Iran: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the suffering of the family can barely be imagined and throughout all this, regardless of some of the extraordinary claims made on the internet, we should remember that this is a loving father who simply wants his family to be reunited. I wholly respect that, which is why we are urgently seeking information on what further legal avenues are available to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We undertake that the FCO will continue to offer support to the family, both here in London and in Tehran. We are working towards the positive resolution of this, because that is the right thing for us all to do.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests, as chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and as the Government’s trade envoy to Iran. Is the Minister aware that I have raised this issue with the Iranian Government? I associate myself wholly with the Question that has been asked. Has the Minister noticed the statement by the President of Iran, the moderate President Rouhani, who has said that if Iran is to attract more investment and commercial engagement with the wider world, it needs to make people who visit Iran both welcome and safe? Is it not the case that this treatment of Nazanin not only is a tragedy for her but is harming prospects for investment and the future of the Iranian people?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely agree with every word that my noble friend has uttered.

Israel and Palestine: Paris Peace Conference

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we continuously bring to the attention of the Government of Israel the fact that we believe that moves to extend illegal settlements, but also moves to carry out demolitions, can undermine the future of peace, even if those demolitions may be in green-line Israel. It is a very sensitive matter because green-line Israel is not the same as the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but, for me, it is a matter of respecting human rights.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that any moves by Governments to move their embassies to Jerusalem would make the two-state solution even more difficult?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we have no plans to move our embassy to Jerusalem. I hope that is in accord with my noble friend’s wishes.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

No, because that is all done under the authority of the 1972 Act by subsequent amendments under it. We had a lot of discussion about this last time and I do not want to start that up again if I can avoid it. Some of the devolution statutes had reference to Acts, for example, but they all flow from the 1972 Act. That Act is the authority for applying European law in the UK. That is why the courts of the UK are obliged to follow it because that is the law laid down by the Parliament of the UK. If that law were repealed, it would become a question of international law, and the rules of international law do not apply to domestic law except in so far as they are incorporated. It is only then as treaty obligations that the state proceeds thereafter.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, did not deny authorship of Article 50 of the treaty. I am rather sceptical that he is the author because Commissioner Christophersen assured me that he was the author of Article 50 and that through it he had laid a deep trap for the British. The noble Lord always had a great reputation for masterminding so much in Brussels, but I am not sure that Article 50 is actually his creation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made a powerful speech against my noble friend Lord Hamilton, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton made a powerful speech against the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. That seems to illustrate that the amendment the noble Lord is putting forward is really one of the arguments being used by those who wish to remain in. Their argument is that it is going to create an enormous amount of uncertainty, that it is incredibly complicated, that we have got all these trade negotiations and the repeal of British legislation has to take place before we can feel the effects of being outside. This seems to me to be what the campaign ought to be about. For the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to think that the Government ought to publish a document detailing all this is to invite the Government to publish a document taking one side of the referendum question.

The amendment is redundant because of the government Amendment 24B and particularly subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred, in which the Government have said—slightly to my distress—that they are going to bring forward examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union. No doubt they will have in that that Norway is governed by fax, something that I absolutely dispute despite the intervention of the noble Baroness from the Liberal Benches. This amendment, requiring a report that would be pure propaganda, is therefore completely inappropriate when we have subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause inserted by Amendment 24B, which it would duplicate.

To go back to Article 50 and address the alarmism, I accept that there is going to be a degree of uncertainty. That uncertainty is going to be one of the arguments deployed by the people who do not wish us to leave. However, we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out, going to have two years in which these negotiations take place. The roof is not going to fall in nor will the buildings crumble while these negotiations go on. I am unsure whether we repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at the beginning of the process or at the end, but I should imagine that things would remain during the period of the negotiation for at least two years, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, the two-year period is extendable. Life would probably go on much as it is now while the negotiations took place.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, tried to chill our blood even further by saying that we would be left alone in the room with the Commission. My goodness, that is one of the things that I regret that the Government did not try to achieve in the negotiations. They have done nothing to reduce the power of the Commission. If we had just one reform in the EU it should have been to reduce or get rid of the Commission’s power of initiating legislation. I do not see why civil servants should have the right to initiate legislation in the way that they do.

The image that, rightly or wrongly, I have of the Commission was reinforced by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, portrayed it. I do not believe that the Commission is going to act in some way completely divorced from the political will of member states. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that there are some European Union countries that have an unfavourable balance of trade with the UK. I do not know which they are. There cannot be very many since we have a socking balance unfavourable to us. I cannot believe that Germany, which seems to call the shots within the European Union on almost every issue today, will not be able to persuade Slovenia, or whichever country it is, that it ought to come into line with the outcome of the negotiations. I do not believe that the Commission can act without political will. I believe that the Economics Minister of Germany has already publicly stated that he believes that Britain could get a free trade arrangement with the EU if it left. If Germany thinks that, there is a good chance that we could get it. However, all this is an argument for the referendum. It should not be in particular amendments to the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My understanding is that from the very moment you initiate the process you invoke Article 50, which sets out the procedure to be followed. I have certainly read Article 50, and that is the way I read it. I do not think that any interpretation we have heard this evening, including from the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, is inconsistent with that reading. The fact is that we must act in good faith in these matters. If we do not act in good faith out of moral principle, we should do so out of sheer selfish pragmatism because we will need to get a deal with the people who account for about 50% of our exports in the event that we want to leave the present arrangements we have with them. The idea that we start off by breaking an international agreement solemnly entered into is quite extraordinary.

The second extraordinary thing—I have heard this argument before and I hope I will not hear it again, although I am sure I will; I expect that it will be in the Daily Mail every day during the campaign—is that because we have a balance of payments deficit with the rest of the European Union, we have more leverage on them in these negotiations than they have on us. That is complete nonsense. I dealt with this argument before, and I used an analogy, which no one quarrelled with at the time, to try to make clear that the fact of having a deficit or a surplus is neither here nor there. What is important is the proportion of one’s total exports and, behind that, the proportion of one’s GDP which is exposed in a negotiation of this kind and which could therefore be subject to something nasty happening to it, such as having tariffs imposed or no longer being able to be sold at the same favourable terms as competitors could offer the relevant customers. The proportion of exposure of gross domestic product, and the employment that goes with it, is important.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am very sorry to ask the noble Lord a question, when he has made it so abundantly clear so many times before to the schoolchildren what the real situation is. However, when he says that what matters is the percentage of GDP represented by a market, does he seriously advance the position that Germany would not care if it did not get access to its largest customer for exports just because that is a smaller percentage of German GDP than our exports are to it?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Everybody would be a loser in this game. I do not hide in any sense my conviction that we would all be losers. It would be a very sad day if we broke up the European Union or moved out of it. Therefore my point is that the Germans would lose, but we would lose more.

--- Later in debate ---

I am also conscious that our Armed Forces are engaged in recruiting soldiers from abroad, largely from Commonwealth countries, because we cannot find enough here. That is a problem that we have in Britain. It is a problem of not providing the skills and right motivation for our young people, and we should pay more attention to that. If we invested more in making sure that our population had the right motivation and skills, the important pull factor that we have for so many of our semi-skilled workforces and public services would be a great deal less than before. That is one of the most important aspects in the current pull factor in British migration.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has made some very interesting comments. I learnt two things. First, I understand now why migration was not included in the review of competences. He explained that that was because the word used was “population”, whereas had one asked the question about movement of labour or migration, perhaps it would have been different. Secondly, the noble Lord made quite a persuasive case, on one ground, for the necessity of migration and the inevitability of a degree of migration. I found it interesting that he was a regular watcher of Migration Watch. I was fascinated to hear that. But the arguments that the noble Lord put forward are the very things that would be considered in the Government’s publication if the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, were accepted.

I was somewhat neutral towards the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, because I have been trying to argue that all these reports that have been called for are the issues that ought to be debated during the referendum campaign. But everybody else has been coming forward and saying we ought to include this and that. When I look at the list compiled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, of things that ought to be considered in the publication, the one thing that is obviously missing is migration. Why did the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, not say that the publication ought to include migration?

I have been converted to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, both by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, were here to support it.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I, too, would like to say some words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Green. He says that we have to level with the public on this and I think that is absolutely right. Net migration into this country last year was 330,000 people. That is a very large number of people. I totally accept that perhaps only half of them came from the EU but this is certainly something that we have to address.

I am particularly interested, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in Amendment 27. I would like to know from my noble friend the Minister exactly what the mechanics are with regard to people who have come from outside as part of this refugee crisis into somewhere such as France, who then apply for a French passport, which then enables them to come to the United Kingdom under the free movement of labour. Can she fill us in about how this process takes place? This is obviously an extremely worrying aspect of these migration flows. At the moment we are in a position to say that we are not members of Schengen and we can probably do something not to have to accept any of these people. But of course, if they are given European passports, that is rather a different story. Can she give us an insight into her understanding of this process?

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

I think actually it is much clearer from the noble Lord’s perspective if he says “consequences” and does not put “possible”. I think we are beginning to dance on pinheads now, but test it out in the pub. What are the possible consequences of you not paying for your pint? There are a whole range of possible consequences. Anyone who is asked might say: you might go to prison; it might result in a fight. Any number of consequences are possible from an objective fact. The objective fact, which is acknowledged, would be withdrawal from the common agricultural policy. I am simply putting to the noble Lord that with “possible consequences” the language itself implies that there could be lots of different interpretations. I put it no stronger than that.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I would like to speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, did, rather generally about the whole series of amendment that have been put down. I have been rather struck by the plethora of different reports demanded. My memory went back to the repeated demands that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, used to make of successive Administrations that they should have a publication stating the advantages of being in the European Union. Year after year, Administration after Administration—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was one of the people answering the PQs that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, put down—the reply always came back, no, they would not publish any evaluation of our membership. It was never clear whether this was because they thought it was self-evident or, as I also suspect, because there is an element of greyness. The truth is never precise. I think what is wrong in so many of the assessments that have been asked for is that, actually, one cannot always give a precise factual answer.

For example, take the case of membership of the EEA, the European Economic Area, to which Norway belongs. Some people would say you have to accept all the regulations just the way they are imposed—it is government by fax. Actually when you look into it in real detail, it is not like that at all. It is a very complicated procedure and it is not quite true to say that a country such as Norway has to accept the laws it is given, let alone just by fax. First, there is a very elaborate machinery before laws are formulated. Secondly, when laws are formulated, the EEA countries have a right to reject legislation—they have a veto—something that we inside the European Union do not. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I am very willing to give way to her if she disagrees with me.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, as I understand it from a colleague at the EFTA secretariat, the way that the EEA agreement would work is that legislation on that part of the internal market would be disapplied. So it is possible to say that you do not like something, but then no part of that internal market legislation applies. That makes it somewhat more difficult than the noble Lord appeared to imply.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

By interrupting, the noble Baroness illustrated exactly my point. She just said that it is more complicated than I had said. I am saying that government by fax is an oversimplification as well. These things are not capable of a single interpretation; they cannot all be reduced to numbers. In this debate, we have a series of people with different motives putting forward different lists that they think would help their case.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea, had an interesting exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, responded to the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to various rights that existed, and made the point: could not the UK Parliament just legislate for each of those rights? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, did not answer that question satisfactorily.

It reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend before we joined the European Economic Community. My friend was an enthusiastic supporter of joining; I was a bit sceptical. I voted to join and made my maiden speech in the House of Commons in favour of joining, but I objected to the argument that my friend put forward for joining the EEC, as it then was. He said, “The reason for joining the EEC is that we can irreversibly freeze into law capitalism, free markets and deregulation”. That is how the EEC appeared at the time: it was something that appealed to economic liberals.

Of course, the whole nature of the EU changed as it involved and we had what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, referred to as the Delors doctrine, which was that you would enshrine permanently in EU law certain social rights. That is why the TUC changed its mind over membership, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was quite right to say that you can have all those lists put forward in different amendments, but actually the UK Parliament is perfectly capable of implementing whatever rights or limitations on rights it wishes. That is one of the fundamental points about the EU and one of the fundamental objections to it: it is so difficult to repeal legislation because it is enshrined almost in aspic.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My point was that employers would not be happy to do that just as one country because they would become less competitive; they want to do it as a continent. I know that the noble Lord will not think that a good argument, but that was the point being made.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I know that the noble Lord made the point about acting together, but I do not think that it really answers the point made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. These lists are highly selective. In the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, all right, some items stand on their own, but let us take paragraph (e) in Amendment 24C, which covers,

“law enforcement, security and justice in the United Kingdom and in the devolved jurisdictions”.

Of course there will be arguments both ways. One noble Baroness referred to the European arrest warrant as though that were self-evidently all in one direction, but a published analysis of it might give rise to a lot of argument about the rights of people who are wrongly prosecuted, or of the innocent who are extradited.

Many people have anxieties about the whole theory of parity of esteem of the justice systems of different countries in the EU. Can anyone really say that the justice systems of Bulgaria or Romania are equal to ours—that we have as much confidence in them as we do in our own UK system—and that therefore there should be automaticity of extradition? I say that because the idea that these things can be reduced to simple formulae, to black and white or to one particular viewpoint is not correct.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I remind the noble Lord that both Houses of Parliament recently voted for resolutions which stated that the European arrest warrant was in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Presumably it is reasonable, therefore, that it should be stated in a government report that it would cease to apply to us if we left the European Union.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Yes, Parliament has voted for it—but if we are having a referendum, everything is up for argument. The public have been given the right to dispute and to vote. Equally, paragraph (f) of the noble Lord’s amendment refers to,

“those regions of the United Kingdom that qualify for structural funds”.

I imagine that that would have a big impact in certain regions of the north of England, but other people in the south might attach equal importance to the fact that we did not have to make a budget contribution across the exchanges any longer.

The point that I am trying to make is that these things cannot all be reduced to black and white. The truth is grey: there is no such thing as complete impartiality in all these arguments. That comes back to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who quite rightly and with tremendous force reminded the House that we may be in danger of overstepping the mark. As I think he was hinting—although he had the graciousness not to say so—I suspect that a lot of these amendments are being put forward for rather self-interested motives from the side that people find themselves on in this argument.

So rather than seeking after some elusive impartiality that does not exist, let both sides slog it out in argument. Let the Government, as they have said, publish a White Paper saying what they think is the result of the negotiations and why they think we should stay in, if that is what they think—and they probably will—but let us not go beyond that into an area that is highly disputable. Each side can put its case best, rather than the Government trying to argue a case that they are fundamentally opposed to.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, let me simply add to what the noble Lord said. The last Government produced 32 reports on the EU balance of competences; I have painful memories of it. We covered the European arrest warrant. It was a process where we asked the opinions of experts and stakeholders throughout the country. We were as impartial as possible in that respect: civil servants reviewed the results and made an assessment of the balance of comments that had come back. So it is possible to be relatively impartial on all this. If we are to have a referendum, it is important that the people are as well informed as possible on the evidence that is provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

The whole point is that we need to know what the situation is today and what we will need to change. In some way or another, we will have to revisit these issues. What are these issues? What is that list of rights that the public will need to know will change as a result of our leaving the European Union? That is not clear—it is not written down anywhere. We think there should be a register or list of rights that are currently there as a result of our membership of the European Union.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The yes campaign has spent an enormous amount of time listing and scaring the pants off people, terrifying the public with all the things that are uncertain, so why do the Government have to argue one particular case in addition to the case they are arguing?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

We are not asking for the Government to argue a case; we are asking them to list what the responsibilities are, which is very different. We talked earlier about agriculture. Yes, some may argue that the Government would very happily replace any money that has come from the CAP with some kind of domestic policy. Others may think that the Chancellor may just grab that £20 billion to fill the black hole in his deficit. Who knows? We do not know what will happen and we will not enter that realm of speculation. However, we know that we would have to address the issue of agriculture if we were to leave the European Union. That is an objective statement of fact, which is what we are looking for here.

I thank the Minister for noting and listing most of the points we have set out. I assume that when she talks about social rights, she includes employment rights within that. I will not relist them—they are now on record—but I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that it would be beneficial to have a regional breakdown of the impact of funding if possible.

Some of those rights will be in the gift of the Government to implement at a domestic level. We must be aware that to cease our membership would allow the Government to repeal the rights that are currently secured by our EU membership; we have heard the examples of agriculture and structural funds. Other rights, such as the ability to access continental hospitals, would not be in the gift of the Government and would be subject to negotiation with our previous EU partners. Whether they want to play with us after our exit would be, to an extent, beyond our ability to influence.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for drawing attention to the fact that there would be considerable legislative and statutory consequences to withdrawal. The noble Lord came up with some figures for how long and how many people it would take to rewrite all the laws that have accumulated over 40 years. It would be useful to know if the Government concur with his suggestion and whether the same is true for devolved Governments as well.

The Minister did not specifically mention the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. It would be useful if she would give some commitment that they would be covered by the reports.

I will not go on to deal with the second part of the Government’s amendment, relating to alternatives to EU membership. We will come to that later in the debate but, as the amendment is set out at the moment, I am afraid it would not be acceptable to us.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I agree with the noble Lord, which is why I want to make sure that all parties cannot spend any money at all, and that the people who can spend the money are the designated campaigners, so that there is a fair basis. I beg to move.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has a lot of logic. I was amused, however, when he referred to how difficult it is to understand legislation that refers back to previous legislation. Exactly—and that is what a lot of us complain about with the European Union. The noble Lord may remember that, when the constitutional treaty had to be ratified by national parliaments, no comprehensive single version was available. Everybody had to refer back to previous legislation. In the case of the Czech Republic, the relevant documents had not even been translated into the national language.

That said, I very much agree with the points the noble Lord made, and I support his amendment. I would, however, very much like to support my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I am somewhat bemused by the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who does not seem to take on board that we are talking about funding: about limits laid down by Parliament on the funding of both sides of the referendum. What surprises me—this is the issue I would like my noble friend to address—is that the Government simply decided to consolidate the PPERA into this legislation and did not introduce their own. They have, after all, amended various parts of the PPERA; they do not have to accept what is written into it as if it were tablets of stone.

I followed the debate in the House of Commons, which touched on this issue. The Minister in the Commons said that it is a good thing—that this is the first time we have had such comprehensive and far-reaching limits. Okay, but if you have limits they ought to be fair to the two sides of the referendum. Otherwise, why have limits at all? Would it not be better to let both sides raise what money they can and spend it? It seems to me there is a fundamental flaw in the proposal. The whole point of referenda is to deal with issues that cut across political parties; that is partly why we have them. I very much doubt we would have referenda if there were not constitutional issues that cut across different political parties. It seems perverse to say, just because a political party in a general election some time ago got 30% of the vote, it is entitled to X amount of money; and another party, which came third the time before and second last time, is allowed Y proportion of money. Why?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I will give way in a minute. If you are going to impose limits on spending, let them be fair between the two sides. After all, the government grant is equal for each side, and the limit on what the designated organisations can do is equal, one with the other, so why bring in political parties? Why say that because the Conservative Party won 30-plus% of the vote it is allowed to spend £7 million, because the Labour Party scored about 30%, it is allowed to spend £7 million, because UKIP got above 10% of the vote it is allowed to spend £4 million and because the Liberals, scored somewhere around 10%, they are allowed to spend £3 million? Of course, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, when you add them all up—let us exclude the Conservative Party, because it has said it is not going to fund either side in the organisation—there is a huge inequity between the limit on one side and the limit on the other. I find it very difficult to understand how this can be justified. I do not see the necessity of it. It would have been extremely simple, if the Government insist on having a cap on spending in the campaign, to have it the same for both sides. The noble Lord wanted to intervene.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

No, no.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am glad that I have his agreement—or perhaps I have not, but we shall hear in a minute. The provision seems fundamentally flawed. I do not see why the Government just picked up that legislation and incorporated it into this. It seems not to make any sense whatever.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Liddle, who apologises that he cannot be present today. Before I address the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his amendment and therefore agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Forsyth, said about it—that is an interesting axis of agreement across the Floor of the Chamber which does not often occur.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked why we should bring in political parties. I was astonished by that. No one is bringing in political parties; political parties are there; political parties are part of our democracy; political parties are part of every sophisticated democracy in the world. Political parties expect to take part in political campaigns, in elections or in referenda. It would be quite extraordinary if a political party was not interested in a major political campaign.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have an interesting experience of political parties. I have talked for some time about that in the past, but I shall not delay the Committee on that subject today.

I was actually quoting the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who asked, “Why bring in political parties?”. That was an extraordinary thing to say, because political parties are part of the structure of our system and part of our national life. It is inconceivable to me that you could have a body of men and women—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I will give way in a second, but let me just complete my sentence, or my paragraph.

It would be extraordinary if you had a body of men and women who were interested in public life and the choices facing the nation and who wanted to play their part in determining the future history of our country, and a big referendum of the importance which this referendum represents came along and they did not take part in that campaign or have any views at all. The Conservative Party has of course decided to opt out of this campaign, but that is because of the peculiar situation in which it finds itself where the leadership of the party is terrified by the Eurosceptics. That has been the history of our relationship with the European Union during the past five years: everything is vetoed by the Eurosceptics and the Government are often paralysed by them. The Government are continually coming up with some ploy to buy off the Eurosceptics and, on this occasion, the Government have decided not to have their own party take part in a campaign. It is an extraordinarily anomalous position, in which a major party is supposedly silent on the great issue of the day. Just because the Conservative Party has got itself into this mess and this absurdity is no reason to deny the important role of political parties generally in a democracy or to handicap other political parties that are in no way responsible for the shambles of the Conservative Party and prevent them doing what they should have a natural right to do in any democratic election or electoral campaign.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords—

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I was not aware that the noble Lord was the Speaker yet, but I am grateful to him for giving way. It was a very long paragraph; perhaps he should have a few more paragraphs in his prose.

No one is saying in supporting this amendment that political parties should not campaign vigorously or be a very important part of the referendum argument. What we are saying is that the spending limits on either side in a referendum should not be related to political parties nor to some historic measure of how the parties fared in the previous election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

In relation to the principles of our public life and our constitution, I like to think that I take positions that are consistent. Therefore my answer to the question must be yes. Political parties have an essential part to play in our democracy and their position should be respected. They should not be in any way suffocated by being told that they cannot have any money for a campaign that they genuinely believe in and where their members are willing to support them financially.

As for the complaints that the noble Lord always makes about the treatment of UKIP, in this case he does not have the ground that he normally has for complaint, because the amount of money available to UKIP—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I must finish my sentence—and it will only be a sentence on this occasion. The amount of money available to the noble Lord’s party in the referendum campaign will be a function of the votes cast for his party and not a function of the number of MPs elected with his party label. If that was the case, he really would be in a bad situation. I give way once again to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Again I stress that this amendment I have been supporting has nothing to do with political parties participating. It has everything to do with spending limits. My question to the noble Lord is: if in a general election the laws provided that what each party could spend in a general election was related to how it had done last time, would he think that that was fair?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

We could argue this for a very long time but we actually have a consensus. Until this issue arose, there was a general consensus in public life in favour of the 2000 Act. Therefore, it is quite right that we should base ourselves in this campaign on that consensus and on the practice over the last 15 years. With that, I will leave that subject—I will not take any more interventions on anything else—and turn to Amendment 58.

Amendment 58 is very important because it is all about the Government being straight with the public—which I do not think they are planning to be at the moment. They have launched a very complicated negotiation, which many of us have many thoughts about, and they hope that it will result in a deal. If it results in a deal, they intend to call a referendum and to advise the public to vote for that deal. If they do not get the deal, of course none of those things will happen.

I totally understand that while the Government are negotiating they do not want to give a running commentary—that is the Government’s phrase, not mine. I even understand why they are a bit reticent about saying exactly what their aims are in the negotiation. In fact, Eurosceptics will always say that they are not aiming high enough and will always say that whatever they get is not adequate. So they are wasting their time, but I can understand why they have got themselves in this position.

However, I cannot understand any hesitation about the Government’s duty, once they have a deal—if they have a deal—to be absolutely straight with the British public about what that deal is and to make an official, authoritative declaration to the British public of what that deal consists of. We cannot possibly have a situation in which knowledge of the deal comes out through unattributed and deniable press briefings from special advisers and spin doctors and so on. We need a clear government document when the day comes, if that deal arises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am simply remarking that principles should apply across the field. I am strongly in favour of greater control over political parties’ spending, which the Conservative Party has resisted extremely strongly. I just remarked that we need to be a little more consistent than we were being.

I will make one other point relating to this group of amendments and to the next.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

May I continue? I will give way to the noble Lord in a minute or two.

There is a principle that we have a Government. We are not like the United States, where Congress can stop the Government taking everything through if it wants As we were told with reference to the House of Lords’ vote last week, the principle is that the Government must be allowed to get their business through and must be able to say what they think is in the national interest. At the end of this negotiation, the Prime Minister has to be able to say, on behalf of the Government, what he now considers to be in the national interest. I note that a number of noble Lords think that the Prime Minister should not be able to make that case. That seems to me to be moving towards the sort of deadlock between Congress and the presidency seen in the United States, where what the President says has no impact at all. This is a renegotiation. At the end of the renegotiation, the Government are entitled, under our constitutional arrangements, to say what they think is in the national interest. I trust that they will do so.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I actually said that I would be perfectly happy with no cap: I was not talking about caps and supporting them in the way that he suggested. However, would the noble Lord be quite content if there were caps in the general election and the Liberal party were capped at less than half the spending allowed to the Conservative and Labour parties because it got less than half the votes of those parties at the previous election?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have some familiarity with the previous negotiations on political funding and whether there should be a state contribution. The discussions on whether there should be public support for political parties had indeed taken on board the issue of how many votes each party got in the previous election, so the principle might well be taken, but the issue of caps on expenditure is not really one for a referendum which, I think, the out camp fears it may lose. It is a wider issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Political parties are treated differently, as the Minister indicated at the outset. The fact is, they are different. They are covered, as she said, by separate elements of PPERA. If political parties do not register as participants in the referendum, they will be limited to spending £10,000. I do not have to answer for the Conservative Party but, in effect, by advocating this amendment noble Lords are saying to local Conservative associations, “You cannot use your office, your staff or your resources in this referendum campaign because if you exceed £10,000, the Conservative Party will be acting illegally”.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I have tried very hard to follow the noble Lord’s speech. I still do not understand the £10,000 figure, but going back a bit in his speech, he expressed himself as being strongly in favour of caps in general elections—fair enough. If we are to have caps in general elections, should they not be the same for all political parties?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I do not know that I strongly expressed my support for caps. I said I thought they had a function and a role. Actually, what the public demand of our political parties is greater transparency. The noble Lords opposite constantly refer to the trade union movement supporting the Labour Party. Every single penny of that money is properly accounted for under a range of legislation, including the trade union Acts that cover the establishment of political funds, but I am not so sure that is clear in the case of some company donations, the origins of which can be obscure and unclear. For me, the most important thing in funding is transparency.

I am a strong advocate of capping donations, which is far more effective than having a cap on spending. Caps on spending have not been particularly effective. As we have seen in every general election since PPERA was enacted, no political party has got anywhere near the spending cap. But capping donations—limiting how people might influence policy—is much more effective. When the Committee on Standards in Public Life held an inquiry into the funding of political parties, I argued that we should have a cap of £500 on political donations because members of the public would understand that amount. Most members of the public would find it incredibly difficult to raise £50,000, which was the amount suggested by the Conservative Party. Not many members of the public would be able to donate that amount. But if you had a cap of £500, most members of the public would say, “Yes, that is a reasonable amount”. But that is the debate: it is more effective to have caps on donations than on spending. No doubt we will return to that debate some other time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 55, which stands in my name. It seems to me that the problem that we are facing comes from the very wide language of the PPERA, which clearly was not intended to deal with the problem that I am drawing attention to. No Minister or servant of the Crown can publish any information which deals with any of the issues raised by the question during the 28 days—and “publish” is defined very widely as making,

“available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means”.

My worry is whether that might prove obstructive to the conduct of government business in Brussels. Ministers will continue to go there, European Union committees and the Council will continue to meet, and the myriad working groups will continue their work. It seems to me that it would be possible to construe that everything said—such as a document or briefing note passed to Members of the European Parliament, a document sent to the Commission or a pleading before the court—could be said to be relevant to the issue of the question of the referendum and could be caught by this 28-day ban.

I am sure that that was nobody’s intention, and I quite understand why the Minister does not wish to go back and reopen the language that we are confronted with. I am sure that people such as Mr Bernard Jenkin, who spoke on the purdah issue in the Commons, had no intention of making it impossible for the Government to carry out their business in Brussels. These are honourable people making a completely different point.

I am puzzled by the noble Baroness saying that she is confident that the Government would have a sufficient defence if challenged during the 28-day period. I am concerned about that. It seems to me that a judicial review—a challenge in court—could be disruptive to business, even if that challenge was successfully resisted in court. It seems to me that the possibility of the challenge might be an inhibition on our people in Brussels who are working in the national interest, doing the job they are meant to do. I am therefore very puzzled by what I think I heard the noble Baroness say—that she did not envisage making any regulations on this issue. I do not know whether we can be sure. If I were the Permanent Representative, I would be very uncertain whether I would be able to do what I am paid to do with the threat of legal challenge.

I may be exaggerating the problem but it is certainly a real one. Mr Lidington, Minister of State in the Foreign Office, told the European Union Committee in evidence in July that Section 125 of the PPERA would make it,

“very difficult if not impossible for us to undertake a whole range of routine EU business in the four weeks leading up to the referendum date”.

I admit that Mr Lidington said that in the context of the presidency. The hypothetical question was: “Suppose that the referendum date and the 28 days fell within the second half of 2017, during the UK presidency of the EU”. He was talking about how very difficult if not impossible it would be to undertake a whole range of routine EU business as the presidency. However, it seems to me that if it would be difficult to advance and defend the EU interest, as the presidency is meant to do, it would be just as difficult to advance and defend the UK interest, which is the daily business of our representatives in Brussels.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am listening very carefully to what the noble Lord is saying—and of course he has huge knowledge of this—but Section 125 refers to “promotional material”. That is what it talks about. It says that it specifically excludes material which is requested by a member of the public. If the Scotch Whisky Association or somebody wanted a particular copy of something that had been discussed, they would still be able to do that. What this prohibits is promotional material. Surely that is wholly right—that promotional material should not be allowed in this way.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

If the noble Lord is right, I am delighted. If the meaning of Section 125 of the PPERA is that only material of a particular kind defined as “promotional” is caught, my problem is much smaller; in fact; it disappears. But it seems to me that the language of the Act says that any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority may not “publish”, which,

“means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means”—

for 28 days, any material bearing on the issue that is in the question. If that is to be the case, then for 28 days we are going to be saying, “Stop the world while we consider whether we want to get off”. I worry that the answer to that is to say, “Don’t be silly; we would defend ourselves in court”. The atmosphere might be quite febrile. There might be legal challenges brought. I think there would be a considerable inhibition on the public service doing its job.

I ask the Minister to look at my amendment, which would not require the making of any regulations. It would simply create a small carve-out, an exemption, for the normal business of the Government with the European Union, in and with the Council, with the Commission, with the Court and with the Parliament. It seems to me that that is much safer ground on which to rest than the thought of defending challenges in court. I am quite sure that when they drafted the PPERA nobody intended Section 125 to have effect on the pursuit of government interests and policies abroad. I am sure that that was not what they had in mind. I am sure that nobody in the other place, in the great debates that took place there over purdah, had it in mind to make it more difficult for the Government to defend the national interest in Brussels. I would argue for my amendment as the simplest way in which to deal with that problem.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. It fills a democratic deficit. As the Minister said, people have not had a direct say on a European issue for more than 40 years. No one under the age of 58 has been able to have such a direct say on our relationship with the European Union. I am pleased that the Opposition are not opposing this Bill, although in the Commons they opposed the previous Private Member’s Bill by Mr James Wharton. Nevertheless, I welcome their support for the Bill today.

However, some, like the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—he and I have often debated this—are quite unhappy. Even if they do not oppose the Bill, they think, as the noble Lord made quite explicit, that it is wrong to gamble with something as big and significant as our membership of the EU, since so much time and capital have been invested in it. To my mind, such an attitude reveals a distrust of democracy. That is and has been one of the weaknesses of the European Union. If there is any blame to be attached to why we are having a referendum, I suggest that it lies with those who promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and then went along with converting the constitution into a constitutional treaty, for the obvious reason that they wanted to avoid a referendum. That created enormous cynicism. It was a blatant manoeuvre to avoid democratic accountability and it confirmed the suspicion that Europe is about building a political project regardless of political opinion in the member states. Of course, Europe today is very different from the Europe that was put to the British people when we last had a referendum—and, indeed, when we joined the EU in the first place.

No doubt we will have intensive discussions in Committee. It has already been clearly signalled from the Benches opposite that there will be amendments about the franchise. I wholly support what the Minister said. If we are going to alter the qualification for voting, we should decide to do that for general elections first; that is when we should consider it. If we want to encourage more participation of young people in politics, let us concentrate on getting the 18 to 24 year-olds involved in the first place before we lower the voting age.

I do think that Clause 6 needs looking at. It is not at all clear why the Government have to disapply any part of Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I read what Mr David Lidington said in the House of Commons and it is not at all clear what he was worried about and why we cannot have a full purdah during the period of the referendum. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could give an example of exactly what the Minister and the Government are so worried about that they have to have this only partial application of Section 125. I remind the House that Section 125 is about material that is put out to the whole public. It is not about circulating documents to people who may be affected by some negotiation.

My position on the referendum is that I will wait to see the results of the renegotiation before I finally make up my mind. A renegotiated settlement for Britain that changed our relationship significantly would have much to commend it. I know this will offend some enthusiasts on the other side but, because of our opt-outs from Schengen and the single currency, we are already semi-detached, country club members—associate members. Sometimes I wonder whether Europe, as it goes forward, is not going to leave us rather than us leaving it—in many ways I think that would be a preferable way to proceed. But Europe goes on.

I am somewhat underwhelmed by what appeared in the Sunday Telegraph about the Government’s apparent negotiating objectives. I know you must not show your hand in negotiations and that an element of bluff is involved, but I thought that you had to bluff your opponents rather than your supporters. That is what worries me a little. I do not think that removing the phrase “ever closer union” will be of great legal significance. It is largely symbolic. I believe strongly that the red card system for national parliaments is not coming out of the negotiations at all. As the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has demonstrated, it has been on the table for a very long time already. It is just qualified majority voting by a different route. I do not think that it is enough just to buttress the wall between the eurozone and ourselves. I believe that Britain could survive perfectly well outside the European Union.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Does the noble Lord consider that we should opt out of, for example, foreign policy and security policy discussions in the European Union? That is a very important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I do not believe that we should have a foreign policy determined by voting. Foreign policy should be intergovernmental. If we were outside the European Union I am sure that one of the things that we could easily co-operate with the European Union on would be foreign policy. The European Union would be extremely ill advised if it did not want us to co-operate with it on foreign policy.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rose, who, before he became leader of the yes campaign, said that he thought that it was a red herring, nonsense and ridiculous to imply that if Britain were outside the European Union we would lose inward investment or that firms would leave this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, did not think very much of the Swiss arrangement, but she must look at the results of that arrangement, whatever she thinks of it. Switzerland, though not a member of the EU, is more integrated with the European Union economy than we are. Its exports per capita are higher than those of this country. The proportion of its GDP that is traded with the EU is higher than that of this country. Contrary to what was said about not having access to the market, Swiss banks and insurance companies operate throughout Europe.

If a man from Mars came and looked at this country’s trade statistics, he would find it impossible to identify when we joined the European Union. In fact, the period when our trade increased most with Europe was immediately before we joined. But this is not about just economics but something more. On 7 October, in an ill-tempered exchange at the European Parliament with Mr Nigel Farage, who has his uses, President Hollande blurted out, “Do you really want to leave a common state? That is the question”. If he had said that a bit earlier some of us might have written to the Electoral Commission, suggesting that it ought to be on the ballot paper. He said, “Do you want to leave a common state and leave democracy?”. What an extraordinary thing to say. We do not want a common state at all. We want to insulate ourselves from increasing integration but we also have to look at the supremacy of EU law. If that cannot be tackled, we need to narrow down hugely the area to which community law applies. That will insulate us from the developments happening in Europe, which are going in a direction that many of us do not support.

I wish the Government well. They will need energy and determination. Once we have the results of that renegotiation, it will be for the British people to decide.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

Shall we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as chairman of the British Iranian Chamber of Commerce. First, in judging this deal, does the noble Baroness think it important to point out that 10 years of sanctions did not succeed in reducing the total number of centrifuges, which during that period increased from 3,000 to 22,000, and that the only alternative to a negotiated settlement was military intervention and the use of force, which would have been disastrous? Secondly, she referred to possible past dimensions of the Iranian military programme, and said that they would be settled later. How far have the Iranian Government gone in committing themselves to allow these matters to be investigated, and does she have complete confidence that this will happen? Thirdly, does she agree that it is extremely encouraging that President Rouhani, who took the unprecedented step of opening public negotiations with the United States for the first time since 1979, has said that he sees the agreement as just the first step towards better relations between the Islamic republic and the wider world?

European Union: Reform

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the CBI has made it clear that it is in favour of reform of the European Union that delivers more competitiveness. We have the support of the majority of its members in the way we are proceeding. There will always be differences of views; that is part of the nature of a democracy.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

Does my noble friend recall that the Duke of Wellington used to state that he thought the English constitution was “incapable of improvement”? Is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, thinks exactly the same thing about the European Union? Does my noble friend recall how the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, always used to advocate joining the euro and went on singing the same tune after it was in deep, deep trouble? If so, will she take his advice with a very large pinch of salt?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I might need more than salt.

EU and Russia (EUC Report)

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee C, I join with colleagues in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, for his great skill as a chairman and his patience in guiding us to our conclusions. It was not always easy as there was a certain amount of division in the committee. I also pay tribute to our policy advisers, Sarah Jones and Roshani Palamakumbura, and our adviser Sam Greene.

I join in the general condemnation of Russia’s and Mr Putin’s actions. He runs a paranoid regime, where his opponents are imprisoned and critics harassed or worse. The annexation of Crimea was illegal and an explicit denial of Russia’s promise to respect its neighbour’s territorial integrity. It is obvious, too, that Mr Putin, in exchanges, has not acknowledged or told the truth about his country’s involvement in eastern Ukraine. However, having said that, the actions of a state—even an authoritarian state—are rarely the consequences of one person, and, in the few minutes that I have, I would like to explore precisely why Russia has reacted as it has done.

Lord Salisbury, the great Victorian Prime Minister, once remarked that the first evil in diplomacy was war and the second evil was an obvious diplomatic triumph. He presumably meant that the latter often sows the seeds of the former. People often quote Mr Putin’s remark that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, as though that in itself was a sinister observation. I suspect that many people in Russia share that sentiment, not because of any great attachment to communism but because of the economic pain and the chaos that followed.

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary under George W Bush and also under President Obama, said:

“When Russia was weak in the 1990s and beyond, we did not take Russian interests seriously. We did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view, and of managing the relationship for the long term”.

While we were taking evidence in our committee, we heard much argument over whether assurances were or were not given to Russia in the past about the expansion of NATO. Sir Rodric Braithwaite, the former UK ambassador to Russia, was quite emphatic that such assurances were given. He provided the dates and the names of the people who were present, including himself, and said that these assurances were confirmed in Foreign Office documents. Whether these assurances were given or whether a different interpretation can now be placed on them because circumstances have changed, it is clear that the Russians were deeply unnerved by the expansion of NATO.

This was not a view expressed only by President Putin: it goes back to President Yeltsin, who, in 1995, at the time of NATO’s bombing of Serbia said:

“This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation’s borders … The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe”.

In 2008, President Putin warned that including Ukraine or Georgia in NATO membership, as had been proposed at a summit in Bucharest, would be perceived as a direct threat to Russia.

Extraordinarily and ironically, George Kennan, the US diplomat and the architect of western containment of the Soviet Union, expressed his anxiety in 2008 after the first round of NATO expansion. He said:

“I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies … I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else”.

We may regard NATO as a defensive alliance, but it was originally aimed against Russia. Security can be a zero-sum game: one person’s security is another person’s insecurity.

Perhaps we do not sufficiently appreciate what a big decision it was when Russia allowed Ukraine to declare its independence. Russia was giving up a territory with which it had the most profound emotional and spiritual links, going back 1,000 years to the time when Kiev was the first Orthodox capital of the country.

We in the West and in the EU say that we do not recognise spheres of influence. Does this really accord with history and the realities of the world today? Try telling that to Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua or Bolivia. For Russia, of course, EU associate arrangements were the stepping stone to full EU membership, which it saw in many cases as leading to full NATO membership.

When we were taking evidence, we heard plenty of criticism of the EU’s handling of the proposed association agreement and comprehensive free trade agreement with Ukraine. Insufficient consideration appears to have been given by the Commission to the tension between the free trade agreement and Mr Putin’s proposed Eurasian Customs Union. Some officials who appeared before us admitted that almost no thought had been given to Russia and the effect on the Russian economy, and that there had been little contact with Russia even though the impact on the Russian economy was potentially considerable.

We may not like Moscow’s position, but it is not difficult to understand the logic. Ukraine is a huge expanse of flat land that Napoleon and the Nazis crossed in order to invade Russia. Ukraine is seen by Russia as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance. After President Yanukovych was removed, proposals were put forward in the Ukrainian Parliament to cancel the Russian lease on the naval base in Crimea. Russia would have lost access to the warm waters of the Mediterranean, and it allowed President Putin to speculate about having a western base in Crimea.

We all know about Winston Churchill’s speech in 1939 about Russia being a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. However, he also said:

“It cannot be in accordance with the interests of the safety of Russia that”,

the West,

“should plant itself on the shores of the Black Sea”.

Churchill would have understood Russian fears—even if they were illusions—about its base in Crimea.

I have concentrated on viewing the situation from a Russian point of view because it needs doing. However, we have to deal with the situation as it is: to understand is not to forgive. I support the imposition of sanctions. I agree that if there is not further progress, sanctions should be increased. I agree that we should stand by our Article 5 commitments. It is important that Minsk 2 should be upheld. This applies to Mr Putin and, equally, to Mr Poroshenko and the Government in Kiev. They should not be allowed to add new conditions to the agreement.

There are other things that we should be doing and encouraging. First, we need to consider devolution—even asymmetric devolution—within Ukraine. Secondly, we need to fashion an economic rescue plan for the country, funded jointly by the EU, the IMF, Russia and the United States. Lastly, and most importantly, the West should agree to Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position in the Cold War. We should publicly rule out NATO expansion to include either Georgia or Ukraine.

We need a prosperous Ukraine—one that cannot be presented as a threat to Russia and one that will allow the West to repair its relationship with Moscow. We need Russia for many different issues and it is in all our interests to find a solution that enables us once again to have a better relationship with Russia and end this tragic situation.

Iran Nuclear Talks

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord. He asks us to ensure that our colleagues across the Atlantic—perhaps all other colleagues involved in these negotiations—remain firm. In the meetings that were held last week by the Foreign Ministers, as the noble Lord will be aware, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary went twice to Vienna, on Friday and yesterday, in order to try to make sure that we got as close as possible to a result and, we hope, to a full result. All those taking part are showing an absolute resolve, so the E3+3 plus Iran have ended in a position where all have a determination to continue. I can give an assurance that our determination will be relayed to all our colleagues who are taking part in these negotiations. The noble Lord refers to the 4+3. Clearly we want to drive momentum. There must be no thought that there is time available to let anything drift and leave any nailing-down of the political framework until too late. That is why we have proposed 4+3 as a structure. If, at the end of four months, we have not got to the most perfect position on the political framework, I suspect that a huge amount of work will be going on to make sure that we do, but behind that there is a determination by all parties that we do not let this opportunity slip.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as chairman of the British Iranian Chamber of Commerce. I agree with my noble friend that no deal is a lot better than a bad deal. It must be an effective deal, but it is good that the habit of dialogue, which increases understanding of each other’s position, is continuing. One hopes that that will lead to wider things. First, can the Minister say whether the Russian offer to build nuclear power stations in Iran and to convert the enriched uranium into fuel rods outside Russia has in any way contributed towards a narrowing of the gap on the scale of the programme and the scale of the centrifuges issue? Secondly, let me ask the Minister about sanctions relief for humanitarian goods. There have been reports that medicines and other humanitarian goods needed for hospitals are not getting through, despite the sanctions relief. The American banking boycott, which is not in its entirety part of British law but is imposed extraterritorially, is frustrating the supplies of humanitarian goods. We have always made it clear that we do not want the sanctions to hit ordinary people or vulnerable people.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, perhaps I may address that matter first. My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that humanitarian relief was never part of the sanctions regime. We have made it clear that we do not wish the sanctions to impact directly on the needs of Iranian people; they should be directed firmly at the Iranian Government. I appreciate that banks can make commercial decisions, but with regard to humanitarian relief efforts it is clear that there should not be any let or hindrance in their delivery. I have had discussions with humanitarian organisations which are firm in their belief on how to take their work forward effectively.

My noble friend also raised the issue of Russia and what it may have agreed to do. I appreciate that there was a story in the New York Times and elsewhere that Russia had agreed to take on responsibility for Iran’s stockpile of uranium and that that might have been a bit of a signal of a breakthrough in the talks. What I can say is that identifying areas for civil nuclear co-operation will be an important part of the final deal, but clearly it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detail, let alone because it is something that Russia may or may not be involved in. I will say that a deal can be reached only if Iran addresses international proliferation concerns by simply—perhaps it is not so simple—reducing the size of its nuclear programme. That is the core of our negotiations.