| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
That recognises what a powerful network the Commonwealth is, although, as others have said, we must recognise that it does not agree on all issues. We will see its ability to apply the principles of good governance under test as we deal with issues such as Pakistan, to which I will return later. We all note the irony that the good governance principles of the Commonwealth are named after the city in which they were adopted and are known as the Harare principles.
Europe has formed a large part of today’s discussion. At times, I have felt some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Howell. His situation has been more akin to that of a Minister in that his Back Benchers and those formidable former mandarins of the Foreign Office have attacked his position. I am almost willing to cede my right of reply to the man who has most to reply to tonight, if he would like to avail himself of that. Because we will have much time to discuss this European treaty in the coming weeks and months in this Chamber, I shall deal with certain issues that were raised, but I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I leave time for the rest of the important matters raised.
I should very much like to pick up on a phrase used by one of the noble Lord’s prominent critics who described this as an entirely sensible treaty. I shall respond also to those who said that perhaps the Government side are guilty of always being defensive and stressing the red lines. Perhaps I will be the first Minister to speak in some time on this treaty who feels that because of the way the debate went today I do not need to repeat the red lines. I am challenged instead to say something more unqualifiedly positive about the European Union. As we move on to look at other issues, such as Myanmar, Kosovo, Iran or Africa, let me respond to that challenge by saying that in none of them does British strategy not rest heavily on our European partnership. It is through our alliances with our fellow European Union members that we can put together the muscle and put a big enough chip on the table to be able to play in the front row and secure change, whether it is the adoption of sanctions against Burma, a combined approach on Kosovo or pressing Europe to support us in strong sanctions against Iran. In each case it is not Britain alone which punches sufficiently heavily on these issues: it is Britain with its European partners, through the mechanism of the European Union, that allows us to be a strong and effective voice on so many foreign policy issues.
On several more detailed and very specific foreign policy points relating to the treaty, I offer a couple of observations. I confirm again that there is no possibility under this treaty of Britain’s Security Council seat becoming a European Union seat. The UK welcomes the external service of the European Union—those working in this new service will work
7 Nov 2007 : Column 134
I was asked specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, about the passerelle votes. I quote from the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place:
“Members of Parliament would have a vote directly on the issue of whether or not to implement any of the passerelles”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/07; col. 25.]
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised the relationship between the European Union and NATO. We hope, through practical co-operation on the ground in places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo where we have adopted the comprehensive approach, to secure the kind of operational co-ordination which has been famously impossible across Brussels but hopefully in the field can lead to improvement. We should also be looking to see what President Sarkozy said today in Washington as an important contribution to improving those inter-Brussels relations.
Moving out from the core institutional issues of the European Union, I turn to the next circle of problems, within which my noble friend Lord Anderson raised the issue of Kosovo. I want to confirm his concern that while it is possible in conceptual diplomatic terms to see how we can bridge the differences between the two sides, it is the case that we are approaching a very important deadline on 10 December, and while Ambassador Ischinger has been extraordinarily creative in trying to find ways to reconcile the differences, there is still a lot of hard diplomatic work to be done.
I echo the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, about Iran. I do not want to comment on what the position is in Washington, but instead to say that the best protection against the situation in Iran and that between Iran and the United States spiralling out of control is an effective sanctions regime which satisfies the United States and others that diplomacy and sanctions comprise a viable way forward. Therefore it is enormously important that the agreement reached on 28 September in New York by the EU-3 plus Three is followed up in the event that both Mr El Baradei of the IAEA and Javier Solana are unable to report back positive outcomes from their discussions this month. If, as is likely, that proves to be the case, it is important that we return to the negotiation of a sanctions resolution in New York with not only the support of all of Europe, but also that of Russia and China. Without that, obviously the diplomatic effort risks becoming stranded, which could have dangerous consequences. But let me again confirm, as I have already said in this House, that for the British Government, credible sanctions is our way forward and our efforts are 100 per cent behind finding a diplomatic rather than a military solution to this issue.
I turn now to the Middle East. All of us wish to see the Annapolis meeting succeed. We recognise that it will be the beginning and not the completion of a
7 Nov 2007 : Column 135
I was asked whether we have protested about the threat to energy supplies to Gaza. A joint statement was made on 30 October by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development making just that protest. It was combined with a diplomatic démarche in Tel Aviv the previous day. We have also made clear our concern about the closings of the crossings and other actions which have had the effect of throttling the economy of Gaza.
We continue to believe that Hamas must accept the quartet principles if it is to return as a political partner to the negotiations. We encourage it to do so because we recognise that, ultimately, there must be a political solution that includes everyone going forward. Hamas has ruled itself out of the political discussion at this time by its refusal to accept those quartet principles.
Turning to Iraq, my noble friend Lady Symons asked how we were going to cover the gap when, as she put it, $3 billion a month of American security is replaced by a much less expensive Iraqi security. There is only a two-word answer to that—“political reconciliation” inside Iraq. It is critical that the strategy going forward is not just a substitution of Iraqi security forces for coalition forces, important as that is. One should note the success of that strategy in Basra, but it has to be combined with a political process that settles the underlying roots of the conflict; we need to continue to press on both fronts.
Turning now to the men and women of our Armed Forces, I suspect that I shall not be able to answer all the issues that have been raised today. I know that my noble friend will wish to come back on a number of questions in writing after the debate. Let me say immediately that there is no one on our Front Benches in either House who would not both resist and be dismayed by the idea that the covenant between government and soldiers, between this country and those who serve us in our Armed Forces, is broken. We would resist that claim and would do everything that we could to make sure that it never happened.
In that sense, we recognise that there are issues of troop protection that we must continue to address. The tragic death of Fusilier Gentle is a notable example of a case in which both the coroner and the
7 Nov 2007 : Column 136
On a recent trip to Afghanistan and Helmand I was able to visit Camp Bastion and I saw the Mastiffs. These are new armoured vehicles that are being manufactured very rapidly and deployed as quickly as possible. At the time I visited some weeks ago, they formed a new part of the camp called the “Mastiff Camp”. Not being familiar with the term, I was not quite sure what I was going to see, and I was a little surprised when it was armoured vehicles and not Rottweilers. The soldiers were extremely proud of the new vehicles and pleased to have them there. They were very much a talking point in the discussions, and we obviously have to get more into theatre as quickly as possible.
I also visited the hospital, where a team of Territorial Army doctors who routinely worked in the NHS in York had just arrived. They demonstrated to me the extraordinary progress in battlefield medicine that has occurred. Of course, as a consequence, this has created a whole new category of patients—the severely wounded who nevertheless live. There are major issues of long-term care for these patients that we have to address because the system—I saw the same in the United States—has not yet fully come to terms with them.
One element of that is the issue of insurance, which has been raised. There is, as noble Lords will know, a basic insurance plan with basic coverage provided for injured soldiers, but soldiers and officers can take out supplementary insurance and it is correct that many of them do. It is also correct, because of the rising cost of injuries, that the firm that underwrites the scheme, AIG, has requested a premium increase, which is currently under negotiation. However, there has been some misrepresentation of the level of benefit from the private insurance and how it relates to the guaranteed arrangements provided by the ministry, which consist not just of a lump sum but of a payment—a pension—for life. While soldiers understandably wish to supplement that, one should look at the total compensation available to someone who is long-term injured but lives for the full course of their life. They will receive amounts of money that could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, as they properly deserve to if they have lost their means of livelihood.
I have already breached my own intention, which was to ensure that Africa, which, as many noted, did not get its own independent reference in the Queen’s—
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, before the Minister leaves military topics, as today’s debate has been somewhat overshadowed by the quite unprecedented and abrupt absence of the Minister who was, until this morning, due to open the debate for the Government; and because there has been no
7 Nov 2007 : Column 137
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I will certainly answer the noble Lord. Whether it will meet his standard of clarity, he will have to judge. Given that the British Government are involved in export promotion across many sectors, not just the defence sector, there was a feeling that it would be a better alignment to relocate it with the successor ministry to the Department of Trade and Industry, BERR, than to keep it where it was. The plans are now to be developed during the remainder of this year for implementation next year, and I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity for further consultation on the exact arrangements going forward.
In answer to a question that I was asked earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has inherited the same responsibilities at the MoD as the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, had. She has exactly the same title—Minister for Defence Equipment and Support—and therefore the same responsibilities.
I should also note that, when I expressed condolences to Mrs Gentle, I should have made it clear that she is not the fusilier’s widow but his mother.
Perhaps noble Lords will indulge me for just a couple more minutes so I can say a word on Africa and Afghanistan. With regard to development in Afghanistan, which was raised by several noble Lords, I confirm that DfID considers us to be off-track for the achievement of all the MDGs in Afghanistan by 2015. However, the country remains the fifth poorest in the world. There is a huge development challenge ahead of us. Despite the remarkable achievements in school enrolment and other successes that have been mentioned, none of us should underestimate the fact that, in addition to the problems of insurgency and opium production that it faces, Afghanistan is a very poor country. We have discussed opium production, and we will do so many times more. I cannot do it justice tonight, but I expect noble Lords to challenge me on it all the way as we go forward.
7 Nov 2007 : Column 138
The Foreign Secretary made a Statement on Pakistan in another place today. We have laid out clear conditions that we expect General Musharraf to meet: that he restores certainty that elections will take place in January, that he removes his uniform by 15 November, that he allows a free media again to operate, and that all political prisoners, including lawyers, are released. We hope that that will be the basis of a discussion in CMAG, the core group that will meet on Monday, and of conditions laid down by the whole Commonwealth to Pakistan. Pakistan’s compliance will undoubtedly be a matter for discussion when we meet in Uganda. We will continue to press on that issue.
It is six weeks since the demonstrations in Burma. There is a danger that they are already slipping from the front pages. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to make sure that we keep up public pressure on this issue, because the ability to say, “This problem is not going away; it is not going to slip again out of public sight”, is critical to securing Asian co-operation.
I cannot do justice to Africa, but I challenge the argument that we have somehow forgotten it. Prominent reference to the MDGs and poverty reduction was made in the gracious Speech. The Prime Minister has declared an MDG emergency. Dramatic increases in aid volume were in the new CSR. We are on track to achieve by 2013 a level of 0.7 per cent of British GDP for foreign aid. We are again the world’s second-largest bilateral donor. All those are indicators that we remain deeply committed to both poverty reduction and conflict resolution in Africa. I fear that there is not the time to discuss the situations in northern Uganda, the DRC or Sudan, all of which were raised. I shall communicate in writing with all those who raised them. That we do not have time tonight to discuss those issues is not for want of respect for them, but rather a comment on just how large was the Chinese banquet that your Lordships fed me.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Darzi of Denham, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 10.53 pm and debate adjourned accordingly until Thursday 8 November.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |