---

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord

19 Mar 2002 : Column 1233

has just said. The duplicity of Saddam Hussein speaks for itself. His use of weapons of mass destruction, which is already a matter of record—given what happened in Halabja where thousands died as a result of the use of those weapons—points out the urgent need for all nations to take control on the question of weapons of mass destruction. It is this which makes the return of the weapons inspectorate to Iraq as soon as possible so important.

On the question of a full debate, of course that is a matter that will need to be resolved through the usual channels. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord with regard to a dossier of evidence about what is happening in Iraq. Perhaps I may remind the House, as I have through the Whips' offices and through the office of the Convenor of the Cross Benches, that tomorrow at 1.15 p.m. I shall hold a briefing meeting in Committee Room 3A. I hope to be able to brief further those noble Lords who have a particular interest in this matter.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we thank the Minister for that commercial and we shall all take full note of it. Perhaps I may draw her attention to an article that appeared yesterday in the Washington Post commenting specifically on the article in the New Yorker magazine referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell:

"The thrust of the article could be news to some U.S. officials, because the CIA has largely discounted the proposition that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has maintained links with al Qaeda".

Reports from intelligence sources have also suggested that Saddam Hussein personally specifically rejected an Al'Qaeda initiative to try to involve Iraq.

Given that we could be standing on the edge of a major escalation of war, may I press the Minister with regard to the recent statement made by Mr Mubarak of Egypt, who has written to Saddam Hussein insisting that he should allow inspectors back, and to the position taken by the vice-president of Iraq, Mr Taha Yassin Ramadan, to the effect that Iraq would be willing to accept the inspectors back, although admittedly on the condition that a timetable is laid down, along with a specific list of sites to be visited? Could it not be the case that, although admittedly under US pressure, Iraq may now be willing to accept back the weapons inspectors? Can the Minister assure the House that the British Government are doing everything in their power to try to get the inspectors back into Iraq on terms acceptable to those of us who are so deeply concerned about weapons of mass destruction?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, first, it was not a commercial; rather it was a genuine and serious attempt to fill in some of the gaps in what I know is almost impossible ground to cover on this subject in the seven or eight minutes that we have available to respond to Questions.

I was very careful in what I said in answering the original Question about evidence put by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I stress again to the House that I have used the words "so far", along with the word

19 Mar 2002 : Column 1234

"convincing". Yes, of course, there are rumours; but in answering seriously and factually the Question put to me, I must say to the House that so far Her Majesty's Government have not seen any compelling or convincing evidence.

As to the question of United Nations inspectors returning to Iraq to look at weapons of mass destruction, we have seen and believe that Iraq is accelerating its weapons programmes in a number of respects. However, I stress that Iraq cannot lay down conditions acceptable only to itself for the way in which the United Nations inspectorate should operate. The United Nations inspectorate must operate under the ceasefire mandate laid down in UNSCR 687 and it must do so to the best of its ability. It should be able to go where it needs to go, and not under a timetable preordained by Iraq.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government or the United States Government have any plans to go to the United Nations to seek a new resolution in relation to Iraq, particularly if any action is contemplated?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, any action of a military nature contemplated by Her Majesty's Government—I stress that no decision has as yet been taken—would follow the procedure that all such decisions follow; that is, it would be taken under the auspices of international law. Any decision would be taken after a careful and cautious assessment of what is needed. It must have a realistic chance of achieving its objective and it must be proportionate to the threat posed. That applies to any military action contemplated by Her Majesty's Government.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether there is a direct link between Iraq and 11th September is not the whole story? Can she say what, if anything, Iraq has done to fulfil its obligations under the 1991 resolution not to support in any way terrorism and how this squares with its actions? Does she further agree that the first order of business should be to ensure that a Security Council resolution is passed which requires Iraq to meet its obligations by implementing Resolution 1373 of last September, and all the resolutions on weapons of mass destruction which it is currently flouting?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Iraq poses a threat to the international community. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made the point on several occasions that there have been nine Security Council resolutions in the past 10 years, placing 27 obligations on Iraq—and 23 of those obligations have been flouted. Iraq's record in this area relates not only to the specific issue of Al'Qaeda, but also to the general climate of terrorism, and very particularly to Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and its seeming acceleration of such production.

19 Mar 2002 : Column 1235

European Union: Definition of "Federalism"

11.23 a.m.

Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their definition of federalism in relation to the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, experience has shown that the word "federalism" often means different things to different people. Definitions can also change over time. The Government are interested in the substance of Europe's constitutional arrangements rather than the label. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has described Europe as a union of,

"free, independent sovereign nations who choose to pool that sovereignty in pursuit of their own interests and the common good, achieving more together than we can achieve alone".

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. At least we do have a definition from the Prime Minister. Has my noble friend seen the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, where, effectively, "federalism" is described as a union of member states receiving more power from the centre? Although, as my noble friend said, many people will take different views, in practice the bogey word as used by some should be eliminated from our vocabulary. We are talking about something which, I am happy to hear, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister described as a union of independent member states. If that is the case, can we now make it quite clear that it is not a word about which we should worry but about which we should, indeed, be proud?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the good fairy was obviously sitting on my shoulder yesterday evening when I said to officials that we should look up what the Oxford English Dictionary states is the definition of "federal". I do not know whether my noble friend and I are using different copies of that august work, but I am told that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "federal" as,

"Of or pertaining to, or of the nature of, that form of government in which two or more states constitute a political unity while remaining more or less independent with regard to their internal affairs".

I think that sums it up rather well.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the definition of "federalism" from the Prime Minister cannot be made to fit with the EU's ambitions for a written constitution in the shape of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; for an EU federal legal order in the shape of corpus juris; and, above all, for the EU's ambition that it should be given legal personality? If so, will the Government repudiate these aims of the European Union and veto them if necessary?

19 Mar 2002 : Column 1236

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect for a single moment that I will take issue on this important question with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As to the question of a constitution, I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett—it is not a question of the label that matters but what we are doing. There is a clear case for a statement of principles for the European Union to establish what should be done at European level and what should be left to member states at national, regional and local levels. The statement could be set out in plain language, in accordance with subsidiarity and proportionality—a point dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—and set a clear line between what is done by the EU and what is done by member states. That is what we are about. It is on the question of the statement of principles that the Government are working.

---