Burma

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord is right. We have provided about £10 million to ensure that the census is conducted in a technically sound way. We have also helped with the mapping exercise. We have concerns about the census, which is due on 28 March. This Friday will be census night and there will then be a period of 10 days when enumeration will take place. We have concerns because of the 135 officially recognised ethnicities—Rohingya, for example is not included—but we take some comfort from the fact that we have gained agreement from the Burmese Government for independent observers to be mobilised during this process. We hope that the option to self-identify will be used by the Rohingya community to be properly enumerated.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that these issues are raised with the Burmese authorities vigorously and frequently and I know that to be the case. I am sure that these efforts are appreciated. To ensure that these issues do not drop between any cracks or rely on a single sentence to capture them, should we not adopt in the quarterly report a traffic light system under which countries that persistently abuse human rights are shown to all of those who read our reports around the world as red, those which are making progress as amber and others as green? As we take comfort in some progress, I sometimes feel that we have lost them on our radar.

[Baroness Warsi]

As the Minister with responsibility for human rights, I constantly keep under review how the quarterly and annual reports on human rights are presented, how we can present them better and how we can better judge countries that are making progress. I am starting to see the first drafts of the human rights reports which will be published later this year. They will include a great deal of detail on Burma, both as a country of concern and in relation to specific human rights abuses.

Ukraine

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, and I appreciate the early sight that we had of it. I will say immediately that I think it is a very serious and very valuable Statement. We wholly subscribe to two of the concluding points, and to much else as well, but I will start with the two concluding points:

“The UK’s national interest lies in a free, democratic, unified, stable and peaceful Ukraine able to make its own decisions about its future”,

and,

“we also have a direct national interest in the maintenance of international law”.

That is 100% common ground among us all.

Today we need, as I suspect we will need over the coming weeks and months, careful judgments and very careful words. The dangers of the position in which we find ourselves are plain to see, just as they were when we discussed this matter on 24 February. It is difficult to think of a greater threat to European security in the recent history of the continent. This incursion by Russia into the sovereign territory of a neighbour, far beyond the bases in Ukraine for which it has lease arrangements, breaks a raft of international laws and obligations. The Statement repeats them: it is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the Russia-Ukraine bilateral agreement of 1997 on military bases. It breaks all the agreements guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity.

The diplomatic efforts by the Foreign Secretary and his visit to the Ukraine are to be applauded. The visit to Paris tomorrow is also important for carrying the process forward. It is helpful that Secretary Kerry has been so directly involved, as is the EU generally, and of significance that Chancellor Merkel has taken a leading role. Efforts at NATO are also of the first importance. Security co-operation is now becoming a non-credible option as far as NATO and Russia are concerned.

Plainly, Russia should step back. I think we all fear that it will not. It has no justification for its actions. The justifications it purports to provide—a letter from a fleeing and discredited President and the ever more extravagant denigration of the people and the interim Government of Ukraine, using fanciful and, on occasions, grotesque language—are raucous and synthetic. It is language that I suspect is constructed largely for a Russian domestic audience, designed to arouse popular memories of what was indeed a terrible period of Nazi invasion of Soviet territory and the unspeakable loss of lives at the hands of the Nazis. But it is not a credible description of the present and it runs the manifest risk that all such exercises do: that a belligerent state gradually comes to believe its own rhetoric. If Russia continues its current line of approach, it must be viewed as a threat to the south-east of Ukraine as a whole. Precisely this trajectory was discussed in your Lordships’ House last week.

First, this should not be allowed to drift, by accident or design, into armed conflict. The restraint of the Ukrainian people, state and forces is exceptional and commendable. I am sure that that will be felt right across the United Kingdom. It has been statesmanlike. As a result, there is no excuse for Russia to move from its current level of aggression to out-and-out violence. What we all need now is a process of de-escalation. All efforts at diplomacy must be made and the multinational institutions must step up to the mark—and quickly. It is clear that diplomacy has had little traction so far. However, appeals not to isolate Mr Putin have followed and, perhaps predictably, they have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, nobody can be put off from making the effort.

I say the efforts have been unsuccessful. Chancellor Merkel found herself talking to a leader living, as she put it, in a parallel universe. Despite Germany’s dependence on Russian gas, the chancellor appears to have pulled no punches in what she said and I applaud that. Mr Kerry encountered a policy mindset that reminded him of the 19th century in its attitudes of large states to smaller ones—I confess that I have reached back to study Bismarck to try to find parallel language. Beyond dispute is that discussions setting out what President Obama called the consequences of continued military intervention fell on deaf ears. President Putin disregarded them, as he did proposals for an internationally mediated process to ensure the rights of Russian speakers in the Crimea and a formal special status to protect them. Indeed, President Putin talked to President Obama having already secured a unanimous vote in the Duma for military intervention. The only conclusion it is safe to draw is that this is about retrenching the Ukraine inside Russia’s sphere of influence rather than anything else. It goes further than securing Sevastopol, which was not in any case under threat. The hurt that may be felt by a diminished global status is the target Mr Putin seeks to address. The risks of the consequences do not appear to be that great to him, and that should cause us concern.

What is needed now is a process of stabilisation. Russian leaders must be able to calibrate—and do so on the basis of clear statements from all the rest of us—the balance of diplomatic and economic risks they face; that is, what have been described as the consequences. Ukrainian leaders must also and clearly opt for inclusiveness. The rights of populations within the country, including those speaking Russian, must be protected and those peoples need to know they are protected. I welcome the assurances that the Foreign Secretary received about the status of Russian language legislation. That should be a very helpful step. That is a basis for both the Ukraine and Russia moving forward in some form of dialogue as soon as possible. A role in defusing the crisis must be seized with both hands. Did the Foreign Secretary raise other issues with the Ukrainians that might go in the same direction during the course of his talks this week?

As my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander said in another place, Russia needs to be clear and to understand the consequences of its actions. His main point was that the rest of us need to understand the consequences of inaction. What will the United Kingdom say at the emergency session of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on Thursday? I assume that is going ahead and that we will attend it. What was said by the Foreign Secretary at yesterday’s EU Foreign Affairs Council? Is a process taking place of building from words about what the consequences may be to taking action? Are Her Majesty’s Government able to clarify what they advocate as the “costs” and “consequences”? Again, I make no apology for repeating this point. When dealing with a state leader like President Putin, it is critical that he understands precisely what everybody intends so that there can be no mistakes about what follows.

Is it right to say that all diplomatic and economic options are on the table for this Thursday? I have deliberately not included the word “military”, because I do not believe that anybody is looking in that direction; we are talking about diplomatic and economic options. Are those options on the table? If not, the Russian appetite for future military action will, in my view, have been whetted and we can expect to see more of it, to the detriment of the peoples of the region.

We are pulling out of the preparations for Sochi, and I am sure that that is right. Are the Government minded to pull out of the Sochi conference and to say so now? Is Russia now a legitimate member of the G8? Has it the status, does it meet the requirements, to take part in international bodies of that kind?

The financial support for Ukraine is obviously a matter of the first importance. We know that it needs $35 billion over the next 24 months to avoid a default. I think that the £10 million contribution from the United Kingdom is unquestionably helpful, but far more is needed and the IMF itself needs to take an important role. That role will be taken against a background, as the Statement says—again, I am glad that this is in the Statement—of dealing with poor institutions and ongoing corruption, but these are probably moments in which people will be more attentive to what is required of them than they might have been at some other points in their history when they saw less threat. The solvency issue is fundamental to any long-term prospects. If the country hollows out and falters, the prospect of ever reaching stability must be to that extent diminished.

I conclude by saying that all the direct contact that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and many of the other international diplomats have had must have been of help, and its continuation must be of help. There must be value in the formation of a contact group. It at least will set agendas, schedule meetings and try to ensure that people are around the table rather than simply working out where they can parade their troops next in somebody else’s territory.

This is difficult, and it is a time for the House and those of all parties who regard the United Kingdom’s interest as paramount to draw together.

Sikh Community

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Singh, not just for securing the debate, but for the moving, careful and thoughtful way in which he introduced it. I appreciated that greatly, as I did the valuable history of the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and its full recognition of the contribution of the Sikh community, which was again very moving. Like him, I have visited the Golden Temple. It is an inspiring and deeply religious place, where you feel the depth of belief.

People sometimes say that dreadful events occurred at a different time in our history when different understandings of what normality was held sway. This is not such a case. No such argument, in my view, is available. A massacre is a massacre. It came in the midst of many other outrages against the Sikh people. People are entitled to know with as much certainty as possible what happened and why, who was involved and with what level of culpability.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned Operation Sundown and other events, all of which contribute to the knowledge we need. Her Majesty’s Government must today understand this feeling among the Sikh community, not for any reasons to do with 2015 but because it is needed and right, and the community has a plain entitlement to know what happened and why. The nature of the terrible events at Amritsar in 1984 affects not only the Sikh community but all of us. It affects our country and our sense of decency—the values that we hold for ourselves, as well those held in that community.

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is of great importance. This was an inadvertent disclosure; it was always intended to be a permanent secret, whatever the pain that would cause—pain that could have been alleviated but which it was intended should not be because of secrecy. It has been said that the Indian Government at the time turned to the United Kingdom because, through the experience of Balcombe Street and other sieges, we had relevant experience. Be that as it may, Balcombe Street and Amritsar look to me to be very different, and their consequences hugely different.

The study by the Cabinet Secretary published recently states that he studied 23,000 documents in 200 files. He reports that key documents were destroyed as,

“part of a routine process”,

at the 25-year review point. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, has also made the point about why some documents were destroyed. I share that view with him. The Cabinet Secretary concluded that we did nothing more in respect of Operation Blue Star than provide limited military advice. I am surprised that such a conclusion can be reached given the documents that are missing because they would have added great clarity. If he is so confident of these facts, it seems to me that he should not be. There is an information gap, which requires further investigation.

Sir Jeremy Heywood notes the high level of the request for assistance that was received. Mrs Ghandi, it is said, would not have understood a failure to help. However, he concludes that the assistance—the advice—was not subsequently taken. Indeed, he concludes that everyone thought our advice and assistance was insufficient and insignificant. In paragraph 19 of his report, he notes that Mrs Ghandi’s letter to Mrs Thatcher of 14 June 1984 made no reference to UK assistance at all. In paragraph 20, he notes that the military commander at Amritsar, Lieutenant-General Brar, said that no one had helped in planning or execution. This is seen by Sir Jeremy as compelling evidence of the United Kingdom’s minimal role. I find this nothing like as compelling as he appears to. At the least, it is untested by the kind of full inquiry that is plainly needed on this occasion and in the remarkable absence of Mrs Thatcher’s letter to Mrs Ghandi. Where is that letter and what does it say?

Sir Jeremy may be right. However, it is just as probable that the documents—the historical trail—were intended on this occasion to show how small the United Kingdom’s involvement was because it was thought that that was the best way of describing our approach. It is just as probable that a proud nation such as India, with a proud military commander, wanted to confirm the strength of its sovereign role and capability without making reference to anybody else. Such possibilities are commonplace in the relations between nations at this level. It is not fanciful, on the evidence that Sir Jeremy himself looked at, that other conclusions might be drawn. Sir Jeremy’s final assertion is, I fear, rather too shallow to remain unchallenged.

All of this flows to his main conclusions in paragraph 23. He is an exceptional civil servant, and I will always say so, but the conclusions are far from beyond challenge. An inquiry is the right place for a challenging examination, and nothing less will commend itself to the Sikh community, or indeed to the rest of us. Missing documents, insecure conclusions and a failure to grasp the context do not inspire confidence. However, the documents that are available provide some context. In those documents many express concern about the denigration of anyone who had anything to say about the matter as extremists. Her Majesty’s Government did that at the time. The view of Sikhs and other supporters of Mrs Thatcher’s Government would, I believe, regard what was said then as intolerable if it was said today. It should have been intolerable when it was said at the time.

This was and still is a remarkable community. Its offence was to object to a sequence of events and finally to the massacre of a large number of its members. It was perfectly entitled to object in those terms. What is more, researchers at Kew have found documents that were believed to be missing—some are still missing—which bear on the gaps I have tried to describe, as have other noble Lords in the debate. It is regrettable that our call for all the relevant documents to be placed in the public domain and for a list of those who were interviewed by Sir Jeremy is as yet not forthcoming. I regret the narrowness and limited timeframe of Sir Jeremy’s terms of reference. Again the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, made that point very forcefully. So tonight is, in my view, something of a watershed. This is not a small debate at the end of a busy day. Her Majesty’s Government cannot sidestep the issues tonight. An independent public inquiry is needed: they should agree to it tonight and do so with good grace. It will be forced on the Government either legally or by the outrage of the community so, rather than that, they should do it because it is right and it is inevitable, and take credit for doing the right thing.

Will the Minister give us a positive answer tonight? Will she agree to sufficiently wide terms of reference and an appropriate period to allow this matter to be investigated properly? When will the Prime Minister respond to these matters, and to the letter of 2 February from the Sikh Federation UK? When will its letter of 12 February setting out the fault lines in the Cabinet Secretary’s report receive a reply? When will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary meet representatives of the federation in order to ensure that progress can be made? Does the Minister accept that answers to whether Parliament was misled on 30 July 1984 have been misleading, having been based on what I can describe only as a somewhat deceitful piece of sophistry? Will she simply acknowledge that error? Will the United Kingdom’s military adviser’s report, provided to the Indian Government on 13 February 1984, be shared with Parliament so that it can assess whether the United Kingdom’s advice was taken or not? If it is thought that it is too sensitive, will it be provided through the Intelligence and Security Committee, as has also been discussed tonight?

I think all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate believe that there should be some form of inquiry, although in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, by an international body rather than a UK one—generally, I think we have all considered one undertaken by the UK—and I hope the Government will respond to that positively. That is because, finally, the Government will have to apologise, and should apologise, to the Sikh community. They can then explore with that community a positive act of reconciliation. It is time that this was resolved.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a vital issue and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and others for introducing the amendment. So that there is no doubt about it, let me start by saying that I fully support the amendment. I think it would produce a question that is far fairer. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, described it, it would produce a level playing field. That is extremely important, given the significance of the decision that we are being asked to take.

I received a letter from a sixth-former complaining about the speech that I made at Second Reading. She said that there was no point in us rehearsing the different arguments for and against the European Union, as that was something that would come out in a referendum, and that the real issue, as some noble Lords have characterised it on Second Reading and today, is about democracy itself, the chance for the people to have their say. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made the point at the very beginning that his amendment would have no impact on that democratic intention.

The fact that we need to address, if I may say so, is what we really mean by “democracy”. It is not just a word, it is a process which we intend to serve—a better and higher purpose than any autocracy could achieve. It is about how we do things to get a result; it is a process that should lead to a decision. That requires clarity on the issue to be decided. The issue should be capable of being decided beyond doubt and beyond ambiguity, and this decision is a very profound one, so we had better make sure that when the country is invited to take the decision, it can get it right.

I do not believe that there is ever a Bill that is so unimpeachable that it cannot or should not be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made the same point a few moments ago. It is not an appeal to democracy to say that we should not try to change the Bill; indeed, I think that that would be a rather disrespectful silence, as far as the people of the United Kingdom are concerned. The role of this House, as several noble Lords have said, is not to embrace expediency in these circumstances but to ensure that we have got the ethics right in providing the people of this country with the decision. It is true that we are not elected, but that does not in these circumstances mean that we are not relevant. I invite the House to embrace its relevance.

In May 2015, any party can say in its manifesto and put it to the people that there will be a referendum in 2017, should it wish. The mechanism to get that legislation through can unquestionably be achieved between May 2015 and 2017, quite aside from the possibility that noble Lords have canvassed of the Government, or at least a part of the Government, making time in the House of Commons to reconsider any amendment that comes from this House. It is very important that there should be a reconsideration, because it is conceivable—just out of prudence, I do not rule out the possibility—that somebody may conclude that it is important to have the referendum well before 2017. A bad set of results this May, with UKIP apparently doing better, may very well persuade a Prime Minister who has regarded this as a moving target all the time, to move the target again, if he believes that it is politically the right thing to do. I understand that these political pressures come on people.

It would be quite wrong for this House not to challenge the Bill. It would be quite wrong because it is not a party point; it is a point about the interests of the people of the United Kingdom being served fully and properly. The eminence of those who have tabled the amendment shows just how significant and broadly spread the support is. It is sometimes a courtesy to refer to colleagues in this House as being very eminent, conjuring that up as a turn of phrase, but if we look at the genuine experience of those who have tabled the amendment and the significance of the roles that they have played in this country, we can see just how important it is to take their views with the greatest seriousness. It is the basis of the Electoral Commission’s view. It is the basis on which the Select Committee on the Constitution has given advice. I know that I have only been here about 10 years, but I cannot recall circumstances in which all the advice of that kind has simply been ignored.

The fact that the Electoral Commission made two suggestions is not a reflection of its inability to decide, but an observation that either would be far better than the proposal in front of us. It invites us to do what we are supposed to do in political life: to take a decision. The one thing that is not in the Electoral Commission’s mind is to fall back on the worst of all the possible solutions, rather than to choose one of the better ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, to the great help of this House, has done. Indeed, the Electoral Commission is not entirely disregarded in the Bill. When it is useful to refer to it, in Clause 3(1), lines 6 to 7, and Clause 3(3), lines 14 to 15, those supporting the Bill find it very convenient to rely on the Electoral Commission. Let us rely on it properly for all the advice it gives, if we may.

I will mention Scotland briefly—but not, curiously, in the context of the referendum to be held on a far more sensible question than the one that Alex Salmond originally proposed. I will briefly mention the referendum which led to devolution in Scotland. It was a very big process. There was a constitutional conference, a major campaign and a fair question. It took a long time and it was done very thoroughly. We should reflect for a moment on the reason that was so. I recall the words repeated time and again during that process, because I believe that they are central to a decision as large as the one that this House is being invited to take. What was aimed for was that the people of Scotland should come to what was called a determination of their settled will. They were going to make a change where it was critical that they had fully explored and understood the whole of it and had settled on another solution for the politics of Scotland which would not be challenged or pulled apart in a matter of weeks, after people had decided that it might not have been the right thing to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made the point about encouraging a larger number of people to vote, and I share that view, but even more important—I hope that he will not feel that I am making a contrast here, because I am not trying to—was the fact that the people of Scotland would know precisely what they had decided and whether they wanted to live with it. That was what was most important. This is a fundamental constitutional change and also needs certainty.

A number of comments have been made about the confusing nature of the words, the fact that they are tilted and the fact that they are ambiguous. I will not repeat those arguments; that would be tedious for the House and inappropriate. I know this: often, people ask me whether I think that something is the case. I may think it, but it does not always give rise to a purposive decision to change it. We go through all sorts of ambiguities in the cognitive process before we conclude that something has to be changed in a particular way. This question really will not do in arriving at a settled view. I ask those on the Conservative Benches to think again and to accept the amendment. It is always painful to change a position in politics, but it may none the less be right to change position on this occasion.

Finally, of course, the House of Commons will get its way. The Conservative Party, which is dominant in the House of Commons in this respect, can most certainly make the time for everybody to think again.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

When the noble Lord says that the House of Commons can act accordingly, can he give us an assurance that if the Bill is amended and goes to the House of Commons, the Labour Party in the House of Commons will be pressing for more time to consider the Bill?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, any time that I have control over the affairs of the House of Commons would probably be regarded—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I am not sidestepping the question. The number of times that noble Lords on all sides of the House have said that the affairs of the House of Commons are determined by the House of Commons, and that we are not the right people to try to do it, is a statement about the proper constitutional relationship that we have with them. That is not a trivial point; I would not presume to do that with the elected House.

I wanted to say that the pressures to act precipitately and move repeatedly, as I think Mr Cameron has, are not the right way. We will have to live with this Bill and it had better be the right Bill. I believe that this change will give it at least a chance of being the right Bill.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, the House has now been sitting for more than two hours and I will therefore try to deal with the amendments in this group with some general summing-up statements. A number of issues were raised today about the question in the Bill, and whether it is one which the public will understand and which will allow the people to have a say—an opportunity to decide and to reconnect with politics, as my noble friend Lord Phillips said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I, too, express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The Bill as drafted has not taken account of the Scottish referendum in any way whatever. That is why there are other amendments in my name in relation to eligibility to vote for 16 and 17 year-olds and in relation to the count, and a number of other matters.

I take the opportunity to say now to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, because I did not want to interrupt his fine reply to the previous amendment, that at the same stage in the consideration of the Equality (Titles) Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, nearly 90 amendments were tabled, and in exactly the same stage of the passage of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to further reform the House of Lords, 160 amendments were tabled. Therefore, 80 amendments is not an excessive number, and it ill behoves him and others to criticise Members of the House of Lords for tabling amendments that seek to improve a very bad Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has done and I have done.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, this is a helpful amendment, and I have only one very brief comment to make. We have had a number of proposals coming through this and the other House over a period of time that have changed our unwritten constitution in quite significant ways. It is very difficult to know how they all mesh together, because they are almost never spoken of in terms of taking a helicopter view of the whole set of proposals. That probably leads towards the laws of unintended consequences on occasions because we do not have a holistic view. It would be incredibly hard before the Scottish referendum, allowing for one of the possible outcomes of that referendum, to make any intelligent decisions in this area. I do not think that we would be thanked by the people of Scotland, as it might very well be that they would feel that it took an element of their choice away from them, in the full sense of a choice about their future in Europe, in relation to the currency, and so on. It is a very sensible proposal, and I hope that the House will give it proper consideration.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, dates are very difficult, are they not? We have this particular amendment, which talks about October 2014, and other amendments that suggest 2020. We have talked about the Scottish referendum, yet at other times in debates on the Bill we have heard that we cannot have this or that date because of what is going on in Germany, Brussels, and so forth. Dates are difficult, and I acknowledge that. There is no ideal date; it is a bit like trying to find the right time to suggest that your wife should start a diet. There is never going to be a right time for that, which is why—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my noble friend Lord Grenfell, and the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Bowness, for tabling this amendment. As things stand today, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others know that I believe the amendment is absolutely right.

During the earlier debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made what I thought to be a very significant speech. He said that, in determining the date, the reality of politics was that it ought to be shaped by the circumstances that obtain at the time. I did not agree with his conclusion, as he will be aware, but the case that he put was very strong and I suspect that it will be understood much more widely than perhaps some in the House have suggested.

Your Lordships’ House has said that the general public will not understand it if we do not move with electrifying speed to a conclusion. I think that people understand that there is a significant job to be done, that it has to be done, that corners will not be cut—they will not thank us for cutting corners—and that it will not happen overnight. If we are really serious about the relationships that we have in Europe in relation to our economy and so on, there will be serious work to be done. That can be said very reasonably to people. My experience is that, although some people will feel that it is irritating to have to wait, broadly speaking the people of the United Kingdom understand the seriousness of the issue and will provide the time for proper work to be done. I think that we should start from that point.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said that this issue will be shaped by real circumstances. We know some of the circumstances quite well but we know almost nothing of others. I should like to set out the balance of the two, but because a number of other noble Lords have done so and it does not need a lot of repetition, I shall do so quickly. These two sets of circumstances need some analysis. Over time, and perhaps at subsequent stages of the Bill, working out what those balances are may very well lead us to further conclusions about the timing, but I started by saying that this is a good and sensible resolution and I repeat that.

What do we know? First, as a number of noble Lords have said, we will hold the presidency in 2017. That is precisely when we would want the United Kingdom to lead European Union debates, and I think that we will be in a very difficult position in trying to do that. There will be any number of significant debates at that time: debates about the completion of the market provisions in services; debates about the EU budget; and debates about what I hope will emerge as the agreements on trade with North America and with the MINT countries—Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. All those will be in play.

There will be a significant series of debates. Anybody who has been a Minister and has had to handle the relationship with Europe during a presidency will know that those are occasions when you want the deepest and most genuine support from your colleagues in carrying things forward. I do not want to plead any special link because there are many around this Chamber with much more experience but they will also know that you have not only to talk to others but to talk for others, and they must trust you. That was the case in the discussions that Europe had on some of the worst internal wars in Africa, on the aid programme, on the difficulties with Iran and on the stimulus to new trade agreements with South America, which ended up with President Lula’s state visit and a significant change in the trading relationships with a number of South American countries. In all those areas, the European nations need to feel that the nation holding the presidency is with them, not conflicted with them, and that it is eager to deliver some of the fundamental outcomes.

Secondly—I shall not repeat this point at any length—there will be major elections in the core European nations of Germany and France. There are probably elections in other countries as well but those in Germany and France will be very significant. It is unlikely that either will focus on the issues that we are raising with the attention that we would want—the French most certainly will not. The objective circumstances in France and the character of the French economy at this time will tell you what that election is going to be about and how it is going to be fought. I am not saying anything that reveals an unusual political point: we know what the French election will be fought over and what it will be like, and it will not be about its negotiations with us.

We are about half way through the process of reforming the Central Bank: gathering core sums to sustain it and making arrangements on sovereign debt, which still remains a significant problem. These are monumental tasks and their outcomes may well provide circumstances in which our own Referendum Act 2011 will require us to take decisions about those outcomes. That possibility may not be avoided. We cannot run all these processes at the same time.

We are not in the euro and have no wish to join it, but the Chancellor has been right to say that we do not and should not take a split second of comfort from any continuing fragility in the currency used by many of our major trading partners—and, indeed, on the island of Ireland, by one which has a common land border with us and with which we have significant trade.

There is no way around the known fact that more and more businesses thinking of investing in the United Kingdom are asking due diligence questions about it. That pressure is building up in business. People have told me about the inward flows of capital denying it, but I am not talking about capital inflows to take over large volumes of super prime property in the centre of London or some of its trophy assets—that is not the point. There is of course a big inflow because London is so attractive for those reasons, but we are talking about people who are investing in or starting up operational businesses, which is what we will need if we are to sustain the economy, see it grow and see more people in employment, and that looks like it has been moving in a helpful direction.

Those are the things we know but there are a number of things we cannot and do not know. We do not know at what stage the repair of the United Kingdom economy and its banks and their balance sheets will be in 2017 and it will alarm people with a wide variety of political perspectives to understand where we will be at that point. Many people will feel that it is a lottery, and they are probably right objectively.

We will not know at that stage how negotiations have gone. As noble Lords have said, the process started late and there is no clarity at the moment on our objectives. Of course, the objectives could be listed: I tried to list some of them at Second Reading because they include a number of serious matters, and many people, including my noble friend Lord Kinnock, have made that point. It has been said in the debate, and it is true, that the four-part process towards a treaty means that everyone must agree, and everyone else must agree everything. We do not know how the process will play out on these significant matters.

Any agreements are unlikely to have been ratified elsewhere, another point that has been made. A promise of change is not the same as having made a change, and if there is a treaty—and it is almost inevitable that the negotiations, if they are successful, will end up in a treaty—it will provide for referenda in a number of other countries such as France, Ireland and elsewhere. A multilateral outcome with 27 starting positions will have to be brought to one on all substantive questions, and that proposition cannot be entertained on the timescale suggested.

We will not know the outcome of the election in France; Germany has a coalition Government and there may or may not be a continuing coalition or a different coalition. We will be asked, therefore, before we know the outcomes—as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, hinted—what we should do. I do not think that the people of the United Kingdom will readily consent to being asked for a conditional decision which, if everything goes pear-shaped, they will be asked to reverse.

Even if a treaty is negotiated in time, it is not clear that there will be no movement forwards and backwards on competences because, after all, it is a negotiation. People will be asking us for things in the same way that we will be asking them for things. In those circumstances, we come back to the fundamental point about the 2011 Act. The Labour Party supported that Act. On a point of clarity for the House: we supported it, we continue to support it and, should those provisions be needed, which I think is very likely, we would continue to do so.

On balance, if you had to pick the optimal bad date, you would pick 2017. If you looked at two decades and tried really hard, you would pick 2017. It is not a date that commends itself on any grounds. For a negotiator for the United Kingdom, it is the equivalent of what is known in football, where I have spent a little of my life, as a hospital pass. Everyone knows you are not going to get the ball, you have lost the initiative, and you will probably get your leg broken. It really is not in any circumstances an approach that makes sense. As my noble friend Lord Kinnock said, it is a weapon in the negotiation, but we have to ask this: who is the weapon pointed at and where will the munitions strike? The answer is: probably us.

At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, asked, “If not now, when?” It is a fair question, as I thought on the day. But in the interests of the United Kingdom, whatever the outcome—in or out of the European Union—one answer is clear. Whatever the date is, it really ought not to be 2017. It is a “leave the EU” date. That, I am afraid, is all it is.

I want to tidy up very briefly on one or two amendments in the group. I do not think that Amendments 13 and 14 are possible because they are simply testing provisions, but I want to comment on Amendment 17. I do not think that it can be a Secretary of State. If this is a decision that has to be taken for the whole of the United Kingdom, it must be taken by the Prime Minister as the Minister with supreme authority for the whole country. But what if there is another coalition? By 31 December 2016—it is important to reflect on that date—it may be that the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, but is not the leader of a Government that altogether are prepared to consent to the date. That is another really large unknown which cannot be resolved in this House today. I do not know who will win that election. Of course it has to be possible that we will not, but I do not concede that point today. It may well be that no one wins it outright and that there is another coalition. I could then assume—I am sure I am quite wrong in doing so—that a Conservative Government would find themselves saying the same things that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been saying today: that they cannot get their way because the party with which they are in coalition, for some reason or other although it seems perfectly intelligible to me, will not co-operate.

In all of this, the reality is that the wrong date has been picked. I do not play the lottery, but when I watch people playing it they look in despair at the numbers they chose which do not turn out to be the winning numbers. That is how we will look at 2017.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, gets up to speak, perhaps I may say one thing. I will be brief. The noble Baroness knows that I have the highest possible regard for her, but she is playing a very sticky wicket today. I do not want to make her life more difficult, but I say for future amendments that it is extremely difficult for there to be a Government position on this Bill. If there is a Conservative position, the Conservative Benches are behind the government Front Bench—unless, as in the Leveson debate, we might have two views on every group of amendments. That is what coalition is all about. If there are not two views, I think it is more appropriate for the views of the Conservatives to be given from the Conservative Back Benches. However, that has nothing to do with the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, when we debated earlier the level of confidence that people would have in the outcome of any referendum, I took the liberty of reminding the Committee of the kind of terminology that was used during the original Scottish referendum and, indeed, the whole process that led up to it. The idea of the settled will of any people must depend on it being a will that is expressed by an appreciable proportion of those people. There must be any number of us who have been involved in decisions where a very small number of people have taken them, often in gatherings called at inconvenient times and in inconvenient places, and have not felt even at that micro level that it was a reasonable way of proceeding. For those reasons, a threshold amendment has a great deal of merit. The biggest advantage is that in the following years people will draw the conclusion that it was an expression of views which commanded a significant number of people to take part and a significant proportion to vote in favour. It is a matter of confidence.

I suspect that noble Lords would not want to come back to the issue of the European Union again and again were it to be the case that the people of the United Kingdom decided that they wished to continue membership. Nothing is for ever, but we would want to feel that the matter had been settled for at least the period that it had been settled for in the past. No one could involve themselves in serious business plans or make plans about where they were going to live and draw their pensions in the character of the broader community in which they were going to do so. I therefore ask the House in a spirit that I hope will not be regarded as wrecking anything, but which is about securing the future in a more stable and happy frame of mind, to try to ensure that everyone who looks at the results says that a significant proportion of the population took part and a significant proportion of those who took part made the decision. That is where our confidence lies.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I speak as a government Minister and, as always, as a member of the Conservative Party. Perhaps I may express the Government’s view in relation to referendums. Their view is that referendum results should be determined by a simple majority, and we do not believe that thresholds apply. This is the approach taken in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and follows the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution in its 2010 report, Referendums in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, I can certainly answer that. I have been listening with interest, and Northern Ireland had not been mentioned until just now. I was wondering why our Scottish and Welsh colleagues were ignoring Northern Ireland in this context. However, I can confirm that the foreign language most spoken on a daily basis in Northern Ireland is Mandarin.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, my grasp of Mandarin is as extensive as my grasp of Welsh—I am very sorry to have to admit it. There are some languages I can do, but neither of those. The parity of value expressed by doing it in different languages seems an unanswerable objective. I suggest that the translations, which most of us can only accept on the face of it because we do not speak the languages, are provided by an authorised body, such as the Electoral Commission. In that way, the exactness of what is said is as reliable as it can be for everybody who does not speak the language because it has the assent of a completely outside body rather than one of us trying to translate. I could probably have a go at one or two translations—not of these languages—only to give rise to considerable confusion about my conjugation of German or French.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that brief but culturally colourful debate. I wonder what my Welsh great-great-great-grandfather, who was a coal higgler, would have felt about what we are saying here today. Actually, he would have been astonished, because in those days his language would not have been given any consideration. I wish to confirm that it is absolutely not the intention in this Bill to treat Wales in anything like an inferior or secondary fashion. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale pointed out, Clause 1(5) makes provisions for a question in Welsh, and other provisions very clearly state that the job of making sure that the ballot paper is fair and valid is down to the Electoral Commission.

On that basis, and given the time that we are here, I entirely endorse the spirit of this amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary. I really think that the Bill already has enough provision to satisfy the main requirements, which are, of course, about Welsh, rather than Doric or the other languages that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has been talking about recently. As it relates to Wales, the Bill has enough in it to satisfy all those legitimate demands. On that basis, I ask him, particularly because of the late hour, to accept my apologies for a short summation and to withdraw his amendment.

Syria: Geneva II Talks

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, my noble friend once again refers to an appalling atrocity taking place in Syria. This matter has now gone on for many years. We have heard horrendous stories; only last night we heard details of photographs of detainees who had been tortured in custody. However, we come back to the fact that this matter can be resolved only through a political solution. Geneva II is really the only show in town. That is why we are working as hard as we can to make sure that it is a success.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I read the report yesterday and I shall not repeat the figures because the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has already provided them to the House. There is credible evidence in Sir Desmond’s submission of widespread war crimes. He is one of the most eminent lawyers in the field of international criminal law. He says that the evidence would stand up in any court of law.

The Government often repeat their policy of no immunity. In that light, is it now not unlikely that Assad can travel abroad to a peace conference or, indeed, any other conference without being arrested for war crimes—or, at least, on the allegation of war crimes—as would indeed apply to any rebel forces against whom similar allegations could be made?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the delegation of regime representatives at Geneva II is being led by Foreign Minister Muallem, and I cannot see how a successful Geneva II process would mean that Assad or his brutal regime had a future role in Syria. I agree that there must be accountability for the appalling human rights violations that have been committed in Syria. That is why we have been supporting the opposition through, among other things, human rights training to document these abuses, so that one day those who committed them will be brought to account.

China: Air Defence Identification Zone

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Before I say anything else, I want to say how much I appreciated the overview provided by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, which was obviously drawn from huge experience. When we talk about China and this region, it is important to get a sense of the breadth of history, and I appreciated that.

This is a helpful opportunity to debate what may be a very significant issue for regional and world stability in the area or what may be slightly less harmful than that—unhelpful posturing on the part of a number of regional players. What it certainly does do is raise the question of how these matters are being played out, as the Asian century kicks off, and the importance of the United States in trying to deal with those strategic changes.

Any review of the maps—and I have tried—shows the complexity of the overlapping air defence identification zones around Japan and in the East China Sea. China, as we have acknowledged, is in no sense the first. Half of the area of China’s new zone overlaps with the Japanese zone in the East China Sea, and that zone was introduced shortly after World War II during the United States occupation. It overlaps to a smaller extent with the South Korean and Taiwanese zones. The South Korean zone was created as long ago as 1951. All of the zones impose some requirements, although it is plain that the Chinese initiative goes far wider than the requirements that are seen in other zones.

Since 1950, there has been, as the Chinese Government are reasonable in pointing out, a joint United States and Canadian zone, but it is also true that the United States does not apply its procedures to any foreign aircraft that have no intention of entering its airspace. That is a big difference, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, was quite right to remind us of that and of the absence of consultation. The United States on this basis does not accept the right of any coastal nation to apply ADIZ procedures to any foreign aircraft not intending to enter that airspace, and nor do we.

There is an overlap and there are competing zones with different procedures. That would be confusing and risky enough, but the issue is made much more confusing by the fact that some others, including Russia and China, do not recognise the Japanese zone at all. Historically, the Japanese have unilaterally on occasions increased their zone.

Given the volume of commercial airline flights and multiple routes—a factor that accompanies the growth of the economies in the region—the confusion and risk are considerably multiplied by any attempt to act on the zone procedures rather than, as I suspect may be the case, to use them as popular and populist rhetoric. Of course, the problem with populist rhetoric is precisely that it is popular. Consequently, each movement of aircraft or ships, in particular of military vehicles, ignites a popular demand for action to see off those insulting national prestige.

This is a climate in which the protagonists tend to test one another’s resolve. As soon as China announced its air defence zone in November, the United States, as we know, sent military assets through the zone. Chinese fighter jets shadowed the military aircraft and vessels shadowed vessels patrolling in the disputed waters. Japan’s leading newspaper reported that the Chinese intention is to expand their zone further until it gets more or less to the Japanese shore. There are close passes of shipping and there are fighters shadowing other fighters and bombers.

My difficulty in understanding what these regional neighbours see as the advantage in the increasingly bellicose language is that, if it is essentially rhetoric, all it does is destabilise the region without any obvious sensible purpose. Still less easy is it to understand the benefit of close brushes of a military kind, and there is no conceivable benefit in threatening to interfere with normal air traffic.

I take some marginal comfort from the fact that those threatening each other tend to be very disciplined nations with highly disciplined forces. They are probably not too liable to have accidents, but the issue must still be important enough for the international institutions to try to lower the temperature. Efforts in this direction are very important. There is too much at risk in destabilising the whole of Asia, which is otherwise stable in many respects. The region is productive and is overcoming poverty in many countries, aside from under the barbaric regime in North Korea. However, there are a number of instabilities at a top level. India and China are not in the most productive phase of their relationship and, as has been mentioned, the same is true of Japan and China.

Those are dangers where I think we could have an impact. I venture to suggest cautiously that there may be things we could do to help, even if the United Kingdom’s influence is, in a general sense, relatively small. First, all the nations in the region need to moderate their language. I was looking at some of the language of the Japanese defence Minister, Onodera, which is not conducive to the likelihood of people talking to each other in more moderate terms. They also need to start to ratchet down the nationalistic, somewhat paranoid, descriptions of what is happening, which have a big impact on populations. All parties are showing renewed nationalism and there is a very strong case for seeing whether we, who have considerable experience in this area, might be able to assist in developing a hotline which would allow those who may come into conflict in those areas—particularly at sea—to deal with it. I can say at first hand that we took up this issue, as a nation, in the upper Persian Gulf. In a sense, that is obvious and mechanical, but it is entirely practical.

Secondly, would it not be sensible if the critique of China, which is very clear and has been expressed by most nations in the region, were thought through in a little more detail? It is as if China were completely unique. The Chinese may have gone further on declared procedures, but they are entitled to ask why they are the only people with zones of this kind about which any questions are asked at all. We should ask whether that is likely to be productive. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan is quite right to emphasise the differences this time, but there are wider histories and wider issues in which we might have a moderating effect.

Thirdly, all nations in the region must think more deeply about the offence caused by some of their leaders, particularly the genuinely distressing actions of the Japanese Prime Minister. It is distressing to see any Prime Minister visiting, honouring and sharing the history of notorious war criminals who perpetrated terrible crimes against the Chinese people. Were there to be an equivalent event in Europe, there would be an outcry. It would not be tolerated. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is 100% correct that it is right to raise this issue with friends in Japan, precisely because they are friends. I will put down for the record that, before he left, my noble friend Lord West told me that the Sixth Fleet has in fact vanished but only because it is now the Seventh Fleet.

Fourthly, we all know that this crisis and chronic dispute about a group of islands claimed by at least three nations needs to be dealt with. These uninhabited, uninhabitable rocks, known by different names in each of the three countries, are the prizes in this dispute. Perhaps this is because everybody understands they may anchor rights to gas, oil and fishery resources. China’s interest has plainly been awakened by the possibility of these assets coming into play.

Would the Minister consider whether the United Kingdom can offer a contribution here, even at the risk of potential rejection? The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, helpfully identified some things we could do, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, with whom I strongly agree.

A couple of our universities—this may be of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, because I am going to talk about Cambridge—specialise in the legal analysis of and recommendations for borders and lines of demarcation. They have a remarkable history. I first saw this work at first hand in difficult circumstances in Africa, and I acknowledge that not all of the issues that were raised have yet been concluded, but we and, for that matter, Cambridge University have no interest in sovereignty issues and we have no axes to grind in the area. There is therefore a real possibility of soft diplomacy being employed in that kind of circumstance.

I think that we could offer to get into exercises which, while of course they would not lead to commitments to the United Nations on the part of those countries in accepting the results, could result in tensions being reduced when efforts were made. The breathing space is almost always welcomed at the United Nations because it allows for the exploration of many alternatives, and studies are usually valuable and instructive for whatever the final outcomes may be. I believe that that is a useful sort of soft power. It does give rise to diffusion, and even were it to be rejected, it would be seen as a sincere and serious offer in the region.

An impartial offer will carry the message that events in the East China Sea and the regional security issues matter enough to us, half a world away, for us to take a practical interest. I hope that our Government will do so.

Middle East Peace Settlement

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Soley. It is obviously true that the EU’s efforts have been a significant element in the involvement that has been conducted jointly with others, not least the quartet, and with the United States—whose role, as we have just heard, is still vital. Most importantly, all those groups are committed to a two-state solution, as are we. There has been a massive, unsung effort in development and co-operation provided by the EU over many years—in particular in the programmes of the past five years, many of which were directed at young people, with many important initiatives in the universities. I have emphasised that it is essential to engage the next generation positively, and the EU has tried to do so. It is this generation that, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said a few moments ago, will have the work to do.

The EU’s work on the economy of Palestine, with direct financial support, and efforts to improve the role of law, trade and water infrastructure, represents what can be done only at scale—hence the importance of the EU’s role. The disaster programme is of huge importance, and I strongly endorse and was very pleased to hear mentioned the funds referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and his endorsement of Sir Ronnie Cohen’s work with the Portland Trust. Of course, much of the work has not succeeded.

I have set myself, in these few moments, a very simple question—the same question, essentially, that was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Jay, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Giddens, last Friday. The EU’s contribution to peace is fundamental, is it not? That was said again today by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. The House has rightly spoken with pride of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in respect of Iran, and all the wider implications for the region. Could she have had the same impact if she had spoken simply for the United Kingdom? It is inconceivable.

The EU is a huge political block, comprising major world players acting as one. It is a huge economic entity of 500 million people, where the economic prospects for a peaceful Middle East may well be realised in the arrangements that will subsequently be made. The EU has a responsibility to help, but it also has a responsibility to criticise—to criticise illegal settlements, and also to criticise rocket attacks. Those are all parts of our political responsibility. The Cathy Ashton story is a story about the huge leverage for good created by the European Union. Her success is testimony to its success, and I believe that it is likely to be of deep significance when we reach 22 January.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Friday 10th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a long and remarkable Friday, not least perhaps for the extraordinary role that a Private Member’s Bill has taken up. This is an issue that has generated 68 speeches, which were bound to demonstrate widely divergent views. However, even given the nuances of those views, I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is still roughly 2:1 in favour of those who do not support an unamended Bill. I will settle for 2:1 every average weekend.

I doubt that my role today is to seduce Lord Cormack, or indeed any others, but I will certainly have a go at it. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, will undoubtedly, over the years, make people reflect on his courage. It is a poor Bill and it is a Trojan Bill. I suspect it has the unintended benefit of making us address some fundamental questions. I suspect it will also have the intended or unintended disbenefit of edging us still further towards exit from Europe, whether that is a declared intention or not.

Some of our questions go to the heart of why so many accession nations, starting with poor rule of law, a lack of democracy, overweening state bureaucracy and no viable markets, have sought to bring all these deficiencies to an end in order to join the EU. I share with my noble friend Lord Giddens the view that they have also understood the unstoppable progress to peace in Europe, historically one of the most bloodstained continents in the world. In every case, I believe those countries have honed in on the paramount issue: what is right for their nation? So should we this afternoon.

What is right for the people of the United Kingdom? I have a preference; of course I do. I want the United Kingdom to remain part of a non-nationalistic and peaceful Europe. However, the Bill would impose on that decision an arbitrary date for a referendum, which is why it is imperative to weigh the evidence. It gives a fixed year for a referendum, come what may. Is that the optimum position for the people of the United Kingdom?

The case for the United Kingdom’s continued membership is better than strong. Putting it at risk seems unwise. Starting a process that is likely to lead to exit by fixing the date in this way is still worse. Indeed, continuing membership of the EU was so compelling that, at the previous general election, nobody thought to raise it in the way that it has been described in either of the major party manifestos. There was no mention at all of an “in or out” referendum. Nor did the coalition mention it in its agreement. I think we have heard a decent explanation of the Lib Dems’ position at that time in the course of today’s debate.

Our national interest is about our ability to earn our living in a complex world. It is about families having the opportunity for prosperity rather than tumbling standards of living. It is about the best education that we can afford and the healthiest population that we can create. It is about dignity and decent standards in old age. It is about all those things because only a sound trading economy can generate the wealth that can deliver them. It is about the values of a decent society. It is about fairness and is opposed to the unfairness that always accelerates when we see any corrosion or downgrading of an economy. The interests of the United Kingdom seem straightforward enough to me.

Indeed, there has been a long-standing consensus on the issue. That was clearly expressed by Sir John Major recently—a leader who had at least won a general election and had dealt with some volcanic anti-Europeans in his party—who said: “I’m not in favour of Mr Wharton’s Bill”. He said that his party should focus on taxes, jobs, education, health and living standards. He recognised that in a world of 7 billion, the EU was the closest and largest of the trading groups drawing together that offered us any kind of option—an option that simply would not be available, in his words, “for our island”.

In that Sir John Major echoes the CBI, which, like all of us, most certainly sees the case for reform in Europe and the development of more appropriate institutions but which is clear that leaving the EU would be catastrophic for our economy and for jobs and that the EU provides global leverage that we, on our own, cannot exercise. He echoes business leaders such as Sir Martin Sorrell, Sir Richard Branson and very many others, leaders to whom we look for the energy to fuel economic recovery. I know that not all business leaders take exactly that view, but it is fair to say that an overwhelming proportion of them do. He echoes what has been said by businesses such as Nissan, which has been quoted several times today, which described its remarkable Sunderland plant as,

“a very competitive plant, it’s a very productive plant and it’s a European plant”—

not just simply a plant in the United Kingdom.

About a week ago, commenting on whether we are now in a period of economic recovery—we will see whether that is true over time—the Chancellor cautioned the whole country, saying that the job was not yet half done. I will take him at his word, not argue about whether we are making progress. This, then, is a period when uncertainties and instabilities are best avoided. Two days ago, a sober analysis of our major banks suggested that there is a further £28 billion hole in their far-from-repaired balance sheets. The problems of lending and the cost of lending are still serious issues. The costs of maintaining and building small and medium enterprises still rise. Europe, where we already have less influence in its financial institutions, has a long way to go to achieve overall stability. That is another instability that impacts on us. Who knows where all this will be at some arbitrary date in 2017?

It may be that, with the unresolved issues, the party speech that was given by David Cameron when he became leader of his party will now come to be seen as very significant. He told his party that they had been locked in a dispute. People have been quoting the part about banging on about Europe, but the beginning of the quote is more interesting. He said that they had for too long been locked in a dispute about being in the EU. While normal people,

“worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life, we were banging on about Europe”.

I can tell the House that, as a rather elderly dad of a young child here late on a Friday afternoon, I think I know what he means. In November 2011, the Foreign Secretary said that,

“a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU … at this time of profound economic uncertainty, is not the answer”.

He then developed the case very cogently. Therefore, although there is internal dissension, which has reached mega-decibel level in the Conservative Party, largely giving rise to problems of party management, that has now come to trump national interest.

Let us in this House, therefore, consider this. There will probably be some economic turbulence for some time to come—possibly, even probably, including major anxieties about unemployment, household incomes and acute pressure on pensions. The British people may be asked whether to leave the EU in circumstances that might lose another 3.5 million jobs, which would be at stake, and they might reflect on whether an invigorated trade with North America and the Asians would make us more prosperous in what has been described as potentially the Asian century. All of that will be at play during the course of 1917—or, rather, 2017. It was probably at stake in 1917 as well—we have not come very far, have we? That will be very likely to turn into a referendum on the Government of the day or on any of the dissatisfactions that emerge during tough financial times.

The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on all the other events of 2017 are all absolutely fundamental to understanding whether progress can be made. Of course, there is always uncertainty. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said at the beginning, “In a world of uncertainty, why not 2017? There is always uncertainty”. I hope that I do not misquote him.

The point is surely to choose the time that is least likely to rack up the degree of uncertainty, plainly set out by business for us and by many others, or a time when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of the day can feel most confident that the interests of the nation will be properly served and resolved. It does not drain uncertainty to have the date 2017; it makes uncertainty a certainty. As far as possible, it is our obligation to try to measure certainty and mitigate uncertainty.

I said earlier that the case for reform in Europe is powerful. There are issues that should and must be addressed, such as democratic enlargement, managing enlargement itself, the push for more liberalised services sectors, the budget, mechanisms for changing Community law and so on. It is not difficult to identify a reform agenda, but I would start by trying to reform eurospeak, which is a form of language that I do not personally understand—and I am not sure that I have ever met anyone from Tottenham who did.

The fact is that any kind of negotiation on these issues will not be helped by an arbitrary timetable with a difficult background, which, as I have said, we are very likely to face. It is always easier for the negotiator who has no time constraints than the one who has to perform to time constraints, and those of us who have earned our living over the years as negotiators know that only too well. The silence from the Government on this is alarming. I do not prejudge Mr Cameron’s future work in negotiations, although I am not optimistic, as noble Lords can tell. I always want success for any negotiator who goes to negotiate for our country. I observe only that Mr Cameron has taken on this task in the least propitious circumstances that could be created. It is a millstone that he bears from Tory EU history. Labour itself had a difficult history—it was 40 years ago, and I remember it well. My own trade union told me to vote no, but I voted yes. It is clear that our European partners are becoming tetchier with us all the time.

There are a number of faults in the text that we have to consider, but I shall not go through them, as they have already been mentioned. But I suspect that all colleagues on all Benches believe that saying that any attempt to make this Bill better will “Kill the Bill” is gratuitous hyperbole. Proper scrutiny and amendment are the central purpose of this House, and the purpose will be served without any impropriety. There is no possibility of any amendment making that worse in terms of our process and practice. A Private Member’s Bill on a take-it-or-leave-it basis could lead only to one conclusion, which has been expressed in the House today—a very dark conclusion, which would be a disaster for this House. The Government have at least 14 months to get it right, and there is no point in blaming anyone else for the difficulties of timing. They can use the time properly if they wish to, and can take account of the decisions that may be taken in this House. The odds are that we would not produce a wrecking policy for the future of our people.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he clarify for the benefit of the House whether Labour is in favour of an “in or out” referendum, or is it keeping its options open?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I thought that I had collapsed then, let alone sat down. If there is to be such a referendum, or consideration of one, it will be at a time that does not wreck our economy.

South Sudan

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

On the humanitarian question, I assure my noble friend that, as regards the £60 million already allocated to South Sudan, the relevant programmes continue. We have allocated an additional £12.5 million specifically to address the current humanitarian emergency. In terms of the support for the political process, he is, of course, familiar with the troika partners. We, the US and Norway have been involved over a number of years in taking forward work in relation to South Sudan. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the Ugandan Foreign Minister, the Ethiopian Prime Minister, the Ugandan President and, indeed, with Secretary Kerry on the negotiations. The main challenge was to get representatives of both sides to the table. That has now been achieved. They have met in Addis Ababa from 2 January and, as of today, they have started substantive discussions.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, this is probably one of the most deeply depressing developments experienced by those of us who have spent time in Juba trying to deal with peace, health and food security issues with President Salva Kiir and his original team. The fact that negotiations are taking place in Addis Ababa is, of course, welcome, if the participants take the process seriously. The United Nations Security Council passing a resolution demanding a ceasefire while the negotiations took place would at least indicate the world’s abhorrence for this violent outbreak. I do not believe that it would impede the African Union’s work at all. Will the United Kingdom and its friends sponsor such a resolution immediately?

[Baroness Warsi]

The Foreign Secretary has issued a number of statements in which he has called for the violence to stop. As the noble Lord is aware, the United Nations Security Council resolution, which I think was passed on Christmas Eve, was specifically intended to ensure that further troops were put on the ground quickly to try to stop the situation deteriorating. They also strengthened the existing UN mission in South Sudan to support its humanitarian work so that the human rights abuses that were occurring were properly documented to ensure that responsibility follows these acts. The negotiations between the representatives of the two parties are ongoing. We have done a huge amount of work in the background but also in leading these negotiations. The Foreign Office’s political director, Simon Gass, was there throughout the Christmas period, working with the US and his other counterparts. If it is felt that a further UN Security Council resolution is required over and above the statement issued on 30 December, I will certainly take the noble Lord’s views back.

Iran and Syria

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The national coalition represents a broad range of Syrian opinion. We could not proceed with the Geneva II discussions without the views of the Syrian people being at the table in a wide and broad way, so possibly I disagree with my noble friend on that point. Any constructive role that Iran can play in relation to Geneva II is good. However, Iran must first and foremost say that it supports the communiqué that was agreed at Geneva I. It could not possibly be part of a process where it does not agree with the outcomes as detailed in the communiqué.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, in Her Majesty’s Government’s discussions with Iran, have the Government stressed the need for progress on regional co-operation, however difficult that might be to achieve? Do the Government have a view on how to lessen the distrust, particularly between Iran and Saudi Arabia and between Iran and the Gulf states, so that this level of distrust in regional geopolitics does not perpetuate the battles in Syria beyond the point that they are already at?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord raises an important point. It was right that we communicated properly the discussions that we were having with Iran and the outcome of those discussions. We must bear in mind that this is an interim discussion relating specifically to Iran’s nuclear programme. I think that our partners, whatever their reservations, and they are right to have reservations in the light of Iran’s previous conduct, accept that an Iran with nuclear arms, which was where Iran was heading, was not the right way forward, and therefore to halt the programme and in some ways to unroll it must be the way forward. This is an interim agreement with a view to a final settlement agreement in due course.