| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, sometimes there is a contradiction in the way that we talk about the European Union and what it can do. My noble friend is quite right. There are any number of areas where we look for greater EU action while at the same time we often hear complaints, particularly from the Conservative opposition, about the extent of EU activity. It is my view that we have the balance about right. It is important that where we can get added value from EU countries operating together we should push for that while at the same time recognising that there are different national characteristics.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, in pursuing the road map and a true peace between Israel and Palestine, on which the Prime Minister and the whole Government should be commended and supported—we understand that the Prime Minister will be raising this matter in Washington—will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House also emphasise the need to raise one very important item with the Israeli Government and the
8 Nov 2004 : Column 647
Israeli authorities which is frequently overlooked; namely, the detention of Palestinians? The number now is apparently in excess of 7,000 Palestinian detainees held in various kinds of Israeli camps, prisons, detention centres and so on. Very little information comes out about that but apparently very harsh conditions prevail in many of those instances. Surely that must be a legitimate matter which puts Guantanamo Bay in a slightly miniature context in comparison with 7,000 plus Palestinian detainees held by Israel, some of them for a long time now, with no prospect of their release. That must be one of the important negotiating aspects of the road map.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is a list of issues that we raise on a regular basis with the Israeli Government, including the detention of Palestinians. This is an issue that my noble friend Lady Symons has herself raised with representatives of the Israeli Government.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in pursuing this matter of the Middle East and trying to get a peace process under way on the basis of the road map, one of the most important things is for the President of the United States and the European Union leaders in backing such a thing to ensure that a process once started is not derailed by acts of violence against it? Hitherto, again and again, such acts have been taken as an excuse to stop the process in its tracks. This time surely, if we are not to enter into another period of frustration, it really is important to have a process that can be sustained through such acts of violence because the people who perpetrate the acts of violence have no interest in the peace process at all; indeed, they want to kill it.
Further, does the noble Baroness agree that welcome though the signals are that perhaps the Iranians are not proceeding with their enrichment activities, it is only part of the problem? If we are to prevent real damage to the non-proliferation system, we will have to work for a wider system that means that countries with civil nuclear energy are assured supplies of low-enriched uranium and the ability to reprocess their spent fuel without constructing the plants themselves, whose proliferation risks are so great. It really is necessary for the International Atomic Energy Agency to be given encouragement to try to put together a broader scheme that will mean that we do not have to address the issues one by one.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord's points about needing a process and then not allowing it to be derailed by acts of violence against it. That is precisely the point of having the road map, as he will be aware. He is quite right that we would leave the process in the hands of terrorists if we were not absolutely clear about what we were trying to achieve and the benchmarks along the way. On Iran and the wider question of the IAEA, the noble Lord will know that we are in active negotiations. They will be extremely sensitive over the next few days, so I do
8 Nov 2004 : Column 648
not want to comment on them in any detail. However, I entirely take his point about encouraging some kind of broader scheme. I am sure that we can take that forward.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, repeated Mr Allawi's statement on Fallujah earlier today. Although we recognise that it regrets the need to take the action that will be embarked on there, we still believe that taking that action in the holy month of Ramadan in a primarily Sunni town will send a very poor signal to the Muslim world, particularly if casualties are inflicted in large numbers. Will the noble Baroness exercise what political leverage we have with the Allawi government to suggest that one more round of trying to reach a negotiated settlement might be the way forward?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is very important that we take on board what the people on the ground think. Prime Minister Allawi is the interim leader in Iraq. We really must recognise that. It is clear that the interim Iraqi Government have made every effort at negotiations in Fallujah. Regardless of what we think about what is going on in Iraq and our positions on whether there should have been a war, we should recognise that. The interim Iraqi Government continue to talk to Sunni leaders from the region. Prime Minister Allawi has made it absolutely clear that any military action in Fallujah is taking place purely to create the conditions for free and fair elections for the Iraqi people. The top priority must be that all Iraqi people be allowed a say in how they are governed and whom they are governed by. Terrorists and insurgents cannot be given the power to stop that process.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, although I welcome the Prime Minister's tribute to the Black Watch, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirm whether the press reports that its commander has expressed reservations about its deployment are accurate? Will she indicate whether the Black Watch will be home by Christmas, as the Prime Minister has promised? If so, will it come back as a secure regiment, with no question of its being disbanded or amalgamated into another force?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand if I do not want to comment on unsubstantiated press reports. I saw them over the weekend. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have made it absolutely clear that the Black Watch will be home by Christmas.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, at the Council meeting, did the French Government discuss with other governments in the European Union their further intervention in Côte d'Ivoire without the approval of the government of that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that Côte d'Ivoire was not discussed at
8 Nov 2004 : Column 649
the Council meeting; I made clear our support for UN and French action in Côte d'Ivoire. Further measures are being considered by the UN, but it is a very difficult and sensitive time in Côte d'Ivoire.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House answer the third question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth? When the Black Watch returns by Christmas, will it return as a secure regiment, or will it be amalgamated into a larger regiment? We need to know, as it is unfair for it to fight in that dangerous place so gallantly without knowing the answer. I hope that she can reassure us.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows that I am not obliged to answer more than two follow-up questions, and I answered two. On the noble Baroness's question on the longer-term future of the Black Watch, she will know that there are ongoing discussions on the configuration of our defence forces. That has been said a number of times from this Dispatch Box, and I repeat it again.
Pensions Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 284.
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 265:
"( ) The level of benefits to be provided to qualifying members shall be specified in regulations by 1st March 2005."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with putting a deadline on when the level of benefits to be provided under the financial assistance scheme is to be specified. We suggest that 1 March 2005 is appropriate. I think that the House recognises that the people who will be helped by the financial assistance scheme have been living in a state of great uncertainty with regard to their prospects for the remainder of their lives. Therefore, it is very important that they have a reasonable idea of their likely circumstances as soon as possible, so that they can adjust their affairs accordingly, to the extent that they are able.
One issue is when the first payments will be made. We discussed that on the previous amendment; even it is very uncertain. Presumably it is possible for the Government to make calculations fairly rapidly so that they have some idea of the likely level of benefits. We do not suggest with the amendment that everything regarding the FAS should be clarified in regulations by that date, but simply the level of benefits. For example, what percentage of the benefits do the Government have in mind as a reasonable amount?
The problem is that we do not know whether the so-called £400 million is a fixed amount. In a previous debate, the noble Baroness referred to it being cash limited. Are we to understand that the payments under the FAS will be cash limited at the amount that the
8 Nov 2004 : Column 650
Government have specified? If that is the case, is it to be a cash limit for each of the following years over the life of the people who will be helped? Or will it be some kind of lump sum that is put into a massive annuity, where the benefits of the FAS are then subsequently rolled out? There seems to be much obscurity as to exactly what the Government have in mind, having announced the £400 million and the scheme on the spur of the moment. We still have very little idea about that, and so, I stress, do people outside of what to expect. I hope that the Minister can provide more information. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |