European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she has been informed of the purport of the European Union Bill and has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.

In bringing this Bill before the House for Second Reading, I begin by outlining the Government’s approach to the European Union. When the coalition Government took office, we set out in our programme for government that we would pursue an “activist approach” to our engagement with the European Union. Since taking office, we can lay claim to a number of positive achievements in driving forward EU action. We led calls to set up free-trade arrangements in Pakistan, following the terrible floods there last year, and we have supported the free-trade agreement with South Korea. We have been at the forefront of the group of 25 member states that are keen to pursue enhanced co-operation in the field of intellectual property and, like the previous Government, we continue to be a prominent supporter of further enlargement.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been vocal in calling for effective EU action in the neighbourhood. Recent attention, as we all know, has focused on the countries of north Africa, but we also want to ensure positive action with the eastern partnership countries—in both cases, supporting the EU’s work to foster security, democracy and good governance.

Looking ahead, there are clearly great challenges for the European Union—for example, in growth and global competitiveness. Action on better regulation and widening further markets in services, energy and the digital economy could do much to help to lift our own economic prospects at this time. The EU should also perform more efficiently—for example, in connection with its budget.

However, we also need to tackle the clear evidence, accepted on all sides of the political debate, of a growing disconnection between the people of this country and the European Union. This disconnection exists in our understanding of, and engagement with, the European Union and in popular consent for the decisions taken on behalf of the people of this country by successive Governments.

I see the Bill as strengthening our position, role and effectiveness as a member state of the European Union and as contributing to the wider aim of helping the European Union to modernise and to rest its authority more solidly on public and popular consent. With this legislation, we are plainly acting here in the spirit of the Laeken declaration in seeking to bring the EU closer to its peoples. That seems to be a timely and appropriate aim for the era in which we live. There is no doubt that British people feel shut out and isolated from the business of the European Union. Although they can vote to keep their favourite competitor in a reality TV show or on whether to have a directly elected mayor in their town or city, they have not been able to have a say on whether the Government should agree to confer on the EU further powers to act.

Therefore, in accordance with this Government’s wider agenda to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to the people, and in accordance with the broader aspiration with our other EU partners to bring the EU closer to the people, we propose to shift power from the centre to the British people for decisions on whether powers should be transferred to the European Union. That is the primary objective of the legislation before us today.

Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account on EU decisions has also been limited and there have been many criticisms that there has not been enough examination of, or control over, significant decisions taken by the Government. Therefore, the Bill makes provision on the following issues. First, where a treaty change is deemed to transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU, it will in principle require the approval of the British people in a referendum, in addition to approval by Parliament. Secondly, parliamentary approval of treaty changes in all cases will mean by Act of Parliament, even those changes agreed under the so-called simplified revision procedure. Thirdly, any agreement to use certain of the so-called self-amending or passerelle clauses of the treaties will also require a referendum as well as an Act of Parliament in cases where there would be a transfer of power from the UK to the EU. Of course, that assumes that the Government of the day wish to support the use of a passerelle. Fourthly, any proposal to use other passerelle clauses that do not transfer power or competence from the UK to the EU will still require enhanced parliamentary approval, by an Act of Parliament or a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The Constitution Committee of this House published its report on the Bill last Thursday. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the Bill in advance of today’s debate. I welcome a number of the report’s conclusions, in particular those welcoming the provisions seeking to enhance parliamentary control over key decisions. That is very valuable. Another of the—

[Lord Richard]

It is very kind of the Minister to give way so early in his speech and in the debate. Perhaps he may be able to help us. When dealing with subjects for a referendum under Clause 4, he said that “in principle” certain subjects would attract a referendum. I do not know what those words mean. Do they mean that some discretion is left in relation to Clause 4 cases? Could the Government say, “We’re not going to have a referendum”? Or does it mean what it appears to mean—namely, that there is an automaticity in the process and that, if the issue falls within the terms of the clause, there must be a referendum?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I will be able to help the noble Lord on the meaning of “in principle”. He is quite right to spot that those words indicate that there are exceptions. I will explain exactly what those exceptions are. Briefly, they cover treaty changes that might not pass the significance test, which I shall explain later and help him on, and treaty changes that do not affect this country at all. I shall come to those in great detail and will be able to help him in a way that will satisfy him completely.

Another of the committee’s conclusions, consistent with its earlier inquiry, is that referendums in the United Kingdom should be reserved for matters of significant constitutional importance and that some of the matters subject to a referendum under the Bill could lead to numerous and costly referendums on small issues. I am not sure that I agree with that. First, the coalition Government have made a clear commitment that we will not agree to any treaty changes that transfer power or competence from the UK to the EU for the duration of this Parliament. Secondly, and more importantly, any treaty change is very unlikely to focus on single or individual transfers of power, for the simple reason that it must take into account the arduousness of ratifying treaty changes across all member states, of which we have vivid experience. The Lisbon treaty took 23 months to ratify in all 27 states and we expect a similarly lengthy process with the current treaty change on the eurozone’s stability mechanism and with future accession treaties. We do not believe that there is an appetite in the EU or in the member states for a further round of treaty changes that would transfer further powers, particularly on individual issues. That is our view on the matter.

Clauses 2 to 5 make provision for the process to be undertaken in the event of future treaty changes. I want to explain this and many other aspects in some detail and I hope that your Lordships will be patient with me. Clauses 2 and 3 are broadly similar but concern treaty changes agreed under the ordinary revision procedure and the simplified revision procedure respectively. Both clauses provide that all future treaty changes require parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament. At present, changes under the simplified procedure require only a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the first change that the Bill introduces straightaway is an enhancement of control in the case of so-called Article 48(6) decisions. Both clauses also provide that, where a treaty change of either type would also transfer power or competence from the United Kingdom to the EU, such a change should also be approved by the British people in a referendum. There is one exception to this—the so-called “significance condition” in Clause 3, which, as I indicated, I shall come to in detail in a moment.

Clause 4 sets out the detailed criteria that the Government of the day would have to apply to determine whether a transfer of competence or power would occur under a future treaty change. The Government make no apology for the complexity of the provisions. We want to make it clear for Parliament, the British people and, indeed, our EU partners and the EU as a whole where a referendum would be required under the Bill. We feel that a short, vague statement would leave any future decisions more open to challenge in Parliament and the courts. It would do little to increase the transparency of decision-making in the EU, which forms a fundamental part of the disconnection of the British people to these decisions—a matter about which the whole House is rightly concerned.

Whereas the principle of competence is fairly well defined in the EU treaties, the principle of power is not. Therefore, for the purposes of this legislation, I shall set out what we mean by a transfer of power. First, it means the giving up of a UK veto in a significant area of policy, because that would mean that the UK would lose the ability to block a future measure under that treaty article. Some of the vetoes in the treaties are in areas that all sides of the House consider important and sensitive—for example, foreign policy, tax, justice and home affairs. It is, and must be, right that any treaty change that would transfer from unanimity to qualified majority voting the way in which decisions were taken in those key areas of policy should require the consent of the British people before the Government could agree to such a change. These are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. We do not propose to hold a referendum over more minor or technical vetoes, such as any future agreement to change the number of representatives in the Committee of the Regions. The Government have therefore taken a balanced approach in deciding which vetoes should be subject to a referendum.

The second way in which power, which we are now talking about, would be transferred would be by granting an EU institution or body, through treaty change, a new ability to impose further obligations or sanctions on the UK or on individuals and organisations within the UK. It is this particular point on which, in the case of the simplified revision procedure, a Minister can determine that a future treaty may not be significant enough to require a referendum and instead rely on the requirement for parliamentary approval by Act. This is what is known in Clause 3 as the significance condition. We have provided for this test as we obviously recognise the need to be able to distinguish between important and minor changes. Therefore, we are providing a workable, sustainable solution to prevent referendums from being held on matters that we could not justify to the British public as having such significance as to merit a referendum—for instance, on giving an EU institution the power to require special statistics from a UK body or something of that nature.

[Lord Higgins]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. We have recently had a great many debates on referendums and, for the first time ever, we have created a precedent whereby a referendum—that in relation to the AV Bill—will be mandatory. All previous referendums have been advisory, rather than mandatory. We also had a long debate on what the turnout needed to be, and so on. Could my noble friend tell us, in regard to this Bill, whether it is proposed that the referendum should be mandatory or advisory?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

These referendums are mandatory. The Bill requires that these transfers of competence away from this nation to the European Union in these very important and fundamental areas cannot take place without the approval of a referendum. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the noble Lord reflect on his use of the words “competence” and “power”? He seems to be talking about cases where there is already a competence and a power to the European Union but where the decisions have to be taken by unanimity, and that that might be changed to qualified majority. I readily understand that that is a significant change, but it is not the granting of a power or competence to the European Union; it is already there. I am sorry, but I think I am right in saying that he is misusing those words all the time, as he is with the word “veto”, which is not a word known to European legislation. One either takes decisions by unanimity, in which case all member states have to agree, or by qualified majority.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think I agree with the noble Lord and I shall try to explain why in my remaining remarks. The word “competence” is of course very clearly defined in the treaties. There is no need to try to unravel that because it is defined in the treaties themselves. I agree that the word “power” is more difficult and I have been dealing with that. On removing the ability to veto, it may be that those precise words are not those to be found in the treaties but the action is clear enough. The removal of the ability of this country to veto certain proposals, so that they do not go to QMV, is a very clear adjustment or in some cases a surrender of power. I would not have thought that there was any difficulty about that.

Perhaps I may proceed with the explanation. I was saying that a prime example of a treaty change where we are not affected is the eurozone stability mechanism. The third is a treaty change which merely sought to codify EU practice in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence.

In all cases, any future treaty change will need to be considered according to a set process, provided for by this legislation. In accordance with Clause 5, a Minister of the Crown would be required to make a statement within two months of a treaty change being agreed at EU level. That ministerial statement will have to give reasons why the treaty change does or does not require a referendum, by reference to the criteria set out in Clause 4 of the Bill. Like any ministerial decision, it will be open to any member of the public to challenge the Minister's judgment in that statement through judicial review. An Act of Parliament would then be required in all cases of future treaty change. So the possibility of judicial review by the courts does not displace the role of Parliament, but offers an additional safeguard for the people to hold the Executive to account.

The EU Bill would also give Parliament greater control over whether the Government can agree to use of the self-amending provisions of the Lisbon treaty, which those of us who were here a few years ago will recall very well. Those decisions, known as passerelles or ratchet clauses, allow for modifications to the EU treaties without recourse to formal treaty change. Because of the lack of a universal definition of what constitutes a passerelle, and because the Government's aim is to ensure that our proposals are as clear as possible to Parliament and the public, we have set out explicitly which treaty articles would require additional levels of control.

As I made clear earlier, Clause 6 provides that any proposal to use passerelles which would entail a transfer of power or competence from the UK to the EU would require a referendum as well as parliamentary approval by Act. There are two broad categories of provision in Clause 6. The first is the passerelles, which enable the European Council to decide to remove a veto in an area we consider to be significant and where we have made equivalent provision in Schedule 1: for example, social policy, the environment, common foreign and security policy and EU finance. Secondly, there are five specific decisions involving a transfer of power or competence, for example, a common European defence or participating in a European public prosecutor's office.

Clause 7 makes provision to require that any proposal to invoke one of the passerelles that would not involve the transfer of power or competence from the UK to the EU should nevertheless be subject to primary legislation. Clause 8 makes provision for specific parliamentary controls over any future use of the so-called broad enabling clause in Article 352 of the treaty, well known to many of us, on the functioning of the European Union.

Clause 9 makes specific provision for three passerelles in the field of justice and home affairs. The UK enjoys a protocol in respect of this field which allows the Government to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to opt in to a justice and home affairs measure. We have provided that a Motion would need to be approved in both Houses before the Government could opt in to one of those measures. Once the negotiation has then taken place on the proposal, if it is acceptable to the Government, an Act of Parliament would then be required before the Government could agree finally to the proposal in the Council. This provision does not apply to all justice and home affairs opt-ins, only to those passerelle clauses listed in the Bill which, if used, would allow EU powers to expand within the scope of the competence already conferred on the EU in the treaties.

There are some additional proposals which would require parliamentary approval by passing a Motion in both Houses rather than by an Act. These are provided by Clause 10. There are treaty articles which modify the composition or rules of existing institutions and, for the most part, are subject to QMV.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Which other members of the EU are prepared to go down the route which the noble Lord recommends?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Different member states have different patterns, including, as the noble Lord will know very well, elaborate referenda procedures, all of which take a very long time. The noble Lord will also be familiar with the German constitutional court and with other constitutional provisions in other member countries. This may be too general a comparison, but I think he will agree that most countries have somewhat more elaborate provisions and controls through constitutional courts and referenda requirements than we have had hitherto in this country.

As I was saying, there are some additional proposals which require parliamentary approval by passing a Motion in both Houses. These are provided by Clause 10. A vote in both Houses is therefore a practical solution to enable Parliament to have an appropriate level of control.

I hope not to detain your Lordships very much more, but there are one or two final matters which it is right to put before you.

[Lord Richard]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will realise that this is a rather complex Bill, and we need to hear the expert opinions of the Government on it. I want to come back to the point that I made a little earlier, which he has not answered. What did he mean by “in principle”? If he looks at Clauses 3(4) and 4, he will see that the exemption condition or the significance point—they are the same thing—can only apply where,

“the decision falls within section 4 only because of provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(i) or (j)”.

Paragraphs (i) and (j) are perfectly clearly spelt out in Clause 4. What happens if it is not in paragraphs (i) or (j)? Presumably there is no question of significance or government discretion. There is no question of it being a decision for a referendum in principle. At that stage, if it is outside paragraphs (i) or (j) it is mandatory. It is compulsory in those circumstances to have a referendum.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, except, of course, where the other exemptions apply, in particular, the one I mentioned that the treaty, such as the one we discussed in this very House last night, does not affect the United Kingdom and there is no competence transfer or power transfer. In those, there is no referendum, but where there is a clear transfer of competence or power and the treaty is being changed to that effect, there is indeed a mandatory requirement for a referendum. It is on the major issues that I have described, which everyone in this House is concerned with. We have mentioned them all many times, so I shall just take one very topical one: should we join the eurozone? We feel it is right that the people should be consulted through a referendum and so do, I think, the majority of people in this country.

We also feel that it is right that at the lower level, where we are talking about matters being handled by an Act of Parliament rather than just a resolution through the House, it is right, and the Constitution Committee agrees with us, that there should be more effective parliamentary control over what is happening and the passing of powers and competences. I think the position is as I described it in considerable detail to my noble friend. If I did not satisfy him, and I suspect I have not, there will, no doubt, be plenty of opportunity in Committee to go through these things in even more minute detail than I am going through them now.

I want to refer to Clause 18 because it will be recalled that the coalition set out in our programme for government that we, the coalition, would examine the case for a United Kingdom parliamentary sovereignty Bill. Following that examination, the Government resolved to include a declaratory provision in this Bill which makes it clear that EU law has effect in the UK legal order for one reason only; namely, that that authority has been conferred upon it by Acts of Parliament and that its authority lasts only for as long as Parliament so decides. This is a principle that to date has been upheld consistently by our courts.

Nevertheless, in recent years, legal and constitutional academics and others have suggested that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty has been eroded by, among other things, our membership of the European Union. Put another way, European law has now acquired an autonomous status within the UK legal order independent of the will of Parliament through its Acts. This argument was advanced most vigorously by the prosecution in the so-called metric martyr's case—Thoburn v Sunderland City Council—in 2002. On that occasion, the Divisional Court rejected the plea. In order to guard against the risk of any such argument gaining credence in the future, we have decided that it would be beneficial to place it beyond speculation that directly effective and directly applicable EU law owes its status within the UK legal order because statute has provided that this be so. The clause is declaratory, but lays down a firm marker about the sovereignty of this Parliament.

Finally, I reaffirm our firm belief that this legislation would have a positive impact for the people and the democratic governance of this country. We also believe it would help address the democratic deficit across the whole of the European Union today. The Government are clear that this legislation will not have any adverse impact on the influence or the engagement of the United Kingdom in the European Union. On the contrary, colleagues in the EU have agreed that it is for member states to determine how they consider and approve key decisions. The President of the European Council made precisely this point on a recent visit to London. Although they have other constitutional frameworks—this meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—other member states have similar provisions to those in this legislation. Several have referendum provisions in specific circumstances and, as I said earlier, the German Parliament has a series of provisions to approve a similar set of passerelles as those listed in this Bill.

There is no suggestion that those provisions in other member states pose a hindrance to their influence, in particular in the case of Germany, and we do not accept that this will be the case with the United Kingdom either; on the contrary, as I outlined, the Prime Minister continues to lead the Government’s close engagement with our European partners on those areas of policy where the EU can make a positive difference to the people of this country. Nor would this Bill hinder the day-to-day business of the EU. The provisions of this legislation do not extend to those items of legislation that are proposed under the existing competences conferred on the EU under existing treaties save for those proposals involving passerelles listed in the Bill. These decisions remain, of course, within the scope of our existing parliamentary scrutiny arrangements.

This legislation represents a significant step forward in ensuring sufficient parliamentary and public control over the key decisions taken by the Government in the EU.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He passed rather rapidly over Clause 14, so perhaps I may take him back to it for a second before he sits down. I find it very puzzling. If, as most of us believe, parliamentary sovereignty is absolute, Clause 18 is not necessary. If I am wrong and parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute but could be overruled by another legal order, then nothing that we say in this Bill or this Act could change that. So Clause 18, surely, is either superfluous or ineffective.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is a good try, but it does not quite meet the point that what we are trying to do is put the principle into statute law rather than common law. It is a change in that degree; but, otherwise, I fully concede that it is declaratory and intended to reinforce the point, which is widely but not totally accepted. So it does make some difference. However, if the noble Lord is saying that it is not a decisive, world-shattering, course-altering piece of legislation, I would have to agree with him.

I was saying in conclusion that this legislation represents a significant step forward in ensuring sufficient parliamentary and public control over the key decisions taken by the Government. The Government’s clear aim is that this will become an enduring part of the United Kingdom's constitutional framework. It will serve to re-engage the people with the decisions taken in their name. It will give greater democratic legitimacy to the pursuit of the UK’s objectives as a leading member of the European Union and will play an important part in the necessary increase in the democratic legitimacy of the European Union as a whole, not just among the people of this country but among the people of all the member states of the European Union. This is all part of enabling us, the British, to play an active and activist role in the European Union, which is, we believe, clearly in this country's national interest.

This Bill has received considerable and considered scrutiny from another place. The House will note that during that scrutiny this legislation was unopposed both on Second Reading and on Third Reading and that no amendments were proposed in Committee or on Report which affected the fundamental provisions of the legislation. The EU Bill had the support of all sides of the other place. I am therefore hopeful that this legislation will receive similar support from all sides of your Lordships' House. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and beg to move.

Somalia

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the political situation in Somalia.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the political situation in Somalia remains fragile and its instability presents increasing threats to the region and beyond. We continue to work with the Transitional Federal Government and our international and regional partners to take forward the UN-led Djibouti peace process. We, together with the United States and others, have made clear to the transitional federal institutions that there can be no extension of their mandate without reform to make them more legitimate and representative in the eyes of the Somali people.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, for the past two decades, Somalia has been a classic failed state, yet within its territory is the autonomous enclave of Somaliland, the old British protectorate. It is democratic, it co-operates with the international community as regards pirates, it seeks its own independence and international recognition, and wishes to be a member of the Commonwealth. Amid all the turbulence in the Arab world, surely now is the time for the Government to encourage African Commonwealth members to raise the matter in the African Union in the hope that there can be proper international recognition of what is a successful entity: the old British Somaliland.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to this issue, and I recognise the stability and achievements of Somaliland. Indeed, that recognition is reflected in the specific aid for Somaliland that has been given. When it comes to recognition as an independent state, while that is something that the Somaliland people have sought, it really is a question of getting their neighbours to lead the way. At the moment there is no recognition of Somaliland as a separate state by any country in the world. It may be that it is through the African Union that a change of heart should come, but our position is that this is a matter that has to be settled by the Somali people themselves and their neighbours rather than unilaterally by us.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, three months ago, the UN Security Council authorised an increase in the strength of AMISOM from 8,000 to 12,000. Will my noble friend say what progress has been made in meeting that objective? Will he also identify the substantial gains in the territory controlled by the TFG and AMISOM as announced in an AU communiqué of 17 March, if necessary by publishing a map?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will look into the question of publishing a map, but, as far as progress in upgrading the strength of AMISOM is concerned, I am informed that the first 1,000 additional troops, provided by Burundi, were deployed early this month. The remaining troops are being provided by Uganda and are expected to deploy before the summer. As for the substantial gains, AMISOM carried out an offensive in Mogadishu from 19 February to 6 March, during which it was able to secure new ground, including vital areas around Bakara market. We are aware of other fighting between TFG-aligned militias and al-Shabaab elsewhere in the country, including in and around Bulo Hawo.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, have we not dangerously underestimated the reach and influence of al-Shabaab, not only in terrorising the people of Somalia but also in claiming responsibility for the deaths last year of 74 innocent people in Uganda? Should we not be doing more to highlight the depredations of al-Shabaab, which include the killing of Sufi and moderate Muslims, public executions, amputations, public flogging and stoning of women, the routine killing of journalists and the recruiting of child soldiers, some of whom have been responsible for some of the murders that I have mentioned? This has inevitably led to a large number of refugees leaving the country. What can the Minister tell us about the plight of those refugees, the human rights abuses and the export of al-Shabaab’s terror?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can certainly confirm that, as the noble Lord said, al-Shabaab is a vicious and dangerous group which has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in Somalia and the killing of soldiers, AMISOM troops, innocent civilians and parliamentarians, and which shows no regard for human life. The noble Lord asked what we could do. Her Majesty's Government have a Somalia strategy which they are pursuing. We are working with the AU, the EU and other allied forces and we are doing everything we can to establish a political strategy for the area. It is called a “dual-track” strategy, whose objective is to encourage both the transitional Government, provided that they commit to the right degree of reforms, and the bottom-up development of responsible and constructive groups who can oppose these very unpleasant people. They are a real danger, and the noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to their vicious and unacceptable activities.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on the question of reform? In his Answer, he said that there would be no extension of the transitional institutions’ mandate without reform to make them more legitimate in the eyes of their own people. What help is being given by DfID in this reform process and how is it being co-ordinated with help from the European Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I say in response to the second part of the noble Baroness’s question that we are supporting the European Union training mission, which trains up personnel and returns them to Mogadishu to assist policing and the upholding of law and order, such as it is in the area. We are working with it on a number of other programmes as well. As a result of the DfID review, the UK has agreed to provide up to £250 million—a very considerable amount indeed—in support of Somalia over the next four years, but we shall have a review of how that is going halfway through, in 2013. Our objective is to help support prosperity and tackle poverty across Somalia and to support efforts at peacebuilding and reconciliation at national, regional and, as I was saying a moment ago, at local level. It is the co-operation of the transitional Government and their commitment to this programme that are the conditions on which we base our support for them.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work being done by Missions to Seafarers Mombasa in providing counsel and support for seafarers who have been freed after having been hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia? Will he join me in affirming the wonderful work undertaken by Missions to Seafarers, not least through the promotion of an annual Sea Sunday, which this year, on 11 July, will highlight the problem of Somali piracy?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We are aware of this excellent work. It reminds us all of the much wider problem of piracy—which has been discussed in the House—which has been getting worse. The UK Government are taking the lead through the contact group and a variety of other co-operative links with the EU NAVOR Operation Atalanta, the Combined Maritime Task Force 151 and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2. A co-ordinated effort is coming together to meet the overall piracy issue, the basic roots of which, given the instability of Somalia, lie as much on land as they do on the high seas.

European Council Decision: EUC Report

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That, in accordance with Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, this House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft European Council Decision EUC 33/10.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the European Union Committee.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, this Motion is a necessary part of the process leading to a treaty change required by the member states of the European Union in the eurozone. I shall explain the purpose of, and need for, the Motion in detail in a moment. However, at the outset I observe that it is very much in the United Kingdom’s national interest that this House, under the terms of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which we all recall, should approve this Motion without amendment so that the Prime Minister may support the adoption of the draft European Council decision to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union at the European Council meeting scheduled for 24 and 25 March.

As the Leader of the House made clear in his Statement following the December European Council, no one should doubt that stability in the eurozone is important for the United Kingdom. A large proportion of our trade is with the eurozone and London is Europe’s international financial centre. It is because of this interrelationship that the UK’s financial institutions and companies, both big and small, have huge exposure to the banks and businesses based throughout the eurozone. Worsening stability is therefore a real threat to the UK economy, as I am sure all your Lordships appreciate.

In explaining the background, I begin by reminding the House of the conclusion drawn on this proposed treaty change by the European Union Sub-Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs and International Trade at its meeting on 1 February. In his letter to the Minister for Europe, the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union said:

“We fully support your view that it is in the UK’s interest to support a stable and prosperous Eurozone. Given that this Treaty amendment would not apply to, or have any financial risks for, the UK, we support your intention to vote in favour of this amendment. We have agreed to clear this document from scrutiny”.

From that background quotation I move to the reason why are we having this short debate this evening. First, Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act, arising of course from the Lisbon treaty, requires that when a draft decision under the simplified revision procedure—that is, Article 48(6) of the treaty—is proposed, a Minister must introduce a Motion and have it passed by both Houses without amendment before the Prime Minister can signal his agreement to the adoption of that draft decision at a subsequent European Council. Secondly, if the House approves this Motion, it authorises the Prime Minister to agree to this draft decision and this draft decision alone at the European Council. Should there be any amendment to the draft decision at the European Council, the Prime Minister could not agree to it at the European Council without first coming back to another place and this House for additional approval. Therefore, the draft decision referred to in this Motion will be the version that is agreed at the European Council. There can be no other without the further approval of this House in a further debate such as the one that we are having tonight.

If the draft decision is adopted by the European Council under Article 48(6), all 27 member states must then also approve the treaty change in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements before the decision can enter into force. This means that the treaty amendment itself will not come into effect until the UK and all other member states approve or ratify the adopted decision.

However, if the European Union Bill, which has just been introduced to this House and will have its Second Reading tomorrow, becomes law, this treaty change will also be subject to Parliament’s approval by Act before the UK can ratify it. We have made it clear that we shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of that Bill. In other words, there will be a full further opportunity for your Lordships to debate this matter when the treaty change comes forward in due course for ratification, which under our new procedures will require the full processes of primary legislation. That is an important change from the position in the past.

I turn to how the proposed treaty change came about. As your Lordships will know, it originates from the need for a permanent mechanism to be established by the member states of the euro area to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole. That is an obvious need. In May last year, the European Union established two emergency instruments to respond to financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility. This is a temporary facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states to provide loans to euro area member states in difficulty. It is a limited fund and is due to end in June 2013. The second is the European financial stability mechanism, which the coalition Government, of whom I am a member, 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 EU budget. It therefore creates an indirect liability for the United Kingdom. That is a very important point.

Against the backdrop of continued uncertainty in financial markets, the members of the European Council agreed in December to amend Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to provide that member states of the eurozone may establish a permanent stability mechanism. This mechanism, the European stability mechanism or ESM, will provide a necessary means for dealing with cases that pose a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, so it is important to us given the extent of our trade with it. This is what we are dealing with tonight.

The details of how the ESM will operate are being discussed in Brussels. In accordance with the conclusions of the December European Council, member states whose currency is not the euro can be involved, on a voluntary basis, in finalising work on the design of the ESM, which will be established by intergovernmental arrangement among the eurozone member states. My colleagues at the Treasury are responsible for overseeing the UK input to these discussions.

I stress that although we are involved on a voluntary basis in the design of the mechanism—it is very much in our interest to be so—we cannot and will not be part of it. In fact, we could not be part of it unless we joined the euro area. As the whole House is aware, this Government will not join the euro and, if the EU Bill becomes law, any future Government who wished to do so could join only with parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament and the British people’s approval by referendum. I should like to reassure your Lordships that the proposed treaty change does not and will not transfer any competence or power from the United Kingdom to the European Union. As I said, this treaty change is in our national interests. Instability in the eurozone has direct implications for the UK and all the other economies in the single market and beyond.

On top of that, the Prime Minster negotiated successfully two important objectives. First, as the conclusions of the December European Council confirm—that is the so-called recitals—once the ESM is established to safeguard the stability of the euro area, Article 122(2), on which basis the old EFSM was established, will no longer be used for such purposes. Our liability for helping to bail out the euro area through European Union borrowing backed by the EU budget will cease. It is crucial to our interests that it does cease. Secondly, securing a tight budget for the future is our highest priority. At the last two European Councils, Britain led an alliance of member states in limiting the 2011 EU budget increase to 2.91 per cent, as your Lordships have already discussed and debated in this House. In moving forward, working alongside key partners such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, we are committed to a real-terms freeze in the EU budget from 2014 to 2020 and we have written to the President of the European Commission setting out our position.

Without this Motion this evening, the consequences would be serious and damaging for Britain. The Prime Minster would not be able to signal his support for the draft decision at the March European Council next week and the decision then could not be adopted, as like all other treaty changes it requires unanimity. This means that, if it failed, Britain would remain indirectly liable for eurozone bailouts through the EFSM, as it would not have been replaced by the ESM. By supporting the adoption of this treaty change at the March European Council, the UK will be supporting the members of the eurozone to establish a permanent mechanism, which will make clear the responsibilities of all the members of the eurozone to each other and to the overall stability of the euro area.

That means that we will ensure that our current indirect liability for eurozone bailouts comes to an end in 2013. As this new mechanism is established using the treaty provisions specific to members of the euro area, it will not apply to non-euro area member states and cannot confer any obligations on them. I hope that I have provided your Lordships with an explanation of the mechanisms, which I agree are not simple, and the purposes for passing this Motion tonight. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I said in my opening remarks that we are creating a precedent. It would be unfortunate if that precedent were to be that Motions are agreed by this House on the nod, without proper scrutiny. I fully understand and sympathise with the noble Lord that many of the technical aspects of the ESM were agreed only a week ago. But it was a full week ago. Surely we could have considered what those mechanisms were, and the Government could have made a report to this House explaining the mechanisms which have been agreed and assessing their impact on the UK. If we are unable to assess the actual measures precisely, then—if the noble Lord really has respect for this House—he should withdraw this Motion and bring it back with proper documentation so that we can fully assess the impact of the actual mechanism which we are being asked to agree.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken on this Motion and applied their—in many cases—extremely acute learning and expertise to the various issues that arise. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who has just spoken with the tremendous skill of a professional economist, if I may dare call him that—but anyway an expert—made some very acute points. He seemed at one point to come very near to questioning the whole future virtue of the euro and the eurozone and asking me to describe details of the ESM system, of which of course the design is not yet complete. He is asking me to produce something that simply does not exist yet and, much as I am anxious to please him, I cannot do that this evening. The ESM has yet to be completed. The British Government will be involved in input to that design, but we will not actually be part of it—so I am not quite sure how I can describe something that has not yet been put together yet. I would love to try, but I am not sure how I can do it.

[Lord Eatwell]

Would the Minister explain why he is asking this House to agree to a Motion that he asserts is going to be in the best interests of the UK when he does not even know the mechanism that the Motion will create?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

For the obvious reason that, in order to go ahead with the design of the ESM, there has to be first this Motion and then the alteration of the treaty, which under our new provisions of the EU Bill will also be debated in this House. We have to start the process off. If the proposition is that we cannot start until we know everything and that we are not going to know everything until we start, the noble Lord is asking me to go around in circles. That is often the fate of those in government, but in this case I prefer to begin to proceed on a process. Of course, I cannot stand here and say that what is going to emerge for the ESM and members of the eurozone will all be wonderful and work perfectly and that the eurozone will be happy for ever. The noble Lord could not reasonably expect me to be able to say that. I have no idea, as there are major issues of a geopolitical, political and economic nature lying ahead for the organisation of a financial structure for the eurozone, and none of us can be dead certain how these things will turn out. What one can say is that this is a move in the direction of trying to stabilise the eurozone, which the Government believe is in the interests of the United Kingdom. The noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart, took different views, but that is what we believe and that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The Minister is confirming what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said and what I asked him in my few remarks. We are being asked to agree something when we do not know what it will be. Why cannot we agree to the next phase going ahead and then make a final decision when we know what we are talking about? Why cannot we do it that way around?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Perhaps the noble Lord has not understood. That is exactly what your Lordships are being asked to do—to go ahead with the next phase. The Motion is required under the Lisbon treaty legislation; there will be a full debate on the new primary legislation, which we will start debating tomorrow. This is the next phase. The alternative is obviously to stand pat and do nothing, which the Government believe very strongly would be a serious and damaging step, which might lead, although I cannot guarantee it, to very serious damage for this country. So it seems right to take the next step forward. That is what both Houses of Parliament have been asked to do in order that the Prime Minister can take the necessary measures at the European Council later this week. Noble Lords are quite right—I said next week but I meant this week.

One or two of the points that have been raised are complex and important. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to the excellent Select Committee report which confirmed a number of the points that I have made, including the very important one that Article 122(2), which is the one governing the EFSM, will no longer be used. That is just as well because it had a liability for the UK.

My noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked two questions. The first was on whether Article 125 was compatible with having no bailout. He asked whether I, with a straight face, could make various assertions on that matter. I will give him what is in the brief before me, which has some strong validity. Article 125 of the treaty provides a clear assurance that no member state shall receive a bailout. However, it does not preclude the EU or member states from providing loans to one other. The EU’s balance of payments facility has already provided medium-term financial assistance to a number of member states. Article 2(1) of the EFSM regulation makes it clear that the financial assistance it envisages is strictly confined to either a loan or a credit, so that would need to be paid back. That is the explanation. I am a little worried about the straightness or otherwise of my face, yet that makes reasonable sense to me. It has been a matter of lively debate in other countries, such as in the Bundestag, but that is the answer that I have to his question.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, surely the Minister must agree that when a loan is not repaid it becomes a commitment?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

All I can say is that this is how the debate has gone and these are the decisions that have been taken by those in the eurozone, which does not include us, who decided to go ahead and move from the EFSM to the ESM. The noble Lord has a different opinion of the financial aspects and is a financial expert of no small degree, so he may be right. However, that is not the view taken by the German Government or by the other Governments of the eurozone area.

My noble friend Lord Lamont also asked about the competitiveness pact. I can tell him that the latest draft of the pact makes it clear that:

“The Pact will fully respect the integrity of the Single Market”.

I am then advised that non-eurozone countries—such as us, among others—have been invited to join the pact and that we are assessing whether we should do so. I add that many of these points tonight point in the same direction and that we are really getting into the issues which we will be discussing on the new EU Bill tomorrow, when we shall have its Second Reading.

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord said that the Government were still considering whether to join the competitiveness pact. Is that the position: that this matter is still open?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is different from what the noble Lord said, so he is not quite right that that is the position. I was going on to say that under the provisions of the EU Bill, which has its Second Reading tomorrow, any question of a movement of competence or powers from the UK to the European Union arising from any of these things is subject to the most rigorous procedures—in many cases, a referendum procedure but certainly an Act of primary legislation—which make it more or less impossible for them to be, as it were, slipped by or to be involved in any kind of competence creep. That is the position in answer to my noble friend Lord Lamont.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, took a familiar position and did not think that we should be propping up the eurozone at all. I admire his concern for the German taxpayer, as he is clearly worried about our German friends and the amount of tax that they might have to pay if liabilities arise. He asked if we were setting up a transfer union. My judgment—this is from outside because we are not a member—would be that the eurozone members are not setting up a transfer union because that would require a far bigger budget at the centre than anything that operates under the present European Union organisation and rules. I think that the answer is no, but really that is a question that was posed by German Bundestag Members and answered by the German Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I want the eurozone to succeed. That is why I was particularly concerned about the structure of the ESM, as agreed last weekend. I asked several rather technical questions about that. I am content if the noble Lord does not feel that it is appropriate to answer those questions this evening, but I wonder if he would undertake to write to me and answer them.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will undertake to write if I can get hold of the propositions that the noble Lord is asking about. If he is asking me to describe exactly how the ESM will work, I cannot yet do so because it has not been designed. We are taking a step towards the point where design of the ESM can begin. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would rather we did not take that step forward. However, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is extremely expert in this field, and his party want this to go ahead. We should take this first step. I know I will not be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in describing the exact design of the ESM system because the mechanism is under construction.

The noble Lord also had some fun—it was rather enjoyable—by asking how we could hold two views that he believed to be contradictory. One is that the ESM would directly benefit the UK or, to put it negatively, that failure to go ahead with the ESM would greatly damage the UK. At the same time, we were not involved in it. The remark of, I think, an American philosopher passed through my mind: the mark of an intelligent mind is to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. It may be that it is the mark of an intelligent Government to do the same. It is of course possible to argue, as I have this evening and I stand by it, that standing in the way of this next step is standing in the way of a step that may lead to better things and greater stability for the eurozone. We judge, contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this is an improvement and is good for the British economy, British prosperity and the British people.

That is not the same as saying that we are involved in the powers, competencies and arrangements of the ESM. We are not. We have been in the EFSM and we were liable. We will cease to be liable in the future, once we can get this system in place. The first step is now required and it is one that the Prime Minister wishes to take, quite rightly, in the interests of this nation at the European Council meeting at the end of this week.

There will be, I repeat, a second opportunity to debate this treaty change during ratification, in line with the provisions of the EU Bill once it becomes law. Your Lordships will be addressing their minds to it at Second Reading tomorrow. Under the EU Bill, all treaty changes require primary legislation to be ratified, so this is not the end of the matter by any means. It is a start and it is a good start—the right start in the interests of this nation.

Motion agreed.

Bahrain

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the political situation in Bahrain.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Government are gravely concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Bahrain and are monitoring the situation closely. The Prime Minister spoke by telephone to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on 15 March and called on him to end the violent oppression of street protests in Bahrain. The Prime Minister said that it was vital that the Bahraini authorities responded through reform, not repression, and he called for restraint on all sides. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated those points when he spoke to the Bahraini Foreign Minister yesterday. The Government call on the authorities in Bahrain to respect the right to peaceful protest and to respond to the legitimate concerns of the Bahraini people. There must be open access to hospitals and medical care. The Government call on the protesters to refrain from violence and we urge them to respond positively to the offer of national dialogue.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Does my noble friend accept that Britain has a special moral responsibility in the case of Bahrain, as it promised independence and constitutional government when it handed independence to Bahrain in 1971? Given the invitation from the Bahraini royal family for the Saudis to intervene, does my noble friend agree that this has eerie resonances of the Warsaw pact in 1956 and 1968 and, most recently, of Afghanistan in 1979? Does he intend calling in the Saudi ambassador and asking what the Saudis’ intentions are and when they expect to go back over the causeway to oppress their own people, which they seem to do rather well?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

With respect to my noble friend, the historical analogies can be overdone. The situation in Bahrain is different, as the king and the ruling authorities have sought dialogue, although it is perfectly true that this pattern does not seem to be working out at present. As to the position of Saudi Arabia, it is correct that Gulf security forces—I emphasise that it is not just Saudi but GCC forces, including a UAE deployment—have been deployed in Bahrain. We are of course concerned at the escalating situation and it is clearly vital the outside forces exercise the highest restraint and avoid violence. I am informed that the incoming forces are not involved in direct policing but are concerned with safeguarding installations. Dialogue and discussions with the Saudi Arabian ambassador are no doubt in hand and the Foreign Office will have close contact with him and other authorities.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, is not the United Kingdom’s position somewhat compromised since we have not only been an ally of the Bahraini kingdom but supplied equipment to be used in riots and so forth? What is being done to review those exports?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is perfectly correct that we have regarded Bahrain as a friend. Indeed, the GCC forces, which include Bahraini forces, have a variety of equipment, some of which is of British origin. As the Trade Minister told your Lordships the other day, all export licences are considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of prevailing circumstances and, once approved, are kept under review. Every licence is scrutinised in the light of changing facts on the ground and if the situation in a country changes significantly, as is clearly happening not just in Bahrain but in other Middle Eastern countries, it is normal practice to review licences, as was done for Bahrain back in February. Of course there are dilemmas and difficulties, but we seek to support those aspects of the situation—in this case, national dialogue—that will bring stability and peace and minimise bloodshed.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that update on the political situation in Bahrain. However, the Foreign Office is having to assess not only the political situation in Bahrain but the consular implications, given that we hear today that Britons are being advised to move out of Bahrain if they can. This is not the only crisis that the Foreign Office is dealing with, as there is the crisis in Japan—of which we are all acutely aware—and the crisis in Libya, too. We have three major crises, any of which would at one time be a huge burden on Foreign Office capacity. We have heard that there have been slip-ups over people going into Japan. I am not making an issue out of that but I am saying to the noble Lord that the Foreign Office is working all hours with this huge burden of three simultaneous crises. The noble Lord is a wise man and a very sensible man, and I do not say that in a back-handed way but because I think he is the most experienced head around the ministerial table. Will the noble Lord now ask his colleagues to look again at Foreign Office staffing, and in particular at the staffing for consular issues that arise out of such crises?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness speaks from considerable experience and she offered, I think, some kind words—I am not quite sure how kind they were. She is absolutely right that these crises come not in ones and twos but in battalions. I actually make it that we are dealing with five major crises at the moment in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and this of course places a considerable strain on our extremely dedicated and hard-working staff. The question of support at the consular and other levels is under constant review. We believe that in the present situation—she has mentioned Japan, but there is also the Libyan problem, the Middle East generally and Bahrain, which we are talking about—we can cope with these matters efficiently and are doing so in terms of giving the right travel advice. For those who have been advised to get out of Bahrain, we are offering support for their travel and removal with charter flights. These things can be done. Occasionally there are, inevitably, some hiccups and problems, but we believe we are on top of the situation, and the question of staffing is under constant review.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, while welcoming the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday calling for reform and not repression, is it not a fact that we have spent years cosying up to the hereditary dictators in Bahrain, which makes it difficult for us to change our line to suit current circumstances? Is the noble Lord doing anything about the killing of six peaceful demonstrators yesterday, the importation of the foreign mercenaries and the re-arrest of six opposition leaders who have only just been released from weeks and weeks of illegal detention and torture?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have considerable respect for my noble friend, who is constantly campaigning for human rights and justice in all these areas, as he is right to do, even among those with whom we have had good relations in the past. I think that “cosying up” is slightly the language of the media. We were dealing with a country which was at peace, was well administered and was supportive of dialogue and reform. There is no comparison at all with Gaddafi and his crazed approach in Libya, where there is a different situation.

However, my noble friend is also quite right that the arrests of political figures give us great concern. We do not want to see a reversion to the days when Bahrain routinely held political prisoners. We argued against that. The Government and the security forces must respect the civil rights of peaceful protestors, including the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. We make those points to those who have been our friends and we believe that, having had well intentioned relationships in the past, we can carry more influence. Of course, in the present situation we have to work hard to get that influence through.

Middle East: Rule of Law

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to promote and support the rule of law in the countries of the Middle East.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, in the Kuwaiti Parliament on 22 February last my right honourable friend David Cameron affirmed that we stand with the people and Governments of the Middle East,

“who are on the side of justice, of the rule of law and of freedom”.

As part of Britain’s long-term approach to, and friendship with, the region, and drawing on UK legal expertise, this Government undertake a range of activities to assist in promoting the rule of law. This includes training and mentoring to help build the skills and capacities of judges, justice ministries, lawyers and the police, and specialist support to develop policy and unlock legislative reform.

[Lord Soley]

I am sure that the Government and the House will agree that the lack of rule of law and democracy and human rights in the Middle East underpins so much of the instability and conflict in the area. I know that the Minister is aware of the proposal that I made to Zayed University in Abu Dhabi with outreach into Palestine to develop the rule of law in Palestine and Abu Dhabi. We have a very special position in the United Kingdom because of our expertise and history on the rule of law. Will the Minister continue to support the proposal that is now well developed for Palestine and Abu Dhabi to link up on the first postgraduate programme including human rights and international law in the Middle East?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I am aware, as I think the noble Lord knows, of the project to set up the postgraduate school of law at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi combining Palestinian and Abu Dhabi endeavours. We welcome that as an excellent initiative and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State, Alistair Burt, has also indicated his welcome for it and suggested ways in which we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can assist with the project.

[Lord Hylton]

Can the noble Lord confirm that this country has already assisted in setting up a system of courts in Qatar, and will they offer similar help to Bahrain and other Gulf States? Finally, would Commonwealth legal models provide suitable examples for similar systems in the Middle East?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the final point from the noble Lord, who knows a great deal about these things, I think the answer is yes. Of course, we are active in offering legal assistance and legal training help in all those countries in the region that wish to accept it, which is most of them. In addition, we have the Arab Partnership Fund, which highlights priority areas for action, including the rule of law and anti-corruption work, throughout the Middle East and north African region. Obviously at the moment there are some problems in the way of carrying on these programmes, but wherever they are wanted and needed, we are pressing to offer them.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the rule of law must be predicated on an element of justice alongside freedom, and that most of the Middle East countries have used terrorism laws in the aftermath of 9/11 to put on their statute books some of the most repressive and catch-all legislation there is? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned Bahrain, which has very repressive anti-terrorism laws. Are we working with these countries to help moderate their attitude towards terrorism and to provide a little more scope for peaceful dissent without dissenters being entrapped by those laws?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The short answer is yes. My noble friend is completely realistic in pointing out that there were some undesirable practices and programmes in the past. Our view is best encapsulated by a quotation from the Prime Minister when he said in Kuwait the other day:

“It is not for … governments outside the region to pontificate about how each country meets the aspirations of its people. It is not for us to tell you how to do it, or precisely what shape your future should take”,

in these countries. He continued:

“But we cannot remain silent in our belief that freedom and the rule of law are what best guarantee human progress and economic success”,

in each country. That is the principle on which we proceed. Where we find obstacles, we will seek to overcome them.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister gave such enthusiastic support to an initiative that was actually begun by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton when he sat on the Woolsack. Are the Government specifically encouraging the very useful work that the Law Society and the Bar Council have undertaken in a number of countries in the Middle East?

I also agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, that human rights lie at the heart of the rule of law. In so far as that is concerned, will the Government particularly direct their attention to encouraging the countries of the Middle East to sign up to the protocols against the death penalty and the use of torture, and the protocol for joining the International Criminal Court, as Tunisia has done since the revolution?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the answer is yes to all those points, and certainly to the support of the Bar Council. There is also the Justice Assistance Network, a cross-governmental network that draws on UK expertise to provide coaching, mentoring and twinning support for judges, prosecutors and court staff. We are active and positive in all these areas, and we recognise the work done by both the noble Baroness and the previous Government in this area.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, I should disclose that I am the president of the court referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. In that connection, perhaps I may underline the contribution being made by many law firms in the Middle East. Does the noble Lord agree that what will happen is that those countries will look at the way we observe the rule of law in this country? In those circumstances, is it not critically important to show that we meticulously observe the rule of law and recognise the importance of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to our own situation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble and learned Lord is drawing me into a major and vastly important area on which I am not going to comment today except to say that his contribution to it is of course enormous and that we recognise the value of his opinions. But the broader question of the European Court of Human Rights, how it works and its relationship to the EU as a whole and to this country, is one that no doubt we will debate in this House vigorously in the coming weeks.

Côte d’Ivoire

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the United Nations and the European Union on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, through the European Union and the United Nations, the United Kingdom offers its support for firm action on Côte d’Ivoire in the UN and the EU, and gives broad support to the work of the African Union. We supported the reinforcement of the UN peacekeeping force and continue to urge a robust interpretation of its mandate. We also supported swift action in the EU to apply strong and appropriate restrictive measures against those who support and sustain Mr Gbagbo’s regime. With our EU partners, we will review and reinforce these measures as necessary.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response. Does he agree that while the world focuses on Japan and North Africa, we must also respond to the growing humanitarian and security emergency in Côte d’Ivoire? Some 400,000 people have been displaced, and 75,000 of them have already moved into Liberia, one of the poorest countries in the world. How will the UK respond to urgent appeals for aid for Côte d’Ivoire and, indeed, for other countries in the region that are affected such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ghana?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is entirely right. What is happening in Côte d’Ivoire raises broad concerns that affect the global community, not just this country. I have particularly in mind the horrific murder of several women who only the other day were shot down in cold blood in Abidjan. I have been asked how we support these matters. We do it chiefly through the UN and the European Union. Our own Department for International Development is monitoring the situation and provides direct help, particularly to refugees, to whom the noble Baroness specifically referred. So, frankly, our support is not mainly bilateral but through international institutions and the EU, working in support of France which tends to take the lead in these matters. However, the situation is a worry for all those concerned with civil rights and the promotion of peace and stability in Africa. What is happening at the moment is extremely worrying.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I hope my noble friend understands that I am not advocating that we send a gunboat, given that we have very few gunboats left to send. However, will he consider the successful operation in Sierra Leone a few years ago? Given the support that, importantly, the African Union has given to Mr Ouattara’s successful election, what practical help can the Government offer to try to get rid of the deposed president?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

When it comes to detailed help, particularly if force is involved, ECOWAS is the organisation that is bound to take the lead. In principle we support the proposals made by ECOWAS, but we think that the authority of the United Nations is needed before they are taken forward. If there is to be that kind of pressure backing up the views of the African Union High Level Panel, of which I am afraid Mr Gbagbo took not the slightest notice, any such firm intervention should be made through the ECOWAS system.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, given that the focus so far has been on mediation between the two parties in Côte d’Ivoire, is it not now time to abandon that since it is clearly not working? Any attempt to broker an agreement between the two candidates, one of whom failed to be elected and one of whom succeeded, is simply futile and fuels the problem?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think it has been right to try mediation and talk, but the noble Lord may be pointing in the direction in which things develop. Mr Gbagbo has flatly rejected any attempt at compromise and his troops continue to commit violent acts in Abidjan, as I described a moment ago. The lawfully elected president, Mr Ouattara, remains unable to take over his lawful position. Things may go that way, but in the African Union and ECOWAS there is a great wish to see whether it can be done without bloodshed first.

[Lord Fraser of Carmyllie]

My Lords, some considerable time ago, I was invited by the trading company Trafigura to conduct an independent inquiry into the alleged dumping of slops in Côte d’Ivoire by it. That followed an invitation to which I responded positively to conduct an inquiry led and asked for by the Labour Administration in the Scottish Executive into the cost overrun of the Scottish Parliament. I am delighted to say that a Labour Lord Chancellor had the generosity of spirit to say to me that that was exactly the way to write a report. Subsequent to that, not a single member of the deposed president’s Cabinet responded to me. They were clearly gagged. It seems to me that I was getting dangerously close to the truth that there was widespread corruption in that Administration, and that is why they do not wish to relinquish office. Do I take it from my noble friend’s previous answers that he is telling me that I should just stay silent until democracy is restored to that benighted country?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Perish the thought that I should ask my noble and learned friend to stay silent on these matters. His experience and his skill and expertise in this area and many others in the legal and other fields are very considerable, as we all recognise. He describes an interesting bit of history. Indeed, modern developments confirm that in the matter of Mr Gbagbo we are dealing with a very unsavoury character who is clinging on to power illegally and no doubt using extremely dubious means to do so. That is recognised by the African Union, the United Nations and, certainly, by Her Majesty's Government.

Shipping: Piracy

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to mitigate and eventually eradicate the hijacking of United Kingdom shipping by Somali pirates.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government contribute warships to multinational counterpiracy operations and command the European Union operation. We work with industry to implement best management practice by ships to minimise the risk of a successful hijack, but the long-term solution lies on land with the rule of law and increased stability. The United Kingdom is leading international action in the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia to deliver a comprehensive response to Somali piracy.

[Lord Naseby]

Is my noble friend aware that the situation gets ever more serious? Two major tankers have been hijacked in recent days, nearly 800 hostages are being held, and now no less than 10 mother ships are extending the amount of ocean in which the hijackers can operate. Since we as Her Majesty’s Government are in the lead role, is it not time that in conjunction with our partners we use some of the UAV planes to pinpoint where these mother ships are and, if necessary, either sink them by an armed UAV or find some other means of sinking them? After all, the Tamil Tigers’ navy was put out of action only by the Sri Lankan navy sinking the mother ships.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. The situation is getting more serious every week. More and more ships are being attacked by the hijackers and the piracy operation is growing, so he is completely right to recognise the seriousness, as do Her Majesty’s Government. We are, as he says, in the lead on the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia. We are seeking to develop more substantial facilities to meet and track the pirates. The question of the UAVs is difficult. We have none, but of course our American allies do. A great many of these are currently deployed elsewhere, but my noble friend can rest assured that we intend to develop a more robust response in relation to these and other kinds of maritime air patrol because it is certainly needed.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of reports of a deal between the pirates and al-Shabaab, an affiliate of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whereby the terrorists cream off some of the money that goes to the pirates. Do the Government accept that this is likely to be true? If so, will it not have an affect on us in the possible financing of terrorism through the diaspora in the UK and in possibly making insurance companies in the UK liable for that financing?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have certainly heard of these reports and there are a great deal of rumours surrounding the whole question of the relationship between pirates, pirate finance and terrorism in the region, but we have no firm evidence of this particular pattern of transaction. It is, however, something that we are investigating and watching very carefully indeed.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, the Minister said quite rightly that the causes of piracy as opposed to the symptoms must be dealt with on land and cannot be dealt with at sea. Could he therefore tell us what progress is being made in engaging with, and building capacity within, what passes for the authorities in Puntland?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

In Puntland, Somaliland and Somalia itself we are making efforts to reinforce the facilities for both the prosecution and the imprisonment of pirates, so progress is being made. Frankly, Puntland is a rather more difficult region than Somaliland, which is very co-operative. In Somalia itself the transitional regional Government are working to build prisons and improve facilities. There is, of course, the wider problem in Kenya with which the noble Lord will be familiar. Some progress is being made, but it is not very easy.

[Lord Chidgey]

Is my noble friend aware that since January the Indian navy operating some 600 miles or more off its western shore has sunk three pirate mother ships and captured over 100 pirates, who are now being interviewed about their connections with terrorism in Mumbai? The Indian Government are also bringing forward tough legal measures to help them tackle offshore piracy. What is our Government’s assessment of the proactive operational policies of India compared with the effectiveness of the EU operation, Atalanta, in both its maritime and its legal capacity?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Our assessment is positive, both of the Indian naval operations and the naval operations of other countries, including China. This is a co-ordinated effort, and maybe the co-ordination can grow tighter still. We think this should all carry forward in a closely integrated way. As to the legal aspects of the situation, there are the rules of engagement and the operational duties under which a sort of constabulary context is conducted towards pirates. This might need to become more robust in our different countries, but we have to stick by the law of the sea and we have to proceed carefully for fear of involving ourselves in far more complexities in this area, rather than reducing it and maybe being more effective against the pirates.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on drawing the House’s attention to a very pressing problem that, in my view, has not had enough attention up until now. Is it not absurd that we in this country should be supporting no fewer than three task forces, potentially leaving our sailors and marines at risk of their lives there, and doing nothing at all to interrupt the constant flow of money into the hands of pirates? We have in this country an elaborate structure of criminal assets legislation and anti-money laundering legislation. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Justice and the Home Office to see whether we cannot use these existing mechanisms to interrupt the flow of money that is making piracy a growing and increasingly profitable industry?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not quite accept the noble Lord’s point that we are doing nothing at all. He is quite right that this is a growing concern. We had an excellent debate on it just before Christmas and he is right to raise it again now. These are all areas where progress can be made. There is a contact group and a highly effective operation throughout Whitehall involving all departments in tightening the situation. We have to tackle all these matters and are doing so in many areas very vigorously. To say we are doing nothing at all is going too far, but if the noble Lord feels we should go further, clearly we should because the piracy issue is getting worse and not better.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on raising this issue. Does not the Minister think that now is the time to reinvigorate action in this whole area? It is becoming a really dangerous issue. I believe that something will happen in the near future that will make us all pay attention. For example, the loss of two LNG ships coming to the UK would affect energy supplies. There could be a huge catastrophe, and it really is time to reinvigorate our efforts. Should we not look at all the aspects of this problem that have been mentioned and push this very hard?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is right that the time has come, and Her Majesty's Government have recognised precisely the point that he makes. However, this has become a global issue; it could affect Chinese, Indian and Asian interests just as much as European and American interests. This task must be tackled on a global level with great vigour before it gets very much worse.

Libya: Bribes

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any payments which could constitute bribes within the meaning of the Bribery Act 2010 have been paid from public funds to Libyan employees or officials in recent weeks.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government do not pay bribes. In relation to fees incurred for charter flights, the payment of handling fees at airports, including for the landing and departure of planes, is an established practice. Like all countries and carriers, HMG had to pay them. These charges increased at Tripoli airport as the situation in Libya deteriorated. Paying these fees was essential to be able to evacuate British and other nationals by plane.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the whole House will be grateful for the assurance in the first sentence of the Minister’s response. However, the rest of it reads rather strangely in the light of what the Prime Minister said in another place last week:

“The point I would make is that in getting people out of Libya, we did have to pay some facilitation payments for the services in the airport”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/11; col. 298.]

“Facilitation payments” is a bizarre way of describing regular airport handling fees. Can I therefore press the Minister and ask him to be absolutely clear about this? Were any payments made which were in any way irregular? Were payments made to individuals, or were payments simply made to the appropriate authority in a routine fashion for the flights that took place?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The latter is the answer. The noble Lord mentions regular situations, but the situation was far from regular. The situation was one in which these fees were rocketing because there was a desperate queue of aeroplanes to get in and people to get out. There is absolutely no doubt that the fees went whizzing up as very brave pilots and crews managed to get their aeroplanes down, slotted and then off the ground again. I sometimes think that we do not appreciate fully the extraordinary bravery and courage of those getting these aircraft in and out in very dangerous situations. So I can tell the noble Lord that nothing irregular was done of any kind, but it was a far from regular situation in which brave and courageous people had to move very quickly.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, on a slightly broader note regarding the Bribery Act, is my noble friend aware that delays in introducing that Act have left the Government open to charges of not being committed to fighting corruption? What is the Government’s response to warnings from the director of the Serious Fraud Office that the US justice department and the OECD are now suggesting that British companies should be placed on an export blacklist as a result?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As my noble friend will appreciate, that is a broader question than the one we are looking at now about Libyan employees and officials, so I do not have any additional comment to make, except that I am sure that the matter is carefully under review and in hand.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does my noble friend accept that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, would be the first to condemn the Government if we had failed to get our nationals out of Libya, even if we had to pay facilitation fees to do so?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is absolutely right.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, would the Minister like to reconsider that answer? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, would prefer that situation—anything to get at what he calls bribery.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think that that is worth a further comment. We all recognise the need, in a desperate situation, for large payments to be made. I think that the noble Lord and everyone else appreciates that that was the need; that was the requirement; we had to get people out.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Who authorised the payments made in this case?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Authority was given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and those in the team engineering—with great bravery and swiftness—the evacuation procedure. No doubt there were checks back to London on whether the larger sums should be paid, and I am sure that immediate authority was given.

[Lord Richard]

To whom were the payments made? Were they made to the regular Libyan authorities or to people outside the normal process?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As far as I know, they were made to—I use the word again—regular authorities. However, one must envisage, as I am sure that the noble Lord, with his enormous experience of international affairs, recognises, that this was a chaotic situation in which various authorities were controlling the movement of aircraft and the operations of the airport. The ones who asked for the fees were those who normally charged the fees. That appears to have been the pattern. However, it was a far from regular situation.

British Overseas Territories

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, as one would expect in this House, this has been a dazzling debate full of expertise. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper on instigating a valuable debate on the overseas territories. A lot has happened since the previous one in 2008 and it is certainly right that we should mobilise some of our collective expertise. It is right as well for the Government to make their comments, which I shall seek to do in a moment, on the overseas territories as a whole. I was particularly delighted to listen to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Ribeiro, who brings to this House, with his enormously distinguished record, great expertise and clarity. I shall comment on some of the things that he said as I go along, but I think that we are all extremely pleased that he has joined us and hope often to hear from him in the future.

The only way of tackling this vast range of subjects, issues and territories is for me to go through those subjects, issues and territories in turn and then to relate to noble Lords who have spoken on them as I go along. I may not succeed in 20 minutes in referring to every noble Lord; I may not succeed even in covering every one of the issues, although I shall have a very good try. I shall therefore proceed on a themed basis.

To reassert a point made by noble Lords, the Government are responsible for ensuring the security and good governance of the overseas territories and promoting the well-being of their inhabitants—that is not in question. We are talking about almost a quarter of a million people, most of whom are British citizens, and some of the smallest and most remote communities in the world. We have a responsibility to provide effective stewardship, even for our uninhabited territories—they include some of the world’s most pristine and varied environmental assets, to which some of your Lordships have referred. We take these responsibilities extremely seriously and none of them should be underestimated. I do not deny that the territories create substantial challenges for the UK Government, but they also have the potential to offer common benefits for all. In our view, we need a vigilant and active approach to managing the risks and problems, especially at a time when a number of the territories have been extremely hard hit by the global recession and the shrinkage of trade, particularly tourism, in some areas. It is a broad and complex agenda that involves many government departments, but I shall endeavour to give the overall picture from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s point of view.

This Government have to some extent lived up to their responsibilities already—we have been office for some eight or nine months. In the strategic defence and security review, we identified defence as a core mission. We relaunched the air access project on St Helena and initiated the task of underpinning public finances in the Turks and Caicos Islands, to which I shall come in detail in a moment—a number of your Lordships rightly and unsurprisingly raised that issue. The Foreign Secretary commissioned a review of our policy towards the overseas territories, led by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Henry Bellingham, with a view to framing a new strategy to guide our relationship in the future and addressing some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, rightly raised. Mr Bellingham has discussed aspects with ministerial colleagues and a range of interested organisations and individuals, including the leaders of the overseas territories. The Government intend to announce the conclusions of that review shortly. In the mean time, we have already announced, back in February, that the overseas territories programme fund will be raised by £7 million a year. By way of a further update, we have just announced additional funding to meet certain problems to which I shall again come in detail as I go along.

We continue to stand up for the Falkland Islands, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has just referred. We have no doubt about their sovereignty. The principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN charter underlies our position. There can be no negotiation on sovereignty unless and until the Falkland islanders so wish. Members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, have consistently made this clear. We are also wholeheartedly committed to the Falkland islanders’ right to develop their economy, including a hydrocarbons industry within their waters. We are fully aware that Argentina’s neighbours support its call for negotiation over the Falklands’ sovereignty. That is nothing new; it just maintains endless persistence. We are in close touch with partners in the region. We are enhancing our relationship with Latin America through forthcoming high-level visits and engagement. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has been a tower of strength in developing those relationships. We will continue to defend robustly the Falkland islanders’ right to self-determination and to develop their economy both in private, with partners, and publicly. I do not have anything to add at the moment on the detailed point about fees raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, but I shall look into it. If I obtain more detailed and useful information, I shall write to him.

I turn to the British Antarctic Territories—the order in which I address each territory is not a reflection of its importance; it is merely the order in which it was referred to in the debate—on which the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, the noble Lord, Lord Selborne, and others spoke with great expertise. We have a long-term, strategic, scientific, environmental and sustainable management interest in the Antarctic, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. These interests are linked to but in many cases distinct from the Falklands issue that I have just discussed. We will continue to protect our interests and sovereignty by taking a leading role in the Antarctic Treaty system and through a policy of presence, governance and commitment to deliver our international obligations. As to the draft Antarctic Bill, we remain committed to meeting our treaty commitments and will introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Government are considering all options for an expeditious introduction of that Bill, a matter on which there has been a certain amount of comment.

Perhaps I should say a little about our investment in Antarctic science. The particular issue is a matter for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I believe that detailed announcements will be made in due course. In general, the UK directly invests some £50 million a year. It is difficult to quantify the total investment, as there are many cross-cutting programmes and in practice a range of research council activities contribute directly to polar science. For example, the UK’s European Space Agency subscription is about £48 million per annum and includes earth observation work. The main funding in the Antarctic is provided by the Natural Environment Research Council primarily for the British Antarctic Survey. Similarly, many UK universities are involved in Antarctic research. There are too many of them to mention individually. However, I should highlight Cambridge University’s involvement, not least via its support for the Scott Polar Research Institute.

On Gibraltar, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, of course, was a distinguished governor and knows probably more than many people about the situation there. Again, the position is quite clear: the UK will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their wishes. Furthermore, the UK will not enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. We will continue to stand up for Gibraltar’s rights and interests, including in the European Union. We are fully committed to the trilateral process of dialogue, which has been working rather well between the UK, Spain and Gibraltar, and Spain and Gibraltar share our commitment. We hope that the trilateral forum will continue to make progress on enhancing co-operation for the benefit of all the people of Gibraltar and the surrounding area.

The Turks and Caicos Islands were mentioned by my noble friends Lord Jones, Lord Ribeiro, in his remarkable maiden speech, and Lord Selborne, and by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I shall spend several minutes on this matter because it is very important and I know that it concerns your Lordships considerably. We are determined to sort out the problems in the Turks and Caicos Islands and to put the islands back on the path to a sustainable future under a democratically elected Government. There are three main strands to what we are trying to do: rebuilding public finances; implementing systemic reforms, including a modified constitution; and ensuring that the special investigation and prosecution team can pursue its work.

The Minister of State at DfID announced in a Written Statement at the end of February that DfID has now finalised a loan guarantee to provide the Turks and Caicos Islands Government with access to a maximum capital amount of $260 million over the next five years. The intention is that that guarantee should cost the taxpayer nothing but will enable a return to fiscal surplus. We are pursuing reforms in nearly every aspect of the territory’s administration. Following extensive consultation, the Government have now published a draft constitution that makes proposals for the months ahead. This is an important opportunity for the political parties in the territory to engage in detail. We must ensure that reforms are well advanced and embedded before we can safely return the territory to elected government.

I say to my noble friends that we do not want to postpone elections any longer than necessary, but they cannot be held this year. A joint FCO/DfID Written Ministerial Statement last September set out the milestones—I think that there has been reference to those because I have commented on this since—an assessment of which would need to be met before elections could take place. These milestones do not include everything that will have to be done before elections take place, but they are, in the Government’s view, at this stage, minimum preconditions before the Turks and Caicos Islands can return to elected government. It is hoped that the milestones will be met in time for elections in 2012.

It is true that very recently there have been demonstrations in the Turks and Caicos Islands calling for a date to be set for the elections. One fully understands the pressure and concern and no one questions the right of everyone in the TCI to have the freedom to express their views, but I cannot condone the use of lawbreaking in support of freedom of expression. Such actions could easily deter future tourists and investors from visiting the islands and could have a disastrous effect on the islands’ already fragile economy. The governor remains open to dialogue with responsible community representatives to discuss their concerns and I hope that the demonstrators will use this avenue to convey their grievances.

In addition, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has announced that he is approving a discretionary grant of £6.6 million to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government to reimburse the costs incurred in the past year pursuing corruption and violent crime. That is for the special investigation and prosecution team, for related civil recovery work and for the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police. Officials in the Foreign Office are co-ordinating this carefully with DfID’s work to underpin the territory’s finances. That is the scene on the Turks and Caicos Islands. If I had more time, I would go into more detail, but I have not.

I turn now to another issue that greatly concerns your Lordships, the British Indian Ocean Territory, to which the noble Lord, Lord Luce, my noble friend Lord Selborne and others have referred. Let me set out the position as we see it now. Successive Governments have expressed regret for the way in which the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out in the late 1960s and 1970s. I repeat those regrets today and do not seek to justify many of the things that were done at the time. However, the UK courts have considered the issues very carefully. The Law Lords upheld the validity in law of the BIOT Orders in Council 2004, which mean that no person has the right of abode in BIOT or the right to enter the territory unless authorised. A High Court judgment given by Mr Justice Ouseley on 9 October 2003 and upheld by the Court of Appeal on 22 July 2004 went thoroughly into the circumstances in which the 1982 compensation settlement was reached and in which it was accepted that the compensation was in full and final settlement of all claims.

The Chagossians have taken their case for resettlement and further compensation to the European Court of Human Rights, as we all know. The Government will continue to contest the case, as we believe that the reasons for not allowing resettlement on the grounds of feasibility and defence security are clear and compelling; nor do we see the case for paying further compensation, as it has already been paid in full and final settlement of all claims. Obviously, I and my colleagues fully understand the disappointment felt by Chagossians on hearing that the Government have decided not to change the fundamental policy on resettlement, compensation and the marine protected area, but I stress strongly that we are most keen to continue engaging with the Chagossian communities. The Minister for the Overseas Territories, Mr Bellingham, has already met Mr Olivier Bancoult and Mrs Sabrina Jean of the Chagos Refugee Group and Hengride Permal of the Chagos Islands Community Association to hear their concerns. Our high commissions in Port Louis and Victoria continue to meet Chagossian communities in Mauritius and the Seychelles, while officials from the BIOT Administration keep in touch with Chagossian communities in the UK.

We are looking at ways of mitigating the impact of our policy on the Chagossians through continuing to enable them to visit the territory and engage in humanitarian, cultural and environmental activities. We are arranging a further visit by Chagossians to the territory later this month and Mr Bellingham is very keen that such visits should continue. We want to involve the Chagossian communities in implementation of the marine protected area—although there is a certain difficulty, obviously, as the Chagossians are seeking annulment of the area in the UK courts—and we are seeking practical ways in which we can continue to help the Chagossian communities in Mauritius, Seychelles and this country.

I say finally on the issue that, while we have no doubts about the UK’s sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, we value our bilateral relationship with Mauritius and would welcome a constructive dialogue with its Government on these issues. We will continue to look at this policy in detail and engage with all those with an interest.

I have a long list of many more other issues. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds raised the issue of tax havens and I have not commented on the Caribbean, which covers some of the same issues. We are working closely with these territories to stabilise public finances and to strengthen regulatory regimes, to help them to meet international tax transparency standards, which is very important, and to support them in longer-term economic planning.

I should like to spend more time on the Commonwealth but time does not allow. The case for full participation in all Commonwealth meetings is based on membership of the Commonwealth. Of course, the OTs are not strictly individual members of the Commonwealth, but they are associated. We are looking at ways to strengthen the links between the OTs and the Commonwealth.

On advanced passenger duty, the Government are exploring changes to the aviation tax system. Any major changes will be subject to consultation. On St Helena, the Secretary of State stated last July that we have made progress on a wide range of aspects. The invitation to tender has gone to bidders. Air Safety Support International has approved the use of engineered material arresting systems for the St Helena airport and the Secretary of State for International Development will consider issuing a further Statement when he is in a position to report on all the conditions that he set out in the July Statement. On Anguilla, we have accepted the package of measures and actioned the recommendations by the UK-funded experts to deliver the Chief Minister’s commitment to balance Anguilla’s overall budget by the beginning of 2013. I do not have time to cover offshore financial centres, but I have mentioned them in referring to the Caribbean.

In the last minute, let me reassure noble Lords who raised matters about defence that part of the strategy for the protection of the overseas territories is the maintenance of a minimum credible deterrence and reassurance posture on the islands. There are many more details that I could give about defence, but time does not allow me to cover them. Therefore, I must simply end this debate by saying that we are determined to see a policy of strategic engagement with the overseas territories. We share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that new and positive thinking is needed and we believe that we can carry forward the proposals that we have in mind with some of the suggestions of your Lordships. This is a complex and wide-ranging portfolio. There are many other points that I would dearly have liked to cover with your Lordships, but under the rules of this engagement in your Lordships’ House I must here call an end to this debate.

Zimbabwe

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, we all owe a debt of thanks to my noble friend Lord Avebury for returning to this issue, which the House has debated many times in great depth and with great concern. He is right to bring our thoughts back to it when so many other turbulent events are occurring round the world. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, on his excellent maiden speech. He brought his immense military experience to bear and applied it both to this issue and to the many issues round the world that we have to face. We all listened with the greatest interest to what he said and look forward to hearing much more of his vast supply—his hinterland—of expertise applied to the many issues of international affairs which we have to deal with in the House.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, for a number of things that she said. I shall come back to some of them in a moment. She hit the nail very much on the head in pointing out that the sanctions measures that the EU are taking do not affect humanitarian aid. All the propaganda that has been put to the contrary is of course propaganda and no more than that. That cannot be said too strongly, and I will come back to that point a little more in a moment.

This debate has brought out one matter that gives the Government growing concern: the marked recent increase in politically motivated intimidation and violence after a period of relative stability. This point was made by my noble friend Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and was amplified when the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, focused on the media restrictions that are also closing down parts of Zimbabwean life instead of opening it up. There is no doubt that the whole pattern is one of ratcheting up the pressures on the reformers and generally closing down Zimbabwe’s society.

The particular issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, drew attention is a very telling indicator of particular issues. First, there was the arrest of Minister Mangoma, to which my noble friend Lord Avebury also drew our attention. Then there was the declaration that the election of Lovemore Moyo as Speaker is to be declared null and void. These are both highly sinister developments, marking a significant increase in pressures. The Government are urgently seeking further clarification, and we will have no hesitation at all in voicing our concerns with the appropriate interlocutors, and in every way we can. These are clear evidence of a development that we do not like, which might herald the start of pre-election intimidation campaigns, although there is no certainty yet about the date of elections. Obviously, a longer timeframe would permit more of the building blocks for free and fair elections to be put in place, instead of all these counterpressures. If the elections take place later this year, which is one suggestion, those attempts to build conditions for free and fair elections will be curtailed. So our aim is to do whatever we can to help prevent a repeat of the violence that marred the elections back in 2008. That must be the right way forward.

We continue to work closely with our international partners in support of the work being undertaken by SADC and the South Africans on developing a road map towards credible and properly monitored elections. The role of SADC as guarantors of the global political agreement will be key to the future of Zimbabwe—a point that my noble friends Lord Sheikh and Lord Chidgey made graphically. It is in SADC’s interests to have a neighbour that is politically stable and economically thriving, and it has a regional mandate to take concrete action when the UK or EU does not. We are encouraged by the recent increased diplomatic activity in working to create an environment conducive to holding free and fair elections, and fully support it in its continuing efforts.

In our view, an election is the only route by which Zimbabwe will be able to move forward sustainably. The key determinants for a credible election are political will in Zimbabwe and the SADC region, but development assistance can provide much needed technical expertise and funding for checks and balances to help level the playing field. We will assess carefully any requests made by the inclusive Government for support to a credible election process, taking into account the changing political context and, particularly, the anticipated South African-sponsored road map to elections that we want to see.

Noble Lords will be aware that we have recently engaged in extensive discussion with our EU partners over the future of our restrictive and appropriate measures in Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, asked about this point. The outcome, as stated by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in his Written Ministerial Statement of 16 February, a month ago, was the right one. We have acknowledged the continuing economic progress in Zimbabwe, but we have noted our strong concern at the lack of equivalent political and democratic progress by keeping the measures in place for a further 12 months. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, addressed that point. We have removed a modest number of individuals from the target list and have left the door open by announcing our willingness to revisit the measures in a year in response to concrete developments on the ground, in particular in relation to creating the right environment for free and fair elections. I hope that that meets the point that a number of your Lordships raised.

Perhaps I might come to some specific, additional points that were raised before I develop one or two broader themes. The important issue of diamonds was again raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury. We call on Zimbabwe to maintain a firm commitment to the Kimberley process and to continue to take action to bring all mining operations in the Marange diamond fields into compliance with the KP requirements. In that way, diamonds can contribute to Zimbabwe’s economic development instead of distorting it in the way that some of the proceeds appear to be doing now.

The UK remains fully committed to the Kimberley process, which is of course an EU matter. The EU is the body representing the UK in the process. We play an active role in and through the EU in pushing for Zimbabwean compliance with KP minimum standards. We have persistently called for a robust EU response to Zimbabwe's failure to comply with the aspects of the joint work plan agreed at the 2009 Kimberley process plenary. That plan clearly sets out the improvements that Zimbabwe needs to make to ensure compliance with the Kimberley process minimum standards, so that is the position and the stand we have taken. Exports of diamonds cannot take place from Marange until resolution of the KP negotiations with Zimbabwe and we will go on fighting for a robust solution on that matter.

I wanted a word on the interesting theme that my noble friend Lord Sheikh touched upon: the role of the Chinese. Their role throughout Africa, and indeed throughout the Indian Ocean area, is a matter of great interest. Some people have mixed feelings on the involvement of China—even in north Africa, as we have seen in recent days—but we think China has an important role to play in the growth and development of Africa. There has been progress where there has been infrastructure development as a result of China’s financing. That can only be for the good.

However, we think it vital that donors such as China are open about their investments and make it clear what they are spending and what the results will be. That empowers people to hold Governments to account and ensures that donors can co-ordinate their work effectively and avoid building up contingent liabilities, which may be difficult for future Governments to meet. We have no evidence that China is willing to commit, as one report suggested, $10 billion to development in Zimbabwe. That was a press report which we cannot confirm, but it could be that Chinese authorities will come to understand that a stance of saying, “We’re involved commercially but have no interest in political developments”, is not possible. They, as they have perhaps found out in Libya, find themselves drawn into the political process as well. That is an interesting and important theme to which this House will no doubt return its attention.

My noble friend Lord Sheikh also mentioned the Commonwealth. I am one of the strong believers—hopers is perhaps the word—that the Commonwealth can, in due course and at the right stage, play a valuable and leading part along with SADC in the recovery of that great country, Zimbabwe. I hope so. I do not think we are yet at that point but we want to get there and, when it comes, there can be a very constructive role for Commonwealth leaders. I hope that this will be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, at the end of October.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made an interesting contribution on health aspects. Our observation is that the whole health service structure in Zimbabwe is close to collapse. DfID has provided critical health sector support to tackle the staffing crisis, provide essential medicines and address HIV/AIDS. We will continue to support this in future with a particular focus on reducing maternal mortality rates, which I think the noble Lord specifically referred to.

I am advised that DfID has funding mechanisms to support civil society and diaspora groups in Africa, and I invite Zimbabwe Health Training Support to contact DfID to see whether it would be eligible to access these mechanisms.

I shall say a further word about the European Union, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, made several references. I have already said that our rollover to the package of measures as a whole recognises the huge shortfalls in matching progress with political reform. There has been some progress, particularly on the economic side, but on the political side there is a long way to go. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in his Written Ministerial Statement the other day that we, along with the EU, have emphasised that we are willing to revisit the measures should there be concrete developments on the ground. I think that that covers a number of the specific questions. If I have not covered them all, I will write to noble Lords about them.

I shall summarise how we see the situation. This debate has been enormously valuable in reminding the wider world—I hope that it will get noticed outside—that human rights abuses, cruelties and brutalities continue. This is not a country that is quietly improving; a vicious regime is still at work and anti-freedom and anti-democracy measures are growing, as is personal brutality of the kind so vividly described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells. That is an unpleasant and worrying atmosphere.

We note, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly noted, the remarkable economic progress since the formation of the inclusive Government, and we will continue to support those who are driving that reform. I repeat, however, that we share the strong concern at the lack of real inclusivity in that Government when we consider the lack of progress on the real sharing of power. There has been a bit of opening up regarding the written media, although I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, had to say, and the constitutional review process has helped a little to open up the democratic space. However, that window, which we hoped would open wider, now appears to be closing in anticipation of the right of people to give their verdict on the Government’s progress.

Your Lordships have rightly focused in this debate on the need for the next elections in Zimbabwe to be freer and fairer than those of 2008, and have stressed the need for effective observation and monitoring, including by the UK, the EU and, as I have suggested, the Commonwealth. In fact, I think that the Commonwealth can play a significant part in that aspect too. That is what we want to see, but it is not within our gift. Observers have to be invited by the host Government, and it is not inconceivable that objections might be raised on the grounds of perceived political bias. That is why the role of SADC is key; it has the mandate for ensuring full implementation of the global political agreement, and we will continue to give it our full support as it works to create an environment conducive to credible elections.

This afternoon we have heard expressed, again and again, concern about human rights abuses. I have said that we share that fully, and we urge the Government and police in Zimbabwe to act impartially in punishing perpetrators. Whether our urgings are heard is in question, of course, given the pattern of events. We urge the Government and the authorities to respect the rule of law, whether it applies to the freedom to express political views or to freely enjoy property rights, whether to a farm or to a business. Respect for the rule of law will be the crucial condition if Zimbabwe hopes to attract concrete investment from many businesses now expressing an interest in the country. The potential is there, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, reminded us, and investment is ready to go into Africa. The recovery of Africa and its advance into the pattern of emerging powers and nations is one of the heartening trends of our time, but it does not apply in Zimbabwe yet.

In this context, Mugabe’s recent threats to nationalise British companies are utterly irresponsible and counterproductive. We are in contact with British companies, and have offered those who might be affected whatever support we can. In a similar vein, we also urge the Government of Zimbabwe to maintain a firm commitment to the Kimberley process, which I and my noble friend Lord Avebury mentioned, and to bring all mining operations in the Marange fields into compliance so that diamonds may benefit the people of Zimbabwe rather than just a small, corrupt clique.

In the mean time, we will continue our support to the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, recently announced in another place, we are prepared to increase our aid substantially over the next four years in response—and this is important; it is the condition—to credible elections and the creation of a reforming government in Zimbabwe.

I am grateful to all those who have spoken for their lively and informed contributions to this debate. It is important that we have these debates, and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Avebury, as I said. The Government share the goal expressed by your Lordships of a better, more prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe. There is sadly a long way to go on the political side, but I believe—as we all do—that it is a brilliant country, a potentially prosperous and admirable country that could rise again from its dark period and escape the grip of a once trusted man who has sadly been transmogrified into a twisted tyrant. That day, for Zimbabwe, will come.