European Union Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

We have had a technical debate—thank goodness, in a sense. I shall dash back home and get my European Union juriste linguiste dictionary and look at one or two translations of terms, particularly “power” and “competence”. I recall some years ago, in the early discussions on Schengen and British border controls, explaining to a French audience the difference between border checks and border controls, the former being selective and the latter systematic. It was explained to me that the translation into French of “check” is “contrôle” and the translation of “control” is “contrôle”. The subtlety of the English language did not easily play in French. This may be part of what we are getting at here.

The amendment raises some interesting questions about parliamentary sovereignty, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, recognised, and about the evolution of judicial review. I take it as given that ministerial decisions will be made in the first place to Parliament. Noble Lords will be well aware that the Government are taking through, as part of a package that includes this Bill, a number of measures to improve parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation. Ministerial decisions would, therefore, go in the first instance to the scrutiny committees of both Houses and would be examined fully by both Houses.

In the evolution of judicial review, which, as we all recognise, has become a good deal more active in recent years, whereas ministerial judgments are frequently subject to judicial review, judicial review of parliamentary decisions is a great deal more hesitant. The Solicitor-General said in the other place:

“Judicial review has increasingly become part of the legal armoury since the second world war. Ministers, whether of the present Government or the last, are not above the law, and it is for our independent judiciary to arbitrate, through judicial review cases, in disputes between the citizen and the state. The courts apply the laws enacted by Parliament, and Parliament can make, amend and repeal legislation as it thinks fit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/11; col. 691.]

The evolution of judicial review, it seems to me as a non-lawyer, is therefore likely to take a rather different approach to ministerial judgments on executive issues and ministerial Statements, which have been thoroughly scrutinised and accepted by Parliament. I hope that that begins to explain why, in the Government’s opinion, this amendment is not necessary. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be those who will wish to apply for judicial review of all ministerial decisions related to the sharing of powers within the EU. We have seen that already. That is precisely why one of the measures that we are taking to try to rebuild public trust in our engagement with the EU is to propose a strengthening of parliamentary engagement and scrutiny to ensure that the Government are not trying to slip things past people but are being increasingly transparent.

In the case of the judicial review brought by Mr Stuart Wheeler in connection with the treaty of Lisbon, the European Union (Amendment) Bill had received Royal Assent before the judgment of the court had been handed down. The issue was whether the Government should ratify before the process of judicial review had been completed. It is quite clear that a Government would not proceed to ratify a treaty amendment until a process of judicial review had been completed, although I think it unlikely in the extreme in the delicate relationship between our common-law judiciary and a sovereign Parliament—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The Minister has gone into an interesting point, which I wanted to ask about. The Stuart Wheeler case is relevant because there were attempts by a number of people to suggest that Parliament should suspend the completion of the ratification process until the judgment on the case was reached. The Government of the day declined that, correctly in my view, but the noble Lord is quite right that the deposit of the instrument of ratification took place after the court had ruled. It is not quite that the ratification was not complete; the deposit of the instrument of ratification, which is the last stage, had not happened. Am I taking it from him that the Government’s view will be in future that, if this sort of situation arises, they will not interrupt the parliamentary process of taking a decision on the European Union matter that is before them, so that the only impediment will be to the final deposit of an instrument of ratification and not to the completion of the parliamentary ratification?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord is raising a point whose subtlety is close to that with which juristes linguistes deal. My notes say that the Government would not complete ratification until a judicial review challenge had been taken. I have also been suggesting to noble Lords that a stronger parliamentary engagement and oversight in examining a ministerial judgment would make judicial practice in accepting claims for judicial review less likely in the future.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I do not think that we need pursue this matter this evening, but can the Minister be more precise when we come to that point at a later stage in the Bill? It is quite important. If the Government’s attitude is going to be that they will stop the process in Parliament while the legal process is going on, that is a completely different thing from saying that they will not complete the process by depositing an instrument of ratification until that is over. Will he clarify that point at a later stage or in writing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am happy to do so. I recognise that there are a number of complex judicial as well as parliamentary sovereignty issues at stake, some of which we will return to later, but I offer that assurance to the noble Lord and I hope that I have answered some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I would have preferred the previous Government to have taken an even more robust line on the Stuart Wheeler case and to have in no way taken account of the judicial review in proceeding with the ratification process or depositing the instruments of ratification. It seems intolerable that there should be any judicial oversight of the proceedings in Parliament. That seems to be explicitly excluded by the Bill of Rights. I would be particularly worried if the present Government went in for a process of slippage, going even beyond the insufficiently robust approach of the last Government and allowing the timetable for the parliamentary consideration of a particular Bill to be affected by proceedings in a court of law.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I foresee that when we get to the debate on Clause 18 we shall have a great many discussions on the exact relationship between the judiciary and Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. The time for that debate is not now but then.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Does the Minister agree that the likelihood of judicial review is greatly enhanced by the creation of the significance test? In almost any case where Parliament does not wish to have a referendum because it has accepted the Government’s statement that the issue is not sufficiently significant to justify a referendum, that will be challenged in the courts. The issue will not be whether to go ahead and complete the process of ratification but whether or not to have a referendum. It will be a bold Government who decide to go ahead and complete the process before the court has ruled on the significance point. What is extraordinary is that we should create a system where we are going to invite the court into the middle of our legislative procedures. If we have not finished here in Parliament, we will have to suspend if the significance test is being challenged.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, my understanding, and I stress that I am not a lawyer, is that it is the ministerial judgment that is subject to judicial review and not the parliamentary decision. I will clearly have to consult before I come back on Report on the exact meanings at stake, but my understanding is that parliamentary decisions are much more robustly resistant to judicial review.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I wonder whether I might help my noble friend a little, because the point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, is interesting. Our understanding of this issue is that the Minister would provide a statement setting out his reasons behind why the item under discussion either was or was not of significance, so the possibility of judicial review would therefore apply to the reasoning behind the Minister’s statement. In that case, it would seem that it would not be Parliament’s judgment under question but the Minister’s reasoning, presumably guided by legal advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have no doubt that we will return to this on Report and I will write to noble Lords when I have had exact and subtle legal advice. The ministerial statement will be the beginning of a parliamentary process, which is intended to be a robust part of the consideration of what is and is not significant. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be willing, for the time being, to withdraw this amendment. I promise that I will write having taken abstruse legal advice.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, let me put the Minister out of his misery: yes, I will withdraw the amendment but perhaps I might make a couple of points in doing so. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, was right in his point that the significance test is likely to trigger the sort of legal review we are talking about. That is far more likely to arise in cases where the Minister has decided not to have a referendum. The point here, at least as I see it, is not whether the Minister’s decision is being questioned by judicial review but that it is the Minister in Parliament. It is not like a Minister taking a decision about exercising his judgment outside Parliament. The point is that it is the Minister in Parliament, supported by Parliament. It is therefore a parliamentary decision which is being challenged by judicial review.

I am bound to say that we are talking about quite big stuff here. This is not just a reinforcing of the current position where ministerial decisions are challenged but the Minister, with the support of Parliament, being challenged through judicial review. If that review goes against Parliament, the outcome is that a referendum would be triggered. Would we really in those cases go as far as asking for Royal Assent to a Bill or a decision which is then to be looked at all over again through a referendum? That is quite a big constitutional point and I am interested in the way that the Minister has put it.

This provision will trigger a multiplicity of challenges. We will be very lucky if we have just one, as we did in the Wheeler case. This is laying something open to judicial review and I would be grateful if the Minister, when he has consulted all those great legal books and superb academic treatises that he has on the subject, would write rather more explicitly. The Minister made some points to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and it would be very helpful if we could see them in writing. If we need to go over this ground again on Report, we must obviously do so but it may be that the Minister will be able, when he has had the opportunity to consider it, to meet some of the points that we have discussed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the Minister may or may not be relieved to hear that this is another probing amendment—or, rather, two, in Amendments 4 and 12. Obviously, the same point is made in both and although the amendments may appear long it is really a simple point. I am sure that we all understand our close relationships and our responsibilities to and for our overseas territories. We also understand that Gibraltar alone, of all our territories, is part of Europe and is affected by European treaties or changes to them. Yet the Bill states that where a treaty change affects Gibraltar, it would have to be the subject of a referendum not only in Gibraltar but in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister please be a tad more specific about this?

In almost every case, a treaty change which affects Gibraltar might well affect the United Kingdom too, so holding a referendum in this country and in Gibraltar would be understandable if you buy the basic premise of the Bill. But if, as in some circumstances, a treaty change were to affect Gibraltar alone and not the rest of the United Kingdom, would a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom really be necessary? There were two ways of reading that, so I am raising a genuine question with the Minister. I fully accept that the eventuality is remote but it needs some clarification.

Similarly, what if a treaty change at some point in the future laid specific responsibilities on members of the European Union to change the law in their overseas territories? While I accept that we do not all have the same relationship with our overseas territories—the complexities of l’outre-mer in the French relationships were fully explained to me when I was a Minister, but they may not be as clear to me now as they were at the time—let us say that there was a change in a treaty or a treaty provision in relation to, let us say, money laundering or gay rights, both of which have been the subject of considerable controversy in some of our own overseas territories. Does not the logic of the Government's position mean that, in all fairness, it would be proper to hold referendums in those territories so that they would have the same rights as the citizens of Gibraltar automatically have on treaty changes which affect them? I stress that this is a genuinely probing amendment and I would be grateful for any clarification that the Minister can give us.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just joined me on the Bench as he is the Minister responsible for relationships with the Crown Dependencies. I would simply query the noble Baroness’s opening statement: that I am sure we all understand the nature of the relationship with the Crown Dependencies and the overseas territories. I have dug out the last definitive statement on our relationship with the Crown Dependencies. It was the Kilbrandon commission, on which I suspect one or two noble Lords—

[A noble Lord]

That was years ago.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It was years ago, as the noble Lord says, but every time that I questioned it in opposition I was referred back to that statement. It says that on a number of occasions, there are a number of blurred edges to the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and these islands. I have scars on my back about this. On a visit to Jersey two years ago, I questioned whether the current constitutional relationship was sustainable in the light of globalisation in financial and other arrangements. I was subjected to attacks for a week in the local press, the best of which suggested that both my wife and I were French spies, so attempting to clarify the relationship can get one into deep trouble. I do not recommend that we go too far down that road.

If a treaty were to affect Gibraltar alone, we would certainly have some interesting questions but it is difficult to imagine a situation in which such a treaty change might happen. As the noble Baroness rightly suggests, there is a range of issues where the different, semi-independent entities around the European Union are affected. Monaco, Andorra and the départements and territoires d'outre-mer, or DOM-TOM, have a rather different relationship with the European Union from ours. As the noble Baroness will recall, we chose to encourage our overseas territories to fund themselves through becoming offshore financial centres rather than getting them to a closer association with the EU so that others could fund them. That might possibly have been a mistake but it is where we are.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that I heard the Minister say that if an issue affected Gibraltar alone, some very interesting questions would arise. That implies that the Minister wants to leave the legislation as it is currently drafted without those interesting questions, as he describes them, being addressed. Surely he would agree that it would be completely barmy for the people of the United Kingdom to have to vote on a referendum on a matter that affected Gibraltar alone. So why can we not simply change the text of the Bill in a common-sensical way so as to exclude that possibility completely? It would be very easy to do.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think that this is the point where I should refer to Protocol 3 to the 1972 treaty of accession to the European Union under which Gibraltar chose to become a member of the EU and the other Crown Dependencies chose to become non-members of the EU but with a number of associated areas. That is another complex area. I find it impossible to envisage a situation in which there would be a treaty change that applied to Gibraltar alone. Ultimately, this is a hypothetical question, but I see that the noble Lord wishes to pursue it further.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I ought not to be satisfied by that; when we are drafting legislation in this place, we should try to make it as complete as possible, just as one should with any legal document. We are after all talking about the laws of the land. The Minister may be brave enough to say that he himself cannot anticipate this possibility, but we know that possibilities can arise that were never anticipated even by the most brilliant minds. Surely we should just have legislation that makes it clear that there would never be the absurdity of the people of the United Kingdom having to vote in a referendum on a matter that affected Gibraltar alone.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have scars on my back from the extent clause. I have tried on previous occasions to raise the question of the extent clause and the conditions under which UK legislation applies to the Crown dependencies. This is a very arcane area.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I do not want to strike a note of discord with the Minister or indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, but the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has a point. If you read Clause 2(2)(a) as perhaps a court might read it, there is the possibility—however remote, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, says—that in future something might happen that affected Gibraltar but did not affect the United Kingdom. As it reads at the moment, the UK would have to have a referendum. That is my interpretation of the paragraph.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I offer to get the sharpest minds in the Government to look at this again and see if there is a real problem. This is a worthwhile probing amendment. I might perhaps mention that the coalition Government are committed to looking at the issues of tax avoidance, in which these various Crown dependencies and associated entities like Monaco and Andorra—particularly Monaco, the constitutional relationship of which with France is at least as cloudy as that between the Crown dependencies and the United Kingdom—will come into play. It may well be that others in this House would like to pursue some of those questions further, perhaps through a committee inquiry, but, I suggest, not as part of this Bill. With regard to this Bill, Protocol 3 to the European Communities Act 1972 sorts out who is in and who is out.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. The thought of him as a French spy is vastly entertaining; I had never thought of him in quite that sense. It has cast a whole new light on his part-time activities. I was not entirely clear from what he said—I will have to read his remarks in Hansard—about the differences that he was drawing between Crown dependencies on the one hand and overseas territories on the other, but we can look at that.

There is a specific point about Gibraltar. I fully concede the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that it is a very remote possibility, but an issue that comes up again and again is self-determination for dependencies and overseas territories. The issue regarding Gibraltar is that it would not be able to exercise self-determination in the way that other overseas territories do because of the treaty of Utrecht. In my day, if you moved away from that treaty for a single moment you were in deep trouble. I make the point because it means that Gibraltar is in a rather special position; it is not just that it is part of the European Union. Of course, one might say that the Spanish would be bound by the same issues.

The point is not for us to think of every possibility, racking my brains as I am so to do. The point is to have legislation that is as clear as possible. We should make this clause clear so that we are not left with someone trying to think up some clever eventuality where we might have a real difficulty on our hands; rather, we should forestall such difficulties by having greater clarity. It is an absurdity to think that an issue that affected only Gibraltar could be the subject of a referendum in Darlington, Dagenham and Dorking. That really would be a silly position for us to be in. I hope that the Minister will kindly give this a little more thought so that when we return to this issue at a later stage we might be able to have a greater meeting of minds.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I apologise that I had not cited the treaty of Utrecht. The noble Baroness will of course be familiar with the grant of 1204 by the King of England as the Duke of Normandy, which is the basis for the Channel Islands’ relationship with the United Kingdom—a document that appears to have been lost some time in the later 13th century and no one knows exactly what it said. That is part of the oddity of the situation. Having had an interesting excursion into some of the byways of the outer shores of the British constitution, though, I hope that the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I will do so and I hope for further clarification on these points. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Zimbabwe

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his initiative in securing this very timely debate.

I pay tribute to the thousands of brave Zimbabweans who remain committed and in the front line of the struggle for democracy and human rights. I have had the honour of meeting some of them when they have visited us here at Westminster. There are countless others in towns and villages across that country whose dedication compels them to risk imprisonment, torture and even death in order to bring freedom to their people. Many of them are women. I think particularly of the courageous trade union leaders: Lucia Matibenga, General Secretary of the Commercial Workers Union; Gertrude Hambira of the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union, who is now forced into hiding and exile in fear of her life for exposing the way that members of her union were persecuted by Mugabe's regime; and Thoko Khupe of the Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railway Union, now Deputy Prime Minister.

It is heart-warming to see the solidarity with these heroes shown by the international trade union movement. The Confederation of South African Trade Unions has been staunch in its support, and in this country individual unions have mobilised support for their affiliated unions in Zimbabwe—the CWU with the Communications and Allied Services Workers Union, and the NUJ with the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists. Practical support such as this directly aimed at those working with people at the grass roots is enormously helpful, and I hope that more such links will be promoted.

Not long ago I had the pleasure of giving tea in this House to a member of the rather small union that I used to belong to, the Speaker of the Zimbabwean House of Assembly, Mr Lovemore Moyo. As well as being pleased to meet Speaker Moyo, I was delighted that the assistant accompanying him, Mr Zitha, has spent time studying at the University of Leeds, close to my home town. That reinforced for me the relationship between Zimbabwe, which has been spoken about earlier in this debate, and the United Kingdom. There are many deep and personal links at all levels of society between our two countries, so this debate and the many occasions when we can raise issues regarding Zimbabwe are most valuable.

At my meeting with Speaker Moyo I discussed some of the important protocols that protect Parliament. They have to be fiercely guarded if parliamentarians are to be free to conduct thoroughly and without hindrance the tasks entrusted to them by the electorate. I gave Speaker Moyo copies of our sessional orders, which I used as Speaker and which were agreed at the beginning of each new Session of Parliament. They protect Members of Parliament from obstruction or interference in the conduct of their parliamentary duties. These rights are vital to parliamentary democracy, by whatever mechanism they are enacted and however they are enshrined, and I am very disappointed by recent reports from Zimbabwe that show that they are not being upheld.

I make no apology for deviating for a moment. Only a few minutes ago, I had a note handed to me that comes from a very reliable source. It tells me that a court ruling in Zimbabwe today says that the conduct of the secret ballot by which Speaker Moyo was elected was improper. This is a very worrying development and a serious situation. It is another example of the way in which the judiciary is often used to undermine democracy. A re-election could of course be used as a shoo-in for a new Speaker sympathetic to the Mugabe regime. That could be the case if enough of the MDC MPs are kept locked up in jail. Although there is not much longer to go in this debate, I hope that the Minister will have something to tell us about that devastating news when he winds up.

Six years ago yesterday, on 9 March 2005, I raised the case of the Member of Parliament Roy Bennett. My concern then was the imprisonment of Mr Bennett as a result of an altercation in Parliament. The penalty imposed was out of all proportion to the misdemeanour for which he had unreservedly apologised. Mr Bennett was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour in the most inhuman conditions. Six years on, Mr Bennett is in exile but continues to devote himself to fighting for the rights and dignity of his fellow citizens.

The arrest of any Member of Parliament is a serious matter. A few weeks ago I learnt of the arrest of Mr Douglas Mwonzora. Mr Mwonzora is co-chairman of the parliamentary constitutional select committee, as was mentioned earlier, and is jointly overseeing the process of consultation on a new constitution for Zimbabwe. He simply lodged a complaint with the police about the violent disruption by Zanu-PF militia of a meeting that he was holding in his constituency. In what seems an utterly bizarre turn of events but sadly is not at all unusual, Mr Mwonzora himself was subsequently arrested by the police outside Parliament in Harare.

As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has mentioned, we got the news that Elton Mangoma, MDC Minister for Development and a member of the MDC negotiating team on the global political agreement, was picked up from his government office by police. The reasons for the arrest are unknown to me. Perhaps the Minister will have some news of this latest arrest in his wind-up.

Politically motivated arrests affect other citizens too. Vexation charges are brought but time and money that can ill be afforded are then needed to mount a defence. Court proceedings are deliberately delayed, leading to protracted uncertainty. There seems to be a calculated process by which key people like Mr Mangoma and Mr Mwonzora are diverted from their duties and important responsibilities, and it inevitably means that the vital reforms so desperately needed in Zimbabwe are delayed or derailed altogether. Arrests of this nature have become far too commonplace. It is what that brave lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa has called “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when next there might be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Africa to discuss these matters with the South African authorities. After all, the current political dispensation in Zimbabwe was imposed by South Africa. Robert Mugabe was able to engineer his so-called “victory” in the presidential elections only because he manipulated the figures in the first round and managed to deny Morgan Tsvangirai an outright win. In the second round, Mugabe unleashed such a wave of violence that Morgan Tsvangirai felt compelled to withdraw from the race to prevent further bloodshed. As we know, the former President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa then used his powerful position within the region to manoeuvre for a settlement that propped up Mugabe and allowed him to remain in office. It was not a good development for democracy. It never is when the will of the people, democratically expressed, is denied, subverted or overridden. The way in which deals have been brokered allowing presidents to remain in office, just because they want to stay put despite losing an election, is to me a very worrying development.

We have to deal with the world as it is today. We have heard much about the global political agreement signed in 2008 by Mugabe and Tsvangirai. It is supposed to be guaranteed by South Africa as well as by the AU and SADC. Furthermore, it has been incorporated into the constitution of Zimbabwe. What is shameful is the continuing contempt with which Mugabe treats the obligations to which he solemnly signed his name. He has continued to take unilateral action on key appointments, and has threatened to call elections unilaterally without consultation with Prime Minister Tsvangirai and without waiting for the approval and implementation of the new constitution.

Surely the Minister would agree that such action is in contravention of the global political agreement. I feel very strongly that these issues need to be raised with Ministers from SADC countries. But I ask whether they are raised. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.

Surely we can negotiate with SADC countries. I do not need to remind your Lordships that we grant substantial sums of aid to them in our budget. We have good relations with them and most are members of the Commonwealth. Can we not use that leverage for the benefit of Zimbabwe? I hope the Minister will agree, after all, that political progress in Zimbabwe will help the progress of the whole region.

The government statement on priorities for UK overseas aid made it clear that we want to see value for money. I agree with that. Surely an important aspect of this, in the context of Zimbabwe, is that we need to deal with the causes of the crisis and not simply with the symptoms. The causes are political and the symptoms affect the whole of southern Africa. In footing the bill, should we not make it clear that we need the partnership of the region to overcome the political obstacles that are holding back development of SADC as a whole?

Last week I was encouraged to read the comments on these issues made by Marius Fransman—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are quite tight on time.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

I am so sorry; I will bring my remarks to an end—as important and fascinating as they are. As a former Speaker I must do that.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps the Government will take to impress upon members of the AU and SADC the gravity of the commitments they have made. I particularly look forward to his comments on the possible Speakership in Zimbabwe that I spoke about in my comments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the role of a Whip is a painful one during debates. We are very tight on time. It would be very helpful if noble Lords could manage to bring their remarks to a close before “10” appears on the clock.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I think it is the turn of the Conservatives. We will then return to the Labour Benches. Perhaps I might encourage the several Labour Peers who wish to intervene to consider in the mean time which of them they would like to yield to first.

[Lord Tugendhat]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of how welcome will be the Foreign Secretary’s statement that we will be following a distinctive policy in the Middle East? Will he also take it from me that his initial remarks about the moment of opportunity in relation to the Israel-Palestine talks are a very welcome start? I very much hope that he will be able to press that case in the days and weeks ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Marquess of Lothian]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the noble Marquess, then from the Liberal Democrats. Then there will be time to get back to the Labour Benches.

[The Marquess of Lothian]

My Lords, at this time of emerging democratic awareness in the Middle East, will the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs use their considerable influence to encourage the Palestinian Authority to adopt a true, full and honest electoral process in the months ahead so that those who speak for the Palestinian people in the future do so with a genuine mandate for the Palestinian people as a whole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If we are very quick we might get three speakers in. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has been trying to intervene since the beginning.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

How do the Government intend to press the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority to resume the peace process? Is not that a matter of extreme urgency? Hamas and Hezbollah have repeatedly expressed the view that Israel ought to die. Against that background, is there any prospect of resuming meaningful discussions between the Israelis and Hamas and Hezbollah?

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. I do not think that he spoke for a moment too long. The House was very grateful to hear what he had to say and for his covering the issues so comprehensively. I declare an interest as chairman of the Arab-British Chambers of Commerce and a frequent visitor to the Arab League countries. My other interests are all covered in your Lordships’ Register of Interests.

As the Minister has said, events on the ground in the region are moving very quickly and dramatically. For many, the unrest seems to have come as something of a sudden explosion. However, for many of the commentators who have spent time in the region, the sense of unease and growing dissatisfaction, particularly among young people, has been evident not just for several months but for many years. The UNDP report on Arab development, written by Arabs for their Governments some seven or eight years ago, stressed the huge pressure for jobs, particularly for young people. That pressure, it was said, would grow markedly between 2010 and 2020. It was calculated that 100 million jobs—an enormous number—would be needed in the region if it was to meet the needs of a young and growing population. Those populations are growing very fast in every country. Certainly, in Egypt, as we have seen with the activity of young people in Tahrir Square, to which the Minister referred, half the population is aged under 25. Sixty per cent of Saudis are aged under 20—an extraordinary figure.

Education standards have risen throughout the region—in the Maghreb, particularly in Morocco but also in Tunisia; in the Levant, particularly in Jordan; and in the Gulf states, especially in the Emirates and Qatar. These major improvements in education have not been matched by the number of jobs coming on to the market. The shortfall between educational attainment and job opportunity has led to disillusionment and unrest. Most of the Arab League leaders have recognised this for several years. In recent months I have discussed the real problems—indeed, the dangers—of increasing numbers of young, well educated people who have little opportunity. I have discussed it in Libya, the Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is a real difficulty that arises when expectations are raised and then hopes dashed in the reality of disappointment.

Moreover, the increases that we have seen in basic commodity prices have been very sharp and steep. The costs of basic food and energy have risen in Egypt, Jordan, the Maghreb and even in some of the Gulf states. Most of the Governments have been swift to recognise the toxic combination of these price rises and joblessness, particularly after the events in Tunisia. I was in Libya the weekend following President Ben Ali’s departure. There were demonstrations even in Tripoli. However, President Gaddafi made a broadcast saying that similar events were not to be anticipated in Libya because of the sound ideology which the people recognised and valued. I understand that a very similar speech was made by President Bashar Assad in Syria. However, the Libyan Government none the less deployed its huge wealth very quickly to subsidise food. The demonstrations that took place in Jordan were much smaller but they prompted the direct injection of money into public services. In Kuwait, the Government even went so far as to make direct payments to their people. Twitter channels have been full of plans for demonstrations this coming weekend. When I was in the region 10 days ago, I watched on the TV rioting in Beirut and near rioting in Cairo. Reports were coming through of unrest in Algeria and Syria and of planned demonstrations in Bahrain and even activity elsewhere in the Gulf.

The desire for democracy and a real say in how one’s country is governed is common to all people in all parts of the world. I have never agreed with the argument articulated by some organisations and individuals in the region that somehow democracy is a western ideology being foisted on the rest of the world. The young people in Tahrir Square today are evidence of a burning desire for democracy in the region. Their determination and sense of capturing the moment are, it seems, infectious. But I do think that we have to respond to this with humility. I remember in 2004 when President Bush decided on his agenda for Arab reform, including a move to democracy. He laid out a blueprint for that transition. There was outrage in the Middle East. As Minister for the Middle East at the time, I was asked to hold an urgent meeting with all the Arab League ambassadors in London. They all conveyed the same message and it was a simple one: “Don’t tell us how to run our countries. Don’t lecture us about democracy. Don’t lecture us about reform”. This occurred at the same time as the abuses in Abu Ghraib were coming to light, and their other message was not surprisingly, “Don’t lecture us about human rights”. Indeed, Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, had stressed the importance of reform coming from within each country, as the noble Lord has said today. What was right then is right today.

The fact is there is no single blueprint because all the Arab League countries are very different from each other. What may work in Morocco, with its democratic institutions which are now well embedded, will not be acceptable in Syria. What is right in Lebanon, as it precariously forms its Government—that is a delicate operation, as the Minister has said—is not necessarily anything like appropriate in Oman. To be frank, I think that the United States’ initiative at that time caused so much offence that many reformers in the region found themselves suddenly accused at home of merely dancing to the American tune. As the White House began to claim that every reform in the region was the result of American diplomacy, the enthusiasm for a home-grown reform agenda faltered. In short, at that time many reformers in the region found that the ground was cut from under their feet. Therefore, I hope that the western powers can resist the temptation to take any credit for what is happening at this time and lay it fairly and squarely where it belongs—on the shoulders of the people of the region.

We are possibly watching history unfold but this is a moment for cool heads and sound judgment—the sort of judgment that plans very carefully for what may happen next. Although the world’s attention has been turned from Tunisia to Egypt, the fact is that Tunisia is acting decisively—I applaud the Foreign Secretary for his visit there this week—on human rights, where the Council of Ministers has implemented its plan for the future. Tunisia is embracing the protocols. It has set aside capital punishment and any use of torture by accepting the protocols. It has now accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It is drawing up rules for fair and free elections on the basis of a public consultation and it is drafting laws on bribery and corruption. As one Tunisian colleague said to me this week, “Our people want the same as all human beings—justice, equality, fairer distribution of wealth, the possibility of participation in political life, better living conditions—above all, better lives for our children”.

Meanwhile in Jordan, the new Government have a clear mandate for reform from the king. Everyone I met in Jordan 10 days ago was talking about reform—mostly about economic reform, but some of it was, indeed, constitutional. The street demonstrations there have been relatively small—in the low thousands out of a population of 6 million. The entrepreneurial groups recognised not just the pressing need but the real urgency for reform of government institutions. It was they—the middle-aged, the business people—who were pressing their case so vigorously in Jordan.

The question for us is what help and support we can offer to the institutions growing in the Middle East to find their own way forward. We will not do that by public lecturing—I agree strongly with what the Minister has said on that. The sort of help and support that the British Council gives, and which the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is rightly acknowledged as nurturing, is what is needed. I am glad to hear about the £5 million fund that the noble Lord told us about. It is a good idea, but we already have the institutions in this country that could help so much on the ground. I know that the Minister may find this problematic but, frankly, the cuts being made to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Council and the World Service are just plain wrong. If Ministers really mean what they say about values, democracy, partnership and support, as opposed to making speeches about them, they must recognise that the savings are paltry in their effect on our economy. They are completely misconceived in so far as they are fettering the sort of help that we can give in the region.

We all know that elections are necessary but not sufficient for democracy to flourish. Elections without the rule of law are a licence for the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The rule of law, without human rights to protect the individual against the state, can justify abuse of those who do not conform. However, this is not a one-sided issue. Without proper security there is a threat of instability which attracts groups of people looking for a safe haven for their activities, whether it is promoting extreme ideology or engaging in criminal activity. We can, and should, mobilise the European Union in its dialogue with the Mediterranean Middle East and in its exchanges with the Gulf Co-operation Council. We need to strengthen the EU/Arab dialogue, and we need that to start now. There is a huge range of issues, not just security or counterterrorism, where we should be engaging. We should be talking more about the future resourcing of food and water, oil and gas and cybersecurity, and about human trafficking. Country to country and region to region we need to establish the relationships now which we may need in the very near future. We Europeans are good at that. We understand it, and at times we understand it better than our American cousins.

These changes in the Middle East may lead to real increases in tension with close neighbours—I mean with Israel and Iran. As we all know, elections often mean real change. The unelected have more freedom on how to control security both within their countries and with their neighbours. The Foreign Secretary was right to suggest that the already faltering peace process in the Middle East will not get any easier. Israeli security has in large measure been protected—I argue that it has been guaranteed—by Egypt and Jordan, often in the teeth of virulent criticism from within their countries and sometimes from their neighbours. However, Israel may find attitudes hardening if people on the Arab street have a decisive say in what happens next.

Most recent Israeli Governments have indeed been coalitions, where often the freedom of the ruling party is fettered by the ideology of the coalition partners. Debates in the Knesset are indeed democracy at work, but that democracy has hardened attitudes over what can and cannot be negotiated in the peace process. If Jordan and Egypt at any point in the future have Governments elected on an anti-peace mandate, we shall all be the losers. It is a sobering thought. Democracy may bring us real problems in that respect.

Like many, I believe that trade is a vital component in international relationships, and I applaud the Foreign Office’s active engagement. In my day, it was the Business Secretary who went frequently to the Gulf—and very well he did it too. I look forward to our current Business Secretary getting cracking on this agenda, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where there is so much opportunity and so much that can and should be done. However, as I am sure the Minister knows, there is growing concern in the region that the Foreign Secretary’s emphasis on trade has become too dominant.

The outstanding political powers in the region are of course Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Saudi has the biggest economy, is a member of the G20 and, frankly, dominates the international oil market. Egypt is by far and away the most populous nation, with 1.4 million men under arms, and is the guarantor of regional safety. It is splendid to visit the UAE and Qatar, which I am always happy to do. It is important for British jobs and it is important for British trade. However, foreign policy is not a one-way street. Our Secretaries of State need to engage far more vigorously in political dialogue, particularly with Saudi and Egypt—not through loudhailers, as the Minister said, but through relationship building; not on the telephone or through envoys, but in person and in country. It is noticed and remarked upon that Britain seems to care more about the depth of the pockets in the region than about those countries’ policies. I am sure that that impression is wrong, but it needs to be corrected—and soon.

As we all know, today is another possible turning point for Egypt, and I finish where the Minister began. It may well be that the unrest has gone well beyond the point where people will be satisfied with anything less than real change throughout their Government and their constitution. However, that is their decision. We all want peaceful transition. I agree with virtually everything the Minister said on this subject. As I speak, it is possible that Friday prayers are finishing in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. For us, democracy, the rule of law and human rights are the best foundation. We all hope that the people of Egypt will find their best foundation and that they will find it very soon.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I say simply that this is not a time-limited debate. If speakers take an average of 12 minutes, we should finish by around 2 pm. Noble Lords will recall that the Companion suggests that to avoid tiring the House the maximum time for speeches should normally be 15 minutes.

Legislative Reform (Civil Partnership) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legislative Reform (Civil Partnership) Order 2011.

Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 25 October last year under negative resolution procedures with an Explanatory Memorandum as required for all statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under the chair of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, considered this draft reform on 10 November 2010 and concluded that the proposal met the tests set out for LROs in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, that it was appropriate to proceed as an LRO and that the negative procedure was appropriate in this case.

However, when the Regulatory Reform Committee in the other House considered the draft on 9 November 2010, it concluded that, although the draft order is uncontroversial—all statutory preconditions and tests have been met—and would not prejudice any existing protection, the proposals contained in the LRO were more than a de minimis change in the law, so the order should be raised to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Section 210(1)(b) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, in specifically designating that the registration officer must be a UK-based diplomatic officer, does not allow for flexibility in those consular sections within an overseas British post where there are no longer any UK-based diplomatic officers and where civil partnership registration is a service that can be provided. The FCO has been going through a programme of localisation, including regrading of staff. Where there has previously been a consular officer who is a member of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service, in some posts there are now only locally engaged staff, and for consular customers resident in such consular districts, we can no longer undertake civil partnership registrations as often as we did previously.

The change in the order will allow locally engaged non-diplomatic consular officers, at any post that is affected by the localisation programme, to be nominated to undertake the registration of civil partnerships and civil partnership ceremonies. The amendment will not affect other aspects of civil partnership registration overseas, which can be undertaken only if local authorities do not object. This will also address two current disparities. First, staff of equal seniority have different powers. Depending on the local circumstances, a consul or vice-consul may be a Diplomatic Service officer or a local member of staff. For example, the vice-consul in Tokyo can undertake this work while the vice consul in Sydney cannot just because one is a member of the Diplomatic Service and the other is a member of the local staff. Secondly, Parliament empowers local members of staff to conduct marriages but, at present, does not empower local staff to conduct civil partnerships.

I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is important but, I trust, non-controversial. I hope that it will receive the full support of the Committee.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I want to contribute briefly to the discussion on this proposed order because I think I am right in saying that I am the first Member of your Lordships' House to enter into a civil partnership, as I did nearly 5 years ago. I regard it as one of the most progressive and forward-looking steps that we, in this country, have taken over the course of the past decade or so.

The order is wholly welcome. It makes a relatively minor and sensible change in enabling the performance of a civil partnership ceremony to take place where consular staff are locally drawn, rather than originally based here in the UK. This will enable more civil partnerships to take place. It is therefore a very good thing.

However, the debate enables us to reflect on the interesting table attached to the order and its Explanatory Notes that set out the status regarding civil partnerships in a whole range of different countries across the world. There are of course some countries where homophobia is not only rife but encouraged at the moment. We have only to think of some of the very distressing occurrences in Uganda recently to know that that is the case. Sadly, I suspect that it will be many years before we are able to see civil partnerships performed for British nationals in Uganda.

There are many countries across the world, some of which are full members of the European Union, where British nationals resident in that country would not be permitted to perform a civil partnership ceremony under the auspices of the British consul. I hope that the Government will continue to make representations to those Governments where we might have a degree of influence, either through common membership of the European Union or from old Commonwealth ties, to ensure that a more progressive and liberal approach to the possibility of civil partnerships is gradually taken in some of these countries. It would be very interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what steps are being taken in that respect.

Having said that, I believe that this order is entirely welcome. I fully support it. It is a sensible measure and I am very pleased that the Government are bringing it forward.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, my contribution has been largely pre-empted by what my noble friend Lord Smith had to say. The Committee will not be surprised to learn that Her Majesty's Opposition fully support the order. It is a sensible flexibility to the current arrangements and a real advance for those who would otherwise have to travel long distances in order to register their civil partnerships. It is important to recognise that in one sense this is part of a series of changes in the devolution of powers in the Diplomatic Service to locally engaged staff. We have seen that particularly in commercial sections and increasingly in consular sections in our embassies, high commissions and consulates throughout the world.

In the coalition’s business plan for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, there is a clause that says that the coalition Government will continue to slim down consular services across all our embassies, high commissions and consulates. Does that mean that the Minister envisages that, increasingly, locally engaged staff will undertake work that has heretofore been undertaken by members of the Diplomatic Service?

My question is similar to that posed by my noble friend in relation to those countries where same-sex relationships are currently illegal. Can the Minister tell us in what countries we are actively engaged in discussions with their Governments on that point? There is a rather more subtle point as well. In a number of countries in the world, same-sex relationships are not necessarily illegal but are not necessarily welcomed by a number of institutions. What training of locally engaged staff are Her Majesty's Government undertaking in this respect so that those who might have misgivings about officiating at same-sex civil partnerships not only are made to feel comfortable themselves but do not make those who are engaging in civil partnership ceremonies feel uncomfortable when they come for such an officiation?

I noted that during the consultation period, Stonewall and others responded to the order in an entirely positive way. I also remind the Committee that this was something begun under the previous Labour Government and I would therefore expect spokesmen on this side of the Committee to give it full support. Will the Minister engage in the slightly wider point about the devolution from the Diplomatic Service to locally engaged staff of other forms of consular activity?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I will start by responding to the point on locally engaged staff. Yes, it is part of the FCO's business plan to slim down consular posts where possible and reduce costs by taking on more locally engaged staff. I take the point that there are some delicate tasks that locally engaged staff may need to be sensitised to with reference to a range of the issues that they have to deal with in consular posts. I promise to write to the noble Baroness on that issue.

We all recognise that, on the whole question of civil partnerships, we have all been moving forward slowly over the past generation. If one goes back far enough, the law in Britain was pretty closed on these issues. A number of other countries are moving forward much more slowly or are further behind us on the curve. Our predecessors in government—and we continue to do the same—have been pushing to encourage others to move further. My notes say, for example, that the posts that were unable to offer civil partnerships as a result of moving to locally engaged staff included posts in Japan, Australia, Portugal, Austria and Ireland. However, this is no longer a problem in Portugal, Austria and Ireland because, in the past 18 months, they have changed their domestic legislation so the problem no longer arises.

As noble Lords have remarked, there are still other members of the European Union that have not got that far. The previous Government’s Europe Minister, Chris Bryant, wrote to Denmark, Germany and Slovenia, each of which has its own legal recognition on same-sex relationships but does not recognise UK partnerships. Denmark replied to suggest that, as a result, it will amend its legislation to recognise UK civil partnerships. Replies from Slovenia and Germany are still pending. He also wrote to all EU member states that do not have their own civil partnership legislation to ask for permission to conduct civil partnerships in our posts overseas where at least one half of the couple is a British national. Latvia, Cyprus and Bulgaria have replied to say that they do not object as long as their nationals are not involved. Estonia and Poland have said that they continue to object. We have not yet heard from Romania, Lithuania, Malta, Italy, Slovakia or Greece, but all are presumed still to object. We are currently consulting the Government Equalities Office on next steps.

I have a note which says that the training given to local staff will be the same as is currently provided to Diplomatic Service staff. Staff guidance is also being updated so that staff have this additional point of reference. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the figures I have on the countries in which civil partnerships have most often been registered show that Australian posts come out at the top, then those in Vietnam and then those in Japan. After that, for some reason, it is Colombia. Please do not ask me to explain in detail why it should be those countries; others may wish to investigate.

Having said all that, I recommend this proposal for approval. It is a necessary and highly desirable change that will take this country a little further forward to the goal of becoming an open, liberal society.

Motion agreed.

Turkey

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are very short of time in this debate. If all Members could end their speech when the sixth minute comes up on the Annunciator, we would be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on his insightful contribution to the debate. I expected no less, knowing that he traces his roots back to my home county, Tyrone. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, on obtaining this timely debate and hope that, with her more natural authority to speak on these issues, she will be more successful than I have been during the past 28 years in seeking to obtain fairer play, justice and human rights for Turkish Cypriots. That is the issue that I want to address and I declare an interest: I have had a long-term interest in and association with Turkey and northern Cyprus.

How does one even begin to inject reality into the Cyprus situation where, for example, the Greek Cypriot President Christofias, in his most recent verbal aberration, declared that if he could meet President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan,

“the Cyprus issue could be solved over dinner in a fish restaurant on the Bosphorus”?

Forget the pretension, ignore the insult, because Christofias obviously has little regard for either truth or reality. His mind is so conditioned by his own propaganda that he can easily overlook the Greek Cypriot repudiation of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, their rejection of various agreements since then, most recently the 2004 rejection of the Annan plan, and the fact that he, like his predecessors, is willingly held to ransom by the Greek Orthodox Church.

I wish that I had more time to expand on the negative part played by the Orthodox Church in respect of the rejection of the Annan plan and its relation to the ethnic cleansing that was visited on the Turkish Cypriots between 1963 and 1974. Only a knave or a fool can remain unmoved by the ghettoisation of the minority Turkish Cypriots, by the Akritas plan or by eyewitness accounts of the slaughter that was carried out during the Makarios presidency and by Nikos Sampson and the EOKA-B. I do not have to remind noble Lords that the same democratic deficit, moral deviance and violent hatred still pervade Greek Cypriot attitudes and are still being orchestrated and encouraged today, even on the football field and basketball court.

What angers me, and shames us all, in respect of the propaganda over much of my 28 parliamentary years, has been the willingness of a limited but verbose group of parliamentarians—mainly, but not exclusively, from another place, through an all-party group, lately known as the Friends of Cyprus, now the Cyprus all-party parliamentary group—to work exclusively to give credence to the Greek Cypriot line while effectively excluding any Turkish Cypriot participation, argument or rights. I remind noble Lords that it was I who was verbally and physically attacked when I dared to enter a publicly advertised meeting sponsored by the Friends of Cyprus in the Jubilee Room, where I spoke merely to remind those promoting the sectarian Greek Cypriot line that the history of Cyprus did not just start in 1974.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Order. Interventions in the gap should be a maximum of four minutes.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I apologise and I will wind up. I simply implore the Government to take a more enlightened perspective than the politically myopic Chancellor Merkel, who obviously believes that the way to assist in finding a solution for Cyprus is to visit the Greek Cypriots and lecture Turkey from afar. She did not arrive in Cyprus to support the ongoing talks; rather, she went to stick her oar in before they fail. Berlin’s only interest is to keep Cyprus as an anti-Turkish card and I hope that the coalition Government will acknowledge that.

Human Rights

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, perhaps I may first thank my noble friends on the Cross Benches for providing time today for this debate, which focuses on human rights abuses worldwide and looks at the thoughtful recommendations put forward on this important question by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

It is self-evident from the list of speakers that our debate will be enriched by huge and varied experience. In particular, I know that we will await with eager anticipation the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Hollins.

It is also self-evident that, in too many countries around the world, people are denied basic human rights to which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts they are entitled. From Burma and North Korea to Iran and Saudi Arabia, from Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Cuba, Colombia and many other parts of the world, people face the risk of imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, forced labour—which is modern day slavery—displacement or disappearance if they attempt to express their views openly or to practise their religion freely, or even, in some cases, if they mistakenly say or wear the wrong thing or are in the wrong place.

Terror, ideology, caste, ethnic superiority, systematic abuse of women and children and the brutal violation of minority rights in countless situations and places disfigure humanity. For Jews and Christians, with a belief that each person is made in the image of God, imago Dei, and for secular humanists, who insist on upholding the innate dignity of every human being, there is common ground.

At this time of Chanukah, the festival of lights—we will greatly look forward to hearing later from my noble friend Lord Sacks—it is worth remarking that, earlier this year, 52 rabbis, as part of the Yom HaShoah, the annual commemoration of the Holocaust, wrote that continuing atrocities and conflict in the Congo,

“has produced a terrible humanitarian crisis … This is a moral outrage which the international community must act to help put right”.

An estimated 6 million people have died in the DRC, a country which I have visited. The situation in neighbouring Southern Sudan, where last year more people died even than in Darfur, is equally perilous.

Two nights ago, in a Committee Room of your Lordships’ House, I hosted a meeting attended by Mende Nazer, a young Sudanese woman abducted from her home in the Nuba Mountains and turned into a slave. Her story was movingly re-enacted by Feelgood Theatre Productions. After seven years, she was passed to a London family and escaped, only to face a new struggle for political asylum. Women like Mende Nazer look to us, who enjoy democratic liberties and freedom of speech, to ensure that their stories are told and their rights defended.

Modern human rights discourse is rooted in our fearsome experiences of the 20th century. The horrors and degradations of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen gave birth to the rich language of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which asserts that,

“disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want”.

The first three articles of the declaration make it clear that human rights are not subject to territoriality. Article 1 unequivocally states that:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

Article 2 states that:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction ... or … any other limitation of sovereignty”.

Article 3 insists that:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

These articles and the 27 articles that follow remain the basis for our discourse on human rights today.

During the Cold War years which followed that declaration, it would once again be the plight of European Jews—Russia's refuseniks—and the Helsinki Final Act, promulgated in 1975, which began to challenge consciences and rouse nations. Points 7 and 8 of the Act bound the 35 states that signed it to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples. According to the Cold War scholar John Lewis Gaddis, the Helsinki accords,

“gradually became a manifesto of the dissident and liberal movement ... What this meant was that the people who lived under these systems—at least the more courageous—could claim official permission to say what they thought”.

In every generation, the challenge is to consider how best to turn those great declarations into policies and initiatives and to give hope to benighted people whose human rights are violated daily, to create as William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, has put it, a foreign policy with a conscience, an approach one might anticipate from the biographer of William Wilberforce.

In opening this debate, I want to explore some principles and practices that should commend themselves to the Government and to give two examples of countries where those principles and practices might be applied—North Korea and Sudan—both of which I have visited in the past three months. Let me refer to the excellent proposals developed during the five years preceding the 2010 general election by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. My noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who cannot be present today, has particularly asked me to commend the United Nations Association of the UK for the work which it undertook in assisting that commission. It produced some incisive reports, complete with recommendations for policies to address sexual violence as a weapon of war, the implementation of the United Nations’ “responsibility to protect” mechanism, child soldiers, press freedom, religious freedom and reform of the United Nations. The reports contain practical and worthwhile mechanisms for putting an aspiration into effect. I am conscious that many members of the previous Government, not least the former Africa Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, have a long and distinguished record of championing human rights, and it seems to me that this is therefore an approach around which political consensus can be created.

Let me illustrate this by highlighting the commission's recommendations for how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's institutional capability to address human rights can be strengthened and, in doing so, I ask the Minister to share with the House the stage of implementation or consideration that these proposals have reached. The most important recommendation made by the commission was for the appointment of a Minister of State for International Human Rights within the FCO with an ability to focus solely or primarily on human rights. Currently, the Minister responsible also has several other responsibilities besides human rights, including south-east Asia, the Far East, the Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific, consular, migration, drugs and international crime, public diplomacy and the Olympics. The commission proposed that a Minister of State for International Human Rights would be able to give human rights concerns greater attention if they could focus solely, or at least primarily, on human rights.

The commission also suggested that a Minister for Human Rights should be invited to attend relevant Cabinet meetings and security and foreign policy Cabinet committees to co-ordinate policy with other appropriate Ministers and departments. The commission proposed that the Minister could be supported by an ambassador-at-large for international human rights, with responsibility for co-ordinating the work of embassies and the Diplomatic Service on human rights issues. This could either be an experienced diplomat with a proven commitment to human rights or a human rights expert with an understanding of international foreign policy and diplomacy. In turn, the ambassador-at-large could oversee a number of thematic portfolios—special representatives or special envoys responsible for issues such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, religious freedom and women’s rights. The United States has an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom and several special envoys for thematic human rights issues. France and the Netherlands have made similar appointments.

The commission proposed that the ambassador-at-large and the special envoys could work in a strengthened human rights and democracy unit, which would oversee the continued publication of the annual report on human rights, which I hope the Government will today assure the House will continue. Interest in today’s debate underlines the appetite for this, as do repeated all-party calls for the establishment of a House of Lords Foreign Affairs Committee, a proposal supported, I know, by the Minister. Simply shining a light into dark places and reminding perpetrators that one day they may be made to answer for their actions, as in the case of Liberia’s Charles Taylor, or Slobodan Milosevic, challenges a culture of impunity.

The commission also recommended that the Government provide time in both Chambers for an annual debate on the international human rights situation and the findings of the FCO annual report. Religious freedom is one such vital basic human right, enshrined in Article 18, which underpins and intersects with other freedoms: freedom of speech and assembly, to name just two. It is estimated that more than 200 million Christians in over 60 countries face some degree of restriction, discrimination or persecution while Baha’is in Iran, Rohingya Muslims in Burma, the Ahmadi Muslim community in Pakistan, Sufi Muslims from the Sunni tradition in Somalia and Tibetan Buddhists, among many others, all face serious violations of human rights.

The commission recommends, and I endorse this proposal, that the current FCO freedom of religion panel should be expanded, made permanent, and convened regularly, and that reporting of religious freedom violations be given greater prominence, either in the annual human rights report or indeed, as in the United States, in a separate report. I commended this recommendation during the debate on the Queen’s Speech in May and I wonder whether we are any closer to doing it. I also wonder whether it is still the case that the FCO, which the Minister inherited in May, with its vast team of officials, has only one person in its human rights team who is responsible for religious liberties issues. While in some parts of the globe religious liberty is suppressed, elsewhere—in a country such as Iran, for instance—theocracy executes, amputates, tortures and imprisons. The struggle for religious freedom and democratic freedoms are stable-mates, and contempt for either can have calamitous consequences.

The final set of recommendations to which I draw the attention of the Minister and the House are these proposals: that Foreign Office staff receive training in understanding the key human rights issues in countries on which they are working; that a code of conduct should be drafted setting out the expectations and requirements with regard to human rights promotion for each ambassador, for all key embassy staff, including consular staff and visa application officials, and for London-based heads of section and country desk officials; and that diplomats who display outstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights should be recognised and rewarded. By championing in-country the cause of brave dissidents as, for instance, we have consistently done in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi, and by marking key anniversaries, such as the international Human Rights Day on 10 December, we can make it clear that British foreign policy truly has a conscience.

In the few moments that remain, perhaps I may refer to two countries which I have visited recently: North Korea and Sudan. I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the All Party-Group on North Korea and as an officer of the All-Party Group on Sudan. During my visit to North Korea with my noble friend Lady Cox, who at the moment is returning from the Burma border, we were accompanied by Mr Ben Rogers, who is vice-chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and kindly acted as secretariat. We have documented our visit and recommendations in a report, Building Bridges, Not Walls: The Case for Constructive, Critical Engagement with North Korea, which is available on the web. In that report, we suggest that, as well as raising security issues, which has been a one-track approach during the six-party talks, it is imperative that we adopt, as it were, Helsinki but with a Korean face. We also put firmly on to the agenda human rights questions in North Korea, where the United Nations estimates that as many as 300,000 people are currently languishing in its camps. We desperately need a new peace conference to bring an end to a 60-year war which is neither a war nor a peace, merely an armistice. The events on the Korean peninsula last week underlined how often we are simply waiting for a Sarajevo moment to occur, sucking us all into the vortex which 60 years ago this year claimed nearly 3 million lives. We have to engage constructively but critically with North Korea, and the approach adopted during the Helsinki years—the Cold War—is the one that we should be adopting in North Korea today. The Minister has seen the report and I hope that, when he comes to reply, he will be able to respond to that.

Perhaps I may also briefly mention the situation in Sudan. In just a few weeks’ time, in January, there will be a referendum there to determine its future. I was surprised to find that Mr Henry Bellingham, the Minister from the Foreign Office who led a trade delegation to Khartoum, recently said:

“We want to see more UK banks taking a positive view towards Sudan”,

adding that it would be “wrong” for Britain,

“not to encourage the trade”.

Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, is indicted by the International Criminal Court on genocide charges. Anyone who has visited Darfur, as I have, where 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million displaced, will wonder why we would be conducting business as usual.

All of this points, as do many situations in other parts of the world, to the need for Britain to have a clearer policy and approach to human rights. One size never fits all but over-reaching principles are crucial: adumbrating our own nation’s belief in the articles that form the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and attempting to live up to them; patiently engaging, cajoling and constructively criticising where necessary; and linking development and key foreign policy objectives to human rights goals. These are the things that we must do. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is a very popular debate with 19 speakers in two and a half hours. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that, when the clock says six minutes, they are into their seventh minute.

Diplomacy

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by my friend—if I may call him that, as he is my friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I was in the UKREP office referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on the very day that David Hannay’s name was in the papers—I think it was the Daily Mail—as being appointed a people’s peer. The people in UKREP said that they had not heard anything so funny in their lives.

I add my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, about whose diplomatic experience, in the broadest sense of the word, we have just heard. I have witnessed the remarkable outreach job that he does in the St Paul’s area and in London generally—a job that the Anglican community does in many countries around the world.

My noble friend Lord Monks—John Monks—is the fifth former general secretary of the Trade Union Congress to come to this House. He joins an illustrious list: Walter Citrine, who had an historic reputation in the trade union movement, including for his short book, The ABC of Chairmanship, which is used from the Pacific Islands to the Falkland Islands; Vincent Tewson, who followed Lord Citrine; and Victor Feather—George Woodcock must have declined the invitation, but I do not know that for a fact—who took the TUC through the difficult years of 1969 to 1973, from the proposals of Donovan and In Place of Strife to Ted Heath and all of that.

John’s only fault is that he is too fond of irony. At a meeting with Mrs Thatcher in 1980 on the issue of red tape—too much regulation on small firms and so on—John asked, tongue in cheek, “So why not exclude small firms from the 30 miles an hour speed limit?”, at which point Mrs Thatcher turned to a civil servant and said “Take a note of that”. The white van man has certainly taken a note of it.

There is another similarity between working for the TUC and the Diplomatic Service. I was reminded of this only yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, chaired a meeting with senior American diplomats on Afghanistan through the All-Party Group on Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, of which I am the secretary. One of them remarked that it might be useful to distinguish process from outcomes. I recognised that distinction and noted that trade union officials do that every day of the week. Before John mentioned the trio—now the duo—sitting in front here, I thought that perhaps the TUC should do some job swaps with the Foreign Office, but I think that they are probably already doing it.

I have given the Minister—whom I admire without always agreeing with him—notice of this question: what is the headcount of the FCO and DfID at the present time, both in Britain and overseas? In the latter case, there is also the separate category of locally employed staff. We need to be able to track where, when and how this transition takes place, with the position before the cuts being the benchmark or starting line.

I know from experience that, if there are missions from five, six, seven or eight different European countries in a small African or South American country giving different advice about auditing, project finance or whatever, the messages from London, Berlin, Paris and Stockholm and so on are different, no matter that they get together once a week. Reality stands all this talk about defending the national interest on its head, because small countries often have only one man and a dog to listen to all the conflicting advice. That can be counterproductive and give a totally wrong impression. I have seen countries in many parts of the world waste the time of a very small number of competent people.

Someone should, therefore, challenge the doctrine of keeping all the UK missions quite separate. As we have very distinguished diplomats, we should—here I follow the message of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—be on the front foot in the European External Action Service.

Coming to my final sentence, I have some sympathy with the argument about the cuts—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are very tight on time.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

But that is an economic argument that goes wider than this debate.

Afghanistan

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has tried several times to ask a question.

[Lord Rowlands]

My Lords, can the Minister elaborate a bit further on the statement that the area under the control of the Government in Kabul is increasing? Can he tell us in how many provinces today it can really be said that the Kabul Government’s writ is running and that there is some kind of effective Kabul Government?

Latin America

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on securing this debate at this particular time. It is now, as he said, a few years since we held a dedicated Latin America debate in your Lordships’ House, but the interest and contributions from your Lordships today underline the value of holding such a debate. This is a particularly interesting time in the affairs of many Latin American countries. Like others, I rejoice in the results of the latest elections in Colombia. Former President Uribe is a good example to everyone in not having tried to stand for a further term, as he must have been tempted to do.

I also represented Her Majesty’s Government at the inauguration of Evo Morales for his second term in office. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, talked in detail, and most interestingly, about Bolivia. However, I believe that we should not only look closely at what is happening in the energy sector in Bolivia; we should also remember the changing role of indigenous people in Latin America and the cross-boundary/cross-border effects that this increasing alignment may have. That could well be the subject for a further and separate debate.

This debate is timely also because of the recent developments in relations between the United States and Latin America, to which reference has already been made. I am rather concerned about the attitude of President Obama and Hilary Clinton as regards, for example, our relationship with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. However, this is also an excellent moment to underline for the new Government the significance of Latin American countries in world affairs and the value of our special relationship.

I do not need to repeat, but would like to emphasise, all that has been said about the historic links that bind us, whether we are talking about the independence movements, the bicentenaries of which we are currently celebrating, or the other historic links that include the founding of the navies of Chile and Brazil by Admiral the Lord Corcoran—who has a special association with your Lordships’ House since, until 1998, a direct descendant of Lord Corcoran sat on the Red Benches.

I would also emphasise the importance of the ongoing trade and investment links which British companies have maintained in Latin American countries. Amazingly, these links survive despite the focus and priority that, I am sorry to say, successive Governments have given to other parts of the world. Perhaps I should declare interests as a former president and current vice-president of Canning House and as vice-chairman of the Institute for the Study of the Americas. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool was speaking, I reflected on the fact that the reason I learnt to speak Spanish and take an interest in Latin America, following a postgraduate course there, is that my mother came from Liverpool. Liverpool is the port of the Americas and my mother realised the importance and significance of the Spanish language. I am happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was able to emphasise that point so well.

Like the noble Viscount and others, I deplore the way in which the official British presence in Latin America is diminishing through the closures and downsizing of our embassies and the British Council. In the Evening Standard last night, I noticed a rather caustic comment to the effect that the high life enjoyed by British diplomats abroad faces the axe. The Foreign Office already has a £55 million efficiency programme that includes spending less on consultants, closer working with other departments, increasing the sell-off of embassy space and cutting low-priority programmes. We must all regard this with grave concern because it builds on the many cuts and downsizing programmes that have been carried out in the past. I can only hope for and seek reassurance from the Minister that the axe will not fall inordinately heavily in Latin American countries.

Fortunately, our relations with Latin America are not just bilateral. The European Union is the channel through which many of our activities in overseas development, and our policies in relation to the American, Caribbean and Pacific group of states, have an impact—in the latter case, particularly in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries. It may well be that in the future the lack of bilateral representation in Latin American countries will be replaced by EU representative offices. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that possibility.

Reference has already been made to the trade agreements between the European Union and Mexico, Brazil and Chile, as well as negotiations with the Mercosur countries and so on. I would be interested to know if any reviews or analyses have been undertaken into the effect of these trade agreements. Can the Minister give us any information about this? If I remember correctly, as far as the first of those trade agreements—I believe it was with Mexico—is concerned, the effect was to increase greatly the importation of European Union goods into Mexico but not the reverse, which should be the object of the exercise. In all this, I hope we may also have an assurance from my noble friend that the United Kingdom will play its part in European Union policy formulation with regard to Latin America and not leave it to Spain and Portugal, perhaps the traditional colonial powers in Latin America. But we are also increasingly working together, particularly with Brazil and Mexico, within other international organisations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the OECD, the G20 and the G8. All these links have been referred to and it is important to remember them in our efforts to improve our bilateral relations.

When faced with a debate in the broad terms of the noble Viscount’s Motion, it is often difficult to know where to place the focus. The countries we are talking about have diverse populations, different contributions to make and different needs to fulfil—from Mexico in the north, through the Caribbean and central American countries, to the furthest reaches of Patagonia bordering on Antarctica—with, as the noble Viscount said at the outset, a combined GDP equal to that of China. Nevertheless, because of the common colonial history of those countries, the two mainly used official languages—rather than the indigenous languages—the many cultural links and the apparent common risk of natural catastrophes which seem to afflict many countries, particularly the hurricane and the volcano zones of the west coast, we are tempted to regard Latin America as more of an entity than the countries themselves would wish. Rather than concentrate on individual countries, I have decided to deal with certain common issues.

I shall start with one of the difficult ones, that of drug trafficking. This remains a huge problem throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Only last night, a BBC news programme highlighted the emergence of problems in Monterrey, Mexico’s most advanced industrial centre and a thriving and prosperous state-of-the-art city. That was sad news to me. Peru, we are told, has now overtaken Colombia as the main producer of the coca leaf. Interestingly, Colombia’s output has dropped by some 16 per cent, which shows what can be achieved. I believe that the United Kingdom, as a consumer country along with the whole of the rest of Europe, has a duty to do its part in the fight against drugs in order to lower demand. Here I refer back to 1990 when my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones, then Minister of State with responsibility for Latin America, attended the important and successful drug summit. Leaders of many of the Latin American countries most concerned, together with representatives of the consumer countries, got together and tried to look at both sides of the issue.

The environment is another area in which developments have taken place. Increased awareness of the causes of climate change is leading to positive action. In Bolivia, it is high on the agenda. President Morales travelled to New York to deliver to the United Nations the results of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change held in Cochabamba in April. Mexico, as well as supporting the dialogue on sustainable development, has proposed the creation of a green fund to scale up the amount of resources available for climate change litigation and adaptation activities.

Like the noble Baroness, I am amazed at the way the clock seems to be racing ahead, and I apologise if I am over-running my time.

On his visit to the United Kingdom last year, the President of Ecuador, President Correa, spoke here in Parliament about the Yasuni project. In Brazil, as the principal guardian of Amazônica—the lungs of the world—a great deal of activity is taking place. This is another huge area for co-operation on a bilateral basis as well as within the European Union.

I may have outrun my time. I seek confirmation that the clock is correct.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It is.

[Baroness Hooper]

Oh dear. I had hoped to talk in a little more detail about energy, education, the issue of visas and the need to review the work of the UK Borders Agency in this respect, and the role of students from Latin America in the UK. However, I shall wind up as quickly as I can.

In my view, Parliament and parliamentary relations are as important as intergovernmental relations in all this, particularly in regard to the strengthening of democracy, and the role of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has to be encouraged and built on. As the newly elected chairman of the All-Party Group on Latin America, I hope we will see far more inward and outward visits.

This debate underlines the importance of Latin America and Latin American countries. We have got to get our act together, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly exhorted us. Let us start that today, not mañana.