European Union Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

This amendment gives the British people a referendum on the economic cost of our EU membership. This would discover whether they want to go on paying through the nose to be bossed around by an organisation which is of absolutely no use to them. The amendment is targeted on the net cash we send to Brussels every year. It does not address the gross cash we send, which is roughly double, although many Eurosceptics argue that we should concentrate on that gross amount because so much of what Brussels sends back to us of our own money goes on projects designed to enhance the EU’s image which we could certainly spend more fruitfully elsewhere.

This amendment requires that when our net contribution reaches £10 billion per annum, or nearly half the current spending cuts of £21 billion, there must be a referendum to see whether the British people want to go on paying such tribute. For clarity, and to show how reasonable this amendment is when set against some of the wider costs of our EU membership which are more difficult to define, it is worth spelling out some of those other costs.

This amendment does not include the huge liabilities to which we are now exposed from bailing out that cruel failure, the euro. At the moment, these include the £3.25 billion we have underwritten for Ireland and the further £7 billion to which we have been illegally signed up under the financial stability mechanism. I suppose there may be more on the way for Greece, Portugal and even Spain, but so far that is £10.25 billion, which we are unlikely to get back. Again, I would point out that that is nearly half our current spending cuts.

Nor does the amendment cover the billions we have thrown away by surrendering control of our fishing industry to Brussels and its iniquitous common fisheries policy—a cost that seems to be estimated at about £2 billion annually. Beyond its financial cost, whatever it is, it is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships of the EU’s own recent estimate that some 800,000 tonnes of fish are thrown back dead into the North Sea every year. To get this statistic into everyday proportion, I invite your Lordships to imagine a 40-tonne articulated lorry that fills most of your Lordships’ Chamber from the Throne to the Bar, although it is not quite as high. Then I ask your Lordships to stretch your imagination further and to think of 20,000 such lorries, all full of dead fish. Some environmental bodies put the annual discarded fish at 2 million tonnes, which comes to 50,000 articulated lorries. To get all these lorries into understandable perspective, it perhaps helps to think that their contents would fill the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall several times over with dead fish every year.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am sure we are all fascinated, but is the noble Lord not in favour of any sort of conservation policy in the seas around Europe or is he just saying that we have been robbed?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

We were not robbed because we voluntarily signed our fishing away before we signed up to the 1972 Act. We gave it away. We Eurosceptics would like our fishing back. We would like our waters back. We would like to control them entirely ourselves, as do the Icelanders, the Norwegians and the Faroe Islanders, to their great national benefit. When we have re-established our fishing stocks by not discarding any fish, we will then let out any surplus not required by our industry, once we have re-established that, to foreigners. That is what we would like to do.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am going to the Faroe Islands in a couple of weeks’ time, and I point out that the issue with the Faroe Islands at the moment is that our mackerel, if we like to call them that, are going their way, the Faroe Islanders catch them, and we do not want them to be landed in this country. I do not know whether we will ever solve those problems without some sort of common regime.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am sure we could collaborate with other nations that control their own waters. What we do not want to do is to go on with a common fisheries policy that ensures that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are thrown back dead every year and which has removed a very valuable industry. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord. While on my statistics the fish that are thrown back dead every year would fill this Palace of Westminster and Whitehall several times over, I have to tell your Lordships that there are those outside the political class who think that that might be a rather better use for them than being thrown overboard to pollute the seabed.

This amendment does not require a referendum if we are so foolish as to stay in the common agricultural policy, which is estimated to cost each family in the land around £1,000 per annum in higher food costs, or some £26 billion. On the environment, this amendment does not address the £18 billion per annum which the Government say we are going to spend on their climate change initiative inspired by the European Union, complete with all those useless and ugly windmills, not to mention the closure of our coal-fired power stations. The amendment does not include the cost to our economy when the lights go out, nor does it cover the billion or so we send to Brussels for it to misspend on foreign aid.

Finally, the amendment does not include the huge costs of overregulation which the EU imposes on our whole economy. I dealt with this in minimal detail on 3 May at cols. 398 to 400, so I will not repeat it now, but we are talking about anything between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of GDP by most estimates. Our GDP now stands at around £1.5 trillion, so we are talking about anything between £60 billion and £150 billion. If any noble Lords want to challenge these figures, they can, of course, do so, but I trust they will join me in pressing the Government for an official cost-benefit analysis of our membership if they do.

This amendment is not triggered by any of the £100 billion or so per annum of waste which I have just mentioned that is notched up by these and other EU follies. The joy under this amendment is that a referendum would be triggered only when our net cash thrown down the drain in Brussels equals £10 billion per annum according to the Government’s own figures. Mark you, the Office for National Statistics has recently put our net contribution at around £9 billion already this year, and most people seem to agree that we are looking at £10 billion for next year, so we are nearly there. I can point out that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Vinson yesterday put our net contribution as low as £4.7 billion, so there is room for clarity here. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was mentioning the figures put forward by the Treasury, which are very much lower than the figures put forward by the Pink Book, but that is perhaps an argument for the cost-benefit analysis when we get there.

We are talking about £10 billion per annum. This may not sound much to our Europhile political class, but it is an awful lot of money to real British people. Ten billion pounds per annum comes to some £27.39 million every day. That would pay for 900 nurses every day at a salary of £30,000 per year each—or teachers, or policemen, or other public servants. The amendment requires a referendum when the net cash that we send to Brussels would pay the annual salaries for 900 nurses every day, or for 328,500 nurses every year.

There is another way to understand the importance of £10 billion per annum, which comes to £400 per annum for each of our 26 million families. All these costs have to be seen against the perilous state of our economy and the sacrifices and difficulties in which many of our people now find themselves through no fault of their own. Current spending cuts, as I have mentioned, appear to be around £21 billion. Which would the British people prefer?

I am sure that the Government and your Europhile Lordships will say that the benefits of our EU membership are so wondrous and obvious and that they go far beyond its mere vulgar cost to our long-suffering taxpayers. I have never understood what those benefits really are; what benefits we get from our EU membership, which we could not get from free trade and friendly collaboration with our European friends; what benefits we get, for instance, that the Swiss do not enjoy from outside the EU.

Perhaps the Minister could be more precise today about these great benefits. This Government and the previous Government—and previous Governments for some time—have said that a cost-benefit analysis would be a waste of money. The Stern report on climate change, however, cost only £1.272 million on a subject at least as complex as our EU membership. Surely that tiny sum would be well worth spending to discover whether the colossal costs of our EU membership are justified or not.

We, of course, are told that we stand taller as a sovereign nation in meetings of the international conferencariat all over the planet—because we have diluted our sovereignty into the new form of supranational government in Brussels run by bureaucrats. If the Minister is going to advance this line again today, could he give some concrete examples of the great advantages and the successes? Does he think, for instance, that the EU did a good job when the lid came off Yugoslavia, or that it is doing a good job in north Africa? What confidence does he have in the EU’s new External Action Service?

I conclude by asking the Government, yet again, to settle these matters by ordering an objective, unbiased cost-benefit analysis of our EU membership. In the mean time, this amendment asks that the British people be given a referendum when our cash payments to Brussels exceed £10 billion to decide whether they want to go on paying it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment and to those who have been good enough to speak to it. I said right at the start of my remarks that the amendment was designed to give the British people a referendum on the economic cost of our EU membership. That may not be strictly within the terms of the Bill, as some noble Lords who find that prospect uncomfortable might wish. However, I merely say that I was advised on the amendment by the staff at the Public Bill Office, and they were content with it. If it is not perfect, I apologise, but it has served its purpose.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for some of whose remarks I was very grateful, suggested that money is not a power. It may not be technically a power within the terms of this Bill, but money is energy and power and is something that the British people mind about very much. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also chided my noble friend Lord Stoddart about Churchill’s position in these matters. One can cite many sayings of Churchill, but the one that I and other Eurosceptics prefer is:

“We are with Europe, but not of it”.

I think he said that rather more often than he said some of the other more ambivalent things about the European Union.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was good enough to query some of my figures. I think he said that I got one of them 400 per cent wrong. We do not need to go through that now but I will read Hansard and, if necessary, come back to that. An overall cost—however you come at it—to the United Kingdom from our EU membership of around £100 billion is probably not far out.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

We need to get to the bottom of this. Is the noble Lord implying that that is an annual figure, because it bears no relation to reality?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

As a matter of fact, it is real. We have £10 billion that are only loans at the moment; we have £10 billion for the cash we hand over, going up; we have £26 billion for food; we have £18 billion for climate change; and we have £60 billion for overregulation. These are the figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I understand exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is saying and I can understand the reasons why she is saying it. However, the reason we have this Bill is because of the betrayal—if I might use that strong word—of promises which have been made and not kept.

I refer first to the promises that were made by the Government and, indeed, by the Opposition about having a referendum on the constitution, later to be known as the Lisbon treaty. There is very little difference. Even Giscard d’Estaing says that there is very little difference. However, I do not want to get into that argument. I want to try to explain why I believe we have reached this point where such detail has been put into a Bill. It is because people join political parties and have an influence on them. So many times promises have been made, such as on the five red lines that were all crossed, and not kept. Increasingly, people in this country have lost trust in the Government’s promises that we are not, ratchet by ratchet, going into a federal European state.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Is the noble Lord not giving the game away that this is an exercise in trying to destroy the Lisbon treaty by the back door when in fact the country has signed the treaty? He thinks that this is an opportunity to take, bit by bit. He wants a referendum on everything they have tried to do under Lisbon and it can be blocked because we do not want to have a referendum or because it can be defeated in a referendum. Is that the point he is now making?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The noble Lord has misunderstood what I am trying to say. The Lisbon treaty is in operation, and I am not suggesting that that can be reversed. I am trying to explain why this Bill has come about. It is because people have lost trust in the leadership. I think the reason why it is so detailed is probably because this coalition Government—it is not a Tory Government, but a coalition Government—have been trying to set out their red lines that can be crossed only if the people of this country agree to it. I hope people will reflect on that and realise that, out there, ordinary people are very unhappy about the way the European Union is proceeding. I think they have already said, “So far and no further”. This Bill is complicated because the red lines that have previously been put forward have not been kept to, and perhaps this Government are trying to put them into an order where they cannot lightly be set aside.

European Union Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have had a series of rather general debates, some of which relate to the amendment under consideration. However, I fear that several speeches have not referred at all to the amendment that we are discussing.

I first answer the broad and appropriate question that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, posed. The Government’s case is that, under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, we now have considerable flexibility to do a great deal more within the current competencies of the European Union, some of which will be of definite advantage to this country, without needing further treaty change. The amendment seems to be based on an assumption that there is very little flexibility in the treaties, and that Britain is being pushed to the margins, stands alone, and will somehow be trapped by this. The coalition Government are making the case that we wish to make the best of our position in the European Union, but there is now a good deal of headroom and we are not cramped by current conditions. We are, as we will come to later, taking part in at least one exercise in what might become enhanced co-operation on the EU patent. The EU and Britain can work together within existing competencies for some considerable time to come.

On the previous day in Committee, I quoted David Miliband as saying clearly that, with the acceptance of the Lisbon treaty, we should now be entering a stage of consolidation in which we do not need further treaty change for some five to 10 years. If that turns out not to be the case, we will all have to deal with the situation as it then comes.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

This is the most important point in the Bill. Are the Government now saying that if the Lisbon treaty says X, Y and Z, none of these clauses can in any way undermine it?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I was not aware that any of these clauses in any way undermined the Lisbon treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who was much involved in the EU convention, is not here. Those of us who have read, as I have, a certain amount on the EU convention and the Lisbon treaty, which followed it, are well aware that the clauses on the emergency brake and passerelle were agreed after hard negotiations, in which it was not the United Kingdom versus all the others. Several member Governments in this now rather large and complex European Union wanted some reassurance that, as they touched on such sensitive areas as national sovereignty, law, finance and welfare provision—some of the issues covered by these emergency brake provisions—they would have, at the back, the ability to say, “No, we are not happy with what is proceeding”. That is what the emergency brake is about. It is not the case that Britain stands alone against 26 other member states that are determined to integrate further and sweep more powers into Brussels.

The United Kingdom and several others are pushing for further co-operation in a range of areas. Coalitions across the European Union differ according to each subject on which we negotiate. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, knows better than me what it looks like once you are inside government. The emergency brakes are there to reassure member states—their public and their Governments—and those who care not just about the peculiarities of English criminal law and justice but about those of Polish and Romanian criminal law and justice. I have read what the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said about this when he gave evidence to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee on the Lisbon treaty. He said that the Government hoped that the emergency brake would never have to be used, but that it was there as a reassurance to national Governments. I emphasise “Governments”; this was not just about the British.

Jack Straw went on to say to the House of Lords European Union Committee:

“So it is an additional protection and I think really rather an important one”.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, drafted this. Jack Straw then said:

“Again, it is quite a paradoxical point but I think the effect of it may be to provide greater confidence to British Government to get involved in opting into instruments, which is actually in principle what we want to do, and having done that then some additional surety which will get a satisfactory answer so that we do not have to apply the emergency brake”.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that sometimes the arguments around all this are arcane and of mind-boggling complexity. That sentence was not the easiest to read. However, the whole purpose of the emergency brakes is precisely to reassure national Governments on sensitive issues. It is not intended that they should be regularly used. It is highly unlikely that any Government will wish to remove them in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I suggest humbly that this amendment is one of the least useful that we have to consider.

European Union Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kinnock]

As the conduit between two noble Lords of polar opposite opinions—and, as usual, in my role of gentle arbitrator, dispassionate and non-partisan—I could show this piece of paper to the noble Lord opposite at the end of this discussion. He will see, foolishly written down by me, “Gummer”, because that is the very point that I was going not only to make but to attribute to the noble Lord.

Reference was made earlier to a great Shakespearean tragedy, “Othello”. We have quickly moved from Shakespearean references to tragedy to the Bill’s references to farce. It is farcical for a provision to be made which would ensure that this member state and 26 others unanimously have to adopt a position, make it subject—rightly—to the constitutional requirements of each member state and then, because they have introduced a particular additional constitutional requirement of making a judgment on the significance of what has been before the Council, come back and either take the risk of saying—in accordance with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would prefer—that they do not think that this change should be subject to a referendum, or make complete fools of themselves nationally and internationally by saying that they think that it should be subject to a referendum despite the fact that they have not only voted for it in the Council but come back and proposed it to this sovereign Parliament. What could be more idiotic or inane than that? I wonder why sensible people in both parties in the Government have allowed themselves to be subjected to that.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

There is another consideration that my noble friend might wish to add. Not only would they say, “Here we have a referendum”; they would be honour bound to campaign on the wrong side in that referendum.

[Lord Kinnock]

I am sure that they would fulfil that duty with alacrity. The problem then arises—attention has been drawn to this so I need not dwell on it—that, in the event of refusal to have a referendum on this issue, the Government would attract great odium from sections of the press and some people engaged in politics. As a consequence, odium might be mobilised— if you can do that with odium—among the general public.

That would not be the only problem because this ministerial decision—the need for the Government to make a decision is made explicit in the Bill—could be subject to judicial review. We are in a situation where we have moved deeper into farce. Here is proposed a piece of legislation, boldly intended to put the referendum lock on any loss of sovereignty from this sovereign nation and from our sovereign Parliament, but which, in the very course of exerting that, subjects itself to the additional possibility that power could move in these circumstances from that sovereign Parliament to judges. It is just another illustration of the fact that the coalition does not lack a sense of humour. It would not be possible to get any film company to accept this as a serious documentary and I do not think many publishers would be willing to accept it as credible fiction.

My final point connects directly with that. The Government have defined the conditions that would trigger a referendum, not only in the case of treaty changes but also in the case of changes that could be produced under the provisions relating to Article 48(6) and therefore the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Minister for Europe, David Lidington, pointed out as long ago as September 2010 that the background note produced at the time by the Government said:

“The use of any major ratchet clause which amounts to the transferring of an area power to the EU would be subject to a referendum”.

I have a question on that which I have not seen answered satisfactorily anywhere given the interest that I have taken in this piece of legislation. What is “major” in the context of a major ratchet clause? If in this first examination of the Bill in Committee we can get from the Minister a definition of a major ratchet clause that could be required to be subject to a referendum, I am sure it will guide our deliberations commendably and illuminate all our discussions.

European Union Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I think the public are coming with me.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Does the noble Lord have anything to say about the role of Mr Rupert Murdoch, who is undoubtedly biased? The BBC’s bias is in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Is it not obvious that a great part of the media—now further reinforced by Mr Hunt—is under the control of an American-Australian, who is enormously biased and would influence any referendum?

[Lord Richard]

Does the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, agree that this is a debate about the Bill and not the British press?

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I should like to add a point that has not been touched on. This is not just a foreign policy question. Indeed, perhaps I may state the obvious, which is that the terrorist threat in Britain is centred above all on unresolved problems in the Middle East. Among other factors, there could well be an impact on disaffected British Arab youth on the street. I ask those on both Front Benches whether we should not be concerned about the fact that British Arabs have no positive role models here in the United Kingdom. Charity begins at home, so I cite as an example the fact that there are no British Arabs in this House, unlike other groups with a population of over 100,000.

EU: Repatriation of Powers

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understand exactly the noble Lord’s concern on this, but I think that he is being a bit defeatist. It seems to me that there is a very widespread will throughout the European Union to reform it and indeed, if I may borrow a phrase, to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. That certainly involves a sensible pattern of competences between the nation member states and the central institutions. Therefore, I think that, by gloomily saying that nothing can happen until everyone agrees, the noble Lord is taking a very negative approach to an area where European reform is perfectly possible.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

This side.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, it is obvious that the Government are up a gum-tree with their policy. An example of their prejudices is the working time directive. When he was a Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, pointed out that the absence in the United States of the famous 48-hour limit for doctors, which is often quoted, costs many thousands of lives there a year, so how can the Government stick to these dogmas when the facts are against them?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I just do not recognise what the noble Lord is saying. On the question of health administration and working hours in the medical profession, constructive discussions are going on with our fellow EU members about ways in which we can go forward. On the working time directive, we want to limit its particular application in a number of areas, which we intend to do. I do not understand all the talk of dogma and gum-trees. They may be trees that the noble Lord lives with, but they do not come into my bailiwick.

EU: Defence Pact with Russia

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s second question is yes, we do combine. Concern for human rights and the rule of law are two facets of the same issue. Upholding the rule of law and the broader security issues are all one ball of wax, if I may use that phrase. As to Russian involvement, President Medvedev has said that he will go to the NATO-Russia Council summit in Lisbon on Friday. So, he will attend—that is what my brief says and I am glad to learn it.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Is another area of potential mutual co-operation, although with some difficulty, the Arctic and the whole question of the North East Passage and mineral resources in that area?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, this is a vast and vastly important area in which of course our partners and allies such as Norway and indeed, Canada, as well as Russia are involved. There have been extensive disputes over the years, particularly in Russia and Norway, as to which parts of the Arctic are under which territorial direction, and there was the dramatic planting of a flag at the North Pole by some Russian underwater vehicles. I understand, although it is not in my brief, that considerable advances have been made in agreeing the border lines between Norway and Russia, which opens the way, provided that costs and technology allow, for a vastly greater exploitation of the huge oil and gas resources—mostly gas—under the Arctic Circle.

Diplomacy

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by my friend—if I may call him that, as he is my friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I was in the UKREP office referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on the very day that David Hannay’s name was in the papers—I think it was the Daily Mail—as being appointed a people’s peer. The people in UKREP said that they had not heard anything so funny in their lives.

I add my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, about whose diplomatic experience, in the broadest sense of the word, we have just heard. I have witnessed the remarkable outreach job that he does in the St Paul’s area and in London generally—a job that the Anglican community does in many countries around the world.

My noble friend Lord Monks—John Monks—is the fifth former general secretary of the Trade Union Congress to come to this House. He joins an illustrious list: Walter Citrine, who had an historic reputation in the trade union movement, including for his short book, The ABC of Chairmanship, which is used from the Pacific Islands to the Falkland Islands; Vincent Tewson, who followed Lord Citrine; and Victor Feather—George Woodcock must have declined the invitation, but I do not know that for a fact—who took the TUC through the difficult years of 1969 to 1973, from the proposals of Donovan and In Place of Strife to Ted Heath and all of that.

John’s only fault is that he is too fond of irony. At a meeting with Mrs Thatcher in 1980 on the issue of red tape—too much regulation on small firms and so on—John asked, tongue in cheek, “So why not exclude small firms from the 30 miles an hour speed limit?”, at which point Mrs Thatcher turned to a civil servant and said “Take a note of that”. The white van man has certainly taken a note of it.

There is another similarity between working for the TUC and the Diplomatic Service. I was reminded of this only yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, chaired a meeting with senior American diplomats on Afghanistan through the All-Party Group on Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, of which I am the secretary. One of them remarked that it might be useful to distinguish process from outcomes. I recognised that distinction and noted that trade union officials do that every day of the week. Before John mentioned the trio—now the duo—sitting in front here, I thought that perhaps the TUC should do some job swaps with the Foreign Office, but I think that they are probably already doing it.

I have given the Minister—whom I admire without always agreeing with him—notice of this question: what is the headcount of the FCO and DfID at the present time, both in Britain and overseas? In the latter case, there is also the separate category of locally employed staff. We need to be able to track where, when and how this transition takes place, with the position before the cuts being the benchmark or starting line.

I know from experience that, if there are missions from five, six, seven or eight different European countries in a small African or South American country giving different advice about auditing, project finance or whatever, the messages from London, Berlin, Paris and Stockholm and so on are different, no matter that they get together once a week. Reality stands all this talk about defending the national interest on its head, because small countries often have only one man and a dog to listen to all the conflicting advice. That can be counterproductive and give a totally wrong impression. I have seen countries in many parts of the world waste the time of a very small number of competent people.

Someone should, therefore, challenge the doctrine of keeping all the UK missions quite separate. As we have very distinguished diplomats, we should—here I follow the message of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—be on the front foot in the European External Action Service.

Coming to my final sentence, I have some sympathy with the argument about the cuts—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are very tight on time.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

But that is an economic argument that goes wider than this debate.

Israel: Illegal Settlers

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords—

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

[Baroness Miller of Hendon]

Does any assessment made by the Government take into account the fact that these settlements provide a haven from which Hezbollah and Hamas cannot continually throw bombs and things across into Israel, as has happened since Israel gave up control in Gaza?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There are security dangers in all these developments. Obviously, attacks on Israel from Hezbollah and from rocketing from Hamas in Gaza are matters that make it more difficult for the negotiations to go ahead. These two are deplorable developments and they must cease if we are to make progress.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, if both noble Lords are quick, I am sure that my noble friend will be able to give an answer—first, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and then the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Does the Minister agree with the point being put to our friends in the Israeli Government that public opinion in this country and much of western Europe is influenced by the fact that there were two sides to the Balfour declaration? One is creating a homeland for the Jewish people and the other is observing the rights of the Palestinian people.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is urging short answers, so the answer is yes, of course there are two sides.

Human Rights: Journalists

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot confirm the precise figure, although I suspect that the noble Lord is right. Given the limitations of our contacts, we seek where we can to make the case—and to urge the lobbies and the countries which have got some influence to press all the time—that these kind of things are not acceptable in countries which seek to be part of the comity of nations and do not want to be branded as anti-democratic pariahs.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, is the correlation between freedom of association and free trade unions, and the inverse correlation with the number of assassinations, being noted by the Foreign Office? It is not surprising that this is so. Will the noble Lord take into consideration that support for the ILO principles of free trade unionism will be helpful in connection with my noble friend’s Question?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Again, the noble Lord is right. Our freedom is not the sort of thing that you can slice up in different areas. It is a bundle, a grouping of inalienable freedoms and core principles by which we have to stand. People say, “Why bother about the rest of the world?”, but it is in our interests at least to inspire others to follow our own principles and standards, even if we cannot guarantee that they will be accepted.