Iran

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very warmly for his very constructive and bipartisan comments. I think it is extremely important that this is seen as something to which the entire political community within Britain is committed, that we take it forward together and that we make sure that we are all well informed as we go forward together on the dangers, but also the possibilities.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his compliments to the Foreign Office team and the Foreign Secretary himself. There have been occasions in the past few months when I have felt like saying to the Foreign Secretary, when I meet him, “Is this a short visit to Britain or are you here for two days?”. As we all know, he has been travelling a great deal in pursuing this issue. The noble Lord is also absolutely right to give strong compliments to the American Secretary of State and the State Department team—and, of course, the other European diplomats, not least at all our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who have also worked flat out on all this.

I stress that this is only an interim agreement for six months. There is a lot more still to be done. On the question of how often inspectors will be allowed to visit, the agreement as signed provides some details on enhanced monitoring including,

“Daily IAEA inspector access when inspectors are not present for the purpose of Design Information Verification”,

et cetera, with relevance to Fordo and Natanz. However, the details on the exact degree of access are part of what needs to be sorted out between now and January, when we hope the six-month clock will start ticking.

As the noble Lord will know, there is not yet agreement between the two sides on the right to enrich. We are clear that every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful nuclear purposes, but we have not yet reached a full agreement with Iran on how that fits in with the full and detailed IAEA obligations.

Lastly, the noble Lord talked about the potential overlap with the Syrian conflict and the Geneva II talks. Let me stress that this is a negotiation with Iran about the nuclear issue; it does not have a direct overlap into other issues. Of course we may hope, however, that if we are successful in achieving a comprehensive settlement, it will have wider impacts on relations across the Middle East as a whole.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understand about the daily inspections in two sites, but I was very particular in asking what the inspection regime for Arak will be.

Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Thursday 7th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it has been an impassioned debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for pursuing this issue as she has done so vigorously over many years, and I know that the work of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Sudan and South Sudan also continues to do that.

The right reverend Prelate pointed out that what we see happening across the border between Sudan and South Sudan is also happening across Sudan and South Sudan’s borders with their neighbouring states. This is part of a set of regional conflicts which now sadly flow across the Sahel and central and east Africa. The Lord’s Resistance Army has just made another cross-border attack. As we know, it operates from Uganda, through South Sudan into eastern Congo. Recent events in the Central African Republic, where the Government have been overthrown, have reportedly been supported by groups from Darfur; groups in Darfur have very often obtained their weapons from Libya, Chad or the Central African Republic. Some of these groups move very easily across frontiers. We recognise that part of this is tribal, part of this is ethnic, part of this is racial, and part of this now, sadly, is also the militant Islamic ideology which attracts youths from across those countries. It brings in foreign fighters and foreign ideas of the sort that the right reverend Prelate commented on, breaking up what had been relatively peaceful relations between different communities and different faiths and raising severe problems for all of us, across Africa. I am happy that we will be debating the dreadful situation in eastern Congo in the not too distant future.

Within Sudan, neither the Government in Khartoum nor the Government in Juba control their entire territory. The Government in Khartoum have the advantage of armed forces and external arms supplies and, as we all know, are misusing them in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. There are linked conflicts across the border, with each Government claiming that the other continues to support the rebels within what they regard as their territories; and the border, as established under the comprehensive peace agreement, is not yet accepted by either side. We must recognise that the SPLM in the north refuses to recognise the borders as established.

We have heard a lot about events surrounding the demonstrations in Sudan, which Ministers have condemned both publicly and privately. We certainly want a more democratic space to open up in Sudan. We deeply regret that the Government of Sudan continue to get arms supplies from outside. We are not entirely sure which countries they are coming from, but they are clearly from the forces in what we used to call the Eastern Bloc. We have a fairly good idea where some of them come from. We meet regularly with opposition groups both within and outside the country. That includes meeting the leadership of the SPLM-North, although we do not support its stated aim of overthrowing the regime by force. We also recognise that the Sudan Revolutionary Front is itself a loose coalition of different bodies and not entirely cohesive in its operation.

I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, that we do not channel aid through the Government. We are co-operating with technical preparations for debt relief, but we have made it abundantly clear that debt relief will not be possible until the conflicts are resolved and that the benefits must flow to promoting development in Sudan.

On Darfur, we continue to look with horror at what is happening, while increasingly understanding that some of the militias are not entirely under the control of the central Government in Khartoum. We regret that the Doha document has not in any sense been adopted and that the situation in many ways continues to deteriorate. The question of what we can do about it on our own is difficult.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about the comparison with Libya. It is much easier to enforce a no-fly zone, or even to intervene, in a country where almost the entire population lives within 50 miles of the coast than it is to enforce a no-fly zone a very long way from the coast—across the borders between South Sudan and northern Sudan—let alone over Darfur. We continue to work with others on the situation in Darfur. We continue to ask within the UN for an effective review of the not very effective UN force in Darfur.

We are doing what we can, but we recognise that it is not enough. Restrictions on access to Darfur are part of the problem. We all understand how appalling what is going on in South Kordofan and Blue Nile is. Local organisations, with support from international partners, are gathering evidence of abuses. We do not have access to those areas to gather evidence first-hand. Noble Lords will know that the two Presidents have met on a number of occasions. We hope that the recent improvement in relations between Sudan and South Sudan will help to resolve the conflict, but we all recognise that the conflict has a dynamic of its own.

Within South Sudan, there are also problems of internal conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, talked about the conflict in Jonglei, which the South Sudanese Government claim is being supported by the Khartoum Government. We have to recognise that these have aspects of ethnic conflict between tribes. I am tempted to say that some of these are cattle raiding with AK-47s. Unfortunately, with AK-47s you can kill an awful lot more people than you could with spears. There are elements there where government as such—the idea of a settled state—has not developed. In Abyei, as we all understand, the conflict between the Misseriya and the Ngok Dinka has elements of Cain and Abel about it. We are talking about settled tribes versus nomadic tribes. There again, once the weapons are freely available, the challenge is very clear.

On Abyei, we do not recognise the outcome of the unilateral referendum held by the Ngok Dinka community held last week. However, we understand the frustrations that led to it taking place and the extent to which external forces and pressures imposed an extra layer on what were traditional local rivalries and conflicts. Almost three years have elapsed since the referendum should have taken place simultaneously with the wider referendum for South Sudan, but we have seen, as we all know, repeated failure to move forward by honouring existing agreements.

What are the UK Government doing about that? We are no longer an imperial power within the region. We have to work with others. We are working as closely as we can with the African Union and the high-level panel. We are certainly providing the support that we feel will help in the circumstances. We are also, of course, working through and with the United Nations. We are doing our best to make the EU a more active player than it has been. The United Kingdom and France are pushing our EU partners to be more engaged across the whole of northern, eastern and central Africa. It is not a message that all our EU partners are yet willing to hear. The British and the French continue to be by far the most actively engaged. We have to recognise that, as people like me go round other capitals, we have to try to explain to them why our interests are engaged in some of these areas because the problem of refugee migration across the Mediterranean is not entirely disengaged from what is happening across the Sahel and elsewhere.

We wish that the Arab League was more active—the Arab League of which Sudan is a member. The Doha agreement was after all moderated by the Qataris, but we would like to see stronger Arab League involvement. We would like to see more active Chinese involvement. The Chinese have real interests at stake in the supply of oil from South Sudan through Sudan. I am told that the Chinese have now become something of a moderating influence, but I think we all understand that the Chinese Government are reluctant to get too heavily involved in outside intervention.

DfID has a major commitment to South Sudan. I have not been to Juba or Khartoum but I have talked to a number of people working in the aid field in Abyei, Darfur and Juba itself. We are working to try to build the capacities of that very new and undeveloped Government. We saw the change in the Cabinet as being a positive development, and we continue to support them in every way that we can.

The two Permanent Secretaries of DfID and the Foreign Office visited the two capitals in October, and my honourable friend Mark Simmonds is going to Juba at the end of this month, so we are and remain actively engaged. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, asked for a joint EU-AU review. That is a highly desirable development and I will take that back. As I said, we have to work hard to make sure that all our 27 partners in the EU are committed to this and we have to recognise that the AU has some severe limitations on its own capacities. Going towards a standing arrangement of a peacekeeping force may stretch the AU further than it is yet able to go.

We should recognise that there are AU forces in place—Ethiopian forces in Abyei and Ugandan forces in Somalia—and a brigade under UN auspices in eastern Congo. So a number of African countries are now quite heavily committed. They lack transport, intelligence and logistics. The Government in Juba are pretty dependent on UN helicopters for transport around the country.

[Lord Triesman]

I understand only too well the point that is being made about the AU. My suggestion was that the discussion should happen under the auspices of the Security Council because it is possible for other kinds of forces—for example, as we found with Scandinavian police forces in Darfur—to have a very significant role in peacekeeping.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I take that point and of course the UN also has to have a large role. With regard to the Nordic countries, I also recall that the three guarantors of the comprehensive peace agreement were the United Kingdom, the United States and Norway. We continue to raise these issues regularly within the UN Security Council. It is a matter of continuing discussion and we will continue to push very hard. I sincerely hope and trust, and am confident, that noble Lords here, including the noble Baroness herself, will continue to push us to maintain that pressure. Having answered, I hope, most of the points raised in this debate, I will conclude my speech.

Syria: Peace Initiative

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Of course it would. However, we are proceeding slowly and cautiously. There was an Iranian invasion of the British embassy compound only two years ago and we are conscious, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement to the Commons the other day, that the Iranian political system is a complex structure and that to be President of Iran is not necessarily to command all power in Iran. When President Rouhani returned most recently he was cheered in the streets of Tehran, but he was booed and his car was apparently pelted by members of the Basij militia.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I probably should start by making it clear that it is no part of the Official Opposition’s policy to nominate President Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize. The initiatives on Syria, particularly in relation to chemical weapons, are plainly welcome, although there is much more to do on Geneva II. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has done some months’ work on deepening the relationship with Russia, but it does not seem to have deepened enough for it to be a reliable way of achieving the objective in the effort to defuse crises. What positive steps will the Government take, perhaps with the United States and France, to deepen that relationship so that it is more reliable?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

As noble Lords will know, the Russians are not easy companions. Foreign Minister Lavrov is giving a big speech in Brussels today, I understand, on the relationship between Russia and Europe as a whole. Although we welcome the more constructive relationship that we are having at present on a number of Middle Eastern problems, we are also moving towards the EU summit at the end of November on the Eastern Partnership, and Russian behaviour towards Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia regarding the possibility of those states signing association agreements with the European Union is, to say the least, not particularly constructive, nor is the effort that it is making to interrupt Lithuanian exports to Russia.

Sudan: War Crimes

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are not the only external actor influencing Sudan. We have to work with the Chinese, who are major actors in terms of external influence on Sudan, the Arab League countries and others. As the noble Baroness will know, there is a tripartite body consisting of the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League which is attempting to mediate on what is happening in Blue Nile and South Kordofan. I do not in any sense underestimate the horrors of what is happening there.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for sending me some material on what she witnessed in her recent visit. It is the most appalling—I emphasise—series of interconnected conflicts from Darfur all the way across to Jonglei and Blue Nile. Part of the problem is that Governments in both South Sudan and Sudan are weak and do not control the whole of their territories.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the Minister made the point that President al-Bashir would be hard to capture in his own capital. That is of course entirely true, but he must be one of the most widely travelled Presidents of almost any country in Africa. He is at meetings and conferences throughout Africa, throughout the Middle East and occasionally completely out of the hemisphere. What influence are we trying to bring to bear on those other countries that he routinely visits and which do not necessarily have an adverse view of bringing a war criminal to justice?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware from his own experience as a Minister how complex these issues are. It is not just a question of Sudan and the ICC. There are delicate questions of Kenya and the ICC at the moment as well. Her Majesty’s Government do of course make representations to other Governments whose territories ICC-designated people visit. Unfortunately, Britain does not command as much influence as we might like in a number of countries in the third world.

Russia: Non-Governmental Organisations

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we actively discuss with our partners in the European Union and the Council of Europe a whole range of concerns, including those about Russia. I think I am correct in saying that one in every four cases before the European Court of Human Rights at present concerns Russia.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, we share the anxieties that have been expressed. I was interested to hear the Minister mention in his very first response NGOs from outside Russia. What is the current status of the relationship between the Russian Government and the British Council, and is the British Council able to conduct its normal and completely proper work inside that country? If I may follow up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is there perhaps an opportunity for a side meeting at the G8 to underline this issue with the Russian President?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the British Council was under considerable pressure some years ago. Indeed, my wife and I were in St Petersburg and visited Stephen Kinnock, who was then the head of the office there, the day after his office had been inspected by the authorities in a clear attempt to intimidate its activities. At present, however, the Alliance Française is being pursued, not the British Council. The British Council does its best to operate in rather difficult circumstances.

Sudan

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have already stepped up the pressure and are very much engaged. We are working with the African Union and the high-level group, with Mr Mbeki as the co-ordinator, to see what pressure we can bring to bear on all concerned. We are all conscious that this conflict is taking place across the great dividing line between the Arab world and the black African world—a situation that we see also in Mali—and this is an area where we have to engage actively but carefully.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I would say with respect that I do not think that the Minister is going far enough. The warrant has been around for some time and I can say from first-hand experience that the one thing that President al-Bashir was consistently concerned about was that someone might act on that warrant on any occasion when he was outside Sudan—and he is outside Sudan reasonably frequently. What pressure will we exert at the United Nations to ensure that he is arrested when he is outside Sudan?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, our first priority at this point has to be to find a way of resolving the interconnected conflicts between Sudan and South Sudan. We also have to be concerned not to drive the current regime in Khartoum further into the arms of Iran. As the noble Lord will know, an Iranian ship has visited Port Sudan and there are various reports of Iranian financial support for the current Sudanese regime. That is our priority at the present moment.

Israel and Palestine: Balfour Declaration

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we entirely understand that. We have been in active discussion with the Palestinian Authority and with other Governments over the past week about the exact text of the resolution and we are continuing those discussions. If we gain from the Palestinians the assurances that we are looking for, we will be able to vote in favour of the resolution.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the argument for a two-state solution is one with which we are in entire agreement and continue to be so. We have also urged, and continue to urge, both sides to behave with legality, because that is a precondition for any kind of stability in the region. However, does the Minister agree that, in order to change what is going on and achieve an enhanced status for the Palestinian people, support at this time would be a very valuable step? Does he also agree that it is extremely unlikely that it would set back any part of the peace process—an argument that has been advanced in this House and which, candidly, few of us understand?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are providing very active support. My honourable friend Alistair Burt was in Gaza and the Middle East last week and we are providing a great deal of financial support both in Gaza and in the West Bank.

United States: Presidential Election

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the United States presidential election, what plans the Prime Minister has to meet the successful candidate; and which areas of policy they regard as the priorities for United Kingdom-United States relations in the next four years.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I congratulate the noble Lord on the timeliness of his Question and hope that he got some sleep last night. The Prime Minister has congratulated Barack Obama on his successful re-election as President of the United States. We will continue to work closely with President Obama on the full spectrum of international issues that are essential to our mutual prosperity and security, including the global economy, the situation in the Middle East and progress in Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister said of Barack Obama:

“I have really enjoyed working with him over the last few years and I look forward to working with him again over the next four years … we need to kick start the world economy and I want to see an EU-US trade deal”.

The Prime Minister also emphasised the need to do more to solve the crisis in Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

What approach will the Prime Minister suggest to reinvigorate the peace process in the Middle East, given the authority that President Obama certainly will enjoy as a second-term victor? Will the Prime Minister support the President’s commitment to a growth stimulus programme to mitigate uncertainty and a flat-line lack of growth—a strategy we sorely miss in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are all conscious that the Middle East peace process will be a very delicate and urgent issue over the next few months. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority has suggested that it may take back the question of its status at the United Nations to that body next week. We will be in urgent discussions with our American and European partners on our approach to that extremely difficult conflict. The strategy for global growth is of course a matter that we are discussing within the G8, the G20 and the OECD.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, we are taking part in this debate this evening because the House of Commons did not accept Amendment 15. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point that the other place may have been indifferent because relatively few Members were there. I ask him not to make that judgment in general about things that happen at the other end. When most debates are conducted, you see the camera sweep around without many people being there. It is entirely possible that you could regard this as indifference to almost everything, or you could say that it is the nature of the life of this place. I certainly do not think that the House could accept what he commended to us—that we should send no messages that are in any sense disagreeable to people in the other place. Such a supine response from this House to matters on which we feel amendments are needed would surely be exactly the opposite of the role that this House should play, and ample argument for its having no role at all.

What is fundamental at this stage is that this legislation takes us, in several constitutional areas, into waters that are—I candidly submit to the House—unknown. We are being invited to change from a system that is fundamentally parliamentary in the main thrust of its work to a system that is plebiscitary. It will on one reading lead to a significant number of plebiscites—that is entirely possible—or on another to very few, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, suggested. That is also entirely possible; I do not know which it will be. What I do know is that it will be fundamentally different from the way in which we have conducted parliamentary debate on key issues over many generations.

There is a fundamental constitutional change in that Parliament will offer the public votes—either frequently or infrequently, depending on which reading one takes—on whether to overturn the decisions that it has taken as a result of major debates and major opportunities to review changes in Europe in both Houses. Inevitably, there will be a fundamental change in how we conduct our relationship with Europe as a whole. That is what is intended. Some people advocate that, while others of us believe that this is a disproportionate way of trying to do that. None the less, these are all fundamental changes.

I suggest to the House that, in sailing into these waters, the reality is that we do not know how it will play out. Least of all do we know in what circumstances it will play out. We do not know which things will provide the most significant changes, although we have reason to believe that the present difficulties in European nation state economies give us ample evidence that they will be the tapestry against which all of this will play out. We do not know how the constitutional matters will play out. I doubt anybody here has the temerity to suggest that they know in which circumstances all these matters will play out either.

I entirely understand the argument that there are some things, even against the background that I have described, that are so important to the people of the United Kingdom that they will insist on having a say on them. It is also true that the Government of the day will be bound, in those circumstances, to try to make judgments of their own about what the interests of the country are at any time. There is no point to a parliamentary democracy where the Government of the day say, on some quite critical issues, “We will not be finally responsible for taking judgments about what the interests of our country are”. That would be a peculiar country to live in and one in which the notion of fundamental democracy had been considerably eroded. Variations by subsequent Governments in subsequent Parliaments, of the kind that are suggested in this amendment, seem just to be prudent as a means of allowing the possibility of dealing with circumstances as they arise in a way that is more flexible—I am not afraid of that word—in all of those circumstances.

I am wholly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she says that a significant number of these issues will be judged in general elections. When people look at the questions that must be resolved, they will look at them in general elections. For those who say “Trust in the people”, my trust is at its highest point when they decide which Government they want in a general election. That is a fundamental form of trust. I accept that there will be circumstances in which a referendum would be absolutely right. I hope I have been clear from this side of the House that these include such matters as defence policy, Schengen and the euro. There is a raft of policies where I can see that that would be entirely true. However, I do not believe that, in comparison with a general election and the decisions that are taken, the people of the country—in whom, inevitably, trust must be placed in all such circumstances—believe it is somehow better to replicate “The X Factor” than to deal with real politics in real circumstances. “The X Factor” may be fine as a form of entertainment, but it is hardly a way of dealing with the national interest when it must be dealt with under stress or duress.

I also agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. This is an important point; I hope the House will not mind my repeating it. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is right when he says that the case for clauses that limit the life of legislation is far clearer in dealing with emergency legislation. You do not know whether you will need it in the future, and you are not 100 per cent sure that it will meet the intentions for which it was introduced. However, there is also a completely reasonable case for saying that, when we are taking such significant steps into the dark in constitutional terms, there needs to be a way to say, “How do we make sure that we’ve got the balance right in the interests of the country? How can we make sure that we are taking the right decisions in the right way against the right environmental circumstances?”. That is, after all, the function of government.

I cannot stand at this Dispatch Box and claim that I know with certainty where those new balances will lie. It is precisely my point that none of us knows where they will lie. However, this generation of politicians or the next will have to make those judgments. They will come around and they will have to be made. Politicians should be in a position to make them with the greatest confidence and authority that they can. It is critical to our country that they are successful in doing so.

I hope we will accept Amendment 15B. It is a much more limited suggestion than Amendment 15. It seems, in every respect, to grant flexibility without overriding the key provisions of the Bill in any significant way. It commends itself strongly to me on that basis. Most of all, it commends itself on the basis that, if it is true that the cause for dissatisfaction is the belief that Parliament has let too many of its roles and responsibilities go toward Europe and for those reasons fundamental constitutional change is needed—because that is the argument for this kind of fundamental constitutional change—let us be certain as time goes by that we have got it right, that the balances are right and that whatever the causes were we have not backed ourselves into a cul-de-sac or something worse.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord—

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Bill in no way excludes the European Union from being the appropriate body to respond. It is entirely appropriate that bodies such as the European Council and the Council of Ministers in its various forms should take decisions. How those decisions are taken, and what their legal implications will be, are matters probably best not dealt with in an emergency. Where there might be a transfer of competences, one should consider it not under emergency conditions but rather more coolly.

I was about to quote Article 48(6), which states that the decision under the simplified procedure,

“shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.

That is why urgent decisions will take 18 to 24 months to get through the various constitutional requirements, and why the question of what we mean by urgency does not limit the British Government.

It is of course very difficult to foresee what sort of crises we might face, or how and in what framework we and others would respond. The European Union exists as a framework and therefore may very often be used as such, and we and others would work through it. It has plenty of competences and the ability to take decisions by consensus in response to a crisis. However, that does not transfer powers and competences. That is the difference between taking urgent decisions and changing the nature of procedures, structures, powers and competences. With respect, I say that the urgency question is not an important part of the Bill. There would be sufficient time to complete the processes set out by the Bill, by an Act of Parliament and, where required, a referendum of the British people.

The second part of the condition is that the treaty change should be in the national interest. My noble friend Lord Howell said, when debating a previous amendment, that the national interest is not an entirely objective concept. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, agrees that the coalition has come together in the national interest and is acting in what we think is the national interest—although he may have a different view of the national interest from members of the coalition. Politics revolves around our contesting views of Britain's best national interests. Therefore, the concept is not an entirely objective one that we can usefully write into the Bill. No Government would agree to any treaty change at EU level if they were not of the firm belief that such a move was consistent with the national interest. No Administration would ever agree to a treaty change if they considered that it would be against the interests of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I assure noble Lords that the national interest, as we see it, is at the heart of every major decision that this Government take on EU matters—as I assume was the case with the previous Government and will be for any subsequent Government.

Having answered those questions, I urge noble Lords to withdraw the amendment. We have had a useful but general debate about what might happen in a hypothetical crisis that none of us can yet quite envisage, let alone consider what immediate changes in powers or competences it would require.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, just to take any possible lingering tension out of the highly charged environment of this Chamber—I would hate to wind up everybody inappropriately—I will tell you now that, in a few minutes, I will withdraw the amendment. Before I do so, I have to say that, from an intellectual point of view, these have been some of the more depressing arguments that I have heard. I do not mean to say that in order to be rude. I just think that we must allow ourselves the courtesy of being a great deal more rigorous.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, it is plainly the intention of the amendment to provide a means whereby, in circumstances which are very pressing and where we need potentially to adjust our capacity to act—this is about our capacity to act and the mechanisms that we can use to act—we do not deny ourselves the opportunity to do something if it is in the national interest.

I cannot imagine that it really needed any presentation to us, but I readily accept that what constitutes the national interest will not be determined by some objective basis, as would a demonstration of Boyle’s law of gaseous volumes. This is not a point that I have ever attempted to make. The national interest will be defined by the Government of the day, whether a single party or a coalition. We may or may not all agree with one another, but it is in the nature of our parliamentary democracy that the power to arrive at a conclusion about what the national interest is is vested in a Government that enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons and can proceed on that basis. In that sense, from a political point of view, it is a completely objective test. I know whether the Government of the day enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons precisely because I know what would happen if they did not. It is a very simple matter.

Let us not deal with this kind of discussion as though it were incumbent upon us to do something like Boyle did, in showing the way in which the volumes of gases under pressure react to it, which can then be set out in a textbook to be tested to kingdom come in any laboratory in the land. Let us deal with it as political people—I was going to say, if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was in his place, as humble members of the political class. Let us deal with it as political people—with a small p—who understand perfectly well the convention which decides what the national interest is at any time. I am sorry, but I cannot buy that kind of argument. I do not think it treats us credibly.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that it was never my intention in moving this amendment that the Bill should be watered down. I do not like that interpretation being ascribed to what I have said. I have always tried in the House, whether on the government Benches or on these Benches, to be very candid and very frank—it does not always win you friends—about what I am doing and why I am doing it, because it seems to me that life is a lot easier if you try to do it that way. The reason is not to water it down but to make certain that Ministers in any Government have the kind of authority and ability to act in circumstances which come along that we cannot predict.

I am not omniscient, and I cannot say any more than anybody else in the House what I know will happen or what kinds of competence we may require at a particular time to deal with those issues. I will be candid with the House: I did not expect the collapse of Lehman Brothers; I was astonished to know that we were within two hours of the Royal Bank of Scotland collapsing; and I notice that sovereign debt crises are occurring more rapidly and are likely to occur more rapidly. I just say to the House no more than that it is extremely likely that we will face more such circumstances. I do not want to feel that we do not have all the levers at our disposal in order to deal with them.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hoped to intervene before the Minister sat down but I missed my cue. I shall be very brief. As the noble Lord and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have been courteous enough to mention me in the context of our debates on these matters in Committee, it would be wrong of me not to say that we on this side appreciate that the Government have genuinely reflected on the Committee stage debate on these two matters, relatively minor though they may be. That is encouraging for us and the hope that we can all take part in improving this legislation and that the result of our labours will not be entirely nil. Does the noble Lord have in mind any specific contingency in which there might be a proposal involving the transfer of powers from Gibraltar to the EU, or is this whole subject merely theoretical? Have the Government provided for it as a purely theoretical possibility, or do they have any issue in mind that might be triggered by this clause?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I appreciate the tabling of these two amendments by the Government. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that they will probably not be thought of as huge concessions almost anywhere. He put that rather generously and he is quite right—they will not. More to the point, they are wise amendments. It may well be that on some future occasion he will wish to land in Gibraltar. He would not want to receive the sort of frosty reception that he would receive if he had done anything to the people of Gibraltar other than what appears as a result of these two amendments. It is a helpful clarification. We are satisfied with it and thank him.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If no one else wishes to intervene, I ought to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which there would be proposals that would represent a transfer of powers or competences from Gibraltar to the EU. However, I have not looked back at Protocol 3 of the 1972 Act which ratified the treaty of accession and the extremely complicated circumstances in which Gibraltar is treated as a member of the EU but does not take part in all aspects of EU policy. For example, it does not take part in the common agricultural policy, but it takes part in the freedom of movement.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the question of whether this clause should stand part of the Bill gives us an opportunity to keep up to date with the Government’s present intentions regarding Article 3 of Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps I may remind the Government of their great leader’s statement made in late 2009:

“We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law”.

That is from the Prime Minister before he became so. The other quote I give the Government in probing this matter is from Mr David Lidington, made on 20 January this year:

“The UK has until 31 May 2014 to choose whether to accept the application of the Commission’s infringement powers and jurisdiction of the ECJ over this body of instruments or to opt out of them entirely, in which case they will cease to apply to the UK on 1 December 2014”.

More importantly—this is what I want to check up on—Mr Lidington went on to say that:

“Parliament should have the right to give its view on a decision of such importance. The Government therefore commit to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before they make a formal decision on whether they wish to opt-out”.

As I understand it, the provision in Protocol 21 allows the Government to opt out entirely from the whole justice and home affairs proceedings in Lisbon. It is true that if they accept an amendment to any of those provisions in the mean time, that provision then stands. Further, if in the mean time they opt in to anything, the 2014 deadline might not apply. I hope that your Lordships will feel it is helpful if the Government bring us up to date on how their decision is moving on opting out of the whole of the JHA provision. The last time I raised the matter was in Oral Questions, when I was told from the Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this was all very difficult and sensitive and that the Government had not made up their mind. Have they made any progress?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I shall not repeat the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, because it would have gone by so fast that what I have to say would not register.

We understand that, broadly speaking, the Government have up till now opted in rather than opted out of the arrangements made under this clause. Is there anything that they identify on the horizon which might lead them in the opposite direction to that which they have taken thus far?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have just spent the weekend in a part of France, the Dordogne, where English seemed to be spoken rather more often than French. I am conscious that the national interest in terms of co-operation in matters of civil and criminal law is a complex area given that there are now nearly 2 million British citizens living in other states of the European Union—in Spain, France, Portugal, Cyprus and elsewhere. I have to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that we have not yet come to the point where we must take a final decision on opt-in and opt-out. I have say to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that Her Majesty's Government have opted in to the majority of measures which have come up since the last election, but perhaps I may quote holy writ, otherwise known as the coalition agreement, which states:

“We will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system”.

That is what we are doing.

Clause 9 deals in particular with the use of three passerelles specific to the area of justice and home affairs. These are in addition to the Government’s recent commitments to enhance current parliamentary scrutiny arrangements on the use of JHA Title V opt-in and Schengen opt-out decisions following the Written Ministerial Statement of my noble friend Lord Howell and that of the Minister for Europe on 20 January this year. As your Lordships' House will be aware, the details are subject to continuing discussions between Parliament and the Government, which is part of our commitment to enhancing parliamentary control over three key EU decisions.

I remind your Lordships that the passerelles are: Article 81(3) of the TFEU, which permits measures concerning family law with cross-border implications to be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore qualified majority voting; Article 82(2)(d) of the TFEU, which enables the Council to add to the list of criminal law procedures that can be subject to subsequent EU legislation under the ordinary legislative procedure; and Article 83(1) of the TFEU, which allows for additions to the list of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of serious cross-border crime on which the EU can set minimum standards. These are considered to be sufficiently serious and significant moves for this clause to stand part.

The parliamentary approval process for the three passerelles comprises two stages rather than one. This reflects the operation of our opt-in protocol on the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the treaties and, more specifically, the arrangements governing our opt-in. It requires two decisions to be taken: first, the initial opt-in to negotiations and, secondly, the adoption of the final negotiated measure. Clause 9 affords Parliament control over both these decisions by requiring a positive vote in both Houses to approve the Government’s proposal to opt in to the negotiation, and then parliamentary approval through primary legislation once the UK has opted into the negotiation and that negotiation is complete.

Having said that, the clause helps to fulfil pledges made in the The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, in that the use of any passerelle clause will be subject to approval through an Act of Parliament and represents an enhanced level of control afforded to Parliament. Having reassured the Committee on that, I hope that it will accept that this clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, anybody who looks at the difficulties that have been experienced in many mature economies, whether or not they are in the euro, will recognise that the financial problems created by property speculation and, in particular, by funding sub-prime derivatives in the property market have nothing whatever to do with the euro in most cases. It was a wave of mad speculation—it can only be described as madness—because it was possible to do it under the interest-rate conditions that obtained generally around the world. They are not so varied between countries in either hemisphere.

Of course it is true that in the referenda conducted in the countries that we are discussing, they concluded, as they were perfectly entitled to do, that what was being put in front of them was not good enough. We know, however, in part from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in terms of the role of the Commissioner in Ireland, and the issues that came up in Denmark on whether the people would be compelled into defence propositions that they did not like, or whether people in Ireland would be compelled to change the abortion law or consider NATO membership, that all of those things produced circumstances in which there was a no vote. Those Governments negotiated again and got those terms changed. Protocols were introduced in almost every incidence to get those terms changed. They then went back and asked the people of their countries whether the changes in terms were sufficient to merit a change in the view that they had taken.

That seems to me to be completely legitimate. I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would say that it is a legitimate outcome if you vote no by, say, 52.5 per cent—that is plainly a no vote; I understand that completely—but when it is put again it is completely illegitimate if something like 65 per cent of the people in that vote say yes. What is the point of a sovereign decision by people when they are asked to take a vote if you do not accept the outcome in either direction—like it or dislike it; it is irrelevant? It is their decision and they have taken it. The idea that any country, least of all this one, should feel that it is bound to be strong-armed into taking a different decision if the first decision does not accord with perhaps the general sentiment in Europe is completely fanciful. It is disrespectful to the people of this country and this debate has been disrespectful to peoples of other countries, too.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this debate has ranged a little wider than the amendment. We have had accusations of the European elite forcing the holding of second referendums. I wondered whether we were going to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that the European gendarmerie would be used to force second referendums. I recall him previously raising the question of what the European gendarmerie was for. We talked about EU bullying as if somehow Brussels is different and imposes itself on national governments. I simply remind noble Lords that the European Union is an association of states and that Brussels operates on behalf of those member states. It is the member states which agree on proposals of the sort likely to be put to referendums.

On Ireland, I would simply say that the situation may or may not have been to some extent associated with Irish membership of the euro. The situation in Iceland was an even greater financial bubble and can in no sense be blamed on Iceland’s membership of the euro since Iceland is neither a member of the euro nor of the European Union. We need to get away from that. On the question of financing the Irish referendums, I am not aware of how the second referendum was financed beyond the fact that I have three very good friends in Dublin who took out substantial loans on their houses to guarantee the basic funding for a second referendum. When my wife and I had dinner with them some months after the referendum, they were still very heavily in debt. That suggests to me that there were no sugar daddies, let alone external forces, providing funding.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

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

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Triesman

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

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

[Lord Triesman]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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