European Union Bill

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I, too, start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He has provided me with an object lesson about looking at amendments in Committee. I confess that I have been wasting my time poring over figures and the economic prospects of the EU, looking very carefully through the Treasury figures. I now appreciate that I should have been looking at fish, at pollution of the sea bed, at the visual image of 40-ton lorries in this Chamber, at various issues of climate change, renewable energy, the desirability of pumping carbon into the atmosphere from coal-fired power stations and so on. I have to tell the House that I have not looked at any of those things. I have been focusing on the EU budget, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I return to that and to the amendment itself.

May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, I realise that some of the figures may have appeared daunting? Incidentally, I am not going to join her in saying anything disobliging about the Burkina Faso economy or its exchange rate; I leave that to one side. However, looking at the financial details, I am confounded by some of the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, not because they are complicated or big or there were a lot of them but because fairly elementary mathematics leads to rather different conclusions to those that he presented. For example, he suggested that the £10 billion that is being spent on trying to induce some stability in other economies is 50 per cent of the spending cuts, which run at £80 billion. In short, it is not 50 per cent but 12.5 per cent; but he is only 400 per cent wrong. I guess that is within the levels of tolerance that anybody should allow in a debate of this kind.

I, too, went over the Treasury figures and I do not know that there is very much alternative but to look through the detailed figures that it produces, which are cross-referenced to other studies that have been done not only in the EU but in the World Bank and so on. They are not regarded as peculiar or anomalous in that sense but are well cross-referenced. The fact of the matter is that at 2004 prices, the contribution to the EU budget was £3 billion. I shall work in pounds, not euros, so that there is no question about what I am saying. It was £3 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to be £4.7 billion in 2009-10. These contributions, particularly in 2009, were relatively low—particularly low, the Treasury said. The contributions would rise in future years and it is not the Treasury but the Office for Budget Responsibility that is forecasting a net contribution of £7.7 billion in 2010-11—but that is at 2004 prices.

That is why I come back to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, made because it is extremely important to find out whether we are talking about anything in these figures that is indexed. Because of movements in these indices, you can so easily end up with a completely fictional figure when you look at it in relation to the original baseline calculation. The date mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, 2004, is particularly relevant as that figure has been used to deal with the whole of the financial perspective from 2007 to 2013. When the Committee looks at how this Bill has been framed, the idea that there is to be a change during the course of this perspective—particularly as there is no strong belief that we are in fact going to have referenda on anything—seems to me to make the proposal all the more fanciful.

It is absolutely true, as a couple of noble Lords have said, that this is nothing to do with competences. I went back and read Article 311 again, in the rather fanciful way that one does when trying to address the amendment, and it is completely clear that the competences are already there. They are set out absolutely and plainly. The Council is acting in accordance with the special legislative procedure and it would require a unanimous decision in relation to changes across a financial perspective. There is no change at all in the competences covered by this amendment. The amendment is not about whether the EU is spendthrift, as some noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, have suggested. It is not to do with failures about timely or robust reports on budgets. It has nothing to do with any of those things but is about whether the EU has the competence in this area. It plainly does, so that is a straightforward matter.

I have also been looking at other referenda, particularly Californian referenda, where they have touched on budgets. What you can guarantee, because the populist character of this is so plain—I do not mean popular; I mean populist—is that if you put any increase in any budget to anybody in a referendum, or even spending the same budget, the odds are that the people who do not want to spend it will win that referendum. That is a fairly straightforward matter. On the basis of what we have heard this evening, it would be sensible to put any proposals in the Budget of the United Kingdom to a referendum, whichever Government were in power and whatever their majority might be, to see whether they would get warm acclaim through a referendum for any changes they made which took a penny piece out of people's pockets. Maybe on occasions they might, but I doubt that it would be frequent. If California and some other referenda are anything to go by, I suspect that nobody in general will vote for increases—whatever the data on the proportionality of the sum or in any other matter.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The noble Lord quotes California but the Californians had referendums about their internal taxation and expenditure. What we are talking about in this amendment is taxpayers’ money not being used within the taxpaying area but being exported outside that area, so I hope he will agree that there is a difference.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I entirely understand the difference. I truly had appreciated it. My point is that in a popular sense, putting to people the opportunity to vote on whether more money should be taken from them will almost invariably lead to them saying no. I do not think there is much doubt about that. It is precisely why, for example, in the run-up to general elections—which are a vote on policies, including future financial policies—most of the serious parties will say that they are going to do absolutely nothing to anybody’s taxation or financial well-being. They will make a point either of saying nothing or pledging to do only what the last Government had put in train. This whole proposition is a significant distortion of the character of the debate that we should have.

At the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, having said most of the things that I have already tried to cover, he dealt with what his amendment asks in one sentence. We have no objection to a wider discussion on money or greater clarity, particularly in relation to the European Union. That can only benefit us and our democratic practice. However, the notion that we should embark on a process of this kind in this, or any other Bill, is a recipe for trying to make sure that there is no progress whatever in a European context.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I start with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords that we have started much later than we had hoped today. There were two Statements, one of which was a good deal longer than intended and that pushed us back. I assure noble Lords that on Monday this will be the first and only business for that day. If we require more time, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the House will meet at 10 o’clock on Wednesday and that will allow us a good deal of time during the morning. The purpose of a Committee stage on a Bill is to discuss the amendments—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

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

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I want to express very real appreciation for what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said and to say how strongly we agree with that. We greatly appreciated the comments about what we were attempting to do yesterday. The aim was not to make life impossible in the terms of the Bill but to try to inject some rationality and proportionality so that it would have a genuine sense of balance about giving people the opportunity to deal with major issues in the way that the Bill describes and not to mix into that so much detail that it could not conceivably achieve that objective.

I want to add one further thought because I think it bears very strongly on the style of work that we try to achieve in the House. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay—and I am going to be very cautious about putting words into his mouth—said, I think it was yesterday, although the days begin to blur into one after a while, that when he is making a proposition he prefers it to be in his own words rather than in words that are put into his mouth.

I felt very strongly that that was absolutely the right and correct way of dealing with things that were being put to him. Some of the things that we are supposed to believe—or rights of the people of the United Kingdom we are alleged to be prepared to give up—have been a travesty. In no circumstances were we making propositions of that kind.

European Union Bill

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I oppose the Motion on the basis that it is completely unfair to bring on a major Bill at 8.05 pm, when, presumably, the House is to rise at 10 pm tonight. This is supposed to be the fifth day of consideration on the Bill. It is certainly not the fifth day, although it is a fifth of a day. That is unseemly and unfair to all noble Lords who have taken part in discussion on the Bill so far and who wish to do so at a proper hour in future.

We were given notice that the Bill would be considered again today only on Thursday. Until then, I think that everyone who was interested in the Bill had the impression that the next consideration would be tomorrow, instead of which it is coming on at 8.05, after Report of a major Bill and the previous debate. Frankly, that is not good enough. It is treating this House with contempt.

That is exacerbated because, as I understand it, there has been virtually no consultation with those who have been concerned with the Bill. The usual channels have just said, “Oh well, we'll give it a run on Monday. Never mind the arrangements that people might have made to do other things. We will put it on. No one will object”. I am objecting now, and objecting strongly.

I was unable to be here on Thursday. When I saw this appear on the business, I made inquiries about what time it was likely to come on. I was told that it would be at 6 pm. Even on the basis of information available on Thursday, we have lost a further two hours. To embark on a Bill now with major amendments is unbecoming to the Government and the usual channels. As I said, there has been complete disregard of the convenience of noble Lords who wish to speak to the Bill.

It is not as if there is an urgency about the Bill. We do not need the Bill tomorrow or next month; we do not need it next year. The Government have said that we do not need it in this Parliament, because none of its provisions will be operative in this Parliament. What on earth are we doing here at 8.10 pm embarking on the so-called fifth day of an important Bill? It is completely wrong and the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Of course, the situation is even worse than that. Tomorrow, when we will embark on the Bill again, another major Bill will be debated before it—the Postal Services Bill, and God knows how long that will go on for. I shall almost be tempted to speak on it myself so that we talk out tomorrow’s discussion on this Bill.

Therefore, tomorrow we will have only half a day, if that, to spend on the Bill. The Committee is being cheated of the time that it was promised, which I believe was six days. Bearing in mind the time that we lost on previous days, we will certainly not have anything like six days. In any event, as this Session goes on until next May, why on earth do we want to start debating a Bill at this time of night? I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to take the Bill into Committee tonight and agree to oppose the Motion before us.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I cannot recall an occasion yet when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I have been in complete accord but we are this evening. I share the view that it is absolutely extraordinary that most of us should have stood by ready to start debating this Bill at 6 pm only to find that it has started, even with a few minutes’ intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, way past 8 pm. I do not believe that that is helpful to the government Front Bench, let alone to both parties opposite or, indeed, to us. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at any length, because he made the point very forcefully. It is extremely hard to understand what is so pressing as to mean that we should discuss absolutely critical issues about constitutional arrangements between our Parliament and Europe on this type of timescale. We are shoe-horning it—that is the only way that I can describe it—into tiny pockets of time very late in the day with the prospect of holding debates extremely late at night, when we all know that proper justice is not done to the matters that we need to discuss.

I take the Bill very seriously, just as the House took the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill seriously this afternoon. They are big constitutional issues by any standard. As I said, I take this Bill very seriously, although I have a very different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for example, on a number of its provisions. However, that is neither here nor there. We either take it seriously or we do not. I think that we are being asked to perform a serious job in a trivialised way and I cannot believe that the House will find that acceptable. I hope that the Front Bench opposite will have a credible answer and a credible timetable.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House for a minute or two to comment on the speeches that noble Lords have just made. As we understand it, it is the operations of the usual channels that have resulted in such peculiar anomalies—if I may call them that—in the conduct of the Bill. On the previous two days in Committee, we had extraordinary groupings. I know that Members on the Cross Benches were as perplexed as we were about how those groupings had been determined, and there was consensus across the House that they had not worked very well.

We were then told last Thursday that there was going to be an additional day in Committee—today. In other words, if the House had not sat on Friday, we would not even have had one working day’s notice. It was simply a coincidence that the House sat on Friday and that we therefore had one working day’s notice. We were led to believe that that was agreed among the usual channels and that in fact the opposition Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, had requested the extra day today. However, from the tone of the debate, it sounds as though that may not have been the case.

I hope that my noble friends on the government Front Bench will bear in mind that, if we are to have serious scrutiny on the Bill, as we all want, and time to prepare seriously for that serious scrutiny, we require slightly more notice than we were given on this occasion, and we require slightly more attention to be paid to the way in which the Bill has been conducted to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are interesting and important points. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who was the father of the amendments, or one of the fathers—anyway, he has some paternity—will no doubt comment on them after me, but I thought that I should address some of the serious points. Not everyone has been sharply focused, but we have heard some extremely interesting observations and responses to them. I would like to express the Government's view.

Just to be clear, I say that the two amendments would make the question of whether to seek the consent of the British people in respect of the big 12 decisions in Clause 6—that is the big five or six decisions and then the whole section in Clause 6 which governs the surrender of the veto—subject to a small committee of either both Houses of Parliament or an independent review committee. The assessment of the committee, via the composition, would then be validated by a short debate and a single vote of each House of Parliament. That is what the amendment states.

That design—which, as the noble Lord said, was proposed only as a probe—would frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. Why would it do that? I will make the general point; I will come to the detailed ones in a moment. The amendments would, in effect, replay the history to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, because they would hint at referendums being held with the prospect that people would once again be denied their say because, in this case, some small committee of experts—or a committee of two Houses of Parliament—had made decisions. That undermines the whole intent and thrust underlying the Bill, which is designed to rebuild trust by ensuring that the British people can decide on the key decisions affecting the future course or expansion, if that is what is required, of the competences and powers of the European Union. By going into the detail—and I can see that the detail is considerable, because the legislative patterns of the European Union are very complex and detailed—the Bill makes clear the transfers of power and competence on which the British electorate would have the right to be consulted. However, the amendments would seek to unpick that by making recommendations in small committees.

Therefore, in effect, the British people would be denied the say that they want when EU powers are to be expanded. Very few seem to want that anyway and I am very puzzled by the sudden passion of the Front Bench opposite for an expansion of powers. The British people would miss yet another opportunity to regain trust, further exacerbating the electorate’s disconnection with, and cynicism towards, the European Union. That is what the amendments would do and that is why I am glad they are only probing amendments and not a serious intention to undermine the whole purpose and spirit of the Bill.

[Lord Triesman]

Can the noble Lord give me one or two examples of the extensions that he believes this Front Bench supports and is enthusiastic about? I ask that because, certainly during the previous day in Committee, and I think that he is also inferring it tonight, it was suggested that we were in favour of the possible production of a European army—something to which I was explicitly opposed as a Minister, as I am tonight—and the abandonment of Schengen, to which I have been explicitly opposed, as we were in government. What are the examples? These are either straw men or there is substance to them.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My difficulty in answering that question is due to the difficulty that the Opposition have in stating why they want particular treaty amendments and expansions of the powers and competences of the European Union. When we have pressed on this matter, it has been a bit like “King Lear”: the Opposition seem to want to do “such things” and there will be uncertain futures in which new powers will somehow be needed for the European Union. Therefore, they want to amend the Bill by removing areas where the Bill would prevent the surrender of the veto. That would not prevent activity, because a huge range of competences accorded to the European Union allow it to be highly active in all these areas. However, the Opposition want to remove the vetoes on the big decisions. I think that they want a referendum on the euro, although I am not at all sure about the others and I want to go through them as we discuss these matters. The Opposition have not answered that. Why do they want these huge treaty changes, and why do they want the vetoes removed? It seems to me beyond understanding that they should want vetoes removed when so many powers and competences are now accorded to the European Union, and they can do all sorts of things to achieve the kind of Europe that we want in the future. If the Opposition have some new ideas for expanding the powers of the European Union, let them state them, otherwise we are left with a kind of “King Lear” situation—they will do “such things” as it is too difficult to mention at this time.

I want to turn to the 12 decisions in Clause 6, which cover highly sensitive areas. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, call some of them trivial, it made me, in the words of Hilaire Belloc, gasp and stretch my eyes. When one looks at the reality of them—their real-world implications—they are anything but trivial. The big five decisions under Clause 6 include joining the eurozone, and there seems to be a general consensus that there should be a referendum on that. Incidentally, I reassure my noble friend Lord Lamont that there is not really a problem there at all. The referendum would take place before the UK took the decision, and the exchange rate would then be struck at a certain point in the middle of the night or whenever it was technically advisable to do so. I think that my noble friend put that in perfect perspective.

On the provisions relating to EU common defence, I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, say such decisions could not necessarily lead to anything too serious—I do not want to parody him—because it was a complex issue and it might be desirable, I suppose he was saying, to give up the veto or decide to join without a referendum because not too much harm could come from it. That is miles from reality. In fact, under an EU common defence policy—on which we would urge there should be a referendum—we would no longer be able to decide independently which situations and developments we should respond to and which situations represented a threat to our national security, we would lose our ability to decide unilaterally which operations we would mount and it would no longer be our choice alone whether we should act independently or with whom we should act in concert. Of course, in this modern world we will always be acting in concert, but we decide. To say that is in the trivial category seems to me to be taking off to another planet.

Bahrain

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The representations we are making are strong. I have to repeat what I said to my noble friends: not all aspects of this issue and this whole case are entirely clear at the moment. Any evidence of deliberate maltreatment or withdrawal of treatment by medical personnel from people on religious grounds would be appalling. Any interference with those who are trying to dispense treatment—if they are arrested and treated as criminals—would be appalling. All those matters need very close investigation. Whether it is the right moment to raise them in all the bodies that the noble Lord mentioned, I am not yet convinced, but they are matters which we are watching very closely, and that time may come.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I am sure that the statement made by the Minister about the intervention in respect of the medical staff will be welcomed by the House. Can he tell us of other instances of intervention in Bahrain and whether the Government believe that they have been successful in any of them?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not totally follow the generality of the question. If the noble Lord means to ask whether we have constant contact with Bahrain and whether we are putting considerable pressure on those with whom we have had close contact—because Bahrain remains a close ally and good friend of the United Kingdom, and vice versa—those interventions are going on all the time. Have they had effects? They have not had the effects we want by any means so far. On the contrary, we have seen a deterioration in the situation, which is very disappointing. The issue now is how we handle it: whether we put even bigger barriers between ourselves and the Bahraini authorities, or whether we use our former links to work very hard with them to change their ways and develop a dialogue—which earlier they said they wanted, in contrast to other countries where there has been a tendency towards civil war, mass killings and other violent and hard-line activities.

European Union Bill

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I rise to comment on the European public prosecutor, the subject of an amendment by my noble friend Lord Goodhart who is not in his place. The potential establishment of the European public prosecutor finds its origins in concerns about budgetary fraud and the improper diversion of grants and aids. The purpose is to improve co-operation and to co-ordinate legal action among member states. It would potentially involve the establishment of a uniform code of criminal offences of fraud against the EC budget applicable in all member states and a uniform set of procedural rules applicable in investigations. Together that would constitute a so-called corpus juris, which would be enforced by the European public prosecutor’s office. I regard this as a significant potential change as a lawyer, but also not as a lawyer.

It seems that the rationale behind the potential establishment of the EPPO ought on the face of it to attract the support of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it would amount to a substantial change in criminal jurisdiction. The idea of national prosecutors on secondment from the EPPO in the UK is a significant alteration to our system, which provides that it is for the Crown to prosecute criminal offences. Once established, there would inevitably be steps taken to introduce rules which might not sit easily with our common law systems.

Article 86 provides that an EPP,

“shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States”.

This means that we would give up control of a fundamental part of our judicial system; namely, the decision on who can be prosecuted for what and, equally important, the decision not to prosecute in some circumstances. It is now the province of the CPS. The EPP will initially be concerned with only crimes affecting the financial interests of the union, although that definition is likely to prove particularly elusive. However, by a passerelle in the treaty, the powers of the EPP can be extended to cover any serious crime with a cross-border dimension, which gives it a potentially very wide remit. One has to think only of the problems with the European arrest warrant, to which my noble friend Lord Lamont referred, and the definition of serious crimes.

The creation of an EPP has not met with much enthusiasm from our friends on the other side of the House. When the matter was discussed at length in 2002 and 2003, Justice said it thought that a European court of criminal justice would have to be established. The Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland did not think a case had been made out for it. The European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House concluded that a European public prosecutor was not a realistic and practical way forward, stating:

“The benefits of creating another body and in particular an EPP, whose existence and processes could cut across national criminal laws and procedure and which might not be accountable to democratically elected representatives, have yet to be clearly and convincingly demonstrated”.

While even the most ardent Eurosceptic would support all reasonable steps to improve the detection and punishment of fraud in relation to grants and aids, surely this can be better achieved by co-operation between member states in the sharing of information and evidence, and access to information, rather than by the creation of a supranational prosecuting body.

It is suggested that there should be harmonisation of criminal procedures if there is to be an EPP office. The problems with harmonising procedures have been confronted by the courts in this country in the context of the ECHR. For example, Articles 5 and 6 of the convention have had to be interpreted by the courts as to whether they respect or are in total harmony with the right to a fair trial and the right to protect suspects. The courts have had considerable difficulty in the attempt to try to harmonise systems with different origins. It is not impossible that there could be a real conflict between the CPS and its view of what is within its province and the national prosecutor for the European public prosecutor trying to do the same thing.

If a future Government want us to join in with the establishment of a new EPP office, I suggest that the case should be made to Parliament and to the British people. It may not be their everyday obsession, but they should and can be educated, and not just by the Daily Express, about the question of a European public prosecutor. It is an important matter that goes to the fundamentals of justice. This amendment seeks to take away the safeguards that are fundamental to the Bill and to the philosophy underlying it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, we on this Bench have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, and much of what I say will probably reflect some of the arguments they have made. Like many other noble Lords, I have found this grouping about as unhelpful as it could possibly be. It mixes together propositions that would reduce the scope for referenda, propositions that would increase the scope for referenda, and does not deal with any of the principles that might guide a move in either direction. So, as briefly as I can, let me summarise what I think the amendments we are discussing actually are. In the midst of all the Second Reading speeches we have heard, we probably ought to try to focus on the amendments.

The first amendments, from Amendment 30 onwards, which the mover of the amendment did address, discuss the situations under which a referendum and Act are required and seek to limit the issue of whether the UK should adopt the euro as its currency. That is to some extent elaborated in further amendments. From Amendment 32 onwards we see amendments that would remove the requirement for a referendum and an Act on the list of Clause 6 decisions and change them so that they would simply require an Act of Parliament. That is a proposition where this Front Bench also has an amendment, and with which I strongly agree.

Indeed, in some of the discussions, including the one just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I have found it hard to understand the rationale for the proposition that has been made at all. In almost every area that has been described, the Government would plainly have the capacity to say no and to insist on unanimity. If we wished to reject a proposal to change our judicial system, and I can see perfectly well why we should argue that that might be the case, we should—to paraphrase the wife of a recent American president—just say no. It is not hard; it is not a complicated piece of electoral practice. Just say no. There are a number of areas where it is perfectly possible to do so.

[Lord Waddington]

Does not the noble Lord appreciate that there is a very strong feeling in the country that, very often, the Government have not said no and have allowed the transference of power when there was no interest whatever to the people of the country? The most obvious example was the previous Government giving up half the rebate. What conceivable benefit did the people of this country get from that surrender, when it was given on the promise of a reform of the CAP which never took place?

[Lord Triesman]

I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, makes, but that was not a surrender of any power or competence. It might be regarded as the wrong judgment to have made about national assets, but it was nothing to do with a power or a competence. It may be felt that past Governments have acceded too willingly to arrangements that they did not like—that point was made very early in the debate this evening—but in almost every one of these areas it is perfectly possible, should this Government wish, simply to say no. They can achieve, without large rafts of legislation, the same result with a word of no more than two letters.

Amendment 40 and subsequent amendments would delete various decisions which would require both an Act and a referendum before a Minister could vote in favour of them. As a result of them, there would be no decisions which required both mechanisms. Our Amendment 40 would delete a number of the paragraphs from Clause 6(5) along with those that others have identified.

We completely agree with the proposition that a referendum would be required in the case of the euro, but we have also previously mentioned other major constitutional reforms as a second possible decision area requiring a referendum. I shall not speak to the amendments in the next group, Amendments 39A and 39B, other than to mention that in them we identify the way in which those issues might be selected as issues for a referendum. It is not a hollow premise; we are testing out ways in which, apart from the euro, other major constitutional changes might also be considered.

We agree entirely with the case for holding a referendum over the euro and we also believe that there are significant constitutional issues—although we know as a result of an earlier debate that they will not include accession of other countries—which might attract a referendum. Indeed, your Lordships’ committee was also clear that this could be appropriate in a number of circumstances. I immediately recognise that somebody will say, “Well, how is it we determine what should count as significant? What will that word mean when the decision is taken?” Looking at the Bill, the mechanism which is currently envisaged seems to me to be wholly inadequate. It has fault lines built into it to the extent that I believe that it will not work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I have not agreed about this; I fear, with the greatest of respect to him, that we will not agree about it this evening. Even as alumni of the same college, we will not find that we achieve agreement this evening, because the decisions which would so limit the role of Parliament extend so widely through this clause that it is very easy to see, in the contemporary political circumstances, how they would give rise to a continuous pattern of dissent which I do not think would make the British people feel any more comfortable that their view was being taken seriously or even sought, as has been suggested.

I make this point because it was clear in the intervention, for example, of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, who is not in his place. It was made equally clear by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and other noble Lords on our previous day in Committee. Their objections to the development of the European Union have been so profound and so marked that almost any opportunity would give rise to triggering the whole sequence that is contained in the Bill—judicial review at the very least.

In this Bill we have the potential to make sure that widespread and protracted campaigning will take place on every issue, not because a practical issue is always involved but because that is the way in which it is possible to organise resistance to the change. It may be that the change merits resistance. I am not arguing that that will never be the case, but it is simply an armoury of tactical approaches that become available for anybody who wants to slow down or block any kind of change at all. If I were of the same mind as some of those noble Lords, I would say “fair enough”. Give me those tactical options and I would probably choose to use them, and of course they will be used in that way.

The practical route seems to be where a degree of independence is possible in determining what is a significant issue so that those issues can be put through the whole process, including a referendum. In Amendments 39A and 39B, we canvassed those possibilities—either a Joint Committee of both Houses or an independent review commission. We would then begin to reach some kind of reality about what it is sensible to do or not to do outside the remit of Parliament itself.

I have listened intently to all that has been said about the role of Parliament as contrasted with the role that might be taken in the conduct of referendums and I find myself in agreement essentially with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about the diminution of the role of Parliament. I will come back to the point about reconnection with the electorate because it is important. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said in his opening speech, we will see changes taking place or being suggested in small amounts and pretty much continuously as adjustments of this variable architecture become possible. I acknowledge that that is what many people have objected to.

Parliament, apparently, would gain the confidence of the electorate if it ceased to do the job that it had been elected to do. How that will achieve greater confidence in Parliament completely bemuses me. I have to acknowledge that. There may be many criticisms of Parliament and parliamentarians, but the one criticism that I doubt we will hear anywhere is that people believe that we should give up doing the job that we are expected to do and franchise it to somebody else.

[Lord Waddington]

Does not the noble Lord agree that Members of Parliament are elected to exercise the powers that they have inherited, not to give away those powers in perpetuity?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I broadly do agree, but that does not alter the general proposition that MPs are expected to take a dynamic and full political role in determining the outcomes of debates in these areas. Whether the determination goes in the direction of giving away no more powers or giving away more powers, that is the job of a sovereign Parliament and people working in a sovereign Parliament.

[Lord Radice]

Does my noble friend think it is because they do not really trust themselves to be parliamentarians? They want to bind themselves—it is the Odysseus complex, or whatever it is—because they do not really trust themselves. Does he think that that could be what it is all about?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, that may be one explanation. The other may well be that they do not have the courage to do it on all occasions and they are afraid of the kicking that they will get from much of the media if they actually fight the case out. That is very much more likely to happen, I am afraid.

[Lord Flight]

I think it was one of the noble Lord’s colleagues who made the point that it was the Wilson Government who first used the vehicle of the referendum because they were unable to take the decision themselves. I just make the point that as a young person who participated in it at that time I thought that it was absolutely correct. The fact that it may have been born of weak political circumstances was irrelevant. I grew up thinking that it was a crucial constitutional matter and the sort of issue that ordinary people should have a chance to have a direct say in.

[Lord Triesman]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Flight. I took part in that referendum as a young activist in the Labour Party who believed strongly that we should retain our relationship with Europe. Many of my colleagues were not only in disagreement with me but in pretty hostile disagreement with me. The thing that I remember most about that, apart from the dissent that it opened up—our problem, our party—was that it was a fundamental and critical constitutional issue for the United Kingdom and exactly the sort of thing that I would have believed would be defined as significant in the sense that I have tried to present to your Lordships' House this evening.

[Lord Tomlinson]

There is an important further point to be made. This big, important constitutional issue was devised by those who opposed our membership of the European Union in order to be able to vent all their feelings. It was going to resolve the question. Was it not the fact that the same people who lost in the referendum came back within a few years trying to get a different result?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, it is of course entirely true. That is the other conclusion that one should draw from some referenda—that whatever the decision of the British people taken in a sovereign way, it does not stop anybody from coming back on future occasions.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords—

[Lord Triesman]

I should really try to make some progress, if I may.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords—

[Lord Triesman]

As it is you, David, how could I refuse?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I was one of those who was never in favour of joining the common market and opposed it during the referendum. In relation to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, the reason why there has been continuous opposition is that the story has changed. As the European Union has become more powerful, the greater the resistance has been from those who originally opposed it and, indeed, a hell of a lot more who now oppose it.

[Lord Triesman]

I suspect that the noble Lord has a slightly different experience of political life to mine, if that is the conclusion that he draws. My conclusion is that you can fight either side in a referendum and find that within a short period you did not like the result, whether things have changed or not, and the opportunity to fight it again will occur. It may very well be, for example, that some of those people who thought that the proposal to change the electoral system should not have been defeated as heavily as it fortunately was last Thursday will come back and conclude that they should have another go on another occasion. I shall not be wholly surprised if they decide that that is what they are going to do, even at the cost of having the experience repeated.

The point about reconnecting with the electorate is very critical. The electorate is dismayed with Parliament and parliamentarians on occasions, for a raft of reasons, and I shall not bore your Lordships by going through all those reasons in the recent past. As I said earlier, I do not think that a feeling of greater warmth towards parliamentarians will be achieved by parliamentarians giving up work in some of the areas that would be regarded as being the nitty gritty, not the big constitutional issues at all. I have looked through the list in Clause 6(5)—paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h). I mention those because I am an inveterate campaigner on behalf of all sorts of causes, including those of the party I have the privilege to represent. I have thought hard about having any one of those paragraphs, let alone any combination of them, about how the campaign on them would be fought and what the doorstep would be like as you went around trying to do that kind of political work. It is not because of the ignorance or foolishness of the electorate; that is not the reason at all. Yet there is an expectation that many of those issues will have so much fine-grained detail within them that the electorate expects someone to have done a lot of this work, especially if they have elected those people to come here and do it. In our case, we are not elected but they nonetheless have a healthy respect for the work that this House can do because of the knowledge and expertise that we know is in it.

I suspect that, on most of those issues, you would get far greater traction on the doorstep by discussing the Eurovision Song Contest than you would ever get by a serious attempt to discuss some of these issues in detail. As most noble Lords who have campaigned in politics will know, I know that the kinds of discussions you have on the doorstep are real ones: about wider economic issues and a wide variety of issues. However, it is not typically the case that people want to get into a large number of sub-clauses under the arrangements of Article 312(2) of the European constitution. In fact, to my dismay, I have never had that raised with me anywhere. I look forward to the occasion when it might be.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Including myself? That is very generous. The mistake is in taking the line, “Really, the people won’t be interested in this. They shouldn’t be troubled with this as they won’t understand it”. Yet if you take almost any referendum on anything to do with the European public prosecutor's office, that will be of considerable interest to the British people. They do not like it and do not want it in any form whatever. The turnout on the most supremely boring of any imaginable subject—the recent AV referendum—was 43 per cent, which really surprised people. I have to put it to the noble Lord that the British people may not only be fed up with their political class but be beginning to have doubt in our system of representative parliamentary democracy. They may want a much greater say on matters in future, like the Swiss have, for example. What is wrong with that system to reconnect the people? That is the system to reconnect them and not, I am afraid, the approach of the noble Lord.

[Lord Triesman]

It is terribly tempting to go into experiences of Swiss referenda in the cantons. Sadly for the House, I have some experience of them. That is what tells me that I should not retell it here because it is not exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks it might be. I hope that the House is not misunderstanding my point, which is not that people are unable to grasp complex ideas or are uninterested in them. It is that, in general, I believe they have a sentiment which suggests that the really critical things should be put before them but that there is also a responsibility on parliamentarians to do a high level of detailed work and to get some of that work done.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord says that he has never been asked on the doorstep about Article 312(2). Of course not, but if he called it the European budget people would understand exactly what he was talking about. Is it not the case that subsection (5) refers to all these different provisions in the TFEU by their complicated numbers but they actually come down to about five or six simple areas that are perfectly comprehensible, like a European army, a public prosecutor and our borders? If the noble Lord thinks that it is appropriate to have a referendum on a complicated issue like the single currency, why can we not have one on the European army?

[Lord Triesman]

That may well be one of the substantive issues that people might concede was necessary, but it is also true—and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, when he made the point about the interest that we rightly take in the defence of this country—that we already undertake a great deal of what we do in the defence of this country inside alliances about which the British people are not asked at all other than in general elections. They are certainly asked in the context of whether we are willing to sustain an independent nuclear deterrent—another issue that had ramifications inside the Labour Party, I readily acknowledge—

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I—

[Lord Triesman]

Let me try to finish my sentence. Generally speaking, we have undertaken our defence, either in NATO or in NATO plus one or two others, often under the command of Americans or of others, quite frequently these days with people drawn from the Nordic countries in military command. We have developed alliances, I should add, often in circumstances that are stressful and rapidly moving, when UN decisions have required it and when there have been potential massive attacks on civilians. In those sorts of circumstances and against the economic background in which we are all living at the moment, I did not take huge umbrage when the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, suggested that the United Kingdom and France might co-operate on the use of aircraft carriers. I did not think that that was a terrible threat to the UK’s security.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Does the noble Lord agree, when he makes a comparison between the United Kingdom exercising a great deal of authority inside other alliances, that there is a bit of a difference between, say, NATO or the UN and the European Union? None of the other alliances of which we are an important member has the acquis communautaire, and none therefore binds us so tightly into legal provisions that we accept and implement. It is therefore a different story with the EU, and that is what the Bill addresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Lord Triesman]

I have a feeling that I am going to give way instantly.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I cannot let the noble Baroness get away with that. The North Atlantic treaty says that when we go to war, our forces will be under foreign command. The supreme commander is an American general. That is fact. The Western European Union treaty, the revised Brussels treaty, says that when any of the parties to the treaty is attacked, we are all at war. These are huge transfers of sovereignty that were done, of course, without a referendum—quite rightly.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, talks about a European army but that is not what the treaty says. It might in the end be what someone comes up with, but the treaty talks about a European defence force; the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, correctly read out the treaty passage. It seems almost inconceivable to me, though I would like it very much if it were true, that non-aligned and neutral countries—the Irish, the Austrians, the Swedes, the Finns—would wish to get into any kind of binding defence arrangement remotely like the ones that we are already a member of, the Western European Union and NATO. We are dealing with a very remote contingency here. It would be a momentous national decision for us.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, that makes the point that I wished to make about the character of the alliances, even in an area that is as sensitive for us as defence. I suspect that most people would conclude that our membership of those alliances has been absolutely fundamental to the security of our country and would not wish to see them shaken. Were there to be some absolutely massive change in the architecture of defence, it might be so substantive as to require a mechanism that is contained in an amendment and has been in past undertakings that we have made. However, it would be a fairly extraordinary event that looked as though it were even more significant than the arrangements that we have under the provisions of the NATO treaty.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Surely the noble Lord must agree that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said, these other organisations do not make our law. We can leave them tomorrow if we want, with far greater ease than we can leave the European Union. The EU makes our law, which is a difference. We would be in a very different position with an EU army from the one we are in with NATO.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the point that the arrangements made under the NATO treaty, about its command structure and the obligations on members, have the effect, whether described as law or not, of determining how we behave in the defence of this country. It is impossible to argue that that is not substantively the case.

As I said earlier, this clause provides, more than anything else, the opportunity for continuous internal division and splits—not harmonisation or bringing people back to political activism and political understanding but rather the alternative. If the argument flows in the other direction—that we will never use it, or that the process of being bound to the mast is not really there and we will sail by without anybody noticing that it is happening—the Government should, out of courtesy to the House, simply make a statement that this is a form of dressing up a political proposal for people who feel disenfranchised in any respect by what has happened in the development of the European Union. They should say that that is what it is for; it is not at all for anything practical. That is really the status of this clause.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate, covering all these amendments. Some very wise and profound observations have been made. It would be quite wrong not to say that many of the points raised feed into the arguments, the presentation of the Bill and how Ministers should think about it. There are matters on which to reflect, which we will no doubt come back to again and again. Indeed, on the track record so far, we are likely to come round this course several times.

There are still some serious misunderstandings about the nature and purposes of the Bill. It ranges over several extremely complex issues. The whole EU structure and its legislative underpinnings are enormously complex and have grown over decades from a series of legislation, treaty-making and so on. I do not disguise that for a moment. If noble Lords would find it useful, I am willing to put on record that I am very open, as are my colleagues, to any degree of informal discussions to elucidate what is intended by the Bill, since some noble Lords are perhaps, in their own words, still confused about aspects of it. These amendments are wide-ranging but they nearly all have the same broad objective. They are designed to remove requirements for a referendum or Acts of Parliament from the list of decisions in Clause 6. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly said, their intention is to shorten the list. I want to explain why we should not shorten the list and to deal particularly with the passerelles.

European Union Bill

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

If my noble friend looks at the report of the Second Reading in Hansard, he will see that that point came out a lot. Many speeches on this side of the House, as well as on the opposition and Cross Benches, were very much against the referendum concept, particularly in the Bill but also in general. There is widespread anxiety about it in this country, which I share. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, recently said publicly that he was against referenda of all kinds. He is not here today—he is abroad this week—but he told me that he is very sceptical about referenda and their misuse. The whole of Parliament has been undermined by this obsession—this referendumitis—and it is therefore essential to try to get away from it or to have referenda only on crucial occasions. That is what I consider to be the very respectable reserve position of the Liberal Democrat Party. I believe that some members of the opposition Benches and some Cross-Benchers share the view that we should have referenda only on crucial existential occasions and not on other things.

I must not tax the Minister’s patience—he is a very patient person—by making too many general points but they do take us back to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The best way to undermine Parliament is to say that we are going to badger the British public all the time and ask them about these minor points. Of course, accession is not a minor point but we discussed minor points in previous Committee sittings. Accession is a more major matter and therefore the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct to say that it is illogical not to include it as an item on which a referendum should be held. However, I am glad that on this occasion, in their wisdom, the British Government have decided that it should not be on the list of such items. I only wish that they would kindly consider a lot of the other matters that we have been discussing—particularly the Article 48(6) list of items under Clause 4.

We will find that Clause 6 is even more obnoxious in its menacing effect on Parliament, even though Parliament will still be involved in the decisions. Of course, if there were an accession matter to be decided, under the existing suggestions Parliament would have the right to hold a referendum if it thought that it was correct to do so. However, I hope that that will not be the case, and I think that a lot of people will now have second thoughts about this referendumitis.

We should remember that huge, earth-shattering decisions have been made by this Parliament—one of the greatest Parliaments in the world—on matters ranging from the Second World War, joining NATO, the atom bomb, the formation of the UN and, before that, the League of Nations and the First World War. All those matters were decided by Parliament, as is the British tradition. It is not the British way to say, “Dear hapless members of the public, we want you to make a referendum decision on whether we should have more passerelles and what you would like to be included in those passerelles”. That would be the big society gone mad in European terms and I hope that we will get away from that.

I think that sometimes the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, are unfairly attacked in this House. They are entitled to their views, although I think it is sad that they persist in wanting this country to be on its own and not be a member of the European Union. That is very sad for them personally, as well as being a matter of policy and viewpoint; none the less, in all the amendments that they will be putting forward from now on, they deserve to have a proper and respectful hearing in this House.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I express my appreciation to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so far. I suppose I should apologise for having risen too early to make this intervention. I would have denied myself some 20 minutes of edifying discussion.

I start by making it clear that we oppose the amendment. It is entirely possible, as my noble friend Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, have said, to see exactly why it has been moved. The credibility of the amendment rests in large part on the worst provisions in the Bill. In many respects, the Bill is illogical and intrinsically foolish. Many of the 56 or so bases for holding a referendum would be almost incredible in any mature democracy and those provisions litter the Bill. I understand its function in placating some of the harsher critics of Europe. I suppose I take a little comfort from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that many of the provisions would never be used even if they were carried, but I think that it is hard to fathom the Government’s intentions on the lock, as with much else in the Bill. The provisions have been made, if I may say so, without any sensible notion of proportionality or practicability and, as I have no doubt further debates in the House will illustrate, they would remove or abandon, in many instances without good or sufficient reason, the full and proper role of Parliament in the kinds of discussions that we would normally expect to have on such provisions. Yet on the issue which might have very significant implications —my noble friend Lord Richard made the point a while ago—the use of a referendum is specifically excluded.

When I thought about what should be said at this stage in the debate, I also went back to the founding treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, did, and to the provisions that it made and the rights which it introduced for enlargement. Like him, I thought hard about the consequences on our international relations were we to exercise some form of veto as a systematic way of undermining the founding treaty. The founding treaty is far more eloquent and far more reliable than President Chirac's view of it, which was known to change from time to time.

I want to dwell, as others have, on the value of accession. The economic advantages, the anti-corruption measures, the rule-of-law measures, the role of civil-law measures, the development of courts and proper civil-law coding and the democratic principles have all been absolutely fundamental in all countries seeking to join the European Union. As my noble friend Lord Tomlinson said, by no means all of them fall backward in the economic area—many of them are wealthy and very successful countries—but some of them, without question, have fallen backward and have a chequered history because of the political regimes within which they have been forced to live for so many years.

A fundamental point which was made by my noble friends Lord Radice and Lord Dubs is absolutely right: enlargement has been a huge success. The process undertaken before countries join the European Union has driven consistently for better outcomes and for outcomes which have been more willingly embraced. Old enemies and ancient antagonisms have largely been removed. Going back a couple of years, I can remember thinking hard about the ways in which a war-torn Europe—most of its history it has been war torn—has been moved significantly into a peaceful Europe of nations which co-operate with each other and which have a great deal of mutual interest in each other's economic, political and social success.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, correctly listed the countries that are seeking membership, I thought of the names of many of those countries and remembered that it was not that long ago that we read about those countries largely because of the wars that were taking place, for example in the former Yugoslavia, and the continual history of appalling violence and degradation of human rights. Broadly speaking, we do not talk about those countries in that way any more. We have seen development to a point where they are more concerned with the acquis than with killing each other. That has been a fundamental change in one of the most difficult and troubled regions of Europe, and an enormous success. The process has policed, assessed and evaluated progress.

[Lord Dykes]

I will be brief. The noble Lord referred to the acquis. Would he not say how ironic, interesting and bizarre it has been that many anti-Europeans in this country welcomed artificial enlargement as a way of loosening and widening rather than further integrating the Union, and yet all the applicant countries accept enthusiastically both the concept of the acquis and that of future integration?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the observation is completely accurate and adds weight to the point that I make, namely that it is in these areas where people are trying to work through the provision of stable legal systems and better democratic systems that we have seen the replacement in many cases of conflict between those states. That is a huge success.

Of course, we have supported accessions from their initiation through to full EU membership. Major parties on all sides of the House have done so, despite the inconveniences that have sometimes occurred but which were minor in the overall context. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that not all these gains can be washed away by tales of cynicism, whisky, chocolates or anything else. By and large, in my experience, people have sought the gains because they have wanted a better and more peaceful life, and have wanted their children to enjoy a better future.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the noble Lord name a single European country that would have gone to war with another since 1945 in the absence of the project of European integration?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I was going to go through one or two. Certainly Serbia will serve the purpose. A number of countries in the region, for one reason or another, went to war. It was only when a different kind of future was offered to them that they began to think about the alternative future that their children might enjoy which did not involve shooting each other.

I understand, in debating the amendment, that the issues that I have raised are not supported everywhere or by everyone. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart: I regard the movement of labour in a free market as broadly beneficial, but I know that not everybody thinks so. Many people have expressed anxieties about it. This has been one issue that has come out of part of the accession. I believe that, broadly speaking, it has been economically advantageous to Europe rather than the contrary. However, I accept that many people who expressed anxieties were dismissed in a trivial way or saw their anxieties given grudging attention. Probably that did not serve the argument well.

Some people may have felt that changes of that kind were sufficiently profound that they wanted a say in the decision through a referendum. More than that, I suspect that they felt the need for some sort of shout about the overall size of the EU. For all that, were they to contrast the prospect of having a referendum on those questions with the ideas in the Bill about having a referendum on many minute, technocratic and in many instances unintelligible provisions, probably they would think that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were more important than others. It would be foolish of us not to recognise that.

I suspect that some of the same arguments could happen with the Turkish accession. Let me be clear that we—certainly I do—totally support it. I welcome the dynamism that it represents. I also have no hankering for a Europe that is built around a single religious tradition—a view which has been expressed by many of the Eurosceptics and, indeed, in some European capitals. It would be a huge gain to see Turkey as a full member of Europe. It is absolutely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, that it has always played a fundamental role in the Council of Europe. This would be a huge gain for Europe in a much more profound sense—a Europe that is welcoming and able not only to cope with, which is probably too derisory a way to put it, but to embrace a major secular but also Islamic nation with a capability of bridging the interests of Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus and bringing a great deal to stabilising the discussion right around the southern and eastern flank of Europe.

Whatever the merits that I might express about it, I know that those merits have been accepted by all recent United Kingdom Governments. However, there remain people—it has been something of a cause in France and Poland, for example—who believe that Turkish accession would have a major impact on the style and culture of the European Union. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, described it as the ethos of the European Union. I look forward to these evolutionary changes regardless of whether others have expressed doubts. However, among those who have expressed doubts, some will probably feel that there will be an impact on them—a greater impact than some of the things that will be subject to referenda under the Bill’s provisions—and that they are not being asked their opinion.

The Minister will probably want to explain to the House the difference in approach and the apparent irrationality of the circumstances in which people will be asked for their view as between the different kinds of categories of issues at stake. The amendment draws the wrong conclusion. However, it cannot be said that the issue that it raises is inconsequential. Nevertheless, as I said at the beginning, we are opposed in principle, and we are. It would be better to remove the requirements for so many of these trigger clauses for referenda without providing any compelling definitions of issues of major constitutional importance and without an independent means of confirming the compelling nature of the decision.

It would be very helpful if the Minister could also comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about what would happen were there to be a number of countries seeking accession at the same time. I will not invite him, however, to develop a new theory of AV which might allow for multiple voting—an outcome which probably everybody would fail to understand.

I can also see one other great risk in the kind of referenda that this amendment calls for, and that is in the area of producing campaigns which could very well be xenophobic and draw out the worst in relations between those seeking entry to the European Union and the domestic community of the United Kingdom, not least because many of those communities already in the United Kingdom are dynamic and vigorous parts of the society of the United Kingdom. The tensions that could be produced by that kind of approach would be quite unacceptable.

I also believe that accession does not transfer powers from the United Kingdom and that the House would do itself a considerable favour by recognising the beneficial characteristics of the growth that we have seen, a benefit which will unquestionably continue. As we look across the whole of the achievement of a peaceful European Union, I suspect that that will be seen historically to be one of the better departing points in our history.

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

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to the forefront of the Opposition's concerns about this Bill. I think that he and I exchanged views from the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Lisbon treaty. We covered a great deal of ground then, and I think that we learnt a great deal from that process. Indeed, the British people learnt a great deal from the Lisbon treaty process, as did the whole of Europe. I look forward to lively debates with him in the future.

I have to say in parenthesis that should this Bill become law, the future will not be at all as the noble Lord describes it. The picture of a dribble of referenda on small issues completely misunderstands the way in which the European process works now or will work in the future, whether this Bill is on our statute book or not. I have obviously explained that insufficiently because the message has not got over, but as we continue our debates I hope to be able to make clear that the pattern will not be dissimilar to the pattern of the big treaty packages in the past, the difference being that if they contain matters that might look small but could be highly significant for this nation because they involve a transfer of competence or powers beyond the level of insignificance, that certainly requires consulting the British people. That is a very widespread view which this Government believe is important to satisfy in order to build a better consensus for the European Union than we have today from the British public.

However, that is for other debates: debates that we have already had and debates in the future. On this issue, we have had a very elegant exchange on the two sides of the argument. It is a debate in which the Government’s position is quite clear, as I shall make plain in a few moments. I find that when your Lordships tackle this sort of issue we put up a superb performance and all sorts of aspects are developed that do not necessarily emerge in the pattern of debates in the other place.

The amendments would alter Clause 4 to create an automatic requirement for a referendum in the UK to approve the accession of a new member state to the European Union. As your Lordships know, the UK has never required a referendum on accession treaties in the past, and this Government have been clear that there should be no referendum requirement merely for the accession of any new member state. That was the position also taken by the previous Government, of which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was a member. Why is that so? The simple point is this: the accession of a new member state alone does not constitute a transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU. The transfer of powers or competence to the EU would be from the member state joining the European Union, not from the UK. Of course, there are some effects, possibly including a change in bilateral relations if a country becomes a member of the European Union. No one disputes that, but we are not really talking about effects or impact; we are talking about the transfer of powers and competences.

I apologise if that sounds narrow, but that is the limitation of the provisions of the Bill. Of course, we are aware of the need to avoid providing a loophole in our referendum provisions in case there is a proposal to use an accession treaty to transfer power or competence from member states other than the acceding state. That could occur, so this Bill provides for a clear requirement for a Ministerial Statement to be laid before Parliament about whether an accession treaty constituted a transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU in accordance with Clause 4. If the Minister decided that such a transfer was proposed, a referendum would then be required, but if there was no such transfer no referendum would be required. I hope that reinforces the point that I was making earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Triesman]

23B: Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) provisions that strengthen the effectiveness of the European Union single market”

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, with some regret, I think I am bound to irritate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I hope I do not irritate him so much that he regards what I say as being entirely in the world of fantasy. I hope he knows that I have a high enough regard for him not to use his time in that way.

In introducing the amendment I would like to reflect briefly on the debate on the previous amendment. Eminent Members of your Lordships’ House—and eminent lawyers—had a very clear difference of view about whether a codification exercise, which was intended to be non-binding in practice, had become a substantive change and a move of powers. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, but in essence I think that was his argument. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, countermanded that argument by saying that it depends on the actual codification or whether what is being undertaken goes beyond the codification. I hope I have understood him correctly—that codification is not a change but an assembly of existing law in a convenient form. That argument is readily understood.

The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also readily understood that. I know from past experience in the area of employment law that in trying to make sense of a codification of different elements of law, it is necessary on occasion to reconstruct the language, to some extent at least, to ensure that the assembly adds to the process rather than produces confusion.

I do not think it is fanciful at all to think into the future and to consider that there may be a number of occasions—not rare occasions—when a lively discussion will take place about whether some new movement of competence is taking place or not. As they have today, noble Lords—and no doubt many in the other place and in the country as a whole—will take part in that discussion. Some will argue fiercely on one side that there is a change that requires a referendum, subject to having gone through a parliamentary process and subject to the possibility of judicial review—I understand all those points perfectly well—and others will argue that it is no such beast, that it does not require any of those kinds of steps because it is merely a tidying up in the sense of assembling the changes into a convenient form under the existing law.

I do not intend to be disagreeable about the points that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has made, but I put to him this thought: that were the world a very tidy place, and were everyone to come along with changes that they wanted to see to arrangements in European law with a declaration that they were indeed changes to European law, and there were a movement of competence from one place to another, I have no doubt that we would see each of those events as a major event and everyone would understand the process in exactly the way that he describes it. But I do not think the world is like that. I think it is a much more muddled place in which people move and nudge existing arrangements to try to gain some advantage out of them or to tidy them up, in the course of which someone will say that an advantage is being gained and the argument will rapidly emerge that this is precisely what this piece of legislation was designed to prevent. That is what was called creep earlier in the debate. That is why I do not think it is reasonable, with the greatest respect, to say that it should be blatantly obvious to the Opposition or to anyone in your Lordships' House that one set of circumstances applies and that everyone can see that it would plainly happen very rarely and would require a special arrangement, rather than that there are things happening which many people will think pretty much continuously require some sort of special arrangement, because that is the nature of political life. With the amendments in this group, we are making a legitimate attempt to say that it would be helpful if Ministers had scope to move: a capability to do the necessary political work under certain circumstances and within the constructs of United Kingdom law, and to respond to the circumstances that they face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I appreciate the question. With respect, I think that the noble Baroness is conflating the first amendment in this group, which concerns the efficiency of the operation of the single market, with the second, which I will come to in a moment and which concerns the strengthening of financial regulation. The issues that have just been raised may be more relevant to that.

I hope I have made the point about the steps that might be needed in order to ensure that proper competitive arrangements are in place in a business environment that changes rapidly and in which the potential for monopolistic behaviour is considerable.

I turn to Amendment 23F, which concerns the strengthening of financial regulation. I accept the point made about the time that would be taken. However, we also know about the speed at which the degradation of financial institutions took place, not just in Europe but in the United States and elsewhere; and that the aim of most of the major policy-makers in a period that was both extremely troubled and extremely complex was to intervene where they felt that they could as rapidly as possible and not necessarily against an 18-month to two-year timeframe. There was a very early consideration of whether the role of the central bank in Europe should be considered. Many nations in Europe urged each other—but not very effectively—to look at the balance sheets of the banks across Europe; at the consequences for one another of the weaknesses in their balance sheets; at the issues that have since arisen from the ridiculous ways in which a great deal of interbank lending took place; at the collapse of liquidity when it could no longer take place; and at the fact that many of the institutions were deeply indebted to each other for toxic derivative products that they traded largely among themselves, and which had in many instances destroyed their balance sheets.

I would like to think that almost everybody in this House, had they been in a position to take a view, would have said that that way lay lunacy and ruin. Almost all of us would not have gone there. Therefore, while it is true that some arrangements would take a good deal of time and some states would pore over them exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, some emergency arrangements could have assisted in circumstances of severe financial meltdown, had they been in place.

In those circumstances somebody may very legitimately say, “This is not only a European problem—it is a worldwide problem. You would have had to engage many others as well”. Of course I accept and understand that international canvas. However, it would most certainly have helped had Europe and the European nations with considerable financial power been able to go to the original G20 conferences and make points in a very much better, co-ordinated way. You do not need treaty change to make a point in a co-ordinated way—of course you do not—but it is certainly true that had they gone and urged that they wished to use powers which were perhaps a little beyond the set of powers they had, that might have had a significant effect in the G20. From those who were at the G20, I believe that that is empirically true as well.

Finally, to sweep up this group of amendments, I turn to Amendment 23H, which addresses,

“provisions that advance the prospects of international agreement to a new global trade round”.

I promise that I will say only a little about this. However, I think that everyone has seen the enormous difficulties in achieving any successful outcomes from the Doha round and the huge difficulties in co-ordinating a European position let alone a world position. Yet everybody has believed that the success of the Doha round would be one of the fundamental drivers of a huge amount of international growth and, just as important, the elimination of a great deal of poverty around the world.

There is another case, where you can imagine small arrangements at the edge—which some will say are a codification of existing arrangements and you can bet that some will say are not—which might have made a real difference and enabled us to move faster, or may in the future enable us to move faster.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I agree with every word that the noble Lord has said about trade and the importance of getting a world trade agreement, although those have proved extremely elusive. However, given that trade is an exclusive—exclusive—EU competence, what is the effect of his amendment?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the intention of the amendment is to provide the scope for further adjustments to the trade arrangements and the powers of the Commissioner dealing with trade arrangements, given that Commissioners who have dealt with trade arrangements have expressed their anxiety about the limitations that have been placed on them during the negotiations in these trade rounds. It is entirely possible—it may be part of the noble Lord’s point—that these powers exist in any case and can be handled in any case. However, the experience of the difficulty in making progress leads me to believe that there may on occasions be adjustments that would make the process easier, more helpful and capable of moving faster.

My point is not that these are all world-shattering changes—they may be small changes. The scope to make those changes, to respond to circumstances, seems to me to be a power that would strengthen the people of the United Kingdom and strengthen the EU rather than weaken the people of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Blackwell]

I confess that I am having some difficulty following the noble Lord’s argument on this point and I wonder whether he can help me. As my noble friend Lord Lamont has said, the EU already has exclusive competence in the area of international agreements. It has competence over the single market. It has competence over regulation. It can legislate in these areas using the normal provisions of the EU—that is what the competence gives it; that is under the existing treaty—so we are not talking about stopping it legislating. I am trying to understand what it is the noble Lord thinks might require treaty change to enable the EU to do something; and why, if it requires treaty change, that will not in any case take several years to accomplish, in the way that treaty changes normally do. I fail to understand what is the restriction to act in areas where the EU already has competence.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I apologise if what I have said is not clear enough. My point at the very beginning of my comments was that when you begin to talk about the latitude to move in any of these areas, you can guarantee that one set of people will say that it is a new arrangement and demand the conditions which the Bill establishes for a referendum, while others will say that it is simply in the areas of competence: they can do it with a degree of codification, were that to be necessary, or they can do it under the rubric of the codified arrangements. It will always be the subject of conflict between those who believe that it is a subterfuge to extend the powers of the EU and those who believe that it can be done legitimately. I am saying that you cannot run a proper political process that way, with that much obscurity and that many arguments and with the prospect of many things not only going through our Parliament but through judicial review, and with fierce arguments around the country about the need for a referendum in those circumstances. It just strikes me as being a way of tying the hands of those who you hope and expect will be competent to conduct the discussions in the European environment to a successful conclusion in the interests of this country.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I speak against these amendments. Amendment 23B assumes that the EU single market is a good thing for this country. That is a common misconception among the political class upon which I should like to cast a little doubt. This is a big and detailed subject and I recommend that any serious student should consult the briefing notes on the globalbritain.org website, which demolish the whole myth of the EU's economic usefulness and that of its single market.

The background point, which is not generally understood, is that the single market is more than a free trade area, it is a customs union. This means that a single customs barrier surrounds all the countries in the Union, whose international tariffs and trading arrangements are negotiated and decided centrally by the European Commission. In a free trade area, on the other hand, the countries concerned enjoy free trade among each other, but they remain able to make their own tariff arrangements with countries outside that area. They have their own seats on the World Trade Organisation and they are also able to make their own domestic law in areas such as working time, health and safety at work, part-time workers and so on.

So a country does not need to belong to the EU to enjoy free trade with it. According to a recent government Answer to me, the EU and its single market already have free trade agreements with some 63 countries outside the EU and are on their way to having similar agreements with another 75 countries, or roughly 80 per cent of the other countries in the world. It is perhaps worth noting that both Switzerland and Norway, not in the EU or its single market, both export more per capita to the single market than we do; Switzerland three times as much and Norway five times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, some very important issues are raised by these amendments. If they are now to be considered and debated, I do not see how we can possibly break for dinner.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, we have been urged by the usual channels to make sure that the business is handled as effectively as possible. For those reasons I spoke to group three, which has broadly related economics based arguments. I spoke to nothing else. I was kindly reminded that I would need to move the amendment at the end and, in due course, formally move the next two amendments. However, I spoke to the economic group, group three. I hope I have now made it clear.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, in that case, perhaps I may give the Government’s response on this group. We will then be able to break for dinner and return to the others later. All afternoon this has been a rather untidy debate. I almost congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on actually mentioning in his speech the amendment under discussion. In the previous debate he did not mention the amendment we were supposed to be discussing. We are in a Committee stage debate at the moment in which one is supposed to address one’s remarks to the Bill under discussion rather than to the state of the world, the wickedness of the EU as such and all the other things he touched on in his interventions.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, raised large questions about global markets and global governance. As we address these amendments, we all recognise that what the EU does in competition policy, in negotiating on world trade and so on is part of a rather complex system of different intergovernmental organisations, of which the EU is one. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that money laundering is largely dealt with, for example, under the financial action task force, which is more closely associated with the OECD than with the EU. It does it rather well. Indeed, I have read a volume by one of the noble Baroness’s close relatives which refers to how well the financial action task force does in this respect. The EU is not responsible for all of the issues involved in managing a global market. However, it has a number of extensive powers, some of which have been discussed on this occasion.

This group of amendments and the ones that follow seem, in general, to contain a number of assumptions about the Bill, the EU and what the Government think about the EU which, I repeat, are erroneous. First, the EU has competencies in all of these areas. We are not talking about extending competencies. Opting in to the human trafficking directive does not extend competences; it merely uses the available competencies in a more effective way. The treaty of Lisbon provides ample scope for EU action in the areas cited in the amendments tabled under this group and the group that follows. The assumption that the United Kingdom is tying itself up in knots and is thus unable to act and that we are the only Government who wish to go through constitutional procedures of the kinds listed in the Bill is also erroneous. As we have said, the UK Government are in the forefront of pushing for new policies in a number of areas. As the noble Baroness said, we have just signed up to the human trafficking directive.

On the Doha round, it is not the EU that is causing the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, knows. Incidentally, when Britain first joined the European Community as it then was, one of the first things that I and many others learnt about it was Article 113 and the 113 committee, and the exclusive competence of the European Community in external trade. I am not sure what one can provide more than exclusive competence —perhaps super-exclusive competence is needed next.

We are now negotiating on services as well. The assumption that the EU is unable to act in all of this is part of the misunderstandings that others are raising. There is also the question that if the European Union suddenly found that it lacked these powers then it could rush through a treaty change in two months. Actually, we have discovered that urgent treaty changes take somewhere between 18 and 24 months. That is part of the process we have gone through. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly pointed out that in a crisis you are better off negotiating rapidly in an ad hoc framework, as we often find ourselves having to on a global level—G20 has emerged as part of this—rather than attempting to go through all of these very complicated programmes.

On competition policy, the European Union has now emerged as one of the two most important forums for competition policy in managing global multinationals. Until the EU developed its competition competence, the United States effectively managed the competition policy of multinational companies and operated through extra-territorial jurisdiction in imposing its judgments on multinationals operating elsewhere. The record of the EU in competition policy has on the whole been very good. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is quite right to point out that innovation constantly raises new problems. That is true for all jurisdictions and there is a constant race between one international organisation and another. So far, the EU has managed as well as the federal United States in that respect.

On the lack of competences, I have looked at what used to be Article 113 and is now Articles 206 and 207. There are two areas of reserved competence in Article 207. One is on audio-visual and cultural relations—not inserted by the British but by the French—and the other is on limitations on negotiations in health, welfare and social services—not inserted by the British but by the Germans. We are not always the ones who are hesitant about giving way on sovereignty; it is often others. On the single market and global trade agreements, the EU is well supplied with competence.

On financial regulation, the EU is one among many actors. The Bank for International Settlements, the financial action task force and the range of other bodies to which the United Kingdom belongs and in which the UK is a full participant also play a role in this area. Our EU partners play a large role as well. The Government want to see—we will stress this on all these amendments—the European Union using the tools it has under existing treaties and its now very extensive competence more effectively, bringing about the benefits that we want to see the EU delivering for the British people and everyone across the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, made an excellent speech on our previous Committee day precisely expressing those sentiments. Those are sentiments that the Government share. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, will be willing to withdraw his amendment. Then we will return to the next group on similar arguments after dinner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

I thank all noble Lords for the contributions to the debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I know we will get to people-trafficking in a later group. It is a critical issue. The examples around money laundering and the massive theft from states of their assets by their erstwhile and in some cases current leaders are also huge issues.

Of course I understand that the EU is not the only player in the global marketplace. It is not responsible for managing the whole of the global market place. I am sure there is a balance of weaknesses and strengths, but one of its strengths has been that when it has been able to act together and in a competent way its impact on other international bodies has been enormous. That is the solid evidence that has come from commissioner after commissioner, particular in the areas of competition and trade. It has been the commissioners in the areas of competition and trade who have pointed most frequently to the empirical evidence for the weaknesses when it is impossible to move effectively because of restrictions on activity. That seems to be quite central to this general proposition.

I understand where the competencies lie. I can read the texts in exactly the same way as any other Member of your Lordships’ House but I am mightily impressed by the debate that we had just before this one started and other debates of a similar kind that I have heard over the years. I know that people do not go to the pub to talk about codification—quite rightly and nor should they. Yet one party says that something that is a tidying-up exercise of one kind or another is a fundamental change and it produces what it regards as overwhelming evidence of that. Other people say—I have probably done it myself—that that is nonsense, that it is simply a tidying up and how could anyone else read that much into it?

We have heard today and on so many occasions that, because this is the EU, this will be the subject of major contention. It will be the subject of real arguments and people urging the use of powers. In those circumstances, as we try to proceed within the realm of what many of us believe are the competencies, we will find that someone will argue or powerful bodies will argue that it is a fundamental change—more fundamental, at least, than I or indeed the government Front Bench have argued that it should be—and the lock will become a threat to doing it at all. That is how it will be played out. It will be the tactical opportunity that anyone would take in the circumstances. It would be naive to believe that that is not true when it is exactly what will happen.

I seek leave to withdraw this amendment but I do so by predicting that if this Bill proceeds as it is written, the scope for Ministers to behave effectively will be reduced and in some cases—in the current climate, money laundering is a very good example—they will be left way behind the game. That will lead to a very negative judgment about our sometimes rather meagre capacity for foresight.

Amendment 23B withdrawn.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I join everyone in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Howell, not just on introducing the debate but on giving us such a fine overview of the issues. I greatly appreciated it, as I did the speech of my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean for the depth of her analysis, and indeed that of all noble Lords who have taken part. It would be hard to invent an occasion that could be more timely or more liable to turn out to be dramatically wrong before we even walk out of the door. However, I have been told by my noble friend Lady Symons that while huge numbers of people are out on the streets in Cairo, the latest information suggests that there have been no attacks on palaces or other institutions. Thank God, at least as matters stand, that there is little possibility of worse things happening.

As anyone who has been a Foreign Office Minister in this place will know, there is huge complexity in the whole of the region. There is complexity over regional security—Israel/Palestine is right at the heart of that, to which I shall come back if I may. There are intrastate complexities between some of the communities—for example, the Sunni and the Shia Muslims—which are not to be underestimated in efforts to achieve stable outcomes. There are huge interstate complexities in the security area. Although I do not want to dwell on them at any length because there plainly is not time, I, too, look to the south of Egypt and the pressures that have always come on to Egypt from there because of what the upper waters of the Nile have to sustain in Sudan. I, too, am delighted that the referendum in Sudan has gone peacefully. I just hope from experience that discussion about where the border lies progresses with equal ease, although I am apprehensive about it because it relates to where the oil is, where the resources are and who will benefit.

Security issues in the Gulf are more about Iran than America or any of the rest of us. These are tangible questions. Water security is another. There is the problem in many countries of dealing with an extensive desert, while increasing desertification in others squeezes what is available as arable land. There are difficulties surrounding commodity prices—not just food prices and soft commodities but most other commodities aside from oil such as rare metals. Every country that wants to see an increase in its economic dynamism finds itself under pressure. There are problems, too, because the biggest commodity in the area is often the only commodity that is traded to any extent by any one country: oil. There are also the problems that are being faced on the streets of so many cities as we speak. Democracy is right at the heart of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, so rightly said. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, pointed to the lack of alternative leaders. In countries that have had too narrow a political system, it is hard to see where people of great quality and leadership will come from—we need to return to the overall issue of leadership. There is also the question of how traditional authoritarianism in some countries can be overcome with the least turbulence. There are problems in economies in which the role of the state has been too great and that of the private sector too small, and where as a consequence transformational questions are fundamental.

However, whatever these generalisations, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. These are very diverse regions. They include, as we know, the oil-rich economies of the Gulf and countries that are resource-scarce in relation to population, such as Egypt, Morocco and Yemen. The region’s economic fortunes over the past quarter of a century have been influenced by two factors above all: the price of oil and the legacy of economic policies and structures that have overemphasised the leading role of the state, leaving too small a space for others to emerge. As a consequence, about 23 per cent of the 300 million people in the region that we are discussing today live on less than $2 a day.

I shall choose one brief example to illustrate the point, although I have no doubt that, with the expertise that exists around the House, many others could be chosen. That is investment in education, to which I often turn back. I wonder what could be achieved if more was put into education. The paradox about this region and all the people in it is that investment in education, certainly in comparison with that in some other parts of the world, is high, yet the feed-through to the success of the economies is very low compared with that in most other parts of the world. Egypt is a very good example of that.

That must be in major part because there is such a small number of modern enterprises compared with such a large informal, low-skill service system underpinning economic activities in those countries. Whatever reforms are achieved politically, they had better be achieved alongside economic reform. The human capital dilemma is an enormous one. I emphasise that in education not just because of economic success, but because of the roots of democracy themselves.

There are rising aspirations. Everyone can see them around the region. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, made the point about electronic communications, and I must say that over the past few days I have been watching Al-Jazeera. That is not supposed to be an advertisement for the channel, but I have been impressed by the depth and seriousness of its commentary the whole way through.

There are rising costs, but there are very few real and clear ways for people to fulfil those ambitions. Even when they produce more—and many do—it goes unrewarded. Pluralism must be seen by so many people as the route to spread rewards other than to those who have been in power for a very long time. Access to the polity is what will help access to economic reward. My noble friend Lady Symons says that we need to capture the moment in this regard, and I wholly agree with her.

In the remaining minutes of this speech, I will turn to the key areas in which we need to be clear about what we can and cannot do. The first concerns aid. It is imperative that we understand from DfID what its aid programme for the region will be and how that aid programme—to which my noble friend Lord Stone made direct appeals—will help to grow economic success. That will also grow security success, which is always the case. On institutional reform, how can the Government seriously justify the cuts to the role of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? I do not make a narrow political point. I tell noble Lords now that whichever Bench I sat on I would make exactly the same point about how we work to improve democracy. It has nothing to do with which party we support in this House or which parties or organisations people support in their own countries. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, said that we should not interfere, and they are right, but it is not interference. It is enabling; it is making sure that people are funded to achieve what they can achieve.

I strongly commend to the House the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on human rights because those are fundamental issues in the countries that we are talking about. On economics and trade, there has to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, emphasised, far more scope for EU relationships, which should not just be with Arab organisations and Israel, because there has to be at some stage a pattern of economic development and support for economic development that binds together to a greater extent the people who are currently antagonistic towards each other. I will not quote many examples in Northern Ireland, but there is no doubt that EU funding was important to the development of many of the institutions that went across the border. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, shakes his head, but I watched the road building and I heard people tell me what it had done for their access to markets.

Someone once said that if you do not make those things work—if you cannot export your fruit and your products—you export your people; they end up going to where they think they can get an economic future. In this regard, I was so impressed by what my noble friend Lord Stone had to say. In applauding him, I want to add something. I know that we cannot use visual aids, but he was kind enough to give me a photograph of some Sainsbury's rosemary, which is “great with lamb and roasted vegetables”. How very true. I notice that the label tells us the source is “West Bank Palestinian”. That should always be the proper labelling of source so that people understand these matters. Others are working in the area, such as Sir Ronnie Cohen.

The political dialogue, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, requires diplomats and people who are capable in that regard. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, whose work in this area in the past few days I applaud, will try to avoid the monochrome view that the diplomatic role has shrunk to being a super salesman for the United Kingdom plc. It is more than that, and this is the time when the skills are absolutely needed.

On security, I simply reiterate what others have said about the two-state solution. I wholly agree with the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Fowler, that those are the central propositions. The Foreign Secretary is entirely right to say that the clock is ticking and people will run out of time. Respect for international law, not least on settlements—as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, so correctly said—is fundamental, as is the whole question of building walls and lines. Those are matters of international law as much as anything else. I understand the fear generated as the rockets continue to come in; it is wrong that that should happen, but it is wrong that recognition should be denied. I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd that denying recognition to the Palestinians is not a particularly helpful way of approaching the question. Those are all fault-lines that we need to try to assist in overcoming. I am, I think, a real friend of Israel and I wish Israel nothing but national health, but health also depends on the willingness of all the participants to behave in a healthy way. I think that that is a statement of friendship.

Among the last few points that I wish to make is that we should always be straightforward about the history, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said. There is no point in misshaping history; we have to understand the sources of tension and understand them accurately. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, reminded us of the full text of the Balfour declaration, rather than just the parts that are sometimes selectively quoted, which provides an important corrective in this regard. If we are to be accurate in advancing the case from history that we should respect the outcomes of democratic elections and that democracy trumps everything else, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that the election in Iraq was won by Prime Minister Maliki, who supported the intervention in Iraq. He won the election with the full support of very large numbers of people from the communities in Iraq. That was a democratic outcome. We might like it or we might not like it, but that was a democratic outcome.

[Lord Alderdice]

Both the noble Lord and I know that the situation in Iraq, both before and subsequent to the election, was substantially more complex than the way in which he has described it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, as I know from replying to one or two debates on Iraq, Iraq is incredibly complex, so I accept that point. I am just saying that we cannot be selective about the outcomes of elections in arguing the point about history. An election produces a result, and the result is the result.

Another quick point that I want to make is that there is obviously a lot that we can do in the area of culture, including through university exchanges—ensuring that students and academics from the region come to our universities—and exchanges in sport. I had some familiarity with such exchange in the Football Association, which did a lot of work training both Israeli and West Bank referees together. They found it much more interesting to talk about the state of English football than about the things that might otherwise appear to divide them. There are lots of cultural things that we can do, not least of which is that we really ought to look at how we support the British Council and the World Service. I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about DfID money in that regard. It is astonishing to me that, having gone to such lengths to set up Arab and Farsi TV services, within months we cut the resources for one of our best advocates of soft power. That is just completely astonishing.

Finally, I know that whatever the difficulties of today and the past few weeks, and however difficult the negotiations at Camp David or in Washington, in my humble judgment—and this is my humble judgment; I do not say that as a matter of form—it is important to know when the tide is going to turn, what events might precipitate a favourable turn in the tide as well as those that precipitate unfavourable turns in the tide. That is why I have gone through the issues that I have, because we must be ready to catch any favourable tide available. Even in unpromising circumstances, we must be ready. For those reasons, the FCO faces a great challenge; its political skills are its decisive assets, on these occasions possibly more important than any other asset that it has, although I do not exclude the importance of generating good business with people around the world. Bringing people together, helping to find the common ground, and doing that—as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, wholly rightly said—with our own national interests at the forefront of our minds must be among the things that we focus on through these next days and weeks.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords, especially the opening speakers from the two Front Benches, for speaking in difficult circumstances on a difficult day but on an issue that, whatever its difficulties, needed this ventilation.

BBC World Service

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

With respect to the noble Baroness, I think there is a missing point in her concerns. Of course we want to see services, communication, influence and the independent voice of Britain promoted. However, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the English short-wave broadcasts to Russia, the former Soviet Union and China were simply not getting through. What was the point in going on spending money on services that were not getting through? We are moving into a new era of technology in which the way to get our values and the message of the BBC World Service through to the millions in Russia and China for a start is not necessarily best done through trying to push our way through short-wave systems which are being closed down. These people are turning to online information. They are using their mobiles. They are increasingly turning to television. These nations are developing rapidly and the radio plays a part but not the part that was played before. So while not denying for a moment that there are cuts—of course there are and it is absurd to pretend otherwise—the reconciliation is that we are looking at a new pattern of technology and the communications required have got to be different. That is the way our aspirations match what is now being proposed.

[Lord Triesman]

I declare an interest as the Minister who for several years was responsible, among other things, for the World Service. This is one of the most depressing Statements I think I have heard in the House. One of the answers to my noble friend Lady Symons demonstrated that a major public speech made at the beginning of July by the Foreign Secretary meant absolutely nothing when it came to the practical implementation and the cuts. As the Government knew on 1 July what the extent of the possible cuts would be, the speech should never have been made.

In 2006—and this does lead to the question—I agreed to the cutting of some language services in eastern Europe, mostly in nations which were then part of NATO and had fully independent media of their own, in order to move the money into the Arabic and Farsi language services which were due to make a very fundamental difference to our overseas action. I believe that was the right move. Of course it is right to move away from short-wave where it cannot be received, but we were moving away even in those cases to FM, which could be received. Everybody said, especially the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, that the switch to new platforms would not be an adequate replacement. Is it not the case that, from the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, onwards, it was understood that the projection of soft power was a good deal more economical than many of the alternatives, brought huge bonuses to this country, and that in fact these savings will turn out to be a fiction?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I really cannot comment on the noble Lord’s last point because the administrators of the BBC World Service are serious about operating their budget in a new and more effective way within the limits that have been imposed upon them. However, I should like to lift the noble Lord out of his depression because I believe that he is reading too much into the gloom and pessimism around this. I know that he understands the position because he knows all about these things, but I am not sure that he is accepting enough of the new possibilities and the new patterns. I mentioned that this Statement, among other things within the constrained budget, includes some new services, including TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided by local partners. No doubt other ideas and innovations are also in the pipeline which we will learn about in due course. I have also mentioned that funds are being found to assist the BBC World Service in its immediate pension deficit, which again is an inherited matter although I do not ascribe it to or in any way blame it on the previous Administration.

That said, I think that his words are exaggerated. The very substantial budget over the next three years of the spending round is still a big part of our intentions and expenditure in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When this joins up with the full BBC in 2014 the programmes will continue in a highly vigorous, effective and modern way. So I just do not accept the reasons for the noble Lord’s pessimism and depression at this time.

Zimbabwe

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on securing the debate, which keeps Zimbabwe at the centre of our attention. I, too, miss Baroness Park and Lord Blaker. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on his ministerial appointment.

On leaving the FCO in 2007, I thought it right to avoid debates on the geographical areas with which I had been most directly concerned. Ministerial life is hard enough without having your predecessors wandering over your turf. However, it left me with several unanswered questions and thoughts which, had I expressed them at the time, would have led me to stray still further from government lines than I was already prone to do. Perhaps I can explore some of them today, precisely because I believe that Zimbabwe was the country where our impact was far less than it should have been. I do not say this because I think Zimbabwe is a convenient metaphor for a wider African malaise. On the contrary, Africa is a continent, not a country; it is culturally, linguistically and economically diverse. Indeed, it is diverse in every way. It has great successes, often in spite of the hand dealt to it by colonialism.

However, Zimbabwe has not been one of Africa’s beacons. Its modern history was scarred by the appalling and racist leadership of Ian Smith in Rhodesia, who—with apartheid South Africa—destabilised the entire region to ensure that there were no bases for anti-colonial forces. All in all, the UK role was not what it could or should have been. We turned a blind eye to sanctions-busting, particularly oil bound for Rhodesia. We played a less than proper role in the 1971 talks, where our proposals would have prevented democratic development in Zimbabwe for many decades and were rightly rejected by all black and progressive Africans. This has made it harder to get a sympathetic hearing in Africa.

None the less, Zimbabwe emerged as a productive land with a wealth of resources. The leader who emerged, Robert Mugabe, gradually set about the imposition of a one-party state—always his goal—after nominal observance of the Lancaster House agreement for seven years. Then, freed from any obligation, he suppressed the opposition, killed many of them, and instituted terror in Matabeleland. And so he has continued, election after election; win them or lose them, he remains essentially the sole power in every meaningful sense. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord St John, is too generous in thinking that the crisis only started in 1997, and perhaps too optimistic in general. I mean no discourtesy in expressing the point. ZANU-PF’s leaders remain to this day a watchword for corruption and violence among many Africans. I will not go through the soaring inflation and plunging life expectancy; we are all familiar with the facts. More than 3 million refugees were forced to cross the Limpopo in search of food. Whatever South Africa’s non-intervention was intended to achieve, one consequence was a tsunami of desperation, now costing South Africa $3 billion a year.

Where is the Zimbabwean economy now? Without the excellent resources of the FCO, I can only estimate from 2009 data. I recognise that things have changed since the exchange mechanism changed. I can see that there is promise; I understand the point. However, there are significant doubts about what has fundamentally changed. Today, the power sector is in a parlous and deteriorating state. Demand exceeds supply by two and a half times. Nothing has been done to infrastructure in more than 20 years. Power lines are ancient and 5,000 kilometres of power cable have been stolen. If you cannot generate power, you cannot make things, run hospitals or light homes. Water and sanitation are still in a persistently dangerous state. Cholera killed 4,000 people in 2008 and early 2009. The regime puts health, agriculture and production at risk every day, just from the crisis in managing water properly, even if there have been some developments in the supply of fresh water.

The 88,000 kilometres of road have been neglected. There are no materials, modern machines or basic skills aside from those brought in by incoming Chinese investors where those are directly connected to their investment, and which are frequently removed when the building work has been done. That building work is infrequently carried out by African labour. Seventy per cent of the road network has decayed. Railways, in what was the strategic hub of south central Africa, are in much the same state as the roads. Goods and people cannot be moved to markets with any ease, so few markets operate and economic conditions for regeneration are poor.

The information and communications system has declined and now ranks marginally above those of Chad and East Timor. Mining has declined with the flight of skills. Gold mining stopped in 2009 for lack of recapitalisation although I acknowledge that it has now restarted and there is some progress. Diamonds and platinum offer hope if properly managed and not used for improper outcomes, but those who wish to invest in that mining are concerned that they should make their investment against a background of greater political stability.

I doubt whether anything more needs to be said in this House about the decay of commercial and communal agriculture, which still remains in so poor a state. Manufacturing has declined by 10 per cent a year since 2000. Today, it barely exists; nor do financial services or a credible central bank. Tourism had potential yet the World Economic Forum recently ranked Zimbabwe 121 of 133 travel destinations. Few tourists will venture to a country in which there has been so much brutality and which simply leaves people enfeebled by HIV and AIDS on Harare’s municipal rubbish dump.

We in this House have all expressed our outrage and have urged, and achieved, limited EU sanctions on some individuals. We have opposed relaxation of IMF rules on debt and have rightly supplied extensive food aid to the innocent victims of the Mugabe regime. We have placed cautious hope in Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC, who have had every conceivable difficulty placed in their way in trying to form some sort of government who can move forward, despite the fact that they won the previous general election. However, our response was far too limited. Our expectation of political intervention by the African Union and SADC was unrealistic. The AU, with few staff and limited finance, has been expected to shoulder massive tasks right across Africa from Darfur to Mogadishu to the DRC. Neither the AU nor SADC had the political will on all occasions, and most certainly did not have the capacity, to fulfil such a remit, even had it wanted to. Both would have had to ignore the most powerful regional leaders. It is obviously right—I subscribe completely to this view—to want to build the political authority of multinational institutions in Africa, but it was wrong to pretend that such authority was already there.

I was told time and again by exceptional African administrators that while it was vital for Africans to take ownership of African problems, they could not make bricks without straw. I ask with suitable circumspection, as I am self-critical in this regard, whether the Government have a view of what can be achieved by greater engagement with the AU and SADC, and especially with South Africa? It would surely be negligent if we did not take on that task. Hardliners are certainly seeking to frustrate the process and they may very well succeed as they have succeeded more often than they have failed. Optimism is okay, but if things go badly what should we do next? I am often told that we should be cautious because we do not want to take steps which gratuitously endanger excellent FCO and local staff in Harare. That is a genuine concern and I share it. However, is the Minister satisfied that they are safe and can provide help for the domiciled retired British population in Zimbabwe who are themselves at risk? The consequence of our caution was that we sought sanctions, and sanctioned ZANU’s leaders, only if we were confident of EU backing, which we did not always have. I could not agree with that approach because I thought that we should push far deeper through the ranks of criminality in the regime. Would the Government be prepared to act unilaterally if necessary, because that may be the consequence of what I am saying?

Perhaps I may share the view that it would be helpful to make sure that we are as fully engaged with South Africa and its new leader as we can be. I wonder if this is not the moment to try again to achieve a more formal plan for long-standing political and economic change in Zimbabwe, building on what might be the seeds of its beginnings. The new President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said, has considerable authority. He has committed himself to poverty reduction and he may be unwilling to bear the unnecessary costs of a difficult northern neighbour. I know from his state visit that he is a tough pragmatist and that he is the key leader in southern Africa. He may be willing to reopen the kind of holistic approach that Kofi Annan so often and so eloquently advocated. He has surely reflected on the decades of so-called quiet diplomacy from South Africa which were wholly ineffective. The need now is for a comprehensive approach to rehabilitation on the basis of the sort of plan that Kofi Annan outlined. A new opportunity would require careful preparation, but does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, see any advantage in assessing this new window of opportunity? I hope that as he does, he will not feel it necessary to give people a “get out of jail free” pass, whatever kinds of crimes they have committed.

Finally, I do not accept the point that has often been made that if we say anything about President Mugabe it will make it easier for him to denounce us among other African leaders. Many people in this House will have reasons for their criticism. I know mine. My political generation grew up as anti-colonialist, not as covert colonialists. My politics were formed in the 1960s, much by the close friends who were then exiled in London with the ANC. My understanding of Mugabe’s probable trajectory came from Oliver Tambo and Govan Mbeki, not from any apologist for Ian Smith. I do not accept that those serving the previous Government or indeed today’s new generation in government should allow themselves to be characterised by the politics of 40 years ago.