---

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made earlier by the Prime Minister.

I begin by sharing the noble Baroness's horror and the Prime Minister's horror and outrage at the attacks on the Black Watch. I extend the deepest sympathy of all those on this side to the families of those soldiers who have given their lives or been seriously injured.

Those who know this great regiment know that its resolve will not be dimmed at a time when US troops are launching an assault on Fallujah, which the Black Watch was deployed to facilitate. I strongly support
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 640
 
the words of the Prime Minister on the need to confront and destroy the terrorists who are fighting the establishment of democracy in Iraq.

Like the noble Baroness, I much welcomed the presence of Prime Minister Allawi in Brussels. He is proving to be a courageous leader. So was it not disappointing that President Chirac found himself otherwise engaged when other leaders joined Dr Allawi in lunchtime discussion?

Mr Solana says that security is a problem. So can the noble Baroness tell the House what pledges were given by France and Germany at the summit to join in peacekeeping in Iraq? Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to try to persuade them, or has he now given up?

I gather that President Chirac also visited Mr Arafat in hospital. Was he able to brief EU leaders on his condition? Has the noble Baroness any news for the House on that?

I support the reaffirmation of the EU commitment to the road map and its support for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The communiqué says that the EU is ready to support the Palestinian Authority in upholding law and order. Can the noble Baroness explain what that might mean in practice? Can she tell the House whether there are any circumstances in which British troops would be committed on that?

On nuclear proliferation, the communiqué talks of building confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme. Do the British Government share that apparent EU belief that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful? If not, what do they propose to do about it?

I welcome the reference in the communiqué to the deeply troubling situation in Ukraine, whose stability as a democracy is vital for Europe's future security and prosperity. Apart from calling on the Ukraine Government to assure the fair elections that they worked to pervert in the first round of voting, what will the EU do to make sure that fair elections take place?

Was there any discussion in the Council on the critical situation in Ivory Coast, where France has destroyed that country's air force and put tanks on the streets of the capital? Has there been a call for a debate in the United Nations? Have the British Government raised the crisis urgently? What will the EU do about it?

The communiqué talks about considering sanctions on the Sudan Government over Darfur. How long will it be before the EU response matches that crisis? I have noticed, yet again, that there was no mention of Zimbabwe on the communiqué. I am sure that many will share my dismay at the renewed failure of the Prime Minister to use a summit to step up pressure on the Mugabe regime. Can the noble Baroness explain the Prime Minister's uncharacteristic silence on the tragic problem facing Africa?

I turn to the institutional aspects of the summit. What progress was made in bringing the EU agenda in the British way, as the Prime Minister has boasted? There was talk in the communiqué of action on
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 641
 
regulation. Perhaps I can repeat a question that I asked after a previous summit. How many EU regulations have been withdrawn since 2001?

It is well known that we oppose the signing by the Prime Minister of the EU constitutional treaty. We would guarantee the British people a chance to vote on it in a referendum next year. What assurances can the Labour Party give? Can the noble Baroness speculate by what date such a referendum will take place?

On the Hague programme, the communiqué states:

"This programme reflects the ambitions as expressed in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe".

It is certainly ambitious. It reads as a text written by people who take the agreement of the British people to the treaty for granted. It also pre-empts—indeed, it makes a laughing stock of—the claims of the Prime Minister to keep control of national policy on asylum and law and order.

It commits member states to a common European asylum system, stresses the importance of the abolition of internal border controls, and calls for approximation of substantive criminal law between member states, as if our separate legal evolution meant nothing. So, who does the Prime Minister think he is kidding when he says we will retain complete control of those aspects of policy? The Prime Minister claims that we retain an opt-out power. Yet he has chosen to opt into all the major measures on asylum.

The summit takes the EU further down an integrationist road. If the British people are eventually given their chance to vote against that in a referendum, will the noble Baroness assure the House that it will be respected as the full and final answer of this country?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the EU summit made in another place.

I also strongly associate these Benches with her tribute to the Black Watch—one of the most beloved and admired of all British regiments. We hope and pray that their courage in going into the very centre of this terrible war will bring closer the prospect of a genuine and lasting democracy in Iraq.

The Statement is rather thin at a time when there are such huge issues confronting the European Union and this country, as a member of it. I shall follow what the Leader of the Opposition has said on some of the main issues that are touched on in the communiqué and, more briefly, in the Statement. It is something of a curate's egg. There are some things that we welcome and some things about which we continue to be unhappy.

First, we associate ourselves with the importance of a free, fair and open election in Iraq at the earliest feasible point. It is in that context that we are profoundly concerned about Fallujah. We are concerned not only because of what was said by the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan about the danger of an escalation of violence against civilians. There is another reason for our concern.
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 642
 

The Statement makes much of the victory against terrorism. We know already that Samara, which was effectively militarily reoccupied and controlled a month ago, is now the centre of a range of atrocities, even though it was supposed to have been brought within the control of the coalition forces. Many of us recognise that victory against terrorism does not happen as a result of a single battle. It requires a consistent, enduring and continuing effort to limit the influence and effects of terrorism.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said earlier, there is a real danger that the deaths of innocent civilians will turn a section of the public against those who are attempting to support the coalition. It is disturbing that the President of the provisional Iraqi government, Sheik Ghazi Al-Yawer, who is a Sunni, has made it publicly clear that he does not see eye-to-eye with Dr Allawi, the Prime Minister. The outcome will turn on whether the Sunni people believe that there has been as much restraint on the deaths of civilians as is conceivably possible in a military situation. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say something about the rules of engagement, or at least the strategy that is in mind for Fallujah.

Secondly, I turn to an issue on which I strongly commend the Government on what they are trying to do, and which I hope will be successful. That is the recent effort made by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and his French and German associates to try to bring about a diplomatic solution to the extremely troubling situation in Iran. I had the pleasure of meeting one or two of the British negotiators of that discussion at the US embassy today. It seems that there is a real chance that Iran may now decide to abandon its effort to enrich uranium for what could be military purposes, provided that we can make a clear distinction between that and civilian nuclear reactors in Iran. The noble Baroness will know, as will her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that that will depend very much on whether we can get sufficient inspectors to ensure that there is no merging of the border between the two, which we on these Benches appreciate is not an easy border. We commend the Government's tremendous efforts with a government who are not always easy to understand, comprehend or negotiate with. Perhaps the Leader of the House can bring us up to date, in so far as it is possible while negotiations continue.

On the third issue, we on these Benches have been somewhat critical—and I think justly so—about the relative stagnation of the Middle East process. There is a prospect of something of a new beginning, and let us hope and pray that that is true. But in that context there are two questions to ask. First, will Her Majesty's Government press for careful consideration to be given to the line of a wall or fence running so deeply, as it does, into the West Bank, as to make the West Bank less and less a viable economy for a future Palestine?

Secondly, can the Minister bear in mind the prospect of trying once again to get a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank, which eat up so much land that a possibility of a viable solution becomes increasingly distant? We recognise that the
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 643
 
Government have tried hard in that respect, but there must be more enthusiasm from the EU and the United States within the "Quad" if we are at long last to get anywhere at all in bringing some kind of momentum back to the peace process.

There are only two other points I want to make. First—and, again, there are grounds on which to commend Her Majesty's Government—we on these Benches believe that the Government were absolutely right to enter into a new system of co-operation with the rest of the European Union over the issues of asylum policy. In that context, I should mention not only the importance of preventing illegal immigration, which is very difficult to do unless one accepts a common European policy of some kind, but the importance for many of us of recognising that there are genuine asylum seekers—men and women of colossal courage—who fought for human rights and democracy all over the world. In that context, it is vital that the European Union should accept its fair proportion of genuine asylum seekers. Frankly, that is possible only if one has a common approach and does not try to split it up into a set of national bargains and see how few people one can get away with. On that, we commend the Government and believe that they are walking very much in the right direction.

Finally, it is of course true that the Lisbon process has been very slow. There are features of the European economy that we can particularly commend, especially the training of young men and women in crafts and skills, which has not been one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. We have huge shortages of skills throughout our industry. However, against that, there is a need for the continent of Europe to understand the need for greater competition and higher levels of productivity. In that area of the Lisbon process, we need to recognise good practice throughout Europe and ensure that the rest of Europe follows that good practice wherever it has been inaugurated.

---