| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, although Laeken was marred by minor squabbles about where agencies should be located, it was an extremely important summit. The House should appreciate and welcome the extraordinary fact that no fewer than 10 new member states are likely to join the European Union by 2004—which puts a great many concerns at rest.
Can the noble and learned Lord say something about the candidature of Cyprus? Will it follow some agreement on unity between the Greek-controlled and Turkish parts of Cyprus? Is the noble and learned Lord able to comment on the opening of accession discussions with Turkey? Can he reiterate that for the United Kingdom, as for other EU member states, a crucial condition of membership must be the establishment and strong support of human rights in
Turkey? We welcome the advances that have been made as a result of changes in that country's constitution.We much welcome the suggestion for a constitution that—to use the terms of the presidential conclusions—would clarify, simplify and adjust the divisions of competence between member states and the European Union. That might constitute the return of powers to member states. One of the issues that has soured relations between the EU and its member states has been the lack of clarity about competence. There could be constructive discussion of where competencies should lie. There is no reason for not recognising greater competencies for member states. It would be a great help to clarify the position and, significantly, to establish where the divisions fall.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say something about the suggestion that there should be greater reliance on framework laws, which would enable member states to complete the framework with their own implementation of its general principles.
On accountability, we would like to hear more about who from the United Kingdom is likely to be involved. We hope that the convention will be fully in touch with the proposed civic forum. We have concerns about the nature of the leadership, in that it looks rather conventional in terms of the individuals chosen. It does not appear that there will be a great deal of room for individuals who have not up to now been within the EU leadership cycle—in particular, minority communities in all our societies, women and marginalised groups. We seek an assurance that the civic forum will be taken seriously and that the Government will do all that they can to encourage dialogue.
If there is to be serious involvement of the people of Europe, as there must be, in the development of the European Union, we need to go beyond the convention to establish a parallel dimension of civic involvement within each member state and the European Union as a whole.
We much welcome the suggestion that Britain could be in a leadership position by contributing between 1,000 and 1,500 troops to a peacemaking and nation-building force in Afghanistan. Can the Leader of the House say anything about the constitution of that body? Will the 1,500 troops be complemented by a civic group able to build an understanding of democracy and the rule of law? That is clearly a crucial part of any contribution that Britain can make. That development reflects recognition of Britain's responsible role in the battle against terrorism. Many other EU states are more than ready to contribute but, for reasons to do with the formulation of military policy, many have not been invited to contribute as much as they have offered. We may be able to rectify that in Afghanistan.
I emphasise the important and crucial role of the European Union in bringing another element to bear on peace issues. Is it not important that the EU plays a greater role in the Middle East? We need to say
loudly and honestly that the current destruction of the structures of law and order in the Palestinian territories is hardly conducive to the battle against terrorism within those territories. Do the Government have anything to say about the dangers of paving the way to a terrorist leadership of the Palestinian territories, instead of one that—for all its flaws—recognises that peaceful negotiation is the only way out of the current terrible situation? Will the noble Lord say something about the role of Britain and the European Union in the increasingly desperate crisis that is overtaking the Middle East?Finally, can the Leader of the House say something about the arrangements between European security and defence forces and NATO? The Statement makes a brief reference to the difficulty of establishing proper relations. We are conscious of the role of Greece in that respect but we would like some assurances. Clearly the relationship between European forces and NATO is crucially important in future diplomacy between the EU and the United States.
I said "finally" but I have another question. Let us recognise honestly that no solution was found in respect of asylum policy. Does the Leader of the House agree on the crucial importance of common asylum conditions—relating to the Dublin convention, common standards of treatment and common recognition of the responsibilities that all in the European Union bear for dealing with asylum issues? Can the noble and learned Lord say anything further about the extent to which those objectives were achieved at Laeken?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Britain's way is to be determined to be at the centre of Europe, influential, confident—not the Mr. Faint-heart of the past 15 years—powerful and able to give a lead that historically has long been lacking. Above all—I say this without presumption—Britain's way is to be able to bring the history and traditions of a long democratic life, which many of our colleagues in Europe have not had. We intend to play a powerful role that will be beneficial to our colleagues in Europe and to our country. That is Britain's way.
The noble Lord asked me to consider publishing a list of secondary legislation in Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and I certainly will. He said that Laeken was an integrationist meeting that produced an integrationist document. That is not so—for the reasons well itemised and scrupulously focused by the noble Baroness. Laeken proposed—I paraphrase fairly—that there should be framework legislation. One sees the virtue of that. We ought to use our history, distinct culture and traditions. I take as a fair analogy the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, within which we now legislate domestically. We willingly subscribe to the requirement in the Human Rights Act 1998 that every
Minister introducing a Bill must certify, deliberately and seriously, that the proposed legislation is compliant.The noble Lord asked about Nice, which we are working towards putting into effect. I do not imagine that the noble Lord thought, even in the run-up to Christmas, that I would be able to say when Nice will be ratified by all potential signatories. He asked me to comment on his proposition that the United States is the bedrock of the world's security system. It is—but it is not the sole component. Nor does the United States, in my experience and understanding, wish to be the sole component of that security. It wishes to have co-operation, which is why President George W. Bush has so frequently extolled the co-operation and the full-hearted support—standing shoulder to shoulder—that he has had from the current United Kingdom Government.
The number of troops is between 1,000 and 1,500, although, as the Prime Minister's Statement made perfectly plain, those matters have not been absolutely finally decided. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether there is a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan. If he meant his question to be taken as he expressed it, then I would hope not.
The noble Lord was very generous in saying that I had delivered on my undertaking to speak to him, to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the rules of engagement and other matters. If a change is required, obviously it must be put into effect immediately; but I rather doubt that there will be such a change. However, as the Prime Minister said, it is proposed that we should have the lead role.
I do not know whether the five economic tests were discussed, possibly over cigars, but there could be nothing more interesting than asking about the five economic tests, even over a cup of tea and a sandwich. I do not know the answer to the critical question, which is about to raise calls for my resignation, of whether one may pay for one's driving licence in euros. What I do know is that Sir Stanley Kalms, who is a prominent donor to the Conservative Party and the controlling shareholder, I believe, of a well-known emporium known as Dixons, has said that he is content, happy and even rapturous to have euros handed over in exchange for a DVD—which is a digital video disc.
There is no news on the ban on beef; one would hardly expect it as the judgment was given by the court only a few days previously.
Will there be a written European constitution? I doubt that there will be one in my lifetime. Will there be an early debate on Europe? Yes, there will be. As my noble friend and Deputy Leader of the House, Lady Symons, pointed out to me, the date that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to place in his diary—the correct diary, of course—is 17th January, when we shall consider, on Report, the relevant Bill.
I come now to my noble friend Lord Ahmed and his alleged surveillance. I have made it a rule, which I have found to be a good guide throughout my life, not
necessarily to believe everything that I read in the newspapers, particularly on Sundays. I do not know whether there was any surveillance of my noble friend, although I should think it unlikely. None the less, I believe—I read it in the newspaper, so I assume that I can rely on it—that he is intending to make a complaint to the relevant commissioner. That is the appropriate action to take. Nothing unlawful should be done to any citizen, including Members of this place or of another place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that no one should try to bully anyone in this House, not least because, at least in my experience, such attempts always boomerang.The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the 10 new member states, and she asked in particular about Cyprus and Turkey. The 10 candidate states are Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The conclusions—I am happy to give this information—specifically state that
- "if the present rate of progress of the negotiations and reforms"—
- "in the candidate States is maintained",
So that is good news. In the case of Cyprus, it is also very heartening news that, after so many years of misery, and indeed bloodshed, at least some contact is being maintained between the two parts of that unhappily divided island.
The noble Baroness asked me particularly about Turkey. The conclusion was that Turkey had made progress towards the political criteria, which has brought forward the prospect of Turkey's possible accession and certainly of the opening of accession negotiations. The conclusions state that
- "Turkey is encouraged specifically to continue its progress towards complying with both economic and political criteria, notably"—
- "with regard to human rights."
The noble Baroness also rightly pointed out the heartening news that greater competences will either be transferred back or left with member states. That seems to be right as a matter of practical reality. I believe that such arrangements work better and tend to build up public confidence in the institutions of the Union.
Certainly there will be consultations on the two United Kingdom members to the convention. I do not know whether there will be a member from your Lordships' House, although I did notice that a number of ears pricked up when that question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and by the noble Baroness. I have no news to bring.
- "Along the electric wire the message came:
- He is no better—he is much the same".
Should civic groups be involved in nation building—one cannot even say reconstruction; it is the construction of a civil order—in Afghanistan? I should hope that that will be possible further down the line. I know that the noble Baroness's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has been very astute in trying to engage a wider public in civic and civil reform.
The noble Baroness is in danger of becoming a lawyer. She said "finally" but then confessed her sin and said that she had another question to come. However, we lawyers are used to that as we have been transgressing in that manner all our lives. The issue of the Middle East is of central significance. That is why the Prime Minister's Statement referred to it and reiterated Her Majesty's Government's view that a viable independent Palestine is essential, not forgetting the rights of Israel, which as everyone knows has been under continued external attack since its birth.
On the issue of the defence force and NATO, and in relation to security and defence policy, the Prime Minister said at one point in his Statement:
- "We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations".
I cannot go further than that, except to reiterate that sign of the Prime Minister's determination.
The final point that the noble Baroness raised was on the Dublin convention. I think that most people who fair-mindedly examine that document cannot agree that it is an instrument of perfect utility. It needs to be re-examined and reformed. The noble Baroness also asked for my assent to the proposition that there should be a common European approach to the problem, and I agree. I agree also that we should look for common standards. I think that that was the entire thrust of Jack Straw's policy when he was Home Secretary, and it remains so now that he is Foreign Secretary.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, with reference to the European arrest warrant, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and is dealt with in paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Council's conclusions, did the Leader of the House notice the outspoken attack by an Italian cabinet minister on the integrity and honesty of Belgian justice? Before the noble and learned Lord dismisses that, will he remember that 300,000 people took to the streets of Brussels to protest against their legal system after the Dutroux case? What is his view on that matter given that the whole basis of the European arrest warrant must be that everyone has 1,000 per cent total confidence in the justice system of every other country? Only on that basis can one sweep away the safeguards that the citizens of this country have traditionally enjoyed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page