Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Liddle and Viscount Trenchard

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, on her appointment, and I thank her for introducing this statutory instrument. I must declare my interest as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Cooperation and as an adviser to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was right to ask your Lordships to dispense with Standing Order 73 to allow the statutory instrument to be approved, notwithstanding that the Joint Committee has not been able to consider it and has not laid a report before your Lordships, as it is normally obliged to do.

As the Minister explained, the SI before us supports the implementation of an international treaty, namely the convention between the Governments of Italy, Japan and the UK, signed in December 2023, establishing the GIGO—I think our Italian friends pronounce it “JIGO”, but I will follow the example of the noble Baroness. She said that the treaty had been signed before the election but could not be implemented because of the Dissolution. I am not quite clear why this was not done before the Dissolution, but I am happy that the Government recognise the importance of taking action to avoid delays to the timelines that we have agreed with our Japanese and Italian partners.

Most of our Japanese friends who are involved with the project had wanted it to be a bilateral project between Japan and the United Kingdom and initially resisted our proposal that it should be a trilateral project including Italy. They thought that a bilateral project with only two partners would be less at risk of delays than a trilateral or multilateral project, whoever the partners are. The need of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force for the GCAP to be delivered on time is even more pressing than our own, because its F2 aircraft must be replaced by 2035, whereas the RAF Typhoons may be capable of extending their working lives to some extent. I welcome the fact that the Government have taken account of the need to provide assurance to the Government of Japan that they are determined to avoid a delay such as is now feared. Can the Minister tell the House when the announcement on the location of the GIGO will be made? We know that it will be in the UK, but the announcement as to where it will be located has already been delayed well beyond what was expected.

Speaking at Farnborough, the Prime Minister said that GCAP was important and was making “significant progress”, but he stopped short of saying that Britain’s participation in it would continue. The Secretary of State for Business has been more explicit in his support and has been quoted as saying that the Government were “very strongly committed” to the programme. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has also tried to be as reassuring as possible without saying that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, would have his hands tied on this point. I do not expect the Minister to be able to give any stronger reassurance today, but I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward this statutory instrument for approval.

As the Minister explained, the statutory instrument gives effect to the treaty and confers legal capacity on the GIGO. It also grants the normal diplomatic privileges and immunities which are extended to diplomats. I am sure that Japan and Italy will provide similar immunities and privileges to British employees dispatched to work for the GIGO in those countries. Can the Minister tell the House when she expects the GIGO to appoint the chairman and members of the steering committee? What process will be used to select directors of the GCAP agency and by when does she expect they will be appointed?

I was happy to hear the Minister use the term Indo-Pacific in her introduction, because I have not heard that term used often by noble Lords on her Benches until now. Can she confirm that I would be wrong to suggest that the Government are just a little sceptical about the tilt to the Indo-Pacific? I hope she will say that I am wrong. I welcome the Government’s proposal to give this instrument a fair wind and support the Motion to approve it.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I had not intended to intervene, but I have been very interested to listen to other noble Lords talk about this issue. It is a pity, on something of such profound importance, on which, as many Members have said, billions of pounds are at stake, that we have not had any opportunity for our committees to come forward to this House and tell us the level of commitment that is being made. Is it a commitment that we are bound by until the completion of the project, or are there ways in which the concept can be changed?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that this is an immensely important step forward in industrial partnership between Japan and the United Kingdom. That is very important. We all know what huge benefit we gained from the revival of our car industry from the 1980s onwards as a result of Japanese commitment to the UK. This is an opportunity for another wave of that partnership.

However, I was on the European Affairs Committee of this House for a long time, and I am conscious that our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, was always warning us about the dangers of British overcommitment on defence questions—an overcommitment that we would be unable to fulfil. My noble friend Lord Donoughue will remember this: one of the key things that the Wilson Governments got right in the 1960s was the decision, in 1968, to withdraw east of Suez, because it put our defence policy on an affordable and deliverable basis when Britain was no longer in a position to do that.

There are issues here. The most important defence priority of the moment is not an aircraft in 15 years’ time, it is getting troops, which we do not have, on the ground in the Baltic states on the borders with Russia to deter any potential Russian aggression as a result of the Ukraine war. That is the biggest priority and the biggest need in the defence budget. We have to be wary about these very long-term, hugely expensive commitments.

Is it possible for other nations to join this partnership? That might help reduce some of the enormous costs of this programme. I know that the French and Germans have their own ideas about having a programme, but a lot of people think that it is ludicrous for Europe to try to develop two of these advanced aeroplanes on the Tempest model, and that Europe might decide that it wants to come in. There has been speculation in the press that Germany, as a result of budgetary pressures, is worried about its commitment to this future fighter with France. Would it be possible for the Germans to come in? There has been talk about Saudi Arabia joining. How would this work? Is the legal framework flexible enough to allow these welcome developments?

I emphasise that I am not against this order, but there are big long-term questions. I am slightly surprised that we are doing it—perhaps for good reasons, for all I know—before we have the results of the review of Britain’s defence commitments from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I look forward to that because I cannot think of anyone better to lead it.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Viscount Trenchard

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter. I particularly support the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He is already establishing himself in this House as an excellent chair of the EU Select Committee, succeeding a previous excellent chair. My only regret is that I am no longer on that committee to serve under his chairmanship.

In my experience from my four years on the committee, the attitude of successive Secretaries of State towards the committee was always one of good will but they made promises they never kept. At one stage, we were told, “Oh yes, every month you’ll see me and I’ll come to answer your questions.” My recollection is that we saw David Davis at intervals of perhaps five months during his time as Secretary of State. I think that we saw Mr Raab once; I might be wrong about that. Mr Barclay was the most attentive towards the committee. He seemed keen to improve in the next phase of the EU negotiations on his own degree of accountability. He saw maximum transparency in the conduct of the negotiations as being in the Government’s interests. I am sorry that No. 10 has decided to go for breach of promise on all this. That is a great shame.

Whenever the issue of the European Parliament’s rights to scrutiny is raised, you get a vigorous shaking of the head from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I would love to hear his explanation of why those rights are not what we all know them to be. He seems to reject the notion that the European Parliament has many more rights than the British Parliament to access information and question officials to find out what is happening, but that is the case. The role of the European Parliament was greatly strengthened by the Lisbon treaty, and again by the ECJ judgment to make it easier for the Commission to negotiate on the EU’s behalf on services as well as on goods. It has also been strengthened by the brouhaha over the Canada agreement; a stronger role for Parliament clearly would have prevented the difficulties that the agreement then ran into in its ratification in member states. I think it is in the Government’s interests to be more transparent.

Yes, Brexit is happening—as I said in my Second Reading speech, I fully accept that—but the Government do not yet realise what trade negotiations are really like, because they have not done them for half a century. Having served for three years in DG Trade, or at least in the cabinet of the Commissioner, I can tell you that they are brutal. The people in charge of the EU side in these negotiations stand up for EU interests with tremendous firmness. I suspect that this is what we will encounter once we have allowed ourselves to become a third country, which in a few weeks we will be. They will treat us like any other third country.

One has to be transparent about the trade-offs. I will cite just one example. How do we rate the relative importance of the fishing and car industries? The fishing industry has tremendous political profile and thinks that as a result of Brexit it will get much more fishing in British waters and that we can keep continental boats out—but it represents 0.5% of GDP. How much are we prepared to sacrifice in our negotiating position for the fishing industry? The car industry employs up to 1 million people in this country, when you look at the supply chain. If we do not achieve the kind of customs partnership that Mrs May said she was in favour of, there is a real risk that inward investment by the overseas companies that rebuilt the car industry in Britain will go elsewhere over time. There has already been a lot of talk of that on their part. This would be a devastating blow to one of Margaret Thatcher’s main achievements in the 1980s and 1990s in being able, as a result of creating the single market, to attract to Britain huge amounts of foreign investment, which has greatly benefited our people. I repeat: 1 million jobs.

If there is not transparency, how do the Government explain to people that they are not guaranteeing the future of 1 million jobs but have put all their negotiating eggs in the basket of trying to give a few more opportunities—not actually saving any jobs—to our fishing? We need openness if we are to have a proper debate in this country about where our interests lie. That is what we need in the coming 12 months if we are to have any hope of a harmonious outcome to these rushed negotiations.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about the European Parliament and the relative degrees of parliamentary scrutiny. He has much more experience of Brussels; I have worked there, but not for nearly as long as he did. It is not correct to say that the European Parliament’s rights in this matter are greater than the United Kingdom Parliament’s. Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the European Parliament must be kept

“immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure”,

but does not give it a role in deciding the substance of the negotiations. However, it must pass the final agreement by a simple majority vote. So it has to agree at the end, but it appears not to have the right, stage by stage, to dictate to the Government what they are to do as they negotiate.

[Lord Liddle]

I never claimed that. I claimed that the Parliament was so fully informed that it had a grasp of the trade-offs that it would have to make in deciding whether to vote for this deal at the end of the day.

[Viscount Trenchard]

As far as I understood, the noble Lord said that the European Parliament had much more say in dictating the mandate, but perhaps I misunderstood him. In any case, it appears that during the last three years the UK Parliament has been exercising power to control the Executive, and the Executive have not been seen by their interlocuters on the European side as having the right to negotiate, because all the time noble Lords opposite, and others, were saying to individuals in Brussels, “Don’t worry, Parliament isn’t going to allow the negotiating team to do this. We will reverse it.” Now the people have spoken and the House of Commons has a strong majority of 80 Conservative MPs, all committed to a real Brexit. That is known. This amendment is designed to obstruct because the House of Commons will not accept it, and noble Lords know this well.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Viscount Trenchard

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, wholly agree with what my noble friend Lord Flight said—that if we are going to extend the vote in the referendum to those United Kingdom citizens who live outside the United Kingdom, it should be extended to all of them. However, I do not feel that those who live outside the United Kingdom have quite an equivalent right to vote as those who live here. As democracy was being extended in this country, it was often said, “No taxation without representation”. I seem to remember that when I went to live and work in Japan, I stopped paying United Kingdom income tax fairly immediately, although I did have to pay Japanese income tax, which was at rather a higher rate.

I later became chairman of Conservatives Abroad in Japan, and asked for the franchise for those of us who were abroad for a relatively short time with the clear intention of coming back. If you have been abroad for a long time and made your life abroad and have no intention of coming back to the UK to live, your right to have your voice heard in a general election or referendum is somewhat less. There may well be a case for extending the franchise beyond 15 years to United Kingdom citizens abroad, but there are practical difficulties in tracing who they are. On which electoral register would they be if they no longer have any family members living in the area where they previously lived? It seems rather complicated, so I cannot support the amendments.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

On the point about British citizens living in the EU, of course I go along with the principle of no taxation without representation, but many of our citizens who live on the continent worked in Britain all their lives, paid taxes all their lives and have gone to the continent to retire. So it is a bit hard to deny them the vote on the no taxation without representation ground.