EU: Recent Developments

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, this has been a mammoth debate and a serious one, without any partisanship. In that spirit, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on his efforts to give a positive view of the Government’s European policy. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson of Glen Clova for his analysis of that policy’s weaknesses. We have heard many excellent contributions and it is a privilege to listen to noble Lords with their vast experience as former commissioners, former diplomats and even as former Chancellors of the Exchequer, with their different perspectives from my own.

In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Lords who spoke up in favour of European unity. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, made an excellent argument for Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on the Cross Benches talked about his belief in a Europe of the peoples. From my own Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, spoke about a federal Europe and the noble Lord, Lord Radice, said that it was not time to give up on the euro. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about a social Europe, as did the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Lea. These were inspiring contributions. Obviously, I cannot commit the Labour Party to every detail of what they said; none the less this is the case for Europe that needs to be made.

There have been two big themes in this debate: first, the trials of the eurozone; and, secondly, Britain’s position in Europe. On the trials of the eurozone, I think we have heard rather too much of a flavour from the Benches opposite of how the euro is doomed, and too much of the view that it is impossible to restore competitiveness without the recreation of depreciating national currencies. An internal devaluation is, of course, painful but it can be done. You only have to look at what Germany has achieved from the mid-1990s until the middle of the previous decade to know that adjustments in competitiveness can be made within a fixed currency arrangement. Therefore, that can be done, but obviously I would like to see a stronger plan for growth. Like the IMF, I would like to see countries that have room for manoeuvre to expand their economies taking advantage of it. We would like to see—as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, proposed—a greater emphasis on the single market and trade to create more job opportunities. However, we also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, that that has to be done in the context of a much wider reform strategy to which we all need to give much deeper thought.

The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, made an excellent speech in which he expressed fears about German policy. I did not entirely agree with that aspect. I read an excellent speech that Helmut Schmidt made to the SPD congress in December in which, at the age of 93, he spoke to 2,000 people. It was a most inspiring speech about Germany’s role in Europe which I recommend to all Members of the House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monks, my own view is that we should never underestimate the political commitment to make the euro succeed. I suspect that the new Franco-German arrangements that come out of the French elections in May will result in a better balanced policy.

However, on the more significant point of Britain’s position in Europe, we on this side understand the inability of the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, to understand what the Government did in December, and why they did it. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, tried to explain that to us but I thought there was a fundamental contradiction in what he said between our objection to a fiscal union, which is a matter of principle, and the question of whether we would have signed up if certain safeguards had been met. However, I think that looking ahead is far more important. If we look ahead, there is a choice to be made for Britain between the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that 20 years ago we made the choice not to be in the euro and we have to live with it, and the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Mandelson that in fact to make the euro work—which is going to happen—there is going to be a euro mark 2, which will have deep implications for the United Kingdom and its policies, and that we have to think through what those implications are. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, made an excellent point in saying that he was not sure how deep integration had to go in fiscal terms to make the euro work. We need to think much more about these issues in our future discussions and debates.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that what the coalition seems to lack is a bigger-picture view of Britain’s place in Europe and the world. The Churchill view on this at the end of the Second World War was of three circles: the maintenance of the British Empire, with the US relationship and Europe overlapping it, half a century later we know that the empire has become a Commonwealth. We know that there are a lot of good things about the Commonwealth but that it is not a trade bloc or a guarantee of economic benefits. We had a painful lesson on that with the Indian air force contract in the past few weeks.

As for our relationship with the United States, President Obama flattered us when he came to Westminster last year and talked about the special relationship. That was an easy compliment but the reality is rather different. It is of an America that is increasingly inward-focused, Pacific-facing, and cutting back on global engagement, and a Britain that, however much we may will the ends, can no longer financially bear the means of that kind of global role.

That leaves us with the third of Churchill’s three circles: Europe. To rework inelegantly Dean Acheson’s famous quote from the early 1960s, Great Britain exchanged an empire for a Commonwealth half a century ago, its relationship with America is no longer so special, but it has yet to find its confident European role. The idea of the European role has always been anathema to the anti-Europeans in this House such as the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke, but what I find worrying is the half-heartedness on the Benches opposite about the European commitment. It is the people who say, “Yes, we are in favour of political—”.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we Eurosceptics are not anti-European; we are merely against the ill-fated project of European integration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

You are anti-European Union. I should have corrected myself—but you are anti.

[Lord Deben]

Given that the noble Lord has been interrupted, perhaps I may point out that there are some on these Benches who are in no way uncertain about the future of Britain in the European Union and support every word that he is saying.

[Lord Liddle]

That is a nice compliment from the noble Lord. What worries me is when people say, “Yes, we want Europe because it is good where we can have political co-operation on where we agree. Yes, of course the single market matters, but let us draw a clear line at that”. Whereas in the post-war era it is said that we had the myth of Britain standing alone at Dunkirk, which kept us out of effective engagement with Europe for 30 years, we are now recreating a new myth about Britain’s role in the world, whereby Britain alone in the new globalised world of the 21st century can thrive without the “shackles”—as the anti-European Union people put it—of engagement in Europe.

Of course Britain has global reach and global interests, and it can be an influential and effective networker in this new global world, but there is the idea of Europe as a shackle, that the single market is no more than a monster of bureaucratic regulation, that free movement of labour stops us having our own immigration policy, and that the things that people do not like—such as the rights culture and the health and safety culture—are all because of Europe.

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, was almost cheering when my noble friend Lord Monks said that four weeks’ statutory holiday for people would be scrapped if we were no longer part of Europe. That is a dangerous and seductive myth that may well seriously cloud our judgment as a nation as to where our future best interests lie. We must recognise that the health of the European Union is absolutely central to our global interests. British-based businesses sell a higher proportion of their exports into the single market than German exporters do of theirs. That is partly because, due to the single market, Britain has become such an attractive base for inward investment. It is because of the base of the single market that we can specialise and compete in world markets.

We do not strengthen our position in the single market by diplomatically putting ourselves out of the room when, for all the paper promises made, key economic questions affecting this country will be discussed. It is nonsense to think that the world will pay more heed to a Britain that accounts for—what?—2 per cent of world GDP than the European Union, which still represents the biggest economy in the world. People who think that Europe is putting us in shackles to meet the challenges of the global economy have to explain why Germany is one of the world's most successful exporters to China and the emerging economies.

The anti-Europeans have a vision of how Britain can make its living in the 21st-century that is deeply antipathetic to the instincts of those on our Benches. We believe in a European vision of a modern social market economy, a Europe that takes the high road to competitiveness and combines the opportunity for successful private enterprise with decent regulatory standards and essential public investment in low-carbon infrastructure, research, education, early years, a modern welfare state, and so on. The vision against that is essentially the vision of an offshore Britain, a deregulatory tax haven, a Hong Kong-type vision, which would be a disaster for most of our people but for the City of London as well.

The coalition would like to think that we can have the best of both worlds, to keep the benefits of the single market while avoiding most of Europe's obligations and political commitments. Of course, we should try to do our best to shape Europe in a British image, and there is a huge agenda of European reform that we need to pursue, but if we are saying that we will stay apart for ever from the single currency, we will have nothing to do with the fiscal stability union, we will be no longer in Schengen or part of the justice and home affairs parts of the treaties, what other nation in Europe shares that vision of Europe's future? Where are we looking for allies if we are trying to stay out of everything?

The European Union is an exercise in pooled sovereignty or it is nothing. If we are not prepared to join in and do our bit, we will ultimately make ourselves irrelevant. We cannot indefinitely achieve our objectives by staying out of the room when we do not like what is being discussed, and we cannot achieve them by opting out of so much that it begins to look as if we might as well not be in.

We have to resolve this issue as a country: is our future European or not? That is the lead that we are looking for from the Government.

EU: Treaties

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Liddle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the intergovernmental treaty presently under negotiation in Brussels will eventually become part of the structure of the European Union treaties.

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

My Lords, I think we can all cool down now. It is the prerogative of any member state to suggest additions to the European Union treaties. Any addition, including the proposed intergovernmental treaty, would need to have the agreement of all 27 member states.

[Lord Liddle]

I thank the Minister for doing his best in that reply. However, with all his experience of European matters stretching over five decades in politics, would he please explain to the House how the Prime Minister can one month take Britain out of the room, claiming that the proposed treaty is a threat to our vital national interests, and then the next month appear to want to wave it through, declaring that he does not mind at all if the intergovernmental treaty, of which we will not be part, makes full use of the EU institutional machinery? Is it not true, and does the Minister not agree, that really the only way to protect Britain’s vital national interests is always to be properly at the table in the room and not walk away, and that the only reason that the Prime Minister cannot do what is right for Britain is that his main concern is what he can get away with inside a divided coalition and a divided party?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that the noble Lord, in his enthusiasm for these matters, is getting a bit confused. This is an intergovernmental treaty; it is not going forward inside the European Union. The British Government are anxious that there should be orderly development of the eurozone and that obviously it should not collapse into chaos. Nevertheless, as I think the noble Lord himself has written, it has “design flaws” in it—I think those were his words—and therefore there has to be caution and care about the whole way in which it is carried forward. Certainly, the UK does not want to be involved in a treaty that supports a flawed system. We want to be supportive of a design for the future which is sustainable and which brings prosperity, not division, to Europe. That is the position. What is the role of the European Union institutions? We do not want to throw sand in the machine. If some of them can usefully be used in the aim of building a better euro system, we will support them, but we are reserving our position on exactly which institutions should be used and how they should be used. Our general attitude is supportive and constructive, and we are involved, as ever, in the machinery of building a prosperous and competitive Europe and a good single market. These remain our aims and we are taking a leading position on them.

Falkland Islands

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think we have been a little ahead of the game. Obviously, the intention of Argentina was, sadly, to obstruct the movement of Falkland Islands shipping. Before that could happen we secured, for a start, the full assurance of Brazil, Chile and Uruguay that they would continue to welcome shipping flying the British ensign flag and would not interfere with trade. We have every reason to believe that the same attitude will prevail in all other ports where Falkland Islands shipping may call. However, we have taken action. Our ambassadors have moved very quickly and we are, as I say, ahead of the game.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would the Minister agree that the best form of soft security for the Falkland Islands is very good, strong British relations with the South American neighbours of Argentina? Can he give us an update on what has happened to British relations with those countries and why this matter has come forward as it has in relation to Falkland Island flagged vessels? In particular, what has happened, since the present Government took office and since President Rousseff took office as the new president of Brazil, to the excellent relations that the British Government had with Brazil under the Labour Government and President Lula da Silva?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As far as relations with Latin America generally are concerned, I can safely say that where excellent relations existed before they have been built on and are even more excellent now. Considerable effort has been made in renewing and expanding our relations with Latin America. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was in Brazil the other day on a highly successful visit. My honourable friend Mr Jeremy Browne, the Minister of State, constantly visits Latin American countries, and visitors have come here with whom I and others have liaised very closely. We feel that we have a very good developing relationship, which includes the expansion of our embassy facilities and capabilities in the region.

There are many theories as to why agitation and tension have arisen over this matter. Many experts point to the possible discovery of commercial deposits of oil around the Falklands. It is a great pity that Argentina bowed out of the hydrocarbons declaration, which would have enabled it to benefit from these developments on the oil front. However, it decided to stand aside from this and, instead, to complain and apparently grow angry at what is happening. That may be one reason.

EU: December Council Meeting

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course, the European Court of Justice is applicable and is an instrument of the European Union treaties. Ad hoc arrangements and other co-operation arrangements that are not within the treaties would not be covered by the European Court of Justice. I was interested to see in the draft of the fiscal union treaty that is now circulating that the proposition that the ECJ should have precedence over national laws has been removed. I appreciate that my noble friend’s long-term considerations go much deeper, but it may be that here and now some of the concerns that he has expressed are being recognised.

[Lord Liddle]

Will the Minister bear with us as we continue with an old argument? Will he confirm that it is the clear policy of the Foreign Secretary and the coalition that there will be no attempt to repatriate powers from the European Union during this Parliament? Will he confirm that that is the Government’s policy and, if it is, how does he justify the Foreign Secretary permitting civil servants in his department to work with the new All-Party Group for European Reform to explore what powers might be repatriated? How is this Conservative initiative consistent with the policy of the coalition?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not want to play with words but I understood that in all parties, including the noble Lord’s party, and in the think tank with which he is closely associated, clear and forward-looking minds were looking at ways of rebalancing powers between Brussels and the member states as a whole—not just between Brussels and this country but between the European Commission, the European Council, the European institutions and the nation states. Again, there seems to be a very enlightened argument—of which I thought he was part, although he seems not to be so at the moment—that certain powers, particularly social powers and other detailed regulatory powers, would be far better administered close to the recipients, those in need of social care and those on the workshop floor, than by central organisations in Brussels. This is a sensible way forward and I am very glad that our officials are studying it closely.

Kosovo and Serbia

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very glad that the noble Lord made it back from abroad to make those two very valid points. Of course, he is absolutely right that we must ensure that Serbia is not minded to retain the utterly destructive views of the partition of Kosovo, or indeed Bosnia—so yes, very much, to the first point that my noble friend makes. The Kosovar Government have made some progress in the protection of minorities but he is absolutely right that major challenges remain, notably with regard to Kosovo Serb communities in the north. We urge the Kosovar Government to do all they can to guarantee the rights, identity and culture of Kosovo’s minority communities and set out a comprehensive strategy for the north, where the difficulties are acute, as my noble friend knows, to cover areas such as health, education and employment. These are two areas where I totally accept what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, the Opposition thank the noble Earl for his timely question, and welcome the progress made in normalising relations. Will the Minister convey our congratulations to the distinguished British diplomat, Robert Cooper, on the role he is playing as EU mediator working to achieve integrated management of border crossings? Does the Minister agree with me that this demonstrates the value of the new External Action Service in strengthening the capabilities of the European Union? How does the recent progress affect the prospect of negotiations being opened for Serbia’s membership?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I hope the answer is that it will be positive. The noble Lord is right. Robert Cooper is an extremely able servant of the European Union and, indeed, citizen of this country. The role of the EAS is relevant, although I know that the noble Lord is the first to recognise that with a number of international organisations down there—the UN, the EAS, the ICO and so on—co-ordination is very important. I cannot give an estimate of the speed of progress. It will all come up at the European Council tomorrow. We may see some progress after that but I cannot predict it.

UNESCO

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is early days for that. We will have to see whether the United States follows through on what appears to be its intention not merely to withdraw future funds but current funds as well. A very large number of countries—107—voted for Palestine's membership of UNESCO. There were 52 abstentions and 14 countries voted against. Therefore it was a fairly solid commitment to Palestinian membership. On the question of funding, we will have to wait and see how the matter turns out. Certainly there are major difficulties to be faced and resolved.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House all share the concerns about the future of UNESCO and agree with the Minister’s comments. The fundamental issue behind this question is how strongly we are prepared to make clear to the United States our difference of view on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. While the Government’s position was sympathetic, it was ultimately a decision to have no position—to vote neither for nor against. How does this advance the peace process and the cause of a two-state solution, given the present stalemate and Israel's very recent decision to announce further settlements that will be deeply counterproductive? Should we not be more robust on these issues?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is, of course, a broader question. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the question of Palestinian statehood lies behind the question of whether partial arrangements, as it were, for statehood should be made by Palestine applying to various UN organisations, of which UNESCO is one. It is the judgment and view of Her Majesty’s Government that the way forward must be by negotiation for the emergence of the Palestinian state. We reserve the right to recognise the Palestinian state at the moment of our choosing. We take the view that a fragmented application to UNSECO and other bodies is probably a mistake and will delay negotiation. We also take the view that, if the matter is to go to the Security Council—I say “if”—and if then, as is almost certain, the Americans vetoed it, that, too, would set back negotiation very substantially. It may be rather limited now but it is going to be even more limited—indeed, it will screw it up completely—if that course is followed. There are plenty of ifs and buts in the future. Beyond that, there is the possibility that it might go to the General Assembly as well, but all these matters have yet to be decided.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in place of my noble friend Lord Triesman without giving proper notice, and I thank the government Chief Whip for facilitating this. I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Triesman for his unavoidable absence.

We all owe a sincere thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating this debate. It has been a great debate which has triggered some absolutely fascinating and, for me, educative contributions. She summarised very well the excellent work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and certainly the Opposition want to join her in celebrating its work on the occasion of its centenary. There have also been some great contributions from around the House. I have learnt a lot from the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Glenarthur, who both have great experience; and from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who spoke most movingly about the grass-roots work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We all pay tribute to that.

My own views on the Commonwealth are very similar to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. I am pro-Europe and I am pro-Commonwealth, and I do not see one as a substitute for the other. Indeed, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, probably feels much the same. Perhaps I may say that this was embodied in my own family. My father-in-law, who was a Member of this House before he died, George Thomson, served as a Commonwealth Secretary in the Wilson Governments and as one of our first European Commissioners, so that is as pro-Europe and pro-Commonwealth as anyone can be.

A lot of people contributing to the debate have talked about what the Commonwealth meant to them personally. It certainly does not mean to me what it means to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who was conceived on a Jamaica beach, and I do not want to annoy the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London because obviously the Commonwealth is one of the great foundation stones of the Anglican Communion. However, the notable features of this debate were speeches from two Methodist ministers—my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. It was in chapel in my home town of Carlisle that I learnt the virtues of the Commonwealth. We had fairly well drummed into us, although it did not have to be drummed very much, the problems of world poverty and the essential need for racial equality, both of which were seen through the prism of the Commonwealth. These values, plus those of democracy and human rights, were for me as a youngster what the Commonwealth was all about.

Let me make one general point before I ask the Minister some questions. I think that we need to be clear about what the Commonwealth is and what it is not. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, described the Commonwealth as a voluntary association of nations, but I think that it is more than that. I think that the Commonwealth should aspire to be a living network of values, sustained not just at the political level but at the people-to-people level, which many Members of the House have stressed. However, to be honest, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that the Commonwealth is a kind of fool’s substitute for a proper foreign policy in the modern world. It is not a defence and security organisation or a trade bloc; it is not NATO or the EU, which are vital pillars of our economic security and our position in the world.

[Lord Lexden]

In describing the Commonwealth, I applauded the fact that, under this Government, it was becoming a major strand of foreign policy. I certainly did not intend to suggest—and I do not think that I did—that that was to the exclusion of many other important strands.

[Lord Liddle]

Of course, I was not trying to suggest that, but there is a little bit of a danger in the present Government’s discourse if you think about the three circles of influence of the past 60 years. There is clearly a weakening of the transatlantic tie with the United States, in that America is looking more Pacific-wards, it has its own economic problems and it does not think that Europe has stood up to the plate in world conflicts. Then we have all the problems with our relationship with the European Union, from which many Members of the party opposite would like to distance us. Given that that is happening to two of the three circles, I do not think that we can imagine that the Commonwealth is a substitute for those. I see the Commonwealth as playing a very big supplementary role in foreign policy because, as a multilateral organisation, it is an instrument of soft power. We should see it as a network of influence and values that can aid us in achieving our objectives.

On questions for the Minister, I want to ask first about the people-to-people aspects of the Commonwealth. I was very struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that about 50 per cent of the Commonwealth’s citizens are young people. What ideas do the Government have for strengthening links between young people within the Commonwealth? That brings me to the point about higher education made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, because there is no doubt that in the last few decades our universities have lost out in appealing to Commonwealth students—he mentioned the case of postgraduate medical students. How do we once again make our universities the first choice? Of course, we need to make sure that Immigration Rules do not stop that happening, which is a very important point.

On civil society links, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, gave as a good example the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth. We need those kinds of links. How can we build on the initiative that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, spoke of so warmly in terms of raising consciousness about the need for girls’ education, which is an absolutely vital development issue?

On the government-to-government aspect of the Commonwealth relationship, what leverage can we exercise and what issues will the British Government put on the table as they try to strengthen the influence and role of the Commonwealth? As we have seen in this debate, there is clearly a role in climate change, both in highlighting the risks to the very survival of the island states in the Pacific and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, mentioned, in persuading rich countries that they cannot become climate deniers—we have to be blunt with people like the Canadians, who have to live up to their responsibilities.

On the human rights issues that the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, mentioned, on migration which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned, and on the corruption issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned, how are we going to prioritise these topics for discussion? How are we going to use positively the opportunity of membership of the Commonwealth to improve people’s situation—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, spoke about Somaliland’s membership? Conversely, how can the Commonwealth be used as a sanction? The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, gave the example of the actions taken by the Fijian Government against the Methodist Church and we have the very big example of Zimbabwe. How in future do we play this mix of incentives and sanctions? What are the Government’s proposals for strengthening the Commonwealth secretariat, including its funding, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, mentioned?

This has been an excellent debate, which has shown the value of the House of Lords, has been well attended and has included some excellent contributions. It has celebrated the cross-party work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—long may that continue—and it has demonstrated that the Commonwealth remains a good and great cause. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I would like to see the sun rise once again on the Commonwealth, but it will do so only on the basis of a proper analysis of its true potential as a unique instrument of benevolent influence in our very troubled world.

Indonesia: West Papua

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes. I described in my answer to the previous question that on 5 May there was an EU meeting that discussed a number of aspects of repression, including a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quite often and rightly raises—the question of the apparent persecution of, and violence against, the Ahmadiyya community and other Christian communities. All these matters are indeed discussed and were discussed at that very helpful forum between the European Union and the Indonesian Government on 5 May.

[Lord Liddle]

The whole House will welcome the progress—uneven progress—being made on human rights in West Papua, and on human rights in the rest of Indonesia, and will welcome Indonesia’s joining of the UN Human Rights Council, but what positive progress is being made under the EU-Indonesia dialogue? What active support are the British Government giving, particularly in terms of ministerial visits such as that of Mr Jeremy Browne last year to Indonesia? How do the Government balance their proper concern for human rights with their present emphasis on expanding UK trade in emerging markets such as Indonesia?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer to the noble Lord’s general question is that we do balance. In many cases, one would argue that the two go together. If we can get expanded commercial and economic activity, effective inward investment and the expansion of trade, this will pave the way for a more open society and a more effective policing of human rights.

Results are a bit difficult to measure. All that can be said is that there is a human rights dialogue between the European Union and Indonesia. We support it fully. Our evidence in this increasingly transparent world is: first, that it is getting more difficult for any country that wishes to oppose and repress human rights to do so; secondly, that we intend to try to make it more difficult for them to do so; and thirdly, that the Indonesian state, whose territorial integrity we fully support, is anxious to carry forward and sensibly settle this and other human rights issues in a good and constructive way.

European Union Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

As an amendment to Motion B, at end insert “but do propose Amendment 13B in lieu”

13B: Clause 6, page 5, line 49, at end insert—
( ) Where this section requires that the referendum condition is met before a decision is approved, the referendum condition will only be mandatory where a Minister of the Crown lays before Parliament a statement indicating that in the Minister’s opinion the issue in question is of major economic and constitutional significance.”

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Triesman. The original amendment which this House carried reduced the number of referendum locks in the Bill from 56 to three—that is not counting major treaty change. That was the amendment that we carried and that has been considered by the other place. This amendment substitutes for the position we took on that occasion the view that referendums should be mandatory only where, in the view of the Secretary of State, they are of major economic and constitutional significance. I assure noble Lords opposite that that is fully in line with the policy of the Labour Party.

When the Bill first went through the House we were told many times by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that all the issues covered were constitutionally or economically significant, but when you actually look at it, that cannot be the case. When you look at the questions of moving from consensus, or unanimity, to majority voting listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill, they cannot conceivably be regarded as constitutionally significant. For instance, there are matters such as the approximation of national laws affecting the internal market, the guidelines of economic policies and excessive deficit procedures. As we know, on one of these items—the British Government changing the list of military products exempt from internal market provisions—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, pointed out that we had been arguing for this as a country in our national interest for years in the councils of the Union. So the Bill contains far more referendum locks than those that could be regarded as of major constitutional significance.

Noble Lords on the government Benches are fond of quoting the Lords Constitution Committee when it suits them. What they fail to quote is the major conclusion of the Lords Constitution Committee on referendums—that they should be used only on matters of major constitutional significance. They cannot conceivably argue that all the items covered here pass that test. If we do not apply this test, as in this revised amendment, we are making a major move from a representative democracy to a plebiscitary democracy and that is something that should be of as much concern to Eurosceptics as it is to pro-Europeans.

The other problem with this plethora of locks, as we have argued before, is that they will gravely inhibit the ability of any British Minister or Government to represent our national interests in Europe on a flexible basis as issues come up. No Government will volunteer to hold referendums, not because they fear Euroscepticism but because, as has been shown by all the academic evidence that has studied them, referendums are, in the main, decided by the people on issues other than the question being asked. That is what you get in a plebiscitary democracy. All kinds of issues are decided on questions that are nothing to do with the subject of the referendum. If it is impossible to put issues to referendums, then Britain will be very constrained in its European policy. If this is continued for 10 or 20 years, it is bound to lead to a process of British self-marginalisation in the European Union.

I do not believe for a second that that is what the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace, and the Benches opposite want. However, the truth is that the Adullamite cave of anti-Europeans in the other place and in the Conservative Party, who have insisted on putting the Bill in the coalition agreement, want to make Britain marginal in Europe because they want the Bill to lead to Britain coming out of the European Union.

[Lord Dykes]

Is not the noble Lord also perturbed that at the last annual Ditchley lecture the former Prime Minister, the right honourable John Major, feared that Britain was already a semi-detached member of the European Union?

[Lord Liddle]

Yes, I heard that John Major had said that. It is a great concern, which will grow as a result of this policy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

I am sorry, I am not going to give way any more.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord was telling the House how frightful it would be if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union. I do not know whether he has seen the latest state of public opinion in this country, which is very much at odds with your Lordships’ House. If the noble Lord cares to read a newspaper—which may not be his regular reading—in the shape of today’s Daily Mail, he will see that the public now would vote by 50 per cent to 33 per cent to leave the European Union if a referendum were held tomorrow. Your Lordships are even more out of touch with the British people of your own generation because among the over 60s the percentages are 61 per cent to leave and only 29 per cent to stay in. That is a poll carried out by YouGov@Cambridge for the political news website Dods PoliticsHome, so it is quite respectable. The noble Lord and your Lordships who do not like the Bill are completely out of touch with British public opinion.

[Lord Liddle]

That is because the argument for British membership of the Union has not been made forcefully. That is why we need to do that in future. However, we are not going to do that as a result of this Bill. That is where noble Lords opposite are wrong.

All our political institutions suffer from major distrust. If, again, you consider the polling evidence on trust in Parliament or trust in the Government, you will find that there is as much mistrust in the British Government, the British Parliament and the British political parties as there is in the European Union. Of course, one does not underestimate the degree of scepticism among the public, but it is ironic that we are discussing the question of Europe today when the Murdoch press is in such difficulty in its relations with the British people. I do not know how many noble Lords in this House have received mail and been approached by members of the public because of the amendments that we carried when the Bill went through the House before, but I suspect very few. The real public anger today is directed at the media—particularly at the Murdoch press and at News International, which more than other organisation has used its position to obstruct positive British policy in the European Union. By going along with this Bill we are sacrificing representative democracy and Britain’s ability to pursue an effective policy in Europe.

I do not think, as I say, that is why the proposers are putting this Bill forward. I think that the Liberal Democrats are rather embarrassed by this piece of legislation, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has told us.

It may upset the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, greatly but I have a lot of friends in Brussels. One of them passed on to me a letter that Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, had sent to Andrew Duff MEP about this piece of legislation. Towards the end, it says:

“In addition, any referendum to ratify a Treaty change covered by the EU Bill’s referendum lock must first be preceded by an Act of Parliament in order to provide Parliamentary approval and to make provisions for the holding of a referendum”.

We all agree about the Act of Parliament. He goes on to say:

“This would, for example, enable a future Parliament to decide that the provisions in the EU Bill should not apply by amending the Treaty change Bill to that effect”.

The only way I can read that statement is that the Deputy Prime Minister believes that the provisions of what would become the European Union Act 2011 would not apply if, in future legislation ratifying a European decision or a European treaty, a clause was inserted that the question was not constitutionally significant and therefore did not justify a referendum. I would very much like to know whether the Minister agrees with that interpretation of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter; whether he agrees and accepts that in any future Act ratifying an EU decision a Minister could insert a clause rather along the lines of our amendment; and if so, why the Government refuse so adamantly to accept this sensible amendment? I beg to move.

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, called his amendment sensible. We should be clear that it is a wrecking amendment. It requires the Government to assert that a proposal is of major constitutional and economic significance. The noble Lord himself said that no Government voluntarily submit to a referendum. No proposal would come into the scope of this Bill unless the Government had supported it and had voted in favour of it in the European Union, so we can take it that the Minister and the Government would be behind whatever proposal was being put forward. We are then asking the Minister to volunteer to put a referendum through the terms of his amendment. As he said, no Government will voluntarily do that. We have the example of the Government’s record on the Lisbon treaty, which by every measure should have been put to a referendum but which the Government solemnly told the House did not require one. It is partly because of that that we have the mistrust to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred.

Because of the Lisbon treaty we now have a treaty that allows many changes to the fundamentals of our treaty relationship with Europe, including the removal of vetoes on a whole range of policies covered by Clause 6, and amendments to the scope of the institutions and the powers of the European Union itself through the passerelle clauses. All are to be done through the agreement of Governments without the need for a treaty change, and therefore without the need for a referendum on a treaty change. That is why we need Clause 6: because the Lisbon treaty enabled those changes to be made without a treaty change, and Clause 6 ensures that that is picked up. The noble Lord’s amendment would completely destroy that provision and overturn the view of the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Ministerial decisions are open to judicial review. That is not a matter that we discussed much in Committee or one that we would necessarily want to see operate very fully in this or any other area of ministerial decisions on any aspect of policy. However, judicial review is there and ministerial decisions can be challenged.

The House of Commons has twice approved the scope and operation of Clause 6 following a clear exposition from the shadow Europe minister and his views on party policy on Amendments 6 to 13.

I do not want to take further time meeting the marginalisation argument. Frankly, it is a chestnut, as there is absolutely no impact on Ministers’ discretion and flexibility merely because they have sanctions behind them. Most European member states’ Ministers have sanctions of various sorts lying behind them on the decisions that they reach.

The plebiscitary democracy issue, frankly, belongs to the pre-internet age, before the web and the internet system. We see all around the world the wider public’s insistence on having a say where major issues about the transfers of power and competence away from their sovereign control are involved. That is exactly what would happen here. The idea that there would be 56 different referenda coming along is pure fantasy and does not relate to the actual way in which these issues would arise. There would be no great frequency of referenda; this is not the pattern for the future. It will not be the result of this Bill and it certainly would not be the outcome of the way in which the European Union has operated, is operating, or is likely to operate in the future. It is not in the interests of the 27—maybe soon 28—members to proceed in that way.

I think that the noble Lord would be wise to accept the Motion and the view taken in the other place. He would be wise to reject the amendment and therefore I ask him to withdraw it and accept the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, we have had a full debate, and I do not want to take up the time of the House. I just want to make one comment on what the Minister has said. As you know, I believe in the noble Lord’s integrity in putting this Bill forward. I do not believe he is putting it forward for anti-European reasons. I do not think that that is what he thinks, but the truth is that the list of referendum locks contained in this Bill far exceed any reasonable person’s definition of issues of fundamental constitutional significance. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I shall speak against Motion D1. The reasons for doing so are quite straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, commented on flexibility and how important it is that in going forward in unpredictable circumstances we should have flexibility. While I agree with him there, I am not clear that Amendment 15B provides that flexibility because, in order to have a suspension of Section 6 or Schedule 1, it would require us to have the approval of both Houses. Does the noble Lord believe that the approval of both Houses could be arrived at in a manner which did not revisit all of the contentious issues in Section 6 or Schedule 1? If they could have been debated without extensive deliberation or scrutiny—call it what you will—we would not have spent as much time as we have on the Bill. On the other hand, flexibility nevertheless exists in the ability of a future Government to repeal either the entire Act, as it will be by then, or sections of the Act.

My noble friend Lady Williams spoke of the importance of the people of this country having their say on a sunset clause—I prefer to call it a suspension clause—in a general election. If the Act went forward unamended, the people could still have their say because there could equally easily be a debate on whether or not this Bill should be repealed by a new Government were they to win the election. I did not intervene in the debates on the earlier amendments but this debate has been about trust in the people and the constitution, and much has been made about the move to plebiscitary democracy.

The theme of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, throughout the course of the Bill has been his anxiety for the Liberal Democrats and whether they feel awkward and embarrassed by it. The presumption underlying those comments—and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has been a member of my party, the Liberal Democrats —is that we are reluctantly going along with these measures and that there is no philosophical underpinning whatever. During the passage of the Bill we have had commentary about Burke and parliamentary democracy, and about an hour ago the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to Tom Paine. The philosophical underpinning for why the people should be trusted comes from no less a person than John Stuart Mill. He said:

“A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished”.

That is why we have supported the Bill and why we trust the people; they are ultimately sovereign.

[Lord Liddle]

My concern throughout the Bill has been for the position of Britain in Europe and that it should remain an active partner in the European Union. I fear that the provisions of the Bill will ultimately prevent us from being so. I am sorry that some Liberal Democrats appear to think that this was not a matter of high principle: it is a matter of high principle to which I have committed my political life.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

When the noble Lord’s party returns to government, we look forward to it engaging with the country in debating whether the provisions of this Bill should be repealed. We look forward to engaging with it in that debate.

Sri Lanka

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

Does the Minister agree that the recent decision of the UN Human Rights Council to block the recommendation of its commissioner to press for an international inquiry into Sri Lanka was disappointing if not shameful? Does he agree that we have a problem when so many of the world's most powerful emerging nations—here I am in contradiction to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—put protection of the principle of sovereignty above any state's duty to protect its citizens; and that we in the United Kingdom should use whatever influence we have as a nation to persuade these nations that sovereignty is not absolute and that all countries of the world share a common obligation of humanity to uphold human rights?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are very splendid sentiments with which I could not possibly disagree. There are a few practical issues to resolve before we can rise to those heights, but I fully appreciate what the noble Lord magnificently aspires to. The decision of the UN human rights commission was disappointing. The commission is not always able to meet the aspirations of those of us throughout the world who are concerned with human rights and the advance of civilisation.