can they be secured and brought to justice in The Hague? That remains a continuous battle. As for the general proposition that we speak only to Khartoum or Djuba, that is not to understand the enormous amount of work we are doing at every level with the international agencies to bring some hope to this very unpleasant and ugly situation.
Iran: Capital Punishment
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iran regarding the use of capital punishment against homosexual men.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we have been extremely clear about the human rights situation in Iran and about Iran’s excessive and cruel use of the death penalty. We deplore Iran’s persecution of, and use of the death penalty against, homosexuals. This, like many other practices in Iran, is inconsistent not only with international obligations but with common humanity. The United Kingdom has been and will remain at the forefront of international efforts through the European Union and the United Nations to encourage an improvement in Iran’s very poor human rights record.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What has been the response in Iran to all the objections that we have made over the years to these thousands of executions? Is Iran ready to consider complying with the United Nations declaration of human rights? Also, what co-operation do we have with Amnesty International in these moves?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We certainly have co-operation with all the major NGOs and international movements, which are equally concerned at the horrors in Iran. It is very hard to answer my noble friend’s first question as to what impact these comments and pressures have. My personal belief is that they do have some impact. After all, we have to remember that when the elaborate EU sanctions were discussed and formulated—they are now having, apparently, some impact on Iran—there were discussions about Iran’s human rights record and the horrific rate of persecutions and executions in that country. As far as we know, this includes over 600 people executed last year and 130 executed so far this year—indeed, 60 in the last week.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, when did Her Majesty’s Government last raise the issue of human rights with Iran? When they were in full diplomatic relations with Iran, did they discuss the execution of people for their sexual orientation, of others, such as the Baha’is and Christians, for changing their religion, and of women, who are regularly publicly executed for so-called social offences? Is this not something that we should at least be making a démarche about and certainly trying to draw the international community into full unison, not just on the security questions, which we regularly raise, but on these profoundly important human rights issue too?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The answer to the first part of the noble Lord’s question is almost continuously. However, we are constrained by the fact that our diplomatic relations with Iran are now at a very low level. As he knows, there are no ambassadors between the two countries because our embassy was attacked and had to be evacuated. So far we have not got any agreement from Tehran to our request for a protecting power to look after our interests and maintain contacts. However, that does not stop us almost continuously working with the UN special rapporteur to keep this kind of horror on the UN agenda and to keep up the international pressure in every way that we can.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I recognise that it is difficult to exert direct pressure on and have a conversation with a country with which we no longer have, for understandable reasons, diplomatic relations. I welcome the Minister’s mention of the European Union sanctions. I wonder whether, in any of the discussions, the list of things being provided by the European Union to the Iranians, alongside all the issues about the development of their nuclear capability, has been included and whether there has been any response from the Iranian Government on those items. If there has not been, would it be a moment to perhaps urge the European Union to make the discussion more comprehensive?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The discussions with Iran are going on continuously at this moment in Baghdad. They have not yet stopped; they were due to do so yesterday but the Iranian team, as I understand it, is still in Baghdad this morning. Those discussions are, of course, focused on Iran’s nuclear programme and its weaponisation ambitions, but behind them is the obvious point that the EU sanctions—and particularly the oil embargo—clearly concern the Iranians. They keep raising the issue, which is a good sign that they are worried. As to the other items to which the noble Lord referred, these will come in at the right opportunity. I cannot assure him at the moment on everything that he referred to—I am not sure whether his full list is included—but he can be sure that, within the present climate of trying to get Tehran to make some sensible concessions and to comply with the IAEA, these issues will all come up.
Lord Cormack
The figure for the executions that my noble friend gave the House is positively horrific. When did we last initiate a United Nations resolution on this subject? Could we perhaps initiate another one very soon?
Lord Howell of Guildford
There have been successive UN resolutions. We are limited by the fact that not every member of the UN Security Council is agreed on how far we should go in these affairs. I cannot answer my noble friend precisely on when the last resolution came through—I do not have it in front of me—but I shall certainly write to him giving the details that he wants.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, following the welcome judgment by the UK Supreme Court in 2010 that overturned the previous Government’s refusal to grant asylum to homosexuals from Iran, what are the UK Government doing to work with other Governments, such as that of Australia, who bizarrely still believe that it is acceptable to argue that it is possible to hide one’s sexuality?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Our position is quite clear. As my noble friend is aware, we regard all these abuses and attitudes as offensive against human rights and we would like to see them changed. We are working both bilaterally and at the United Nations on all these issues and I assure my noble friend that every opportunity is taken to make known our views and to press them on the countries concerned.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is the Minister aware that there is a Private Member’s Bill before the Parliament in Uganda to introduce the death penalty for homosexual acts? Is he further aware that at the recent IPU Assembly in Kampala, the British delegation, of which I was privileged to be a member, had a difficult but none the less very hard-hitting meeting with the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, making clear how unacceptable we regard this proposal? Now that we have come home, we hope that our high commission is continuing with those representations.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, I am aware. We have made it quite clear that we deplore this proposal in Uganda, as indeed we deplore attitudes taken in other African countries, including Nigeria. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, in bringing this Bill before the House, I am very much aware that I do so at a time when the spotlight is on the eurozone. As the Prime Minister said last week, it is vital for Britain’s interests that the eurozone resolves its problems. I do not underestimate those problems. On Monday, a number of noble Lords gave their very expert views on the broader issues during the debate on the report of the European Union Committee on the euro area crisis. It was a very interesting debate.
However, this Bill is simple and straightforward. It provides solely for the parliamentary approval of an amendment to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The proposed amendment makes explicit the ability of eurozone countries to set up a financial assistance mechanism. In other words, it confirms that the eurozone can support fellow eurozone members in financial difficulty.
Although the United Kingdom is not in the eurozone, the treaty amendment is nevertheless important to us. The eurozone is in the process of setting up the European stability mechanism—or ESM. I apologise for these endless initials. The ESM will play an important role as eurozone countries work towards stability, which obviously we hope they will do. Eurozone stability is important for our own stability. When the Prime Minister agreed to the treaty amendment, he also secured an important commitment. The UK will not be liable through the European Union budget for any future eurozone bailouts once the European stability mechanism comes into force. In effect, that is another way of saying that the European financial stability mechanism will be closed down and there will be no further disbursements from that source.
Baroness Quin
The Minister has stressed, as have other Ministers, that we are not liable to contribute to any future bailouts. Will he none the less confirm that if we judge that it is in our economic interest to do so, as we did in the case of Ireland for example, bilateral help can be available?
Lord Howell of Guildford
There is complete freedom outside the treaties to take any decisions we want. I will come in more detail to what I have just said in reference to the EFSM, and during the afternoon we can discuss what other mechanisms of support for economies, whether in Europe or the eurozone or not, are justified, but that is the position in relation to what we are discussing today.
It is not the first time that this treaty amendment has been considered by Parliament. Before the Prime Minister signed the treaty last March, a Motion in favour of signature was passed by both Houses, with no opposition in your Lordships’ House. At the time I committed to bringing the decision before Parliament again. Thus we are applying the more rigorous requirements for parliamentary control over European Union decision-making, as we committed to do in the European Union Act 2011. Parliamentary approval will enable the UK to complete its ratification process for this treaty amendment.
I recognise that 14 months is a long time in eurozone terms, so it may help your Lordships if I recap how the European Council came to decide to amend the treaty. In May 2010, in response to the first Greek crisis, two emergency instruments were established to respond to the financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility. This is an emergency facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states. It is used to provide loans to euro area member states in difficulty. The UK is not—I repeat, not—a member of the EFSF and has no exposure to the financial assistance provided by it.
The second is the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which I have already mentioned, which we inherited from the previous Government. Under this mechanism, the Council can agree, by qualified majority, to the Commission providing assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the European Union budget. It therefore created a contingent liability for the United Kingdom, which is a very important point.
As uncertainty continued in financial markets, the European Council agreed in December 2010 to amend Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. The amendment confirms that member states of the eurozone may establish a permanent stability mechanism. This mechanism—the European stability mechanism, or ESM—which I have already mentioned, will provide a permanent means for dealing with events that pose a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole.
Having gained Parliament’s approval in March 2011, the Prime Minister returned to Brussels to agree to the decision at the European Council. The decision must now be ratified by all 27 members before the amendment to Article 136 can come into force. The target date for entry into force, as set out in the European Council decision, is 1 January 2013.
As I have already mentioned, the Minister for Europe and I committed to further consideration of the decision under the terms of the EU Act 2011 when it came into force. Under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the Foreign Secretary laid a Statement before Parliament in October 2011. He indicated that in his opinion a referendum is not required to give parliamentary approval. The proposed amendment to Article 136 applies only to member states whose currency is the euro. Consequently it does not transfer further competence or power to the European Union from the United Kingdom. The statement was open to judicial review, but in the intervening eight months no one has sought to challenge it in the courts.
To comply fully with the requirements of the EU Act, I am now presenting this Bill to the House. Should Parliament grant its approval, the Government intend to ratify the European Council decision by the end of this year.
Now I turn briefly to the European stability mechanism itself. The ESM is a stability mechanism funded by eurozone countries to provide financial assistance to eurozone countries. The intention is that it will replace both the EFSM and EFSF. It is being set up under an intergovernmental treaty that was signed on 2 February by eurozone member states. It must now be ratified by all 17 member states and is expected to come into force in July 2012.
The treaty amendment does not establish the ESM. The UK, of course, will not ratify the ESM as we have not signed up to the intergovernmental agreement, and the amendment certainly does not commit the UK to contribute to any bailout fund. However, let me make it clear what the decision does. The treaty amendment that we are asking Parliament to approve will put beyond doubt the ability of eurozone countries to set up a financial assistance mechanism. It does this by adding a third paragraph to Article 136, which states that eurozone member states may establish a financial stability mechanism to assist other eurozone member states in financial difficulties. Article 136 applies solely to member states whose currency is the euro. Therefore, the provisions of Article 136 do not apply to the UK.
Alongside the agreement to enshrine the legal basis for the mechanism in the EU treaty, the Prime Minister secured an important agreement. Once the ESM is established, Article 122(2), on which basis the EFSM was established, should no longer be used for such purposes. Our liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget will be removed. This is strongly in the UK’s national interest.
The intensification of the crisis has led eurozone member states to agree to bring forward the introduction of the ESM to July 2012. When they announced this decision in January, we carefully considered the implications that it would have on our handling of the treaty amendment. Would it need to be ratified sooner, and was it still needed at all? We decided to proceed as planned, as it has always been the Government’s opinion that without the agreement to amend the treaty there would be no European stability mechanism. The clear message from eurozone member states is that they still need this treaty amendment.
That brings me back to the central point of why this Bill is important.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that it was the intention that the ESM should now enter into force next month. Indeed, we support the urgency of that, as I understand it. Therefore, why are we taking so long to ratify this? If we really support the initiative and recognise its urgency, why cannot we ratify it as soon as Parliament has approved this Bill?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I do not think that it has been the usual practice of this House to interrupt Ministers in the middle of their opening speeches, when they are also winding up and when the interrupter has his chance to take part in the debate afterwards. These are questions that the Minister can answer in his wind-up speech.
Lord Howell of Guildford
As I have sought to explain, the ESM treaty is an intergovernmental affair between eurozone members, and they are going ahead with it—and they want to go ahead with it—in July. Nevertheless, the individual eurozone members have said that they would want the comfort of cover via an amendment to the European Union treaties, and we are pressing ahead with that as best we can in our own time. The two things are not ultimately dependent; it is just that the changes that we are proposing give comfort, support, reassurance and legal reassurance to the eurozone members so that they can go ahead. Therefore, those who say, “You are not doing anything to play your part in contributing to orderly developments in the eurozone”, are wrong. We are playing our part in doing so, although there are considerable benefits for the UK in making this move, which I have already outlined.
This brings me back to why this Bill is important. It represents Parliament giving a simple yes or no to amending part of the TFEU that does not actually apply to the UK at all. However, as I have made clear, by giving approval to this decision the UK avoids liability for future eurozone bailouts under the EU budget and gives the eurozone the legal clarity—this may reinforce the point I have just made—that it wants to back the European stability mechanism. We also uphold the commitment made by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to help the eurozone to get itself out of a crisis. Whichever way the situation goes, that must be to the advantage of us all.
If we were to refuse to agree the decision, the impact on our trading partners in the eurozone would not be positive, to put it mildly. We are under no illusion that the ESM alone will resolve the eurozone crisis, but, as the Prime Minister said last week, an effective firewall is part of the solution. It is safe to assume that markets would not view favourably any uncertainty about the eurozone’s ability to establish a permanent support mechanism. That is just what would arise if we failed to ratify this decision.
As the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have repeatedly made clear, a stable Europe is directly in the UK’s interests. That must be so. We rely on the eurozone states for over 40% of our trade. London is Europe’s international financial centre. Stable progress in the eurozone states is vital to stable progress in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, agreeing to this treaty amendment is in our best interests. As I have said, it means that the UK will not be exposed to any future programmes of financial assistance for the eurozone through the EU budget, specifically the European financial stability mechanism—that will be closed—and it helps our neighbours in the eurozone in their search for financial stability in the currency area. Your Lordships have already agreed that the Prime Minister could sign this treaty amendment, as he has done. I hope that we can now take the necessary steps to allow us to ratify it. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the House is indeed fortunate to have present in this debate two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, who were able to impart their considerable experience over a wide area of matters, particularly in regard to the setting up of the eurozone. I am grateful to them for their speeches today.
Why are we hurrying this Bill? Why are we introducing it just a couple of weeks after the Queen’s Speech? There is no rush for it. Unless I am mistaken, the Irish are to have a referendum on the matter at the end of this month. The Germans will not ratify this policy until the autumn. I even noticed in today’s Financial Times that Geert Wilders has applied for an injunction to block ratification until after the September elections.
I heard the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others that a,
“healthy eurozone is important for the UK’s long-term growth”.
I put in there that that does not hold water, but that clearly was not robust enough because the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, described it, in much more stark terms, as “nonsense”. I think that that is a better description of it.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The issue of whether I was talking nonsense or not seems to have rattled through the debate. I think that we will all listen with fascination to the noble Lord’s speech, just as we listened to the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Lawson. However, there was an error in that perhaps they did not hear my actual speech. I made it absolutely clear that stable progress in the eurozone states is vital to stable progress in the United Kingdom. That is not quite what the noble Lord seems to be accusing me of saying.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
It was not an accusation because I thought that I was quoting him. I am most obliged to the Minister for clarifying what he did say. I really do not like getting across the noble Lord, Lord Howell, because I respect him very much and think that he is perhaps the only statesman that the Government have among their ranks.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
For the sake of clarification, I was not quoting what my noble friend said in his opening remarks, which were rather more careful. What I explicitly quoted is what appeared under his name on the Foreign Office website, and I quoted that correctly.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I appreciate that he was relying on a press release, but I had hoped that, as he is sitting here, he might also have listened to my speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps I can get on with my speech. There is no doubt, as other noble Lords have said, that the eurozone was a political construct, not a financial one, to create a single European state. Because it was made up of nations with diverse economies, it was bound to fail, as it now has. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, accused those of us who gave pause when the project was starting up of gloating because it has now patently failed. I do not gloat, and I do not think that others who warned of the consequences do so because the eurozone is now in difficulties. We believed that it was always going to be in difficulties; and for trying to point that out, we were derided and insulted. Indeed, the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair, said that we were unpatriotic. There is no gloating about this. We are extremely sad that the present situation has arisen.
As I understand it, the Bill allows the eurozone to further integrate and consolidate a failed system by attempting to shore it up through fiscal, economic and political union under central control by the large countries. I believe that the claim that the ESM cannot and never will apply to the United Kingdom is spurious and quite untenable. Article 16 expresses the aim that within the five years the treaty will be incorporated into the EU treaty framework, which presumably will include this country. Furthermore, we have heard all this before. Let us remember the famous Blair “red lines” over the EU constitution. All of them were eventually crossed and incorporated into the Lisbon treaty. We have to be careful when we are given assurances that certain things will not apply to this country.
I really must comment on the behaviour of the Prime Minister. He does not inspire confidence that the United Kingdom will not be sucked into this system. He seems to be suffering from EU schizophrenia. On the one hand, he opposed the setting up of the eurozone and has said that the UK will never join it; but on the other hand, he wants to dictate policy from the outside and has threatened the Greeks that if they do not vote in the right way, they will be thrown out of the euro. No wonder he is seen by the eurozone countries as a bully-boy shouting from the sidelines. He claims to be a Eurosceptic, yet demands more power for the centre.
I would like the Prime Minister to understand that the influential and decisive voices of the EU—for example, Mr Jose Manuel Barroso; Mr Herman Van Rompuy; Mr Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German Finance Minister; and Mr Olli Rehn, Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs—and the shadowy group of Foreign Ministers and many others are calling for complete political integration under a European Government and the destruction or the sidelining of the nation states.
Why is the Prime Minister not shouting that very famous, “No, no, no”? Perhaps he is afraid of being stabbed in the back by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that we will never join, but I remind him that others want the whole system to be extended into a single European state. This Bill will help those who wish to create a country called Europe, in spite of some voices this afternoon and in other debates who do not wish to see that happen.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I congratulate your Lordships on the sweep of your comments and magnificence of oratory in addressing this very modest Bill. I have listened with something verging on pleasure to the expositions of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. They were very eloquent, but whether they related precisely to the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition I am not so clear, and whether they related much to the Bill I am not so clear about either. But it was good stuff and I thank the noble Lord for his contribution.
I want to emphasise that many of the issues have given us a marvellous opportunity to air in your Lordships’ House the bigger issues surrounding the whole story of the eurozone and how it fits into the European Union, as well as how the European Union is or is not evolving to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I am not going to take the centre stage about Europe, much as I would love to do so, but will merely concentrate on aspects of the Bill.
There is no illusion about this Bill and we do not see it as magic medicine. We simply believe that it will help to bring order rather than disorder whichever way things go, and who can tell? Experts say they know the answer. We have been told by my noble friend Lord Lamont that it has all been priced into the market, which is wonderful if that is the case, but sometimes the market can get things terribly wrong. We believe that the Bill can make a net contribution, perhaps quite a substantial one, to the pattern of order rather than disorder. I put it no higher than that and make no greater claims for it.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of why we have a Bill before us at all. It is because of the increased public and parliamentary control over EU treaty changes that we committed to in the coalition agreement—it was the coalition that put that forward—and delivered through the European Union Act 2011. Therefore, this treaty amendment requires primary legislation. The amendment has already been considered and was debated by Parliament and passed by both Houses last March; there was no opposition in the House at that time. The arguments for the treaty amendment were relevant then and, in a sense, as the bigger crisis has grown and the uncertainties confronting us have magnified, the case for making a move of this kind as a contribution to trying to steady the situation and stabilise an unstable pattern is stronger than it was even when we debated it 14 months ago.
As I explained at the beginning, in return for agreeing to the treaty amendment the Prime Minister secured that once the ESM is established, Article 122(2), on which basis the EFSM was established, should no longer be used for such purposes. Therefore, our liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget will be removed, and that is directly in our interest.
My noble friend Lord Lamont asked just how solid this Article 122(2) decision is. He is right that it is a political decision and not a treaty agreement, but the decision itself, under Recital 4, says very clearly that Article 122(2) should not be used. That was a unanimous decision of all 27 members of the European Union and it would require a unanimous decision to undo it. My noble friend Lord Lamont can still say that is not as good as the absolute of being locked into a treaty, but it is almost impossible to imagine how we would proceed with undoing a unanimous decision, which very clearly has been made in very good faith and is underpinned by the unanimity rule of the European Union. I hope that reassures him. It probably will not reassure him completely, but that is a very firm and clear position.
Secondly, as the European crisis has gone from bad to worse, this is plainly having a chilling effect on the economy. I do not quite see how anyone can avoid that obvious fact. As the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have repeatedly made clear, stability in the eurozone states—and I choose my words carefully—is directly in the UK’s interest. If there was growth in the European economies rather than the stagnation and indeed the shrinkage that are now being predicted, that would be one of the keys to growth in the UK economy.
We rely on the eurozone countries for a very large part of our trade—40% is the estimate; it is more for the total of the European Union—and it is only part of the picture. Restored, confident stability in the eurozone states is directly in our national interest, and the resolution of the eurozone debt crisis would be a major boost to confidence in the British economy. I do not know whether it is priced into the market; some people say that it is beginning to be so.
Those are my broad comments. I have not gone nearly as far as some of your Lordships in discussing the whole history of the scene, and there have been some fascinating speeches from my noble friend Lord Dobbs and many others about the past, but those are the immediate considerations that we are looking at with this two-clause Bill.
I will now turn to some of the points made. If I do not refer to every speech, it is not because I do not think that some of the speeches were quite brilliant but because they perhaps did not raise precise questions but merely added their wisdom to the general debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Radice, began by saying that we should not stand aloof. I do not think that we are standing aloof. This Article 136 change alone is proof that we are not standing aloof and that we are providing not just comfort but a sound legal base for eurozone countries to go ahead with the ESM. Eurozone countries believe, although others would dispute it, that the ESM is one of the building blocks of the essential firewall to hold the eurozone together; or, as some speculate, if one country was breaking away, the ESM would hold it together even more firmly against further contagion.
I therefore do not think that the suggestion of aloofness stands, combined as it is with the more general view asserted by several of your Lordships that we are disengaged from our role in the European Union region. That is not true. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and indeed the whole Government have argued, rightly, that the great growth is increasingly going to come in Asia, Africa and the emerging markets. We must therefore pay attention to those, but not to the exclusion of the fact that we live in a very vital and potentially dynamic area full of creativity and attractions, and that we must somehow see its revival.
I have before me a list here of some of the growth initiatives that the UK Government are currently pressing. For all I know, these things may be discussed around the dinner table at the informal European Council meeting tonight. We have pressed very hard on the completion of the digital single market, which we think would see a 4% increase in the EU GDP over a 10-year period, and want to see it completed. We want to see full implementation of the services directive, which could add a further 1.8% to GDP. We are pressing for the completion of all open bilateral EU trade deals, which would add another €60 billion to the EU economy. A deal with the US, if we can bring it off, would be bigger than any other free trade agreement. We want the Commission to commit itself to a much more vigorous, new programme to reduce the overall regulatory burden. Those are just some of the growth points we are pushing and I think we will make some progress on all of them. To talk in terms of aloofness is not to represent the situation as it truly is.
My noble friend Lady Falkner rightly said that the Greek default is not easy—people talk about the possibilities of Greek default perhaps a little cavalierly, without being entirely clear whether we are talking about a nation going gently downstream through some mild rapids or being pushed over Niagara Falls. It might be either, and one has to be realistically responsible in analysing that and understanding that possibility.
I have already mentioned my noble friend Lord Lamont in relation to Article 122 and pricing in the markets. He asked me a series of very important questions about the ESM, which I am not deliberately ducking. I have here some very elaborate notes answering those questions on the ESM treaty, but we are not talking about that tonight. That is an intergovernmental treaty between the eurozone countries. We are talking about the treaty change that we are undertaking in Article 136. I hope that he will forgive me, and that other noble Lords will understand, if I do not read out all the details about AAA securities and other aspects of the ESM treaty. I will write to him in so far as I can answer them, but they are matters for the eurozone and not for this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, whose speeches I always enjoy, came again to this familiar theme that somehow Britain is marginal. I must say that I find this whole concept of being marginal to the problems of the eurozone yesterday’s argument and very dated. Many people now see this island, the United Kingdom —or these islands—as a safe haven, into which money, investment and wealth are pouring at a considerable rate. What does he mean by marginal? One could argue that a harbour that is reasonably well protected is marginal to the storm outside. It is not—it is merely the safe place to which people are going to come. Of course, he is right that if we are going to see the new fiscal pact lead to major political developments in the eurozone—and there is obvious dispute in this Chamber as to whether it will lead that way or to further fragmentation—then we are getting an evolving and new kind of Europe. I hope everyone will contribute to the debate on how that new kind of Europe should be best organised to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That is what I would say to the marginalists who keep on about isolation and so on. I do not think that is a realistic view of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and I had a good-natured hair-splitting about whether I was arguing one thing or another. I hope that I have made it clear that we are talking about the eurozone countries. The euro currency is another matter but he must concede, as I am sure that all your Lordships concede, that in the states that happen to be European states—including our great neighbours France and Germany—what happens to them and their economies clearly affects our country in a very big way. I do not think that that can be questioned.
My noble friend Lord Flight asked about the EFSM and whether it is cash. It is €48 billion of loans to Portugal and Ireland, at the moment, and the intention is that they will be repaid. We would be liable for 14.6% of anything that was not repaid but that would balloon up to the sort of figure referred to in the document that he mentioned only if every single one of the countries, except us, defaulted. It is technically true that we would then be liable but that seems to be so unlikely as to be on the verge of absurdity. Exposure to the ECB is only for a capital contribution for its operating costs, which is €58 million—not billions but millions. By the standards of these huge sums we are talking about, that is a fairly limited sum. Because we are a non-eurozone member, our liability does not go beyond that.
I think that my noble friend spoke about the EIB, which is a bank where there have been no defaulted loans at all. It has €43 billion of our capital and we would be in danger of exposure to that only if the bank itself was in danger, which it clearly is not. He may or may not have spoken about the EU balance of payments facility, which has been raised. It may have been raised in the document we talked about, but it is only for non-euro members. The liability arises with members who are not members of the eurozone, so it does not really arise in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, then made a speech which did not surprise me. He is a valiant trooper and worker in his own seam and of his own view, which he has put over the years. I admire valiance and courage even when I do not agree with it. He asked why we were not having a referendum when the Irish were. Of course, the Irish are having a referendum not on Article 136 but on the fiscal compact, which is somewhat different.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs made an excellent speech which I thoroughly enjoyed. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, began by saying that he was very happy, which alarmed me, but he soon got on to the unhappy part and seemed to be asking why we were not more part of this system. The implication was, “Why aren’t we in the eurozone?”. I do not think we need argue that out at the moment. We are very glad that we are not in the eurozone.
My noble friend Lord Dundee talked about co-ordination between the Council of Europe and the EU. His work on the Council of Europe has been marvellous and I see what he was getting at, but it does not directly arise from the actual Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right that I was surprised and delighted—I think that is the phrase—that he gave support. I was all set to debate with him something he said the other night: that he did not understand the concept of network power. I will take him aside on another occasion and explain to him that this is a very important concept. I would like brilliant minds such as his to engage with it to realise how we handle the positions of this country in the future, which is not entirely by relying on the blocs and alliances of the 20th century but by moving on.
There were other excellent speeches, which I must be forgiven for not commenting on in detail, from my noble friend Lord Risby and from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Reid. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, particularly echoed a fundamental view put so trenchantly by my noble friend Lord Lawson that this can never fly: that the eurozone is fundamentally flawed and will do nothing but bring more division and difficulty. That is a view but it is not the view of the Government, because we are not sure how things are going to work out. Anyone who claims that they are sure is misleading. We would like to see the eurozone system stabilised in one way or another. We think that there are great dangers for us all in not doing so. How that will be developed and what Mrs Merkel and the German Government will decide about the short-term question of their flexibility in relation to the Greek bailout terms are questions hanging in the air that I cannot answer from this Dispatch Box; and nor, I think, can anybody else. We believe that current events have demonstrated the importance of credible policy action to attempt to maintain and restore market confidence, which is clearly weak. We think now is the time to act. The eurozone has to take some kind of concerted action to sort itself out, and this legislation allows it to take a step in the right direction.
The treaty amendment is very much in this country’s interest. The establishment of the ESM by the eurozone member states will remove the UK’s liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget. Establishing the ESM, with the support of this Bill, will help eurozone member states find the path to the financial stability that in the end they must have. If they fail to have it, it will damage us all. That path to stability will have benefits for the UK and beyond. The ESM is only part of the way forward out of the eurozone crisis, but it is an important and valuable one. I therefore hope that your Lordships will share my views on this legislation.