Brexit: Civil Service Impartiality
Lord Luce Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s Question on the Civil Service, noble Lords may have heard that Sir Jeremy Heywood has announced his retirement as Cabinet Secretary to concentrate on his recovery from ill health. The whole House will wish that recovery to be swift and complete and we look forward to welcoming him to your Lordships’ House, where the wisdom, patience and humour that marked his career in the Civil Service can be harnessed by this House as it scrutinises legislation and holds the Government to account.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the Ministerial Code is clear that Ministers must uphold at all times the impartiality of the Civil Service. This impartiality is a fundamental tenet of our system of government, set out in legislation and in the Civil Service Code. As always, the Civil Service is focused on doing its duty to implement the decisions and policies of the Government, including on negotiations and preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. He speaks with authority, having been a civil servant as well as a distinguished former Minister. I am sure the whole House will appreciate the tribute he has paid to Sir Jeremy Heywood. Since a politically impartial and independent Civil Service recruited on the basis of merit, in which civil servants are advised to speak fearlessly in giving advice to Ministers, has been one of the strengths of our unwritten constitution in the last 150 years, will the noble Lord condemn all those politicians—of all political persuasions and different views on Brexit—who blame the civil servants for policy decisions which are the sole responsibility of Ministers? Does he not agree that this is damaging to confidence and trust in the Civil Service?
Lord Young of Cookham
As the noble Lord has indicated, I have an interest to declare: I was myself a civil servant in the 1960s, working for such agreeable political masters as George Brown and John Stonehouse. But on the serious issue the noble Lord raises, I agree entirely with what he has just said. I think that Oliver Robbins has the most difficult job in the Civil Service; it is quite wrong that he should be the lightning conductor for those unhappy with the negotiations. I deplore the anonymous allegation that he is following his own agenda, against the wishes of Ministers.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Luce Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My contribution will focus solely on the position of Gibraltar in the context of the broader negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I declare an interest as a former Governor of Gibraltar and as chancellor of the new University of Gibraltar.
I appreciate that this Bill applies only in a limited way to Gibraltar, but there is a need to provide firm reassurances at every stage about its future. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition and other noble Lords have referred to this issue. It is worth reminding the House that Gibraltarians voted in the referendum by a majority of 96% in favour of remaining in the European Union. It is not surprising, therefore, that they are concerned to protect the rights and benefits that they have acquired since joining the EU with the UK in 1973. The best way in which to reassure them is to provide legal guarantees in addition to ministerial statements. This is a matter that can be probed in Committee.
Gibraltarians have every reason to feel anxious about the future, because the new EU negotiating directive issued by the European Council reaffirms clause 24, which featured in earlier negotiating guidelines. This clause purports to give Spain a veto over the application to Gibraltar of any agreement concluded after the United Kingdom has left the European Union. I am glad to note that HMG do not accept the legal validity of this clause, but the fact that Spain has persuaded the European Council to incorporate this clause in the negotiating guidelines is most unhelpful. While clause 24 does not apply to this Bill, Spain is putting pressure on the EU for the clause to apply to the proposed transition period as well as any longer term arrangement between the United Kingdom and the EU. Neither is acceptable.
Therefore, we have a scenario where, in the worst case, Spain can seek to exclude Gibraltar from any broad agreement between the EU and the UK and insist on a separate agreement over Gibraltar. What we do not want is a situation whereby the British Government are faced at the end of the overall negotiations with a stark choice either to accept the general agreement with the EU and exclude Gibraltar or to postpone the general agreement until we and Spain can agree on Gibraltar’s future arrangements.
The Prime Minister of Spain, Mr Rajoy, said on 14 December 2017:
“Whatever future agreement between the EU and the UK, there has to be an agreement between Spain and the UK for that to apply to Gibraltar. We also asked that this applies to the transition period”.
Moreover, in the recent past, Gibraltar has had to face plenty of provocation from some Francoist elements in the Spanish Government both on the Gibraltar border and within the UK-Gibraltar waters. The treatment of Catalonia gives us no encouragement. The Spanish bullfighting culture still emerges from time to time.
We must bear it in mind, of course, that, before any final general agreement, there has to be unanimity among all 27 EU partners. Moreover, most of us will feel that it is very much in the interests of Spain and the UK that there should be a satisfactory resolution. Good relations between us are important, and, in any event, both countries and Gibraltar stand to gain by a co-operative arrangement across the border as 40% of the Gibraltar workforce crosses from Spain into Gibraltar each day to work. The Andalusian region around Gibraltar stands to gain from economic collaboration. That means that orderly arrangements for the border are essential. This points to the need for the Spanish and British Governments to work in their common interest on Gibraltar and well before any final agreement on the EU is put to Parliaments.
Against this background we need to reassure the people of Gibraltar. The Prime Minister has confirmed to Parliament that Gibraltar will not be excluded from the negotiations for either the transition period or any future agreement and that we will take account of the interests of Gibraltar and its unique relationship with the EU. It is good that the Joint Ministerial Committee on Gibraltar is working effectively and in a positive way. However, the people of Gibraltar need not just reassuring words but clear legal reassurances, wherever possible, that their acquired rights, which are in existence now, are preserved through this Bill, and that both the transition and the final outcome apply to them.
Most importantly, access to the UK market for Gibraltar’s well-regulated financial services remains vital for it constitutes 90% of all Gibraltar’s business with the EU. This and future growth must be guaranteed for the future. There must be no discriminatory treatment against Gibraltar at any stage as a result of this Bill or any forthcoming legislation concerning our arrangements with the EU. Anything that can be done in this Bill and future ones to reinforce this point will help ease the minds of Gibraltarians. They have been loyal to us in good times and bad. We in turn must do whatever we can to assure their future.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope he will confirm that the Government are committed to providing legal as well as verbal assurances to the Chief Minister, Mr Picardo, and the people of Gibraltar.
Chilcot Inquiry
Lord Luce Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. Just over 45 years ago, during the 1970 election, I opposed her and lost but I could not have asked to lose to a better person. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on this timely and healthy debate but I hope that the House will allow me to say a word about Lord Howe of Aberavon whose funeral was held this morning. As his former Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, I had many conversations with him about inquiries. We both gave evidence to the Scott inquiry, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, is here today. Had Lord Howe been alive and well, he would have undoubtedly wished to speak in this debate. Indeed, he chaired the Ely Hospital inquiry in Cardiff in 1969 when he had already taken Silk.
We are all familiar with Lord Howe’s distinguished career but, in my view, he was one of the most civilised, thoughtful and intelligent of post-war politicians, and a great parliamentarian. In a week when we are marking the state visit of President Xi, I should say that one of Lord Howe’s greatest achievements was negotiating the future of Hong Kong. It is worth saying that when he was negotiating with Deng Xiaoping in Beijing in 1983, I was on duty on a Saturday as a Minister in the Foreign Office when the British ambassador reported to say that Deng Xiaoping had disclosed that he trusted Geoffrey Howe. He authorised talks to go ahead and to conclude with the “one country, two systems” position. That was an act of great statesmanship.
It is the word “trust” on which I want to dwell because it is relevant to this debate. Clearly, it is essential that there is trust and confidence in the Chilcot inquiry and it has been continually under challenge. Like everyone else, I share the frustration about delays. But, as a former Civil Service Minister, I have to say that I suspect the most frustrated people of all are Sir John Chilcot and the other three distinguished members of the committee. Sir John is known for his fairness, impartiality and sense of duty, and all the members of the committee are known for their integrity and abilities.
Sir John has already made it clear that he never expected or wanted this inquiry to last this long. So why has it happened? First, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that unlike the Butler and Hutton inquiries—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will speak shortly—the terms of reference of which were tightly drawn, the scope and terms of reference of this inquiry were immensely broad. It has lasted over eight years of study. The run-up to the conflict, the period of the conflict and the post-conflict period were all included in the terms of reference.
Secondly, I recall that, after the inquiry was announced by the then Prime Minister in 2009, the Select Committee on Public Administration called for transparent and open procedures, rather than having evidence given in private. I gave evidence to the Franks committee in private and that has its merits. However, in an atmosphere of little trust in Governments, and so on, it is right to hold proceedings in the open—but surely they are bound to take longer.
Thirdly, as has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, the amount of documentation the committee has had to study has evidently been absolutely massive. There are also questions of declassification and of the disclosure of exchanges between Bush and Blair—all that has to be sorted out and looked at. There were major delays, but I am told that 150,000 documents had to be studied and one should not underestimate the time it takes to work through all that. However, when the report comes, it should indicate who is responsible for the delays.
Fourthly, there is the matter of Maxwellisation. There are arguments for and against Maxwellisation, but that is not my point. Many people have suggested that that was the main cause of delay, but the Maxwellisation procedures did not start until the end of last year; I understand that they are now completed. They may have prolonged the process a little, of course, but I do not believe they were the main reason for delay. The big problem is the scale and complexity of the inquiry.
I agree with all those who suggest that it is not sensible to have an interim report. It is too late for that, in any event, and all stages of the inquiry are interrelated. It is also essential for Sir John to go on working to retain the confidence of the public and Parliament in what he is doing. What are the main causes of delay? It is perfectly reasonable for him to take opportunities to explain to the public the reasons for these frustrating delays, in order to retain the confidence of Parliament. Once the report is published, Parliament can debate the lessons to be learnt over Iraq and the lessons to be learnt about the nature and type of inquiries we hold in this country.
Soft Power and the UK’s Influence (Select Committee Report)
Lord Luce Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, this excellent report and this debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have really demonstrated the astonishing range of measures at the disposal of this country to exercise influence and soft power. I have noticed that the noble Lord has sat through every single speech throughout this debate, and if he felt that he wanted a short break I would quite understand if he took it during my speech.
I start by endorsing the view, generally expressed, that soft power and hard power must complement each other and that there is no substitute for ensuring that our defences are adequate to deal with any threats or dangers that we face in this country; indeed, Dr Kissinger spoke very eloquently about that over the weekend. But I want to focus my attention solely on the Commonwealth, as one of the most important weapons—as it were—of soft power that is at the disposal of any Commonwealth country. I have here in my hand the souvenir copy of the speech made by Harold Macmillan exactly 55 years ago in Cape Town. This copy was given to me by the late Sir David Hunt, who was his private secretary and helped, no doubt, to draft that remarkable speech.
The reason why I draw the House’s attention to the speech is that it shows the vision and foresight of Harold Macmillan with regard to the Commonwealth. It is unusual today for Prime Ministers to quote St Paul, as he did 55 years ago when he said,
“we are all members one of another”.
He went on to talk about “the value of interdependence” and how these Commonwealth nations were voluntarily agreeing to work together. He said that there would be differences that we had to work out together, that the great strength of the Commonwealth was that it had no rigid constitution and that therefore it had a great deal of flexibility in its organisation. He called on everyone to co-operate,
“in the pursuit of common aims and purposes in world affairs”.
It makes me wonder today, 55 years later, how Macmillan would view the way we have tackled our membership of the Commonwealth. I think that he would be disappointed. Indeed, I feel disappointed, because we have missed many opportunities in the Commonwealth. I feel rather like the late Lord Jowett, who was the head of Balliol, who once said about the Church of England that he was a Christian in spite of the clergy. I feel rather like saying, “I am in favour of the Commonwealth in spite of some Commonwealth Governments”.
Here always exists in front of us something that we could not invent but is a unique opportunity for our country. The question to ask is whether we take it; it is there for us to take. We face yet another crossroads in the Commonwealth with the handing over of the chairmanship from Sri Lanka to Malta, and with a new opportunity for Commonwealth Heads of Government in November to set a new direction on relevance to a Commonwealth that will bring benefits to the people of the Commonwealth. Many noble Lords have referred to yesterday’s Commonwealth Day observance. The theme was young people. Sixty per cent of Commonwealth citizens are under the age of 30. Reference was made to the fact that this group of nations is unique in human history. In one of the addresses during that service there was reference to child slavery, and of course the anti-slavery Bill will be very important to the Commonwealth as a whole.
How do we bring influence? It seems to me that there are two ways: first, between Governments, and secondly, between people. Between Governments, of course, we have the Commonwealth charter, which sets out the values to which we all aspire—democracy, rule of law, which has been referred to so often today, human rights, the role of the media, which is vital for the Commonwealth, and good governance, to give some examples. It is through dialogue and trying to resolve differences all the time that we can work towards seeing those values achieved.
I want to stress today the people-to-people aspect because we cannot underestimate the value of the links between people of the Commonwealth. We have this new opportunity on which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has led, not only in this report but in the book he has written about the revolution in technology—the networking that it brings about; the ease of contact that it will help people to have between each other and between organisations; the enhanced information and knowledge which will be at the disposal of people; and the empowerment of people, which is so important now to the Commonwealth.
The battery of weapons that we have within the Commonwealth to exercise our influence and the value of our soft power is astonishing. There is an underfunded and underresourced secretariat at government level which should be sponsoring a greater partnership with the non-official Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Foundation, of which I had the privilege of being the chairman in the 1990s, is there to promote civil society contact and bring about participatory democracy within the Commonwealth. There are at least 85 professional associations or organisations within the Commonwealth and we cannot underestimate the value of that contact. They cover every facet of life. The Commonwealth of Learning uses modern technology to network for distance learning, including massive open-line courses which British universities can influence and play a part in. There is the Commonwealth Universities Association—the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to the value of university links in her excellent maiden speech—and I attended one of its meetings when I was a vice-chancellor in Malta, and the exchange of views and experiences is an example of how valuable it can be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—I ought to describe her as my noble friend because she is my sister-in-law—referred to the importance of the Commonwealth scholarships and fellowships scheme. There are 30,000 alumni from those scholarships across the Commonwealth. Think of the soft power value that has. There is the Commonwealth Class, which is the linkage between the BBC, the British Council and the secretariat, to connect more than 100,000 schools on line. Imagine the value of teaching children the link between ourselves and Commonwealth countries.
The Commonwealth Press Union is extremely important. The Commonwealth Local Government Forum is extremely strong. There is the new Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, in which the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who is not here at the moment, played a leading part in injecting new life into business connections with the Commonwealth, bearing in mind the importance of trade and business. I could go on indefinitely.
We have these opportunities sitting there to exploit. It requires action and imagination. DfID’s role in the Commonwealth and what it does needs to be looked at by the House or by a Select Committee to see how it is using aid to benefit our soft power influence in the Commonwealth. Soft power is an attitude of mind. It is a culture, a style, which involves dialogue and engagement. I hope all political parties in this coming election will feel totally committed to the concept of using the Commonwealth partnership as a means of furthering our strength as a country.
Israel and Palestine
Lord Luce Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are extremely tight on time. In view of the great interest in this debate, I ask all noble Lords to watch the clock and ideally to come in just below two minutes rather than above.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for replying to this debate, and to all noble Lords, who will no doubt make distinctive contributions despite the time constraint.
A few months after I was born in 1936, a royal commission on Palestine set up by the Government concluded:
“An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country.”
Some 78 years later, following interminable cycles of war, occupation and violence, the Israelis and Palestinians are still locked in a desperate and dangerous impasse out of which they seem unable to escape.
All this is against an even more ominous background where much of the Middle East has sunk into a dark age of wars of religion and ethnic conflict. In these circumstances, the most dangerous thing of all would be to continue with the status quo and to assume that there is no hope of progress on Palestine. On both sides, the insecurity, fear, frustration and anger can be a recipe only for an endless cycle of violence—a time bomb that threatens continually the peace and security of the Middle East and of the international community.
This area is and will remain vital to Britain’s security and economic well-being. Both are at great risk without a solution to the Palestinian problem. Beyond that, Britain, responsible for the Balfour Declaration, still has a moral obligation to play an active role in seeking a just settlement. Today we have a State of Israel—though it is not yet secure—while Palestinians have been driven out of much of the land of Palestine. Many now live as refugees elsewhere in the West Bank, surrounded by Jewish settlements, or in the most desperate conditions in Gaza—all this despite a British Government mandate as long ago as 1920 to guide Palestine to independence.
Since then, on the Palestinian side, there have been repeated failures of leadership, internal divisions, missed opportunities and appalling acts of terrorism. As to Israel, I draw a sharp distinction between the Jewish people and the policy of certain Israeli leaders and extreme religious groups. I condemn utterly the re- emergence of anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere. The Holocaust was an unimaginable crime against humanity. The Jews deserve and need a secure home in Israel for those who want to live there. They have created a remarkable nation in a short time. But I have to say in no uncertain terms that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, which amount to more than 500,000 people, have emerged as the gravest impediment to a peaceful settlement. They also contravene the Geneva Convention and conflict with Article 2 of the UN charter, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by the use of force. As the late Mr Sharon once said:
“It is impossible to have a Jewish democratic state and at the same time control to all of Eretz Israel. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety, we are liable to lose it all”.
It is worth reminding our Israeli friends that we in Britain have extensive experience of occupying other people’s territories on different continents, of taking other people’s land and of discriminating between religious communities in Northern Ireland. We know from experience that this can be the recipe for anger, despair and violence. It is striking that so many Israeli intelligence, armed forces and security leaders have said in recent times that war will not solve the problem, and that occupation of the West Bank and, in effect, Gaza undermines Israel. But the determination of some Israeli politicians, egged on by extreme religious groups intent on the occupation of Judea and Samaria, to go on ignoring this advice can only inflame the problem and provide a powerful argument for Islamist recruiters. The international community has been regularly supine in confronting the issue of settlements, partly perhaps from a reluctance to counter Israel’s democratically elected politicians, however extreme their views.
Against this background, the prospects for a two-state solution are receding. Secretary of State Kerry’s sterling efforts have produced regrettably few results, perhaps because he addressed only part of the problem. But the international community cannot give up. Credible polls show that the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians still want a two-state solution. The only alternatives are the status quo or a binational state of some kind. Both are a dead end. The status quo means drift, more settlements, Gaza imprisoned and isolated with more extremism, and Israel retreating to another Masada fortress. Growing international support for recognition of Palestine as a state and as a member of UN bodies and of the ICC will be complemented by growing international isolation of Israel as a pariah state, with the prospect of intensified sanctions, particularly on those in Israel who do business with the settlements. There is no secure future in the status quo for Israelis or Palestinians.
As to the binational state or one-state solution, Kerry’s withdrawn public reference to apartheid was in fact right. The population trends show that there are at present 6 million Israeli Jews, with a similar and rapidly growing population of Palestinians living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. If this is to be a Jewish nation, it would, in all likelihood, lead to an apartheid nation of Bantustans, where democracy would be undermined by the treatment of Palestinians as second-class citizens. Israel would be at serious risk of no longer providing a permanent home for the Jews, but of destroying itself through civil strife and international condemnation.
However, time and events are rapidly eroding the prospect of a two-state solution and it is imperative that international efforts should not lose momentum. As Israelis go to the polls, the international community, not least the European Union, needs to get the message across that, given leadership and determination, Israelis and Palestinians can still reach a two-state solution and that the dangers for all parties in the alternatives still outweigh the challenges of reaching a peace settlement.
The elements are well known, as has been restated so many times since Resolution 242 nearly 50 years ago. The Israelis for their part must show readiness to end their occupation of the West Bank and the imprisonment of Gaza and to remove settlements in return for firm security guarantees. The biggest problem on both sides remains lack of political leadership and trust. The international community has to do yet more to find ways to encourage a climate for renewed discussion. That includes an unequivocal stand on the issue of settlements and the condemnation of all violence.
At the same time, the Palestinians must be brought to demonstrate their unified determination to construct a viable state: a state which links Gaza and the West Bank, both of which must be the focus of negotiations. Jordan and Egypt in particular should be invited to contribute to this process. It requires imagination and fresh thinking. Any political agreement must be supported by the equivalent of an economic Marshall Plan to rescue Gaza and to rejuvenate the Palestinian economy.
Against this background, I now believe that if we are to remain a serious international player, HMG must give impetus to the peace process by recognising a Palestinian state without delay. Two factors persuade me of this. Negotiations will have a better chance if some equivalence of status is created between the two parties, and the Palestinians need such a spur to work hard to construct a viable state. It is worth noting that Israel was not a fully viable state when the British Government recognised her in 1948—and nor today do we recognise some of her borders or Jerusalem as her capital. On Palestinian recognition, we are lagging behind not only opinion in Europe but that in Israel itself, where there are open calls and petitions from senior and credible figures for Israeli recognition of Palestine on the basis that Israel’s safety and security depend on the two states existing side by side.
The inclination by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to wait for something to happen must be replaced by a will to succeed in reaching a comprehensive settlement. That will must be supported rigorously and robustly by Britain, the EU and the wider international community. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the position that HMG take on this vital issue.
Sri Lanka: Presidential Elections
Lord Luce Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it was a very broad coalition election that elected President Sirisena, and it will be very difficult to hold all of that coalition together. I understand that the Tamil National Alliance has said that it is willing to support the Government from the outside but does not at the moment want to take ministerial posts within the Government. However, it is a temporary Government and there will probably be elections in April.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, given that Sri Lanka is the current chair of the Commonwealth, can the Minister say whether the new President is fully committed to the Commonwealth charter, which reflects all the values of the Commonwealth?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I cannot say that, but I certainly hope so.
Sudan and South Sudan
Lord Luce Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I very much support the noble Earl and all Peers who have spoken today, who have persistently, over the years, drawn attention to the atrocities that have been committed in Sudan, from Darfur to Blue Nile province, and from Kordofan to the south, and to the humanitarian crises which face both Sudan and South Sudan.
I am probably the least expert of all Peers who will have spoken today, but on the other hand, my link goes back to the late 1940s—55 years ago when, as a child, I watched my father contribute alongside other administrators in Sudan to the move towards independence, which took place on 1 January 1956. I had very clear impressions in my mind as a teenager of the beginning of the development of institutions such as the parliament in Sudan, which I remember attending, the judiciary as it developed and the very strong administrative system and civil service. In the south, when I visited Equatoria Province in 1950, I remember the relative peace between the various Nilotic tribes but there was a very separate administration between the north and the south. At one time, the British contemplated linking South Sudan, as it now is, to east Africa in the form of a federation. That was an historic decision, which I will not comment on now, but it probably would have had profound consequences because they decided not to do so.
Since the first rebellion took place in the south in August 1955, the people of the south have lived in almost perpetual conflict. Noble Lords have demonstrated that with all the statistics they have given today—the displaced people, the deaths, the hunger and starvation, the violence, and the refugees, from Darfur to Kordofan to the south. It is simply a total tragedy. I have often thought about what our attitude should be once a country has been granted independence from our former Empire, and as far as Sudan is concerned— South Sudan above all—I have no doubt that after 60 years of colonial rule we have a moral responsibility to do our best to help the African Union and east African nations do their best for Sudan.
As far as Sudan is concerned, I want to endorse and reinforce the words of the noble Earl that there needs to be a genuine dialogue if the international world is going to recognise and support what Sudan says it wants to do. If there is to be a road to peace and unity in Sudan, it has to embrace everybody: it has to be inclusive and comprehensive. Yet the undermining of freedom of expression, the imprisoning of opposition politicians, the detention and torture of activists, press censorship, and continuing violence in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile do nothing to give one confidence that Sudan is moving in the right direction. All I can say is that I hope the Government are watching and monitoring very carefully and will give support to that dialogue only if it moves forward in a comprehensive and inclusive way.
As far as the south is concerned, it is an untenable position, above all for the long-suffering people of the south but also for the international community, because following the euphoria of independence in 2011 we have had an interminable cycle of failed attempts to end the conflict, with the militias resuming fighting time and again, and human rights abuses and atrocities, with the international community constantly needing to step in with fresh humanitarian support—against compassion fatigue, which is undoubtedly taking place, and other competing demands, from Syria to Somalia to Zimbabwe, for example. The south can be described only as having the makings of a failed state.
The first thing that the people of the south need is the ability to survive—before you can even talk about development or political institutions. To that end, I ask the Government to consider one thing, which is our experience in Sierra Leone, where there was a serious civil war in the 1990s. At that point, the United Nations, with Britain in the lead, took up a UN peacekeeping mission which was mandated by the UN Security Council. Britain led reforming the police force and revamping the country’s courts. In the past decade we have seen one of the fastest rates of development in Africa in Sierra Leone. Yes, it is a new kind of trusteeship, and I ask the Government if we can learn from that experience and see whether this is not the best way in which a new transitional Government—with the help, no doubt, of the diaspora— can hold the ring and give the long-suffering people a chance to move forward and have a decent quality of life.
Hong Kong
Lord Luce Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, since it is in China’s, Britain’s and Hong Kong’s interests to do nothing to undermine the 1984 declaration, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, helped to negotiate, and since universal suffrage is on offer for the first time, is not the most important thing that the people of Hong Kong should engage in constructive dialogue with the Chief Executive of Hong Kong to ensure that the next time there is an election for Chief Executive, there is a reasonable and wide range of choice of candidates?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Lord for that detailed and constructive question. We are talking about the Basic Law of 1997 and not the joint declaration of 1984, and we are talking about the commitment to universal suffrage. The issue at stake regarding the demonstrations is how open the nomination of the Chief Executive should be. The question of judicial independence came up with regard to a Chinese Government White Paper of June 2014. It is the British Government’s view that judicial independence in Hong Kong has not been compromised by that White Paper.
Hong Kong
Lord Luce Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to take stock of recent developments and for the Government to give their assessment of the present situation in Hong Kong. I am also very grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this debate with their own experience and knowledge of Hong Kong.
Since Britain was a partner in the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong, we have an obligation, if not a moral one, towards the people of Hong Kong. I was privileged to be the Minister of State with responsibilities for Hong Kong in the period which led to the 1984 declaration. When that declaration was signed some 30 years ago, many of today’s demonstrators were not yet born. It is therefore worth stressing the background to that declaration.
Under international law, Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong, except for the island and Kowloon, to the People’s Republic in 1997. The only feasible option was to hand over the whole of Hong Kong to China. In doing so, we were conscious of the fact that many people had escaped from the communism of mainland China to seek larger freedoms in Hong Kong. The choice was stark: negotiate the best agreement we could achieve or just hand them over. It was clear that the latter course would have led to the collapse of confidence and of institutions, the decline in business and the emigration of many skilled middle-class people. The only responsible course was to try to persuade the Chinese to agree to preserve every aspect of Hong Kong’s way of life which the British had helped to create over 150 years: freedom under the law, an independent judiciary, free press, free speech, freedom to demonstrate and the free market capitalist economy. The foundations for a democratic system were there but, up to 1984, successive British Governments had been hesitant to develop it.
It was of course the Thatcher Government and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, as the then Foreign Secretary, who led for Britain in the negotiations brokering this remarkable declaration of principles based on one country but two systems, granting the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region a high degree of autonomy. Article 5 sums it up:
“The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.”
I should stress the fact that Deng Xiaoping gave the go-ahead for these discussions because, he said, he trusted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. The word “trust” is as relevant today in Hong Kong as it was then. We need to acknowledge that it was remarkably enlightened and far-sighted of Deng Xiaoping at that time to draw up a declaration recognising two very different systems in one country.
In these circumstances, it was surely inevitable that there would be severe strains from time to time in reconciling the determination of Beijing to preserve its ultimate authority over Hong Kong with its commitment to respect the sanctity of Hong Kong systems and way of life. We must remind ourselves that, soon after the declaration, the Chinese National People’s Congress developed the Basic Law of Hong Kong which put flesh on the principles expressed in the declaration. One ultimate aim of the Basic Law was to introduce universal suffrage for both the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council. It is also worth noting that, since 1997, the number of directly elected members of the Legislative Council has gradually increased.
I sense two factors that may go some way to explain the very real anxieties expressed in current demonstrations in Hong Kong, which consist of many young people with aspirations for some kind of participation in their political and economic future. First, there has not been real trust and confidence in the methods for choosing the Chief Executives of Hong Kong since 1997 and the extent to which they listen to the views of all Hongkongers. The second point is linked to the first and is focused on the methods for choosing and electing the next Chief Executive in 2017. The National People’s Congress had stipulated that there would be universal suffrage for the 5 million or so registered voters. However, on 31 August, after several months’ consultation with the people of Hong Kong, the National People’s Congress—the arbiters of the Basic Law—announced that all eligible voters may vote for their Chief Executive from up to three candidates but that they must be nominated by at least 50% of the nominating committee of 1,200 people. The Chief Executive will be appointed by the Chinese Central People’s Government, based on the results of the election. The argument has been made that a majority of the committee will be sympathisers of the Beijing Government and that therefore there will not be a transparent and fair system, enabling Hongkongers to choose from a wide range of people. Thereafter, the Legislative Council must decide by a two-thirds majority in early 2015. Failure to do so will mean that the arrangements revert to those in 2012 when the present Chief Executive, CY Leung, was chosen without universal suffrage.
At this point, I stress that I believe that the People’s Republic of China, the people of Hong Kong and the British Government have a vested interest in ensuring that this special commitment to “one country, two systems” works successfully and indeed strengthens over time. China needs to demonstrate to the people of Taiwan that the Hong Kong arrangement could in future be viable for them. Moreover, although Hong Kong is perhaps economically less important to China than in 1997, the financial collapse of the region could have devastating consequences. In Britain, we have a moral duty to Hongkongers to encourage the maintenance of the principles of the declaration. In addition, we have strong financial, trade and educational links of importance to us. It is estimated that the stock of British investment in Hong Kong at the end of 2012 was just under £36 billion, some 40% of British investment in Asia. Some 126 British companies have registered headquarters in Hong Kong. Our total exports to Hong Kong in 2013 were more than £4 billion.
However, it is the future of the nearly 8 million people in Hong Kong that matters more than anything else. There is at present a serious tension between the Hong Kong Administration and many of the people of Hong Kong. I believe that there is now an opportunity for all sides to work for a constitutional mechanism that could gain the confidence of the people of Hong Kong. This would involve discussions between the people of Hong Kong and their Administration about how to introduce in 2017 an election process for a new Chief Executive where the nominations committee is broadly representative of the people of Hong Kong and where there is a free and fair choice of candidates.
The approaching second round of consultations will provide the opportunity to propose improved ways in which the four main sectors of representatives are chosen. The Chinese authorities have repeatedly made it clear that it is for the Hong Kong Government to determine the extent and nature of democracy in Hong Kong, in consultation with the people of Hong Kong. It is surely in everybody’s interest to have a Government in Hong Kong who enjoy the confidence of their people. Hong Kong has a well educated, vibrant population, well equipped to embark on a constructive and calm dialogue with the Government of Hong Kong and to help to construct the way forward.
Over the years, Her Majesty’s Government have produced six-monthly reports to Parliament on Hong Kong, which have been helpful and informative. The Government have repeatedly stressed the need to develop Hong Kong’s distinctive way of life and level of autonomy. I look forward to hearing the Government’s view on the present situation and the importance of finding a solution which commands the trust and confidence of the people of Hong Kong.
The Future of the Civil Service
Lord Luce Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, unlike my colleagues, I am wedged here between distinguished civil servants, but I speak as a former Minister of State for the Civil Service. I strongly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has said. The difference between now and the 1980s, of course, is that there is a breakdown in trust between Ministers and the Civil Service, which is at a serious level. However, we ought to acknowledge at the same time that there has been a considerable change in circumstances facing Governments of the day. The circumstances are more complex: we have a coalition Government; the technology has transformed the scene; and the media demand a 24-hour service.
To my mind, there are two key points. It is essential to preserve, on the one hand, the ethos and the values of the Civil Service, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Secondly, it is important always to ensure that there is ongoing, incremental improvement in the effectiveness of the Civil Service. That is what the Government are now effectively trying to do in things such as delivery and improving the skills and the quality of advice that the service gives. At the end of the day, we must do nothing to undermine the values of the service.
Then there is the question of accountability. At the end of the day, the buck stops with the Minister, who is accountable to Parliament. It is perfectly sane and sensible in today’s rather complex age of government to expect that the roles of civil servants should be clarified and that systems of accountability should be there. At the end of the day, however, it is Ministers who carry the can: I say with some feeling that there are times when they even have to resign.
Secondly, we should not politicise or personalise the appointments of Permanent Secretaries. The job of the civil servant is to give fearless, objective advice to Ministers. They must have no fear of losing their job because they are doing their job properly. A good Minister will want to hear all the arguments before taking a decision; otherwise the Minister is in danger of taking the wrong decision. Therefore, I am totally opposed to any weakening of the present position where the Secretary of State cannot appoint the Permanent Secretary.
Lastly, I am extremely suspicious about the extended ministerial office. There must be no conflict of loyalties. There must be no cocooning of a Minister within his little bureaucracy. There must be no proliferation of political advisers. There are plenty of junior Ministers in this present Government to give political advice.
I support my colleagues who believe that there ought to be an all-party-supported independent or parliamentary inquiry that reaches its conclusions before the next general election. The country needs a strong and stable Civil Service.