| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said right at the outset. We all condemn these acts of terrorism. Indeed, in Spain, I am familiar with them. I have visited the Basque Parliament in Vitoria: the courthouse next door was blown up. And when I was in Madrid, looking at questions of European expansion and the way that a second Chamber might be reformed, there were several car explosions. That is completely intolerable to any fair-minded outsider, in particular when one bears in mind the extent of autonomy granted to the Basque lands, which must be one of the most generous acceptances of autonomy in any part of Europe.
I am grateful also for the noble Lord's welcome of the statement on the Middle East and India and Pakistan. The noble Lord must not always believe stories about spin. Some of his remarks almost seem to be spin-worthy rather than based on actuality.
We have accomplished a great deal. Perhaps I may repeat one or two items to which the noble Lord referred when dealing specifically with an immigration policy. This applies to the question of the noble Baroness about the necessity of having a common approach on immigration. I agree with her entirely. The Home Secretary's recent intervention, based substantially on the work that Ms Barbara Roche and Jack Straw started to develop at the Home Office, made it plain that a good deal of controlled and legal immigration is extremely beneficial to the host economy. If one has sensible approaches and rational debate, not chauvinistic prejudice or xenophobic prejudice, it is capable of being of lasting benefit to the economy and culture of the country. The two go together.
It is interesting that now that Spain is in the European Union, the number of unlawful Spanish workers living in France—for example—its close neighbour, has declined dramatically. That is a fairly clear indication of how a reasoned approach brings benefits.
Specifically, Seville agreed that, with regard to relations with third countries, new co-operation or association agreements would have a migration clause and a commitment to re-admission. That is a common stance. It agreed that re-admission agreements with all relevant countries would be completed as soon as possible. There is to be a systematic joint review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their co-operation on migration issues.
The noble Lord asked for specifics. We agreed action on visas, re-admission agreements and a repatriation programme including early returns to Afghanistan. One million people have already returned to Afghanistan. We have also agreed to take steps for the co-ordinated management of external borders, including joint operation at those borders. None of those things are capable of being attended to successfully in their entirety overnight, but this is significant progress.
I cannot give a precise date for the closure of Sangatte. I can say that the Home Secretary is meeting his opposite number tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the sanctions which one can apply to traffickers in human beings. The criminal law is available to deal with them. It is difficult to introduce sanctions, except in the measured way that I have suggested, subject to proof that certain countries have been encouraging, allowing or turning a blind eye to, human trafficking.
Parliament has an opportunity to discuss the arrest warrant. If my memory serves me right, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has an oral Question tabled to be answered in the next few days.
A specific question was asked about Greece. The noble Lord is quite right: Denmark will chair, which is allowed for if one country does not wish to deal with the matter.
Cyprus and Turkey remain difficult. The hope is—it is the express policy re-affirmed in Seville—that a united Cyprus will accede to the European Union as a single state.
Zimbabwe has been discussed on a number of recent occasions. There was a clear GAC statement on 17th June, which is just a few days ago. The next GAC—22nd July—will look at the situation in greater detail. The House of Commons has an opportunity to debate Zimbabwe tomorrow—25th June.
The noble Lord asked whether there was any discussion of Gibraltar. There was not. He asked whether the French Government agreed to reconsider their views on the British beef question. Last Wednesday evening in Paris the Prime Minister raised that issue with M. Chirac, not as part of Seville, but as an urgent question.
The noble Baroness, with her sense of history and modern geopolitics, described this as an huge historic achievement. I recognise that because of time constraints the Statement simply tries to point to a few important headings, but the body of the conclusions and the annexes are capable of offering us this historic opportunity.
The noble Baroness asked me—I hope she was smiling—whether I was able to give a date for the European referendum. Since I presently wish to continue in my modest position in your Lordships' House, I am not able to give any views on that. She asked whether we should have a full debate. In my view, yes. I think that we should have full debates in this House on all matters of genuine pressing public importance. However, that is a matter for the usual channels. I have indicated my view.
I have dealt with the question of Cyprus. The noble Baroness asked about the Middle East. The policy was reiterated. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has always been safe, secure boundaries for the state of Israel upon which there can be no negotiation, deviation or backtracking. There must be recognition by all Arab countries and Israel's neighbours that Israel has a right to exist, which this country has rightly and resolutely defended since the founding of the state of Israel more than 50 years ago.
The question was asked what will happen if the statement is disregarded? I think that your Lordships already know that Secretary of State Powell is eager to have a conference on Middle East matters as soon as possible. We stand by our international agreements. We must bear in mind that some of these agreements are historically quite old. I suggest that one should look at international agreements as being the tools of human advancement and that one ought to re-scrutinise them periodically. I do not say that that was necessarily the approach of Seville. I simply point out that one needs constantly to review international
agreements, some of which were effected long before the question of—for example—economic migration on the scale that we know was ever contemplated.In summary, I suggest that this was an extremely successful conference. Spain is a significant co-operator with the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that since 1997 our modern relationships with Spain have never been stronger.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord answer one or two tiny questions? Three or four years ago, I sat on a committee chaired by Lord Middleton considering the effect on the common agricultural policy of the arrival of Poland, Romania and and other east European countries. That committee decided unanimously that without complete and radical reform of the CAP, it would be impossible for the eastern European countries to enter the European Union. One or other had to go.
To further help the noble and learned Lord to answer this question, I have a farm partner who has taken over 12,000 acres in Poland. He has raised grain production from four tonnes to eight tonnes per hectare. Poland was in serious grain surplus producing mode before that. How on earth are Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary going to enter the European Union unless the problems of the CAP are thoroughly addressed? They were ignored at Nice; they have been ignored at Barcelona. The CAP represents 50 per cent of European Union expenditure. That is not how to run a railway, even under Stephen Byers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl raises perfectly legitimate questions. There is a necessity to reform the CAP. Of course, as I think that the noble Lord would agree, that obtained long before the question of the accession of Poland or Romania. Those two potential accession countries are in different categories, as the noble Lord will know. Poland is in the first wave; while Romania and Bulgaria, although I think that the noble Lord limited his remarks to Romania, aim to accede by 2007. No one pretends, and no one pretended at Seville, that those are not difficult questions but I respectfully suggest that it is of advantage to the Poles for Poland to be a member of the European Union.
To take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is to the advantage of the European Union that the former eastern bloc countries which, after all, have lived in tyranny for a substantial part of the last half of the 20th century, join us. If we can assist them to do so, they will benefit and so will we.
At the risk of being tedious, I repeat a point that I have made on previous occasions. So often, we in this country overlook the extraordinary achievements in the construction over many centuries of a civilised civil society. It is humbling to visit countries in parts of Europe that have not had those benefits. We must try to be optimistic, although I recognise that many of the noble Earl's points are valid.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, have the Government reached from their salutary experience at Seville the
sensible view that using harsh and populist rhetoric along with unworkable solutions is not the way to achieve progress on asylum and immigration? The way to achieve that is through solid progress in the Council. What the Seville summit has done is to tell Ministers to make decisions, which is what they should have been doing all along. Have the Government also concluded that the way to reach those decisions in the Council, some of which have been sitting on the table for the best part of three years, is by majority voting?Have the Government also considered whether they should re-evaluate their general opt-out from the asylum and immigration provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam? We know that on a case-by-case basis, the Government have opted in to most of the asylum provisions—most of which, of course, have not yet been agreed. They have also opted in to the measures on illegal immigration—of which, ironically, a considerable number are already in place. But they have not opted in to any of the measures concerning legal migration, including measures that would give 1.5 million people in this country who are legal, long-term residents but not citizens greater rights to move to live in another EU country. That would fulfil the aspiration for the flexibility and mobility of workers around the EU.
Have the Government drawn those conclusions—to use majority voting and cease the generalised opt-out—to reinforce the construction of a common immigration and asylum system? That is the way to proceed, not creating a bit of hype occasionally at summits, which tends to unravel.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page