---

 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1615
 

House of Lords

Wednesday, 23 November 2005.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Gulf Region: Security Organisations

Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking to encourage the emergence of a regional security organisation in the Gulf area which would include Iran, Iraq and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government support a number of initiatives in the region, such as the International Institute of Strategic Studies' regional Gulf dialogue. A Cabinet-level delegation will attend the next conference in Bahrain on 2 to 4 December. Officials in London and at posts have assisted this initiative by encouraging engagement from the region. If they are to be successful, leadership of regional security initiatives must come from the region.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that encouraging reply, does she agree that it is important to begin now to establish a framework for security and mutual confidence between all the countries in this extremely unstable region and that regional security and co-operation agreements have proved valuable in many other parts of the world? Could a regional organisation in the Gulf area also be one element in meeting Iran's security concerns? Is the Minister able to say whether Iran is included in the initiative she spoke about?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, regional security discussions, and for the region to take on its security implications itself, are extremely important. I understand that Iran has been invited to participate in the meeting on 2 December, but it is not yet clear whether it is going to attend.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, does the Minister see any reason in this respect for going somewhat wider than the Gulf countries specified by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, particularly in relation to Iraq, and perhaps embracing some sort of role for the Arab League?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I believe that the Arab League met in Cairo earlier this week, but I have not yet received a full account of that meeting. It would certainly be positive if the Arab
 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1616
 
League were able to provide some cohesive support in the region—as long, of course, as that was acceptable to Iraq. That would be key.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that what has been wrong with western policy towards the Gulf region for the past 30 or 40 years has been the tendency to support one Gulf state against the rest—first to rely on Iran until the revolution, as the West's bastion; then supporting Iraq against Iran during the war; and then trying to build up Saudi Arabia against both? Do the Government accept that we should be supporting the closest possible co-operation among all the major states in the area rather than divisions among them?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords. The Government certainly believe that it is important to support the region as a whole, and countries working together in the region. We do so not just through the Gulf dialogue but by supporting other initiatives such as the Iraq Neighbours' Group, and the NATO Istanbul co-operation initiative.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if and when British troops finally withdraw from Iraq—whenever that may be—part of the planning for that should be a maximum emphasis on co-operation and reinforcement of local military initiatives and forces, along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, has raised? Does she agree that it is important not to make the kind of crass mistakes made after the Iraq invasion, when decisions were taken—I do not know by whom—to disband the entire Iraqi military, with catastrophic results? Local defence forces must be built up.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Local defence forces must be built up. I certainly agree that it is for the countries of the region to support Iraq when the multilateral troops withdraw, whenever that may be. However, the responsibility for internal security in Iraq must lie with the Iraqi National Government and the Iraqi security forces, which we support.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as a general rule, the complicated problems of somewhere like the Middle East and international terrorism are better tackled by dynamic diplomacy such as talking, as my noble friend suggests, to others most concerned in the area and helping friends to help themselves, rather than by large-scale, expeditionary operations into the unknown?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, dialogue is extremely important. That is precisely why we strongly support the Gulf dialogue in December because it will bring together the countries of the region and enable them to have not only a dialogue as a region but also bilateral dialogues, which are so important.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is there anything to stop the states mentioned in the Question from
 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1617
 
forming their own regional security organisation? Have they shown any indication that they wish to do so?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I believe that there is nothing to stop the states of the region getting together as a regional security force, but I do not know whether they are minded to do so at the moment. However, the dialogue that they have established—the one taking place in December will be the second—may sow the seeds of such regional co-operation.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, when does the Minister expect the dialogue to produce positive action?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we have to wait and see. Dialogue takes time, but we hope that it will be as fast as possible.

EU Presidency: Hampton Court Summit

2.41 pm

Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking to continue dialogue with the other European Union Governments on the matters discussed at Hampton Court on 27 October, in advance of the December European Council.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Commission, in consultation with the UK and Austrian presidencies, is taking forward specific follow-up work from Hampton Court. It is preparing a summary of its initial orientations, drawing on external expertise where appropriate for the December European Council. The final results of the Commission's work will be presented to the European Council next year. More generally, of course, the UK discusses the issues raised at Hampton Court—for example, research and development, universities, energy, security and immigration—with other member states on a regular basis.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long list of indecisive seminars in the various ministerial councils and Commission meetings. During the presidency, what have the Government decided apart from launching talks on Turkey?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, dialogue is extremely important. It is also important that member states agree on the way forward for the European Union before it takes action. That is precisely why Hampton Court was so important. On presidency achievements, in addition to the very important agreement on Croatia and Turkey, the list is too long
 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1618
 
to mention. However, on better regulation there is growing political support for a vigorous reform programme.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, decisions?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, on decisions, concrete progress includes the European Commission's proposals to withdraw one-third of all pending proposals and more than 100 proposals to simplify existing EU legislation. That will affect more than 1,400 related legal acts. That, I think, is extremely important for businesses, for jobs and for the European Union as a whole.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, for once I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. Has not the British presidency of the European Union been a disappointment, to put it mildly? Does the Minister agree that very little has been achieved, except for the negotiations with Turkey, that there is no progress at all on the constitution, and that the Prime Minister is right to use the word "stalled" in relation to the whole system? In the last few weeks of the presidency, can we not see some real initiatives to help to shape Europe effectively for the future instead of allowing inertia to prevail?

---