European Union Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I think that this is what might be called the Rumsfeld amendment, because it has been moved to deal with the unknown unknowns. That is what it is all about. I had not remotely intended to speak in this debate, but the noble Lord’s enthusiasm is so infectious. He looks at the European Union and sees that nothing has ever gone wrong with it. We ought always to be in there and engaging with it. We must be careful not to miss the train. We must always be positive regardless of what is happening. He tells us about the wonderful speech that Monsieur Trichet has made, saying that we ought to have fiscal union in order to save the euro. No mention is made that that comes out of the ashes of the disastrous ruin of monetary union.

I think it was the noble Lord who used the same arguments to try to persuade us to join the euro. He said that we are losing influence. Even though the euro has now itself faced enormous problems and even though some of my noble friends on the Back Benches have said that we shall never be able to have a single currency area without a fiscal union, we are told, “That is ridiculous. Now fiscal union is just another great step forward. We have got to be positive about it”.

The noble Lord also says that the European stability mechanism is another thing that we are missing out on, and that we ought to be involved in it. Of course, the ESM is in complete contradiction to the whole basis on which the euro was set up. It is not because it was an unexpected disaster—it was a predicted disaster. The reason the ESM had to be created was because the treaties totally forbade it. Yes, we do face some unknown unknowns.

I apologise to the House because we should not all give our own views on Europe, but I was completely provoked by the noble Lord, who seems to be like Alice through the looking-glass: every disaster is seen as a step forward. We just ought to take a step back, hold our breath, and think about it a little.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I am going to resist the great temptation to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I do so not because I do not think that he is completely wrong, which I think he is. He is quite wrong to write off the euro in this way, and he is wrong to suppose that we would not have had to face a systemic crisis caused by fiscal collapse in Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Whether or not the euro had ever existed, we would have needed to take intelligent and concerted action. The noble Lord, with whom I have debated these matters with great pleasure on many occasions over the years, is as wrong as he has always been. I am happy to give him good money in a private conversation afterwards that the euro is far from being in a state of crisis and that it will survive.

I hope noble Lords understand the very important distinction between a fiscal crisis, which has hit a number of countries that are members of the eurozone and have the euro currency, and a crisis for the euro itself. You can have a fiscal crisis caused by Governments overborrowing irrespective of the currency in which they are borrowing. Even if those countries had been members of the dollar area and had borrowed so much that the financial markets were in danger of ceasing to refinance them, there would have been a crisis affecting them; and because of the number of assets that we inevitably hold in those countries, which are major trading partners of ours here, we could not have been immune to a fiscal crisis irrespective of the currencies involved.

European Union Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, would not describe people who oppose his points of view in such terms as “nerds”. It does not enhance debate and it is quite unnecessary to lampoon one’s opponents.

The amendment has a certain superficial attraction, but we need to be extremely careful what we do. If you say that a decision on an item on which a referendum is to be held can take effect only if 40 per cent of the electorate vote, you could say that about almost every election we have. People are elected to the House of Commons—certainly in by-elections—on a turnout of less than 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. Why on earth should that be legitimate and a referendum on a matter which is to be transferred to European governance not be accepted? We have to be very careful not to create a precedent here which might be used in other circumstances that may be inconvenient to Parliament and certainly to local authorities, where the turnout is very often far below the 40 per cent of those entitled to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, talked about the various alternatives that might be put on the ballot paper. If you pass this amendment, there is another alternative which is that you can campaign for people not to vote. That is good democracy, is it not? Or is it? If you encourage people not to vote to get the decision you want, that is extremely bad democracy. I do not want to delay the House any further, but I believe that before we vote we should be very careful about what we are doing.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as always, made a very careful and thoughtful speech which places me in a slightly awkward position. I find it surprising that there is so much enthusiasm for this amendment from those who accuse the Government of obstructing the process towards greater European integration. They have said that the Government have been putting locks on moves towards further European integration. Here they are putting a padlock on the lock; they are putting another obstacle in the way of European integration. Let us not forget that one will get a referendum only when the Government are proposing to acquiesce in a step towards European integration. Therefore, I find it a little strange that those who are enthusiastic about more integration and think that the Government are being obstructionist about this want to put up another obstacle.

I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that there is a danger that we will have lots of referendums on trivial subjects such as the number of advocates-general or the voting system for having advocates-general. There are several reasons, which we went through in Committee, why we will not get a whole series of trivial referendums. First, these sorts of changes tend to come along in packages after major treaty revisions and we have been assured there will not be major treaty revisions. It seems unlikely that any one country is going to invest a huge amount of political capital pressing for a change in the voting system for choosing advocates-general. If some power has not been given to Brussels even after the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty—the series of constitutional treaties we have had—if powers are left to individual countries, there is a very good reason for that. Obviously in previous negotiations countries have not wanted to cede those powers. The idea that we are going to get a lot of referendums on trivial matters is unrealistic and is a chimera. If that was the basis of the noble Lord’s argument I would not accept it. There are many subjects that are by no means trivial, such as our borders and our criminal justice system, where it would be wholly appropriate to have a referendum. That is why I am broadly a supporter of the Bill.

I said at the beginning that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, places me in a slightly awkward position because I was, as some of my noble friends will remember, a very strong supporter of the 40 per cent threshold for the referendum on AV. Indeed, I voted twice against my party on it. I do not like to make personal comments but I got to my feet largely because of my noble friend Lord Dykes, who I have known for many years. On the AV question, my noble friend was a very firm opponent of the 40 per cent threshold to which he has put his name on this occasion. As I am placed in an awkward position and he is also exposed in an awkward position, I am prepared to do him a deal. If he will not support this amendment, I will vote for it.

European Union Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The noble Lord is absolutely wrong on this. The 1975 referendum was held because of the failure to hold a referendum before we went in. The Labour Party was having great trouble—I remember it well because at that time I was a member of the Labour Party—and to heal the split that had grown up within it, the device of a referendum was put into operation. However, that occurred only two years after our entry into the Common Market and we had not felt the effects of that. Now that we have been in it since January 1973, people have experienced what it means, what it costs and how it affects them. That is why so many people now are beginning to believe, or already believe, that we need to test the view of the British people on the matter. What is wrong with that? People like the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, have said that the European Union is the best thing since sliced bread and that the country is behind it. They said the same about AV but, when people voted on it, they found that they were not with them at all. I believe that they should test the people’s opinion. I promise that if we have a referendum on being in or out of the European Union, and the people say that we must remain in, I shall go away and have a nice retirement. Until then I shall continue to press for a referendum. I hope that eventually the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and others like him, will come round to the same position as that of his party’s president.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I do not want to follow my noble friend Lord Dykes too far as I am not sure that his remarks were strictly in order. We have tended to have rather a lot of general remarks. I am sure that the Daily Express is highly flattered by the amount of time that has been devoted to it in these debates. Listening to my noble friend Lord Dykes, I remembered Enoch Powell’s remark that politicians who complain about the newspapers are rather like fishermen complaining about the weather. It is not the Daily Express that has caused the rise of the True Finns party. It is not the Daily Express that has caused the Germans to become more sceptical about the euro. It is not the Daily Express that has caused a very considerable dramatic change in opinion in Holland about the European Union generally. If my noble friend wishes to understand why the Daily Express manages to get people to sign these petitions, he ought to read his own speech because it is exactly remarks such as his, abusing the feelings of ordinary people, which increase the number of people supporting these petitions. To seek to deny that there is concern among ordinary people about overcentralisation in the European Union is to neglect public opinion in a rather cavalier way, if I may dare say so.

I want to ask about two points that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in his extremely interesting speech. The first concerns the point about Clause 6(5)(j). If what the noble Lord said was right, this was not about powers but about a policy. He instanced a policy decision and the hypothesis whereby, under enhanced co-operation, the Germans, while not participating in it, might wish to make a financial contribution to it. That is rather an important point because one of the fears one would have in Britain, as a country unlikely to participate in some of the enhanced co-operation projects, is that we might end up paying the bill. That would be one of our natural instinctive reactions. It would be extraordinary if, in fact, Germany wanted to pay part of the bill and that was not allowed without a referendum in this country. I cannot believe that the situation is quite like that, but I very much hope that my noble friend can clarify that point.

Secondly, I wanted my noble friend to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about whether one would have to have a referendum on the exchange rate as well as the decision to join the euro. Normally, when I was a Minister, distinguished civil servants such as the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Hannay, and people of their ability, talent and knowledge, had ingenious ways of solving problems and they could always refer to some obscure part of the treaty to enable us to decide what to do. On this occasion, I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, seemed to be using his ingenuity to make things more difficult, rather than to consider this matter more seriously, which is what he normally does.

I do not believe that it would be possible to put the rate and the decision in principle to join the euro together. I certainly do not believe that the referendum would be about the rate. No one would be remotely interested in that. The referendum would be about whether or not we joined the euro. I do not see, as the noble Lord seems to do, some tremendous market problem because the rate announced on one day would be implemented on another. There was no such problem when the rates for all the individual currencies that formed the euro were announced well in advance—a year or more in advance—of the date on which the currency was set up. It was announced that there would be a date on which the currencies would be irrevocably linked together in a grid. Naturally, the market adjusted to the decision that had been made, rather than the other way round. I do not see the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, outlined, but I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that my understanding and conclusions on that matter are correct.

More generally, I obviously could not support the amendment because in essence, under a disguise, it tries to get rid of the lock imposed by the Bill. While we hear a lot of criticism of the vetoes that will be subject to the referendum provisions, we never hear anything about the 50 vetoes that are left intact, in the sense that they can be abolished without a referendum. There are 50 areas under the Bill where unanimity is still required, and a referendum will not be required if they are removed by whatever procedure. A degree of judgment and selectivity has thereby been exercised by the Government.

We tend to forget in these debates that after Maastricht, Lisbon and Nice unanimity remains on certain articles. They remain there for a very good reason. Many countries, not just Britain, have wanted unanimity to remain and they do not want easily to surrender it, which is one reason why the idea that you will get a multiplicity of referenda on what the Opposition consider to be minor subjects will not actually happen.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

My Lords, I should like briefly to return to what the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said when he saw fit to expatiate on the Daily Express’s anti-euro campaign. At an earlier stage in our debates, he said that he had examples of 125 anti-euro headlines in the hated, Murdoch-ite, Barclay-ite and Desmond-ite press that some eminent think tank had proved to be wrong in every respect. He promised to let us have those figures and the factual debunking of those 125 stories. I wrote to the noble Lord about 10 days ago and asked for those figures, and still I have not received them. Can he provide them to the House or just to UKIP Members?

European Union Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I must say to the noble Lord—I think that he will agree in principle—that it is a very bad excuse for a Government, when bringing forward legislation, to say, “This may be bad legislation with bad wording, but we copied it from a previous Government”. That is not the way that legislation should be brought forward in this or any other House. All proposed legislation should be justified on its own merits and on its own text; the Government of the day should be prepared to defend the texts that they bring forward and should not say simply that they are reproducing what may well be the errors of the past.

I move to the text before us. It would be useful to have on the record a clear statement from the Government of what this is intended to mean to Ministers. If the Act is passed, Ministers will need to know what scope they have for taking part in discussions. If the noble Lord says that they will be allowed to say, in the example that I quoted, “I personally am in favour of this, but I do not have support yet from my colleagues so I will take it back to them”, that would be useful to know. If they will be allowed to say, “The British Government are in favour of this in principle, but we need an Act of Parliament and a referendum”, that would be a very reasonable thing to say if this Act was passed. However, it is extremely important that we get this clear.

I will explain to the noble Lord why it is so important. There is an issue of good faith. We are parties to the treaty of Lisbon. The noble Lord probably voted for the treaty, and his noble friend Lord Howell probably did not. Nevertheless, we as a country are committed to the treaty of Lisbon, and we are therefore committed to the clauses of the treaty—including Article 31(3) of the TEU, which we will debate in a moment—which provide in certain circumstances for a decision by the Council to go to qualified majority voting to reach a decision. The treaty of Lisbon provides for these possibilities, but we are coming along with a proposed Act of Parliament—a Bill—that is designed to prevent Great Britain from ever being a party to mechanisms that we signed up to when we agreed to the treaty of Lisbon. If it appears that we are going to be censoring Ministers and saying, “You cannot take part in good faith in debates and discussion, you cannot have a normal exchange of views, you cannot make statements that you are in support of things and so forth”, this would constitute a determination to make sure that our contribution in the Council will be extremely negative and unproductive.

This is a matter of good faith and is about whether the Government—we had this discussion in another context during the debate on the Bill—want to bring about deliberately a degradation in the good relations between this country and our EU partners. I trust that they do not. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said on a number of occasions that they do not and that it was quite wrong for me to harbour that black suspicion. I hope that it is quite wrong of me, but it is therefore very important to see what kind of constraint will be imposed on Ministers. I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention, which has gone some way to explaining the practical effect on a Minister of the Crown who takes part in the Council of Ministers. Anything further that he can add would be of great practical importance when Ministers find themselves in difficult situations in future discussions where they have to have regard to the Act, if it is an Act by that point.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved his amendment, he was careful and modest enough to say that it was a probing amendment, following which it was possibly unwise for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to go in feet first when it was explained to him that the legislation was repeating what had been in previous legislation—apart from the referendum—and say, “That does not excuse it because it is bad legislation”. However, all the arguments that he applied about lack of flexibility surely would have applied before if his arguments were right.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, understood what I said. I stand by it, will repeat it and will ask him whether seriously he disagrees with it. This House and any serious legislature or democratic assembly anywhere in the world should look at the text of Bills proposed to it on their merits. It is no excuse simply to say, “We are just repeating mindlessly some formula that already exists”, without being prepared to justify it.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Yes, but the noble Lord's criticism might have been a little modified in the light of the explanation that the Minister gave, rather than being put forward in quite such an aggressive manner.

In an equally probing spirit—because I, too, would like to understand this—perhaps I might ask the Minister two questions. Is he saying, first, that there is a distinction between a draft decision and a full decision, and that a Minister could indicate an agreement in principle to a draft decision? That was what I understood happened when we debated the European financial stability mechanism—the first of the three bailout funds, if I may call them that, that were arranged—when my noble friend Lord Howell clarified a certain amount of confusion in the House. Some noble Lords thought that we were making a final decision; he made it clear that we were not, that Parliament would have to decide on the principle of the matter, and that there would be another debate later. If that is the correct example of how this operates, we can see that there would be plenty of time for flexibility and consideration.

Secondly, are the words “or otherwise support” meant to cover also a position where abstention on a decision occurs? Where there is a requirement for unanimity, abstention cannot stop a proposal going through. It may be that that, too, is covered by the words. I have seen the words of Mr Murphy that the Minister quoted, and I think that that was one of the points that he was making.

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment for the opposite reasons to those that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others gave for promoting it. It is important that it is very clear that the UK Government are not enabled to support or enable moves to go forward in Europe that imply a treaty change or a substantive shift in competences, without it being very clear that the UK Government must have support in a referendum.

The issue for me is that if the words “or otherwise support” were removed from Clause 6(1), the only restriction would be on a Minister of the Crown voting in favour. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, there are many situations in which a vote may neither be required nor be part of the procedure. Simply by sitting still or abstaining, Ministers may enable something to happen that would have binding consequences for the UK. To remove the words “or otherwise support” would completely nullify the provision. The discussion has led me to wonder whether the wording goes far enough, or whether we need additional text stating “to otherwise support or allow by default” a decision to which the provision applies. I would like an assurance from the Minister that this will catch all those situations where abstention, sitting on the hands or complicity would enable decisions to move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Unless I misheard again, the noble Lord did not end his remarks with a question, so I am not going to respond except to say that the Strasbourg court is, of course, elected by parliamentarians. I do not think that the Strasbourg court has anything to do with this discussion, which is about the European Court of Justice, but I am grateful for the words of apology from the noble Lord.

I turn to Amendment 30. Here in Clause 6 we are in a different part of the forest. We have abandoned treaty land and treaty amendment by any form, and now we are into decisions of various kinds and the mandatory referendum requirements for those decisions. By definition we have therefore left coalition agreement territory because we are not talking about treaties any more. We are now dealing with the 56 categories of decision on which a mandatory referendum could overturn an Act of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out at the start of the Committee, that would be unprecedented. These referenda are entirely unnecessary because a Government, if they wished, could always choose to say no in the Council. The law requiring referenda is particularly unnecessary because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out during the third day of debate, not having a reference in the Bill to a particular requirement for a referendum does not mean that a Government could not, on the day, choose to say that they wanted to have one. All this does is tie the Government’s hands, which of course some would want to do.

Why have we got into this curious mess in these extraordinarily detailed thickets—and we have not yet looked at Schedule 1 where mandatory requirements are to be imposed? I can think of only two rationales. The first was the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, talked about in a different context during the third Committee day. It might be called the Odysseus rationale. We would have a British Minister, let us say the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, sailing past Brussels and insisting that he be tied to the mast so that he cannot be lured by the siren voices with their seductive song. He wants to be able to say, “Look, guys, I have nothing against what you are saying, but I can’t possibly agree with you. If I did, we would have to have a referendum back home”. It is the wax in the ears and tied to the mast provision—the Odysseus provision. I think that it is very pusillanimous. I would have found it very hard to brief Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, on this point. Mrs Thatcher thought that if you disagreed with something, you disagreed with it. You said no. You did not say, “I am terribly sorry. There is nothing much we can do about this because we would have to have a referendum and we do not want one”.

It is insulting to our negotiating partners to turn up tied to the mast. They expect to do serious business, but the Brits cannot do so because of this Act on the statute book. The Brits therefore cannot take part in negotiations. It will feed the temptation and tendency for people to do things in smaller groups without consulting us because we are such a bore.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. According to his argument, Ministers will be put in a position where they have to say, “I cannot agree because we will have to have a referendum”. Why is he assuming that a referendum cannot be won? Why is it not possible for a Minister to say, “I agree to the draft decision. We will put it to the people and we hope and intend to win”?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

That is a fair question in relation to, say, the euro, which is the subject of Amendment 30. If we were to decide that we wished to join the euro, it would be totally reasonable for the Minister—I would like to see the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in this role—to say to his ECOFIN colleagues, “We would now like to join the euro, but this is a big one and I am afraid that we will have to have a referendum on the issue”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that it is a pity that so many of these amendments have been lumped together; it would have better if they had been somewhat disaggregated. We are talking more about Clause 6 than about Schedule 1, and whatever the objections in general to the Bill and the things listed in Schedule 1, I find it difficult to understand why people do not regard Clause 6 as eminently reasonable. That clause is about a substantial increase in competence and transfers of power.

All the areas listed are where Britain has special arrangements or opt-outs. It is true that they do not require treaty change but they are none the less significant and affect us in different ways, so, given the Bill, it is logical that they should be subject to the referendum provisions. Those issues include the euro, the European army that was referred to, border controls and the European public prosecutor. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with great respect, as I always do, but I think that the establishment of the European public prosecutor is actually a very big issue, one that would be suitable to have a referendum on. I shall say a bit about that in a minute.

An argument was put forward from the Benches opposite that in having Clause 6, which deals with the passerelles, we were going against the Lisbon treaty after it had been ratified. That is not really the case; although those passerelles exist and were in the treaty, they say that we “may” do this, not that we “will” do this. These are significant changes.

I may add that I am told that the Germans have altered their treatment of passerelles to give more say in any ratification of parliaments in future, so this does not go against the Lisbon treaty. In any case, the argument that the passerelles represent the will of Lisbon may sometimes be true, but sometimes passerelles were put in the treaty simply because countries could not agree; one group of countries wanted to go ahead faster while another group did not, so they decided to compromise and have a passerelle to leave the issue for a later date. I remember it being reported that one of the Finnish participants in the Lisbon treaty said, “The passerelles were where we failed, where we couldn’t agree”.

[Lord Dykes]

When my noble friend referred to the Germans, he would accept, wouldn’t he, that, like us and other member states, they are very keen to enhance the involvement of the national parliament in European decision-making at various different levels, including therefore making that process easier for the parliament to be involved in, but at the same time with the expectation in Germany, which is natural there, that the parliamentarians will be voting enthusiastically for any changes if they come to a vote? In the mean time, the basic law repeats the important clause on continued European integration.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I think that it is common ground that we are all in favour of increased national involvement in treaty changes and changes in the competences and the power of the European Union. That is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has gone out of his way to emphasise. That is common ground; the argument is about where there should be referenda. My argument is that, whatever the general arguments about the Bill, these provisions, particularly the European defence policy, the euro, our borders and the European public prosecutor are suitable projects on which to have a referendum.

I said that I had listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and that I always do. I was with him on a committee that considered the European arrest warrant, and I was in a small minority in expressing strong reservations about it. Some of the arguments that were put forward then were, “Well, it’s going to apply only to a few criminals”, “It won’t apply to very many people”, and, “Why should people be worried about appearing in a court?”. Many of us would argue now, though, that it was a hugely significant transfer of powers that has now worked out in the way that it was intended to. There have been many examples of injustice, certainly several that are known to me personally, and it is something that I very much regret. I hope that we might return to that subject and amend the arrangements that exist.

Article 86 of the TFEU, which refers to the possibility of the public prosecutor, talks about,

“offences against the Union’s financial interests”.

Fair enough if we are talking about offences against the Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has often emphasised, but one wonders in what ways those words might be stretched. One notices that subsection (4) says:

“The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension”.

I know that the noble Lord said that he was not in favour of that extension, but this is a big area and one that is suitable to give great consideration to. Peter Hain, Britain’s representative at the convention leading up to the constitution that never was, strongly opposed participation in the EPP. He said:

“Criminal prosecution should be essentially a national responsibility. Our national prosecutors must be accountable to national courts and ultimately to our national parliaments. The European Public Prosecutor would be accountable to neither”.

It is true that these are not treaty changes but they are big increases in competence, brought about through the passerelle, which we do not have to endorse. In ratifying Lisbon, we were not endorsing that we would automatically let these things go through. For that reason I am strongly against the amendment.

[Lord Goodhart]

The noble Lord is right to say that the European arrest warrant has not worked out as properly as it should have done or as we expected it to at the time. However, this matter wholly involves people who are concerned with international crime. How does the noble Lord see that it could operate to the damage of ordinary citizens of this country, who make up the vast majority of those who find themselves in court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is not here; he was here earlier. I read what he said the other day. If I have in any way misrepresented his views, I am sure he will correct me. I read that he was very firmly one of those in the previous Government who took the view that the best way of dealing with international crime was not by the creation of new international authorities but through co-operation between national authorities. That was his very firm view. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for what he said about the European arrest warrant. I know he felt it should have been combined with a system of European bail, which would have made it very different.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I want first to address some of the general points that have been made in this debate and then focus on Amendment 42, with which I thoroughly agree. I very much support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on that. Several general points have been made. Some of this debate has been a bit of a Second Reading debate, which is a very good thing. These issues are extremely important and I accept that many of these amendments cut across the thrust of the Bill itself. They force the Government to explain exactly what their purposes are. That is a most important aspect of this evening’s proceedings. We are making some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for recognising that we on this side of the House are very much in favour of enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of European Union decisions. If the argument was about that, there would not be an argument. We would be pretty much in agreement and would have put the Bill to bed long ago. The issue is entirely about referenda, and whether it is sensible, practical and ever seriously intended to have referenda. It is important that, as a result of the proceedings of this Committee, we elucidate that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that he thought it was a sick joke—strong words, but justified—to suppose that the Bill would in any way enhance our relationship with our partners in the EU or enhance the British public’s support for our membership of the EU. I do not cast aspersions on the sincerity of any Member of this House. I am sure the people who say that they believe that the Bill will somehow enhance the British public’s understanding of and support for the European Union have genuinely persuaded themselves that that is the case. However, it is quite difficult to follow that argument, which is so obviously contrary to the historical facts. We all know what those are: Mr Cameron offered this Bill to his Eurosceptics as a sop. It was put to them as being a victory for the Conservative Party in the negotiations that led to the coalition agreement. Indeed, Mr Cameron and his Whips have been going around the Back Benches of the Tory party, as I know, saying, “You must be pleased with us now. We have at least brought forward this Bill, which stops any further growth in powers for the European Union and preserves parliamentary sovereignty”. That is an aspect we will come to later in the Bill. That is historical fact. That is how it has been presented and the way it happened. There is no question at all of anybody saying, “Let’s see what we can do to enhance the British public’s understanding of and support for membership of the Union”, and then coming up with this Bill. That is not how it occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

It is terribly tempting to go into experiences of Swiss referenda in the cantons. Sadly for the House, I have some experience of them. That is what tells me that I should not retell it here because it is not exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks it might be. I hope that the House is not misunderstanding my point, which is not that people are unable to grasp complex ideas or are uninterested in them. It is that, in general, I believe they have a sentiment which suggests that the really critical things should be put before them but that there is also a responsibility on parliamentarians to do a high level of detailed work and to get some of that work done.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord says that he has never been asked on the doorstep about Article 312(2). Of course not, but if he called it the European budget people would understand exactly what he was talking about. Is it not the case that subsection (5) refers to all these different provisions in the TFEU by their complicated numbers but they actually come down to about five or six simple areas that are perfectly comprehensible, like a European army, a public prosecutor and our borders? If the noble Lord thinks that it is appropriate to have a referendum on a complicated issue like the single currency, why can we not have one on the European army?

[Lord Triesman]

That may well be one of the substantive issues that people might concede was necessary, but it is also true—and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, when he made the point about the interest that we rightly take in the defence of this country—that we already undertake a great deal of what we do in the defence of this country inside alliances about which the British people are not asked at all other than in general elections. They are certainly asked in the context of whether we are willing to sustain an independent nuclear deterrent—another issue that had ramifications inside the Labour Party, I readily acknowledge—

European Union Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

Surely it could be up to the nation member states to impose their own minimum gas storage obligation. Why do we have to do it through the European Union? It is perfectly ridiculous. This unhealthy EU obsession, which is what it is—I am very sorry that the previous Government and this Government seem to have signed up to it—of using wind power to keep our lights on is one of the most damaging fantasies of our time. I oppose the amendment and I hope that it will be dealt with accordingly.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I want to make one simple and brief point, but before I do that perhaps I may respond partly to what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said because I was a little puzzled by it. He is a former Treasury Minister and chairman of a think tank in the City. He was referring to the two aspects of the banking system in crisis being capital and liquidity, with which I totally agree. But he was, I think, arguing that perhaps we need more European attention to capital. That was quite a surprising thing to suggest because, as he will remember, not long before the Irish banking crisis struck and the Irish banks were revealed as hopelessly undercapitalised, we had stress tests carried out on the European banks—a separate exercise in the European Union and in Britain. The European Union banking tests revealed that no bank had a problem with capital other than one bank in Germany. That was shortly before the crisis was fully revealed in all its horror in Ireland.

I agree with the noble Lord that there is a separate aspect of liquidity which the European Central Bank has, in a skilful and constructive way, provided to the European banking system. Equally, the Bank of England has also exercised its national function well. He did not make the case for further European competence or the transfer of power or competence from this country to Europe by merit of that alone.

The noble Lord went on to make the familiar point about the eurozone and whether we were marginalised by not being in it. It is of course true that eurozone Ministers may make certain decisions affecting themselves in which we do not participate. We do not participate in meetings of the Federal Reserve Bank, although its decisions affect us. However, anything that eurozone Ministers decide to do that is governed by the rules of the single market or competition law continues to be governed by the rules of the single market and competition policy. He was careful to say that issues would arise if we were proposing to join the euro but the implication of his argument was that in order to gain influence we should join the euro, which I am sure he does not really subscribe to. Very few people will own up to arguing that we should join the euro today.

[Lord Taverne]

I was not arguing that we should join the euro today. On the earlier question, I defer to my noble friend’s greater experience in these financial fields. However, a large number of economists have taken the view that what is needed at the moment are much more effective stress tests for European banks on a euro-wide basis. For example, I dare say my noble friend has read economist Willem Buiter’s considerable contribution to Citigroup’s paper on the subject. He is not alone in this because a large number of economists are concerned that only through a much more rigorous euro-wide stress test system will the banking liquidity part of the problem be adequately resolved.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I think the stress tests refer to capital rather than liquidity, which is a slightly shorter-term issue. I agree with the noble Lord and Willem Buiter that we need proper stress tests. However, the previous stress tests that were applied within the EU were revealed in all their nakedness as thoroughly inadequate.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, we should remember that the regulations that govern these issues are not only European but worldwide. The BIS has a crucial role—in fact the lead role—in determining the capital ratios of banks. I do not think that the argument about the failure of the banking systems is an argument per se for why the UK, which is outside the eurozone, ought to contemplate further integration in this field than has already been provided for. This area has to be addressed internationally and through many agencies.

The main point that I want to make about the debate is this. We have had some amazingly excellent speeches but there is confusion, or insufficient distinction, in these debates between the European Union acting to legislate or make a policy decision and it altering its own constitution—if I can use the word “constitution”; I know people who might object to that—or its own rules. People have made eloquent speeches about human trafficking, piracy and the environment, but not all the speeches have distinguished between the EU’s ability to act and to have a policy and its need for more powers.

The noble Baroness, who made a tremendously moving speech about human trafficking, did not actually demonstrate that more powers were needed. More agreement might be needed, and might be achievable within existing powers, but she did not demonstrate that more powers were needed. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke about piracy but did not demonstrate that we could not have an EU policy on piracy within the existing competencies and powers of the EU. I appeal to the Minister to make that distinction when he addresses all these areas.

Where there are political and human problems—piracy, the environment, energy, human trafficking and all the other issues listed in the amendments—can the Minister distinguish between the EU’s ability to act, to legislate under its own rules and, quite separately, the need to change its own constitution? The people speaking for the amendments ought to have argued for a change in the European Union’s rules. With great respect to all those who spoke so movingly on the issues that mattered to them, not all of them made the case for a change in the rules of the EU. That seems to be the crucial point in this group of amendments.

[Lord Grenfell]

I hesitate to intervene at this late hour but what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has just said provokes me to do so. He has, maybe inadvertently, hit the nail on the head. This Bill is about trying to prevent the European Union acquiring more powers in ways that the Government feel would be wrong. The noble Lord spoke about the difference between powers and agreement. In fact, the effect of the Bill is to prevent and make far more difficult the reaching of agreements within the European Union. That is what it is all about. It is not about power but the ability of the European Union to reach more and better agreements.

We have had an interesting debate that has covered an enormous number of topics. We have talked about the Monetary Policy Committee, the environment, piracy, human trafficking—all very interesting for those of us who respect the views of those who know what they are talking about. However, I am not sure that the coalition Government and those on this Front Bench are at all interested in this debate. They have already made up their minds; the integrity of Clause 4(4) has to be defended at all costs. They are not prepared to give way on any of this and do not want any additions to the clause. One wonders what this debate is all about.

I do not want to belittle the powers of this House to be able to persuade Governments to change their minds, but on this particular issue I am a pessimist. We are not going to be able to do so because if these excellent amendments are accepted, one of the central pillars of the whole Bill collapses. When that pillar collapses, the whole edifice begins to crumble, so I am sure the Government are going to stick firm on this. It will be extremely hard for us to persuade them to accept any of these amendments. That depresses me greatly because these amendments are vital. I suggest that we make every effort to persuade the Government, but I am a pessimist on this. The case has been well made by my noble friends Lord Triesman and Lord Liddle to get these amendments through, but if the Government are not prepared to accept them this bad Bill becomes even worse.

European Union Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

We are in Committee and I do not think that I even have to say, “Before the noble Lord sits down”. I was going to thank the noble Lord for the compliment that he paid my noble friend and me, but is he aware of one of the very few jokes about the European Union that is going about in Eurosceptic circles? I ask this given that he extolled the virtues of democracy which the EU brings to its new members. The joke is that if the EU were to apply to itself to join the EU it would fail on the grounds of its total lack of democracy, its bureaucracy with its monopoly on proposing new legislation—what body that pretends to be vaguely democratic can do that?—and, as we know, the secret process with COREPER, the Council and so on. How can he extol the virtues of the EU’s democracy, given that background?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I frequently agree with some, but not all, the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. However, on this occasion I agree more with some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Radice and Lord Richard. I agree that enlargement has been a positive development. Indeed, if you have an organisation called the European Union, it is unthinkable that you should exclude from it countries that before the advent of communism in Europe were part of the European family of nations, many of which had living standards and political systems similar to those in western Europe.

Some years ago I took part in a debate on the European Union with my noble friend Lord Brittan, who I am pleased to see sitting beside me. I think that the debate took place in 1993 or 1994, and I remember that my noble friend attacked me because I had not said a single positive thing about the European Union in my speech. I could not think of a single positive thing to say about the European Union at that time. However, if I took part in another such debate with my noble friend, I would say that enlargement is a considerable development that has been advantageous to the countries that have joined and to Europe generally.

If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a good point that slightly bothered me. I support the Bill, but he said that within the logic of what he called this “crazy Bill” there surely ought to be a referendum on enlargement, given that we might have a referendum on altering the procedures for the appointment of a public prosecutor and other matters that the noble Lord regards as rather marginal. I was bothered about that question, and I have been sitting here for 20 minutes trying to think of an answer. It is that in those areas where they say there should be a referendum—including matters such as altering the procedures or powers on the appointment of a public prosecutor—the Government do not actually intend there to be a referendum, because they do not intend that such propositions should advance further at all. The Government are trying to put a lock on the issue and to stop it happening. They are drawing a red line on legislation for the immediate future, whereas they are in favour of enlargement, and that is why they have not applied the lock or the referendum provision to enlargement.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I am terribly sorry that I gave the noble Lord 20 minutes’ thought. Nevertheless, may I put a question to him? If the Government have no intention of using these powers—which is what he is saying—why on earth are they in the Bill? What is the point?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

It is not a question of not using the powers; they are there to serve a purpose. The Government have indicated that they will not move further forward in any of these areas and they are enshrining in legislation obstacles to this ever happening in the future. Given the competence creep and the way in which power has seeped directly and indirectly, openly and less openly, to Brussels, I totally support the Government’s objective, and I have given the best answer that I can think of to the noble Lord.

[Lord Taverne]

If my noble friend is saying that the present Government are not going to use these powers, the conclusion is surely that the Bill is intended to affect not the present Parliament but a future Parliament. Is that not totally unprecedented?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I do not accept that. I agree that it is designed to have an impact on the future and to prevent the creep of powers to Brussels. That is wholly right, because we have seen again and again how power has gone to Brussels, sometimes by indirect means and sometimes by means that some of us regard as questionable. We have seen again and again how referenda results have sometimes been rejected, and questions have been put again and again to the people of other countries until we had the right answer. This Bill is trying to say that we should not have a further transfer of powers, that we have had enough of those transfers, that there are plenty of powers to deal with problems that arise, and that we do not need any more powers as all the tasks of the European Union can be addressed through existing powers. We are therefore drawing a line in the sand, as long as there is a Conservative Government or a Conservative-Liberal Government. Future Governments can, of course, choose to repeal this legislation if they want to. That is their prerogative. We will, no doubt, address the sunset clauses later, but I do not go along with them. It is perfectly legitimate to state, “We are passing this legislation now and we intend it to remain”.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am anxious to sit down, but I will give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. He explained that in a number of areas power had gone to Brussels by what he described as fairly dubious means. I have not had the benefit of 20 minutes’ thought about that, but I cannot, offhand, think of any such example. Can he give me a couple of examples of what is worrying him about the dubious means?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord is speaking from the Gangway and is therefore not in order.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I would say that the setting up of the European financial stability mechanism using Article 122 of the TFEU is extremely questionable. I am deeply puzzled how that can be regarded as in accordance with the treaty, but I am sure that that matter will be raised at some point later during our proceedings.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Lamont was doing himself down when he referred to 1998 and possibly earlier periods when on the debates that were always going on about Europe he had not given any illustration of being in favour of much to do with the European Union. I remember that in the 1970s, he, like others of us, was an enthusiastic European. I cannot remember the exact years, but I believe that that was the case. He was doing himself down, because I vividly remember—I stand to be corrected, but I believe that my memory is pretty safe on this and I am happy to look at the Hansard reference as soon as I have the chance—that in the early 1990s, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, at one stage he said, “Of course, when you are a member of a club, you have occasionally to do what the other members want as well”. I thought that that was a rather impressive way of saying that he was in favour of some aspects of not only international co-operation in general, but the international co-operation that comes from the mechanisms—the integrated parts of the structure and the sovereign government parts of the structure—of what was then the European Community and is now the European Union, enlarged and with Lisbon as its basic fundament.

That is a phenomenon that we witness in the case of the present Foreign Secretary and others who were viciously anti-European in all sorts of aspects. We remember the role of William Hague when he was leader of the Conservative Party in opposition: his “10 days to save the pound” campaign and his attitudes then. Inevitably, in government, his attitudes have become more modulated as a result of both the basic requirement of working with colleagues, partners, fellow Ministers from other countries in all the European Union mechanisms and the logic and common sense of always garnering general support from the public. The idea that there is huge anxiety in this country about competence creep, mission creep, the European Union taking over too much or the Commission becoming overmighty is to my mind grossly exaggerated. There is very little evidence of that. As we said on Second Reading, it is a campaign that has been got up in the press and by a small number of very anti-European politicians of all kinds, mainly in the Conservative Party and UKIP, but also politicians outside Parliament. We think of the BNP and other rather dubious organisations in that context as well.

If we could gauge the attitude of the public, it is one of general acceptance of all these matters. This debate has been going on for some time both in the Commons and here, and it is interesting to note that there has been no public reaction of support for the Government. I do not think that Ministers could cite messages that they have received from the public saying, “Thank you very much. You’ve done a wonderful job. We are so glad that you are resisting the encroachments of the Commission”. I do not want to upset the Minister by going too much into Second Reading points, because this point was made then by several speakers, but can we get away from that canard?

The Commission remains in number of both officials and senior officials a very modest sized body, despite enlargement. It gets the general support of the European Council and the Council of Ministers, because it does a very good job with all the difficulties built in of blending 27 national cultures of public finance and administration. That is a complicated task and it takes time to get habits to coalesce in joint working. None the less, there is no sense that the Commission is exceeding its powers or has done too much in any way with either the connivance or the resistance of the member Governments. Indeed, apart from its own delegated powers, which are either from the treaty or from the exhortations and requests of the various ministerial Councils, the Commission is a modest part of the total.

The main panoply and structure of the European Union remains the sovereign member Governments in the European Council and the Council of Ministers making their sovereign decisions collectively, enhancing both the individual sovereignty of every member state participating automatically and the general sovereignty of the European Union itself. That is why common sense among the public accepts that as a natural process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

We can have academic debates about these questions in other places, and I do not want to delay the Committee. However, on the facts, there has been no great swing of British public opinion against the European Union over the past 15 years or so. It has fluctuated with circumstances over time. The Eurosceptic press was not created by the previous Government; unfortunately, it has been with us for a lot longer than that.

We on this side fundamentally object to the idea that plebiscitary democracy is the way to restore public trust. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is going along with this. I do not know what the noble Lord’s views are on the current referendum campaign, but there does not seem to be a high quality of public debate on referenda, given the way in which some of the people involved in the referendum campaign have argued that we are missing out by not having these issues decided in Parliament, where there would at least be a more balanced consideration of them.

I will, of course, withdraw this amendment. However, we on this side have moved several amendments on these lines, and we see no give whatever on the Government’s part. On subsequent Committee days I will refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, to which the Government must face up: namely, if they think that something has to be done in the national interest, would it still require a referendum, and what would be their position on that? That question is highly relevant.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

What sort of policy proposals would the noble Lord want the emergency brake lifted for? Given that the emergency brake is there purely as a defensive mechanism, to be used rarely on occasions of national interest as a negative power, what circumstances can he envisage in which he would want to get rid of it? In all the areas that he has mentioned on which there might be co-operation, we can agree to co-operate anyway.

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord is right, of course, but it seems to me that on judicial co-operation, for instance, we had established the confidence that the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw talked about and that Europe was important and effective in these areas. We might wish at some stage—I am not saying that we would but we might—to see some change in the processes. After all, it might be not only us who want to apply the emergency brake. Other member states might wish to do so, and that might be detrimental to the possibility of getting agreement on these questions. If we look back to Maastricht, we see that justice and home affairs were included in the European treaties for the first time on the basis of unanimity. However, by the time we got round to Lisbon there was an overwhelming consensus among member states that these matters should not be in a separate pillar but should be part of the main business of the Community, and that in the vast majority of cases there should be majority voting. Opinions change in the light of circumstances. Therefore, why should we tie ourselves up in referenda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Waddington]

That is nothing to do with the case that I have raised. I am saying that the Bill deals with all sorts of situations where it is said that there is a transfer of competence, and that there should therefore be a referendum. I am pointing out that, in this clause, what is dressed up as a mere codification can often be a transfer of competence and the conversion of an agreement between members states that could be altered at the drop of a hat into binding treaty law. That is what I am talking about. I beg to move.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My noble friend Lord Waddington is to be congratulated on and thanked for raising an extremely important point on which I should like the Minister’s reassurance. I should like him to address the points made by my noble friend.

Of course I understand that the Bill deals only with future treaty change, not the existing provisions of the treaty. If a power of competence has already been conceded to the EU from the UK, the decision obviously cannot be reversed by the Bill. Under it, codification does not require a referendum in any case, including a codified transfer of power or competence. Why? I know that the Government’s argument is that if codification takes place by the granting of a formal treaty base for an action, the transfer of power has already taken place, either under the treaties or through a different general article, such as Article 352.

However, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, raised is important. I know that some members of the Committee dislike the phrase “competence creep”, but a transfer of powers could happen through codification and the interpretation of existing treaties. I return to the point to which I referred previously, when challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about an example of competence creep. I cited the use made of Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to set up the European financial stability mechanism. That article, as many Members of the Committee are aware, states that financial assistance can be granted to a member state where the state is,

“in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control”.

It is very difficult to argue that the case of the financial difficulties which Portugal got into were a natural disaster or entirely beyond its control. At the very least, it seems to me that there was a significant failure of regulation, and, other people would argue, of budgetary and other policies as well.

I do not want to go into that but, to many people, that seemed a bizarre interpretation of Article 122(2). It is that sort of thing that gives rise to the anxiety that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, articulated. Of course I understand that there is a case for codification and that it will be necessary. Perhaps a significance test could be allied with that when assessing whether codification could be misused in that way. What the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, is not a fantasy or an imagined danger—it is very real when one looks at how legislation has happened in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I appreciate the question. With respect, I think that the noble Baroness is conflating the first amendment in this group, which concerns the efficiency of the operation of the single market, with the second, which I will come to in a moment and which concerns the strengthening of financial regulation. The issues that have just been raised may be more relevant to that.

I hope I have made the point about the steps that might be needed in order to ensure that proper competitive arrangements are in place in a business environment that changes rapidly and in which the potential for monopolistic behaviour is considerable.

I turn to Amendment 23F, which concerns the strengthening of financial regulation. I accept the point made about the time that would be taken. However, we also know about the speed at which the degradation of financial institutions took place, not just in Europe but in the United States and elsewhere; and that the aim of most of the major policy-makers in a period that was both extremely troubled and extremely complex was to intervene where they felt that they could as rapidly as possible and not necessarily against an 18-month to two-year timeframe. There was a very early consideration of whether the role of the central bank in Europe should be considered. Many nations in Europe urged each other—but not very effectively—to look at the balance sheets of the banks across Europe; at the consequences for one another of the weaknesses in their balance sheets; at the issues that have since arisen from the ridiculous ways in which a great deal of interbank lending took place; at the collapse of liquidity when it could no longer take place; and at the fact that many of the institutions were deeply indebted to each other for toxic derivative products that they traded largely among themselves, and which had in many instances destroyed their balance sheets.

I would like to think that almost everybody in this House, had they been in a position to take a view, would have said that that way lay lunacy and ruin. Almost all of us would not have gone there. Therefore, while it is true that some arrangements would take a good deal of time and some states would pore over them exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, some emergency arrangements could have assisted in circumstances of severe financial meltdown, had they been in place.

In those circumstances somebody may very legitimately say, “This is not only a European problem—it is a worldwide problem. You would have had to engage many others as well”. Of course I accept and understand that international canvas. However, it would most certainly have helped had Europe and the European nations with considerable financial power been able to go to the original G20 conferences and make points in a very much better, co-ordinated way. You do not need treaty change to make a point in a co-ordinated way—of course you do not—but it is certainly true that had they gone and urged that they wished to use powers which were perhaps a little beyond the set of powers they had, that might have had a significant effect in the G20. From those who were at the G20, I believe that that is empirically true as well.

Finally, to sweep up this group of amendments, I turn to Amendment 23H, which addresses,

“provisions that advance the prospects of international agreement to a new global trade round”.

I promise that I will say only a little about this. However, I think that everyone has seen the enormous difficulties in achieving any successful outcomes from the Doha round and the huge difficulties in co-ordinating a European position let alone a world position. Yet everybody has believed that the success of the Doha round would be one of the fundamental drivers of a huge amount of international growth and, just as important, the elimination of a great deal of poverty around the world.

There is another case, where you can imagine small arrangements at the edge—which some will say are a codification of existing arrangements and you can bet that some will say are not—which might have made a real difference and enabled us to move faster, or may in the future enable us to move faster.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I agree with every word that the noble Lord has said about trade and the importance of getting a world trade agreement, although those have proved extremely elusive. However, given that trade is an exclusive—exclusive—EU competence, what is the effect of his amendment?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the intention of the amendment is to provide the scope for further adjustments to the trade arrangements and the powers of the Commissioner dealing with trade arrangements, given that Commissioners who have dealt with trade arrangements have expressed their anxiety about the limitations that have been placed on them during the negotiations in these trade rounds. It is entirely possible—it may be part of the noble Lord’s point—that these powers exist in any case and can be handled in any case. However, the experience of the difficulty in making progress leads me to believe that there may on occasions be adjustments that would make the process easier, more helpful and capable of moving faster.

My point is not that these are all world-shattering changes—they may be small changes. The scope to make those changes, to respond to circumstances, seems to me to be a power that would strengthen the people of the United Kingdom and strengthen the EU rather than weaken the people of the United Kingdom.

European Council Decision: EUC Report

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

It is a matter of urgency to support the setting up of the European stability mechanism, which must be ratified by all member states. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both said at the outset of their tenure that the viability and support of the euro was important for Britain’s financial future. That, too, must be underlined. I hope that the short document produced by the European Union Select Committee, on advice from Sub-Committee A, has been useful for this debate.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I thank my right honourable friend for introducing the measure before the House. I accept 100 per cent that the provisions do not apply to us. I entirely support the Government's attitude that they should not in any way obstruct the setting up of the ESM. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for the helpful report published by the Select Committee. I just have two brief questions for my right honourable friend.

[Noble Lords]

Noble friend.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My noble friend, my right honourable and noble friend, as he always is and always will be.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned, at paragraph 6 of the report the Select Committee commented—admittedly, it was talking about the EFSM rather than the ESM—that it did not conflict with the no-bailout provisions in the original Maastricht treaty, now incorporated in the TFEU. Of course, I know only what I read in the report about how it was argued by witnesses before the committee that that did not constitute a bailout because the EFSM did not assume responsibility for the debts. The same arguments must arise with the ESM.

Does the Minister seriously, with a straight face, believe that that does not constitute an infringement of the “no bailout” provisions? It seems extraordinary to say that just because loans are being extended, if there is a rescheduling of debts, that does not constitute a bailout. I do not think that that is what the Germans had in mind at the time, when they argued against bailouts and for a “no bailout” provision in the Maastricht Treaty. Bear in mind that the new facility, the ESM, will, like the EFSM, issue securities which will be guaranteed by the member Governments of the EU. I know that this is a sideshow for our Government, but it is extraordinary to describe that as not conflicting with the “no bailout” provisions.

The second question I want to ask my right honourable and noble friend is more directly germane to the UK. When the German Government agreed to support the ESM, part of the package they insisted on, from what I read in the newspapers, was something called the competitiveness pact, which covered a whole range of policies including: the indexation of wages as applied to countries such as Belgium; the retirement age; and having a uniform system of corporate tax. All that was put forward as part of a quid pro quo that the German Government wanted in exchange for agreeing to the ESM, to which there was some resistance on the part of the German public.

As my right honourable and noble friend may have noticed, fears have been raised in the Economist magazine that those provisions could have an impact wider than the eurozone and might affect us and other non-euro members of the EU. I entirely support the Government’s policy of allowing what is happening with the establishment of the ESM to go ahead; for us to have nothing to do with it but to allow it to go ahead; but I am concerned by the points made by the Economist about how that could spill over into measures that would have an effect on competition and the competitiveness of the rest of the EU. The magazine argued that the competitiveness of the whole might be undermined by protectionist measures taken under the rubric of the competitiveness pact. I hope that my right honourable and noble friend follows my point. I would like to be assured that that is not the case. I would like to be told how the competitiveness pact will be given legislative effect and how we will ensure that it does not have adverse repercussions on us, and other countries not in the eurozone.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I rise to speak against the Motion. The heart of the Government's case is that it is in our national interest to help the countries in the eurozone, so we should not withhold our consent to the proposed European stability mechanism. To justify that, the Government even trot out the tired old propaganda about half of our trade being with the eurozone, which is irrelevant nonsense, as I have often pointed out.

The Government are really asking us to agree that the euro should be propped up, which is a very different and risky thing to do. I say that because the euro is so badly designed that it may be un-prop-up-able, certainly in the long term, probably in the medium term and possibly, if one looks at what is happening now in Portugal—not to mention Greece, Ireland, Italy and perhaps Spain—in the short term. The euro's main design faults, as some of us have been trying to point out since before it was born, are that it is a currency area without a federal budget. There is no mechanism for sending support from rich areas in the zone to the poor areas. Its different economies also suffer from a single interest rate and exchange rate with the results we are already seeing in the countries I have mentioned.

The Government’s answer to that in this Motion tonight seems to be that there is nothing to worry about because this new ESM means that the poor old Germans will pay and so will the French, the Dutch and the other countries that already donate to keep the whole unfortunate project of European integration afloat. The question is: will they? For how long? How much? Even if the cosy European political class thinks it is all a splendid idea, what about real people? What about the massive public protests in Portugal over the weekend and those we have seen in Greece? What about Marine Le Pen in France? Indeed, what about UKIP in the recent Barnsley by-election? [Laughter.] Well, I had to put that plug in.

What about another thing? This is a question to the Minister. What about the vote in the German Bundestag last Thursday, when five out of the six main parties gave their consent to the ESM but only with some strings attached? I know this is only a European Parliament, which is made irrelevant, as we know, under the project of European integration. It is not the European Union, but nevertheless, those strings are important. They included strengthening the stability and growth pact, guaranteeing the independence of the European Central Bank, guaranteeing that the EMS would be activated only in emergency cases, a restructuring procedure that would include private creditors and a guarantee that the eurozone would not turn into a transfer union. This last string looks something like shutting the stable door to me, but perhaps the Minister will care to opine. Does the ESM in effect set up a transfer union in clear breach of Article 125 or does it not?

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, agreed with the Government that it does not breach Article 125, so perhaps it is worth putting on the record, very briefly, the key part of Article 125, which states:

“The Union shall not be shall be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments … A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments”.

I agree with my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Lamont. Of course this does that. At the very least, even for Article 122, so roundly abused just before the present Government came to power, which was designed to help out with natural disasters and things like that, surely a loan which is not repaid becomes a commitment. Here with this ESM, we are in the clearest possible terms breaching Article 125. I would like the Minister to tell us: are we are helping to setting up a transfer union or are we not?

The Bundestag’s third condition—that the ESM should be used only in emergency cases—also looks a bit optimistic. It reflects the proposed additional paragraph to Article 136 which states that the ESM will be activated only if it is indispensable to save the stability of the euro as a whole. I think the Minister told us that this detail has not yet been worked out. We are voting for something that we do not know how it will work. Can he tell us who or what will decide when the use of the ESM has become indispensable? Will it be the Council, in which we sit, and if so will we have a vote, or will it be the Commission and/or the central bank? Will the IMF be involved, which again concerns us? In short, can the Minister tell us how the new European stability mechanism will be activated?

EU: External Action Service

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many British embassies they intend to close as a result of the deployment of the European Union External Action Service.

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

My Lords, there are no plans for any British embassies to close as a result of the deployment of the European External Action Service. The European External Action Service is about supplementing and complementing, not replacing, national diplomatic services.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, accepting that part of our foreign policy is now governed by the Lisbon treaty, does my noble friend, with all his experience, really think that it is necessary and appropriate to have an EU diplomatic service with a budget starting at £400 million a year, rising to €3 billion a year, with 6,000 staff—114 of them are paid more than the Foreign Secretary—in 137 countries, including 49 in Burkina Faso, 46 in Barbados, 32 in the Dominican Republic and six in Vanuatu, which has a population of 250,000? If, as the Commission says, all this has been done on a neutral-cost basis, deploying resources from one area to another, does that not show that there is a massive opportunity for economy and cutting spending in the EU?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is correct on that last point, but the global figure for personnel that I have is not 6,000 but 1,625, which is rather different from what he says. On the general question of the usefulness and worthwhile need for a combined diplomatic service, we take the view that this can help and, indeed, even save money in certain areas where combined efforts to deal with great international strategic issues are valuable. That is not every area. In some areas we want our own bilateral developments, but in some it is clearly more economic and effective to act together. We believe that this service will help, provided that it is carefully controlled, particularly on the cost side.

Iran

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests in that I am chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and director of a company with interests in Iran. I join the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, in utterly condemning human rights abuses in Iran, particularly after the elections, such as the show trials, the beatings by the Basij, the shootings of young people in the street and the mass rapes, as revealed by the cleric and presidential candidate, Mehdi Karroubi. As the late Ayatollah Montazeri said before his death, the Islamic republic is becoming neither Islamic nor a republic.

The Iranian regime at the moment is weak domestically but strong regionally. Regionally it is strong because of its militant opposition to Israel compared with the so-called moderate Arab regimes, but also because of its alliance with its proxies: Hezbollah, Hamas and the Medhi army. These alliances give Iran an asymmetric defence in depth if attacked. All the military hardware of the United States and Israel will be irrelevant compared with that lethal potential response.

I recently read the opinion of Peter Jenkins, our former ambassador to the IAEA, who somewhat unusually doubted whether Iran was developing nuclear weapons as opposed to reaching the technological capability that gave it the option of developing them further. He argued that Iran was not in breach of its legal obligations but that we could do nothing to stop it reaching the threshold. I am not saying that he was right on the former, but he might be right on the latter. I hope that sanctions will change Iran’s attitude, but we must recognise that there will be a greater source of illegal trade and more income for the military security conglomerate of the revolutionary guards. Sanctions are also an opportunity for the regime to blame its own economic failings on the enemy abroad. Lastly, sanctions provide the Government with a perfect alibi to crack down on opposition within the country.

There are obviously some out there who do not believe that sanctions will work. I refer to those behind the targeted assassination of Iranian scientists working on the nuclear programme. The day before yesterday, one scientist was murdered in Tehran and another wounded in car bomb attacks. Earlier this year, another nuclear scientist was murdered. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this, but I do not believe that these attacks are inspired by either of the two King Abdullahs. They are completely counterproductive and will not encourage Iranian public opinion to support a flexible approach.

The present carrot and stick approach has been tried many times before and I doubt that it will succeed again. There are three things that might put pressure on Iran and encourage it to stop trying to reach a nuclear threshold. First, as has already been mentioned, Iran has its own nuclear concerns. Regional nuclear disarmament, beginning with Israel, is important. Secondly, there is a need to settle the Palestinian issue and create a state that is acceptable to the Palestinians. This will undermine Iran’s regional position. I also believe that the BBC Persian service, Murdoch’s new Farsi channel, Facebook and Radio Liberty are very important in encouraging change in Iran. There is a rising tide of discontent within the country. Demography and the cosmopolitanism of the young people of Iran make it impossible for the present political framework to survive in the long run. We must make sure that our actions support rather than delay change.