Brexit: Triggering Article 50

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We have been clear that we want the best possible deal with the EU and free and frictionless trade, and that we want a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement. The letter, of which I read out the relevant section, stated that if we did not come to an agreement, we would go to WTO terms on default, but it is not an outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, while I admire the noble Baroness’s optimism, I do not entirely share it. I admire the conciliatory tone of the letter, but the country will judge the outcome of the negotiations by the words of those on the Government Front Bench. Before the referendum, Mr Davis told us that there would be no diminution of trade with the EU if we left the European Union. This year, he has told us that the exact same benefits will be secured as if we had remained in the single market and the customs union. Before the referendum, Mr Johnson told us that there would be no change at the Irish border. This year, Mr Brokenshire has told us that there will be a “frictionless” border, even though that will be the border of the EU’s customs union and it will be for the EU to decide the regime on it. Does the noble Baroness understand that, as this negotiation proceeds, the country will not forget what it was told, and Ministers will be judged by their own words?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said on many occasions, we are seeking an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, which includes free-flowing trade in goods and services as part of a new, deep special relationship. We want Britain to have the greatest possible tariff-free and barrier-free trade with its European neighbours and to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. There is a strong commitment between the UK Government, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that we do not return to the borders of the past. I think that they are quite clear statements.

House of Lords: Size

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for securing this debate and for the indefatigable work of his group, along with the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I add a word of thanks to the Leader for permitting this debate. Her presence here is a very good omen.

Shortly after the last election, David Cameron kindly came to speak to a meeting of Cross-Benchers and I asked him what he thought was the optimal size of the House of Lords. He laughed and said, “A lot smaller than it now is; it is up to you to fix it”. Some of us then pointed out that a bath may still overflow even when the plug is removed if both taps are turned full on. He laughed again—and of course had the last laugh in his Dissolution Honours List, about which my noble friend Lady Boothroyd said all that we need say today.

Mr Cameron was half right: we can fix it. We do not need legislation. It would be good, once we have reform, to have legislation to underpin and consolidate that reform but we can do it ourselves. We can amend our Standing Orders; we can do it by resolution of this House. That is what we must do. I agree with all four principles put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and repeated by my noble friend Lady D’Souza and others. It is clear that we are too big, that we must go on recognising the primacy of the Commons, and that, as a revising Chamber, we need an independent element. It is probably right that we should be no larger than the House of Commons. That is enough as a framework for reform.

I do not think we should attempt today to put forward our own formula or systems for bringing about that change. We need to call for a Select Committee—as others did—and then tell it to get a move on. If I have a quarrel with the Motion, it is that it merely says that “methods should be explored” by which our size should be reduced. We want not just exploration but a recommendation to come forward from the Select Committee—a single recommendation and the one most likely to command consensus in this House.

I strongly support the Motion but would merely add one personal point of my own. We must take care, as we shrink, to leave room for those underrepresented or not represented here. It is not right that UKIP, with all those votes at the last election, should be represented by only three Members in this House. Of course, it is a pity that none of them is taking part in this debate. One would hope that UKIP Members of the House of Lords would not emulate their friends in Brussels and miss most debates and Divisions, as they do in the European Parliament. But it is democratically wrong that there are so few of them here. It is also unfair that we ask so much of the single representative of the Welsh nationalist party—superman though he is, he could do with some reinforcement. Most seriously, the Scottish National Party needs to think very hard about whether it is fair to its voters that its voice should not be heard at all in this Chamber. It is a matter of dogma, but dogma that is self-harming needs ditching.

European Council

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. We are very clear that we want a constructive and strong relationship with the EU when we leave. I am not going to presuppose what the detailed negotiations are going to do, but we have been very clear that we want a bespoke new relationship. No other country has left the EU so we are in a unique position to ensure that we can work with our European partners and allies, which have the same values and approach internationally as we do, to ensure that we have a strong relationship. We are confident that we will be able to achieve that. We all want to go in in a constructive way to ensure that we get the best deal for Britain but also the best deal for the EU.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, two questions arise from what the Prime Minister said about the Canadian agreement. First, the noble Baroness will be aware that the Wallonian objection arose from the comprehensive nature of the agreement, which goes beyond trade to services, investment and regulation, areas where the Commission and the EU do not have full competence but competence rests wholly or in part with the member states. I am assuming that the UK/EU agreement, when there is one, will be no less comprehensive than the Canadian one and will also extend beyond trade. What conclusions have the Government drawn from the Wallonian problem? There are 40 legislatures in the EU that would need to ratify any agreement if it goes beyond trade.

The second question is this. The noble Baroness will be aware that there were two other objections from Romania and Bulgaria, which were settled only when the Canadian authorities agreed on the eve of the European Council that from next year they would allow full visa-free access to Canada for citizens of every EU member state, including Romania and Bulgaria. What conclusions does the noble Baroness draw from that? What does she expect will be the nature of that discussion when our agreement is complete, given the Prime Minister’s speech in Birmingham and the rather extraordinary speech by the Home Secretary that was warmly welcomed by the National Front in France?

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I very much agree with the noble Baroness’s main theme and, like the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, I pay tribute to the remarkable speech of the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I cannot match it and therefore will be more mundane in making six points about Article 50.

First, the reference in the first clause of Article 50 to the member state deciding,

“in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”,

has been much discussed, including by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, this morning. The intention of the phrase was simply to make the point that how the decision is reached is entirely a matter for the member state; just as with ratification procedures, there is no EU template. The question of whether a UK parliamentary procedure is required is one for a UK Parliament and nothing to do with anybody in Brussels. There is no relevant EU law; it is not an EU issue.

I am inclined to agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, although I am not a lawyer, that there should be a parliamentary procedure. But that is not because I would wish to vote against leaving if there were a vote here. We are where we are and, in the light of the referendum result, I would with a heavy heart vote for leaving. Of course, I believe that it is a serious mistake as our influence across the world will be much diminished. Of course it would be a disaster for our economy and lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty, as Mrs Leadsom so succinctly put it. Of course, I am also sad and angry that the case against referenda, and for representative democracy, has been confirmed by a campaign marked by mendacity and irresponsibility, in which assertion has trumped—yes, trumped—fact and argument, and in which a Justice Minister said that the people of the country were fed up with experts. I am determined to be dispassionate today. We are where we are and if the Government act on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and put a resolution to the House empowering it to revoke Article 50, I believe that resolution should and would pass.

My second point is that there are those who argue for a different question: for the repeal of the 1972 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, argued. I disagree for two reasons. First, my understanding, supported by the report from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, is that where a treaty sets out an abrogation procedure—in this case, a secession procedure—abrogation other than by that procedure would break international law as well as EU law. It would, of course, also poison the atmosphere for any continuing negotiation in Brussels. Secondly, although I heard the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, to delayed commencement, I do not believe that it would make sense to destroy the foundation on which so much law and so many statutory instruments are based without first deciding which to relabel and retain, which to adjust and which to let fall, as he mentioned. While the small-state, anti-welfare libertarians skilfully avoided saying which they would let fall—health and safety, consumer protection, equality, the environment?—we know that they were not just against Brussels regulation; some of them were against regulation per se. That is easy to sell in general terms but rather harder to sell when it comes down to specific regulations, so we need a more honest and deeper debate before the repeal of the Act.

My third point is about timing. Some in Brussels and some here say that we must immediately press the Article 50 button, while some over there say that there must be no talks with us until we have. This is arrant nonsense. There is no legal basis for it in Article 50, which leaves it entirely up to the member state to decide when to issue the formal notification. It would be very wise for the new Prime Minister, whoever she is, to take time first to study the issues and talk to her new colleagues. Mr Johnson complains that the Government have no Brexit plan. How could they have a Brexit plan when he issued no manifesto on which Whitehall could base its planning? Judging by his article last week in the Telegraph, he is still consistent about his policy on cake: our goods are to have free access throughout the single market but we will not recognise the jurisdiction of the ECJ.; we will play football but bring our own referee; our people will be free to live and work across Europe, but theirs will come here only if they satisfy the controls of our points-based visa system. That is Lewis Carroll’s White Queen and her six impossible things before breakfast.

We need a plan but Brussels will have to wait until we have one, and it must not be based on Daily Mail thinking. Mr Paul Dacre told the country in his leader last Saturday—he was no longer campaigning, as he has won—that Brexit carried no terrors because services are not in the single market. I think I have been unfair to Mr Dacre. I had thought his campaign was driven by an insular ideology, but I now think it is probably just plain ignorance—I am being dispassionate today. My dispassionate point is that the timing of our triggering Article 50 is entirely up to us, whatever Brussels says.

My fourth point is about sequencing. Article 50 is about withdrawal, about divorce. Some in Brussels assert, wrongly, that there can be no trade talks with us until the divorce is through. I refer them to Article 50(2) and the reference there to,

“taking account of the framework for”,

the seceding state’s,

“future relationship with the Union”.

How could the parties to the treaty respect that unless they were in parallel agreeing such a framework, the architecture of the future and the principles on which the new partnership should be based? All the detailed discussion of future relations in trade, finance, energy, aviation, foreign policy and the fight against crime will take years, but there is a treaty requirement to establish the framework before the Article 50 divorce terms are agreed. The Brussels institutions will have to accept that. I would add that our own preparations for that separate, parallel, simultaneous negotiation will be much more complex than the preparations for the Article 50 negotiations.

The fifth point is one at which I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In his Times article he referred to a notification under Article 50 as “irrevocable”. He used that as a flying buttress to support his principal argument, with which I agree, about the need for a prior Act of Parliament. I do not think he needs such a buttress. I also think it is a rather fragile one. Nothing in the treaty says that a notification cannot be withdrawn, nor does it say the opposite. There is no precedent to turn to, so it would be a political question. If we were to change our minds on discovering from the Article 50 and framework negotiations what out looks like, I do not believe that our partners would say, “Too late, out you must go”. Some might, like the prodigal son’s brother, be unhappy. Some might be tempted to seek a price. All that is speculative. My point, which is highly academic now but relevant to the concerns advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, is simply that there is no treaty basis for regarding an Article 50 notification as irrevocable.

My last point has already been made and I can be brief. It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for the way he put it: “EU citizens here, hate crime and bargaining chips—this is no way to create a good atmosphere for a negotiation”. Such incidents are being well reported across the continental press. I do not need to add to what has been eloquently said from all sides of the House, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are listening and will reflect again on what they said yesterday. Student politics may have trashed the country but now it is time for the grown-ups to reassert themselves, reassert our values and restore our reputation.

European Council

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, it is time for the Cross Benches, and then we will come to the noble Lord, Lord Richard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Does the noble Baroness understand that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has enormous force and is understood all around this House? This morning, I heard the French ambassador tell of French citizens in the streets of London—detected as French because they were speaking their language—being told by the crowd to go home. We cannot have this; the Government have to speak up.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has heard me say already today that anybody who is at this time telling anybody that they should go home is completely and utterly wrong, and that is not something which this Government are in any doubt about whatever. What I cannot say to the noble Lord or to the House, I fear, is—at the point at which we exit the European Union—what our relationship will be with France, in order to determine what kind of citizenship rights we want to offer.

English Votes for English Laws

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, this is probably going to be the only occasion in my lifetime when I can get up and say that the person who has just made the speech that I was going to make is a former distinguished member of the judiciary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has made all the points that I would have made. Indeed, so has everyone else; I agree with all the speeches that have been made so far.

I confess to a sense of weariness because I am running out of new things to say. I am also coming to the conclusion that it does not matter a damn what I say or what this House does; it is just going to be ignored and the Government will charge on regardless. The fact that it is more than 100 years since the House of Commons failed to respond to a Motion from this place—and a Motion that was passed by such a majority—is a scandal of the first order. I just wonder why we are here and what we are doing at 8.40 pm. What is the point?

The annunciator says, “The Government’s proposals on English votes for English laws”. These proposals are not about English votes for English laws; if you want English votes for English laws, you need to set up a Scottish Parliament. I am sorry, I meant an English Parliament. Of course, by setting up a Scottish Parliament, we provoked the situation that we are in today. However, English votes for English laws imply an English Parliament, an English First Minister and an English Executive. So if the point of all this is to satisfy the feelings of resentment that have occurred in England because of the existence of the Scottish Parliament, a false prospectus is being sold to the British people and to the English people.

For me, it is really quite weird that a Conservative Government with a majority—in the past I could have blamed the Liberals, but this is a unionist Government—are bringing forward proposals of this kind. If on the annunciator we had proposals for “Scottish votes for Scottish laws”, I suspect that people would be a little more careful in considering the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole—a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others.

The last time we debated this, my noble friend the Leader of the House denied that there was an English veto—but the word “veto” has now been accepted. I would be opposed to a Scottish veto in the United Kingdom Parliament, and I can see what Mr Salmond and his colleagues will argue when this goes through: that the Sewel convention—which we probably need to rename, in the circumstances—should actually be enshrined in statute, and that the Westminster Parliament should not be able to do anything that would be covered by the Sewel convention. That would be a very retrograde step.

I have been sitting for some weeks now on the Economic Affairs Committee; we have had extra sessions. We are taking evidence on the implications of devolution for the fiscal and other arrangements of the United Kingdom as a whole. I have to tell the House—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is also on the committee, will confirm this—that the advice we are getting from academics has on occasion reduced the committee to laughter because of the incoherence with which all these constitutional changes are coming together, and the inability of our expert witnesses to give assurances.

For example, one distinguished professor pointed out, on the subject of the impact of the changes that are proposed in the forthcoming Scotland Bill:

“If you do that, changes to English taxes affect the Scottish block grant, which I think is appropriate. However, if that is the case, you cannot possibly tell Scottish MPs that they are not allowed to vote on English income taxes, because there is no such thing as an English income tax that does not affect the Scottish block grant”.

In other words, the combination of the new powers being given to the Scottish Parliament, the retention of the Barnett formula and this new proposal to allow an English vote on English income tax will create a problem if you have English votes for English laws, in so far as the Scottish MPs who are not allowed to vote on English income tax will be able to say, “But that affects the block grant and so the Barnett formula, and therefore we are being disenfranchised”. That is a very important grievance of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, suggested.

I have been trying to think of an analogy to explain the Government’s piecemeal approach to constitutional reform and the difficulties and complexities it is creating. It is a bit like having an Uber driver without a sat-nav. We are going from one destination to another, not sure of where we are trying to reach and without the road map that is required—which could be produced if we had had a constitutional convention, and which might be available if we had agreed to a Joint Committee of both Houses to deal with some of the anomalies that would have arisen.

For example, my old constituency in Stirling, which I used to represent, is now represented by a Scottish nationalist MP. I have had him here for tea in the House so that he could be made aware of the excellent work that we do here, and a very fine chap he is. However, under these proposals, we will get to a situation in which he is elected and not allowed to vote on matters on which I am allowed to vote as an unelected Member of this Chamber. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that—it seems slightly anomalous. A lot of my former constituents who went to the polls to get me out—albeit that was many years ago; those of them who are still alive—might feel a sense of grievance that I am voting on matters which their elected Member is excluded from voting on.

I therefore say to the Leader of the House: I know that we do not have much of a majority here, but is the proposal that I should abstain on all these matters—that all Peers who come from Scotland should not vote on matters which have been determined in the other place? There is no such thing as a Scottish Peer—constitutionally that is right—but try telling that to people in Scotland if these proposals go ahead: you will get short shrift. That may be a narrow debating point. But we are faced with a situation where, in Scotland, thanks in part to the way we fought the general election campaign, almost all the seats are now occupied by one party, which every day sets out to find a reason why Scotland is being damaged by its relationship with the United Kingdom as a whole.

I do not want to repeat arguments that were made by others or that I put previously. However, I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd—who is not in her place—whom I voted for as Speaker, who did a fantastic job in the House of Commons and who has a very good understanding, warned about the difficulties that would be created for the Speaker. My noble friend says that this has been addressed, because he will be able to talk to two other MPs. What happens if those elected MPs have different and perhaps opposite views? The Speaker will have to take a decision, and the very position that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, referred to, of putting the Speaker in a position where they are politicised, comes into being.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree, but it is even worse than that, because it is clear that the certification decision that the Speaker is required to take will be justiciable. That seems to make an enormous change, which will affect not just the House of Commons but the constitution as a whole.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I remember the days when the noble Lord used to tell me what to do at European Council meetings. As always, he sees the wood when I could only see the trees. That is a very important constitutional change. It is a diminution of the status of the High Court of Parliament.

All the issues may seem to be anorak issues for constitutionalists but I say to my noble friend that this is not something of little importance, and it is a matter of great distress to me that the House of Commons should rush ahead with it by amending Standing Orders. In an earlier intervention, I pointed out the implications for income tax and what would happen under a Labour Government. I suppose that, as was said earlier, if things were done just by Standing Orders, then if a Labour Government had a majority in the House of Commons, they could simply alter the Standing Orders to remove the position that had been established in order to create a constitutional balance as a result of the extra powers being given to devolved institutions. That is wholly and absolutely unsatisfactory, especially in the context of a situation where there is no consensus among the parties as to how this could be achieved.

That is my final point, which I think I made on a previous occasion. I really do think that constitutional change should carry consensus. If we proceed on the basis that we think it would be a good wheeze to make a constitutional change or that it might advantage one party or another, then other parties will do the same when they are in power. As a result, people will lose faith in the integrity of the institution and it will be greatly damaged.

The Constitution Committee is going to look at these proposals and apparently we will have a year to consider whether they work—although, given our legislative programme, quite how we are going to do that remains to be seen. Will my noble friend consider once again whether it would be a good idea to set up some kind of body—we do not have to call it a constitutional convention—to look at all these issues? Will she also look at the implications of the Scotland Bill, which will be coming to this House, and how that will be affected by English votes for English laws, as they are being dubbed? All the evidence that I have seen indicates that there will be real and serious problems, which have not been resolved and which will do great damage to the relationships between the countries of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has just made the main point that I wanted to make and did so much more authoritatively than I could have done. But I will take the opportunity to add two more: first, I would not want your Lordships to think that there is unanimity on the Cross Bench that the West Lothian question needs to be addressed. In my view, the West Lothian question should be looked at and left. I profoundly believe that it does not need an answer. In any unbalanced—in population terms, not in talent terms of course—union like ours, the 85% needs to remember the maxim that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the highest wisdom.

My only other point is that I want to spring to the defence of the Leader of the House. I know her well. It is an almost impossible task to combine these two functions. She does it extremely well. I have absolutely no doubt that she very clearly delivered the message that we sent in July by such a large majority and that she advocated at least that we get the courtesy of a reply. I would like her to know that what is being said critically of the Government and of their handling of the House of Lords is in no way personally addressed to her.

Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement’s explicit commitment—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

We cannot all speak at once. It is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The Statement is a Statement, is a Statement, and the Leader has my support and sympathy. There are many things in the Statement with which I agree. However, I am puzzled by what it does not say. In particular, I am puzzled by the noble Baroness’s answers to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown, Lord Dubs and Lord Anderson. We are saying that we will not help one of the 366,000 people who are now in continental Europe and that had the little boy on the beach at Bodrum lived, he would have been no concern of ours. Unlike our friends in Dublin, who are not bound by Schengen any more than we are but are voluntarily taking some of these tragic refugees, we are saying that we will take not one of them, however awful their case, and that is what we will say at the European Union meeting this week. Are we sure that reflects the spirit of the country? Are we sure that is in the national interest? Are we sure that a little magnanimity might not come in handy?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am clear that we as a nation have decided that the best way of supporting—

Tunisia and European Council

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

What I am trying to say is that, as the Prime Minister made clear in his Statement, this is not a situation in which just one approach will see a successful result. There has to be a combination of approaches, which includes some military intervention. We are not involved in the military intervention in Syria—the noble Baroness knows of course that the decision was taken not to pursue that course of action—but we are supporting it with intelligence. I do not have the kinds of answers that she wants from me today, but I can assure her that the Government completely agree with her desire for urgent action. We want to see progress. That is what we are working towards, and we are trying to do so at every level and with every partner that we can to bring about progress in the Middle East.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We should listen to the question from the Cross Benches.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Can I take the Minister back to her answer to the last point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, about cross-Mediterranean migration and death? She referred to the pull factor that discourages us from agreeing to receive any of these poor people if they make it. I cannot see the logic of that. I can see that there could be a pull factor when the news gets back home that somebody has made it across the water, but we do not think that is a deterrent to rescuing them, and quite right too. I do not see why it should be an additional pull factor if the postmark on the news is French, British or Danish. If they have made it across, surely if there is any pull factor it is there, so I do not see why we absolve ourselves from any moral responsibility to help. Could the Minister look at page 4 of the conclusions and help me with the footnote, which appears to say, as far as I can see, that our partners in Protocols 21 and 22 to the treaties—the Irish and the Danes, who like us have no obligation to take anybody—have decided that they will not rule out taking people, whereas we specifically chose to rule out doing so? Is she quite sure that that was wise, given that we are engaging in a negotiation that in the end will require unanimity, and that Prime Minister Renzi has a very real problem?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I object to the noble Lord’s description of us not making a moral contribution to this crisis, because we are. As I said, we are playing our part in the rescue of those who are at risk at sea and are making a very large contribution by way of aid to the countries where people are affected by war or by other things that cause them to seek to move to Europe. We are playing a strong part. As I said, we have a point-of-principle disagreement on the resettlement of people who have made that crossing, but we are doing quite a lot in the resettlement of people from countries such as Syria before they actually make the crossing.