| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there have been a number of Security Council resolutions in relation to Iraq. Many are several years old, as the noble Lord has noted. We consider that those resolutions are still in place. We continue to discuss with our international colleagues our concerns about the situation in Iraq. We shall continue to do that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from collective action in pursuance of a Security Council resolution, the use of armed force across an international frontier is only permissible in self-defence under Article 51 or in accordance with the new principles in international law developed in the case of Kosovo to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian disaster?
Was the action taken in Iraq under Desert Fox a matter of self-defence? Does the noble Baroness agree that, since the Security Council never endorsed that operation, it cannot be said to have approved it and that we should go back to the Security Council if we intend to embark on any further military operations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in general terms, we would regard a use of force against Iraq, or indeed any other state, as lawful if it is authorised by the United Nations Security Council or was in exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence
or, exceptionally, was carried out in order to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Those are the bases used.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to take that discussion a little further. Does she agree that there is no doubt whatever about the legitimacy in international law of self-defence and the inclusion in that concept of the notion of deterrence? There is no doubt whatever about the concept of pre-emptive intelligence. I welcome the additional resources made available for that in the light of the recommendations by our own Intelligence and Security Committee.
On the other hand, does she recognise that the concept of pre-emptive retaliation, which has been canvassed in some quarters, raises very different questions—questions of extreme difficulty—which require the utmost care and consideration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recognise that over the last couple of days there has been much in the press about the issue of pre-emptive retaliation. That has been widely reported. It is important that we recognise that at this stage, those are press reports and we need to be careful about how we interpret them. I entirely agree with the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, with respect to legitimacy and pre-emptive intelligence.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, bearing in mind the wise remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, is it not important to distinguish between pre-emptive action necessary to prevent another September 11th—it is too late if we wait until afterwards—and a pre-emptive strike with nuclear weapons, which raises different and much more serious issues?
Saddam Hussein has, after all, been responsible for the starvation and killing of tens of thousands of women and children and has, indeed, gassed his own people. Does the Minister agree that in the name of common humanity, the case for a regime change, to use the American phrase, in Iraq is very strong indeed? To what extent has there been dialogue with the Americans recently about their latest plans to tackle that? What dialogue have we had with Iraqi resistance and exile groups such as the Iraqi National Congress? Have we also encouraged them in the general move to get rid of Saddam?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know, because it has been widely discussed in this House, that there is a view that regime change is important in Iraq because without regime change, we will not have the kind of leadership there that will work for the people of Iraq. Having said that, it is important to recognise that we are in constant dialogue with our international partners, including the Americans. That dialogue will continue. We are discussing serious issues here; we are well aware of that. We shall continue to discuss with and consult our allies and others and we shall see where those discussions lead us.
National Air Traffic Services
2.52 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What they intend to do to improve the technical operation and to secure the financial viability of National Air Traffic Services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, technical issues are operational matters for National Air Traffic Services. NATS suffered a significant drop in revenues following the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001. The situation was addressed in March, when the Government and the banks agreed a short-term loan facility up to 30th September 2002. NATS is currently seeking discussions with a new private sector investor as part of a long-term solution. The Government intend to match an appropriate level of private sector investment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall that on 17th April, in reply to a similar Question asked by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated that all the parties involved,
- "are making a contribution towards ensuring that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, 17/4/02; col. 942.]?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find a number of curious elements in that question. I said that we matched a short-term loan facility of £30 million in March of this year. During NATS's evidence to the Transport Select Committee last week, it became clear that the proposed private bidder for an additional contribution to NATS was the British Airports Authority and that it was discussing a contribution of between £50 million and £65 million. In my Answer, I said that we are prepared to match that. I see nothing contradictory between that and what my noble friend Lord Filkin said earlier.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, like others around the world, the United Kingdom Government continue to assist airlines with their insurance burden as a result of the events of 11th September? Can he explain why the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator in this case, does not believe that a similar role should be played to help NATS to cope with the financial consequences of that appalling and unprecedented event?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two questions there. The first is the question of support
for insurance cover, which is a responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is independent. As my noble friend knows, it has been providing that support.On the second point, I assume that he is referring to the application for price increases. In the consultation paper issued on 21st May, the CAA expressed the view that NATS is a sound business and that the public/private partnership is working but needs financial strengthening. It has made suggestions and sought views on ways in which price changes could take place that would not simply be to correct deficiencies in the balance sheet—for example, proposals for a floor and ceiling on volumes of traffic. The consultation ends on Friday and no doubt the CAA will announce its conclusions in due course.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, has the Minister noted the comments this morning about some of the cheaper airlines sacrificing safety for their own financial advantage? Does that have any bearing on this Question and does he have any comment to make about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have a personal comment to make as one who returned from France by Ryanair yesterday morning. The turnaround was certainly very sharp between the arrival at Stansted and the return. But beyond that, no, that is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and the industry's safety regulator. I should note that in the first five months of this year only one near miss was recorded, in comparison with five, six or seven in previous years.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that there is time for both speakers, so perhaps we can start with our side and then hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Airports Authority has expressed concern about the attitude of the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, towards NATS?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I am not aware that the British Airports Authority has expressed concern about the attitude of the Civil Aviation Authority. That would sound to me like a threat of civil war in due course.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that the impending 21 per cent cut in staff at NATS will impinge on future safety? Does he think that that will inhibit the future development of technology in that much-needed area?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page