HL Deb 17 December 2001 vol 630 cc25-41

3.52 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which took place in Belgium on 14th and 15th December.

"The fight against terrorism remains uppermost in the minds of all members of the European Union. There remains unanimous support for the military action that has been taken in Afghanistan and a determination to continue our efforts to root out the Al'Qaeda terrorist network. The recent video of bin Laden demonstrates his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. It brought home the sheer evil of bin Laden and his followers and their sick pleasure in the murders that they committed. No one can now dispute that ridding the world of the Al' Qaeda terrorist network is a job in the interests of us all.

"The European Council welcomed the Bonn agreement between the Afghan groups. It gave strong support for the deployment of an international security force authorised by the UN Security Council, as called for by the Afghan parties in the Bonn agreement. The details of such a force must await the outcome of the meetings in Kabul between an international military team led by Major-General McColl and the interim authorities in Afghanistan. I can tell the House that Britain is willing in principle to lead such a force. It is likely to comprise troops from various countries—European and others. Friday's meeting of potential contributing nations was attended by a number of EU countries, as well as Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States. The British contingent is likely to be from 1,000 to 1,500, though I stress that that is not yet decided. We expect the resolution to be passed by the UN Security Council later this week.

"The US has given its full help arid support for the security force and we hope to have lead elements in place shortly.

"This force was a critical part of the agreement reached in Bonn on 5th December for the establishment of a provisional government in Afghanistan. There has been a brilliant victory over the Taliban who have ceased to be the Afghan government. That is a welcome liberation. But we know that it is only the start of enabling Afghanistan to cease being a failed state and to become a responsible partner in the region. The situation in Afghanistan remains fragile; the new political process remains in its infancy. There is therefore an urgent need to ensure that as the war is being won, we play our part in securing the peace.

"The European Council took stock of European security and defence policy. We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations over the full range of the so-called Petersberg tasks.

"The European Council met amid continuing and appalling violence in the Middle East. In our view, and that of all our partners, the only basis for peace in the Middle East is full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The members of the European Council will continue to do all that they can individually, and through the good offices of the Secretary-General, Javier Solana, to whom I pay tribute, to help to create the circumstances in which the violence can be halted and the dialogue resumed.

"The European Council's other main purpose was to prepare for discussion on the future of Europe. It now looks increasingly likely that 10 new countries will join the European Union in 2004. We welcome that. Their accession will contribute to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe—ours as well as theirs. But it is obvious that the European Union, with 25 and more members, cannot work in the same way, with precisely the same constitution, as it has with 15. Decision-making will need to be streamlined. EU laws increasingly will need to take the form of framework legislation, with the details of implementation being left to the member states. It is already the task of the European Council to give strategic direction to the European Union as a whole. But carrying that strategic direction into practice will mean looking again at the size and role of the Commission, reviewing the workings of the existing presidency of the Union, which presently changes hands every six months, and managing the business of the various specialist Councils in a more coherent way. That was why at Nice, a year ago, when we opened the way for enlargement, we also agreed that there should be another intergovernmental conference in 2004 and why we are now setting up a convention to prepare for that conference by detailed examination of all these issues.

"The basic agenda for that conference was agreed at Nice. The kinds of questions which will need to be asked are set out in the declaration of heads of government issued at Laeken at the weekend.

"That declaration, which I welcome, acknowledges the contribution that the European Union has made to peace, stability and prosperity in all our countries, but also the extent to which it has had to deliver results to its citizens on jobs, the single market, the fight against crime and a safe environment. The British view, which is widely shared, is that while it is right to co-operate ever more closely with our partners, democratic accountability is fundamentally and ultimately rooted in the member state. As the declaration says, Europe's citizens expect more results and better responses to practical issues, not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life.

"The Laeken declaration and the convention give us the opportunity to take a serious look at the division of competences between the Union and the member states. For the first time in the Union's history, we shall be looking at the prospect of restoring some tasks to the member states. We now also have the chance to open up the European institutions to greater public scrutiny. The role that I want to see our Parliament playing in policing that process is now explicitly recognised.

"The convention which we have now established will be chaired by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing who, when President of France, played an instrumental role in bringing the European Council into being. It will work for a year. Each national parliament will have two representatives as members of the convention. The regions will be represented as observers and there will be ample opportunity for views from all sectors of public opinion to be fed into the proceedings. Consultations will, of course, be held in the usual way on who our parliamentary representatives will be. The convention will present options to heads of government, who will determine whether those options should lead to changes in the treaty. Those changes would be made by unanimous agreement of governments.

"In the aftermath of 11th September, the European Council welcomed the agreement that has been reached on a European arrest warrant. We also agreed to give fresh impetus to delivering our objectives on asylum and illegal immigration. That will mean return agreements with third countries and a new agreement on handling asylum seekers, including common standards on asylum procedures and reception. We have agreed to improve cooperation on our external border controls. These are all areas on which we need common action within Europe and the strength of a united European approach in dealing with the rest of the world. I hope that we shall see some agreements concluded in the coming year on all those points.

"Once again at this Council, Britain played its full part constructively and achieved the outcome it desired. Europe faces huge challenges ahead, as it enlarges to 25 and, over time, to more than 30 countries covering territory from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, with 500 million citizens in the EU: challenges over the completion of the single market with a single currency; over economic reform; over making European security and foreign policy work; and over giving Europe the institutional framework to allow it to function effectively. Those debates matter to Europe. They matter fundamentally to Britain. The days of isolationism are gone. Our role now is to be a leading partner in shaping the Europe of the future, not following reluctantly the shape moulded by others. We are playing that role now. We will continue to do so."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.2 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. Laeken was an important summit, which reinforced the impression that the integrationist movement in Europe has stepped up a gear, although the Prime Minister keeps saying that things are coming Britain's way.

What is Britain's way, as far as the Government are concerned? Does it, for instance, include seeking to take powers to introduce EU third pillar measures by secondary legislation? Does it include trying to take powers to adopt a European arrest warrant without this Parliament having the right to amend it—something that the Government would have done if your Lordships' House had not denied them the power to do so only last week? Has the noble and learned Lord noted that the Belgian Prime Minister has declared that the European arrest warrant will be a "unique instrument" and as important in the police and judicial sphere as the euro is in the economic sphere?

When do the Government propose to introduce legislation to bring in the arrest warrant? Can the noble and learned Lord give us an undertaking that he will publish a full list of those orders that the Government intend to bring in under Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act? The Prime Minister talks about involving national parliaments, but his actions increasingly show that he wishes to take things the other way.

Furthermore, before the Laeken process begins, we need to consider the Nice process. When will the Nice treaty be ratified by all member states and when will it come into force?

The Laeken presidency conclusions, under EU defence and security policy, say that their aim is, progressively to take on more demanding operations in the field of defence and security. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what is envisaged? Will he spell out the contribution of EU member states to the war on terrorism so far? Do not recent events underline the fact that the United States is the bedrock of the world security system and that Britain's most vital national interest lies in maintaining that alliance? Nothing that happens to Europe must be allowed to undermine that position.

Specifically, on the announcement in the Statement that Britain would play a role in the peacekeeping force, when will the number of British troops to go overseas he decided? Does the noble and learned Lord have any idea how long they will be garrisoned? Is there a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan? The noble and learned Lord has kindly explained the rules of engagement privately to some of us, for which I am grateful. In the event of British troops being involved in peacekeeping, will those rules of engagement change?

The EU has pledged £60 million of aid to Afghanistan from the total community budget. How does that compare with provisions from our Government and other national governments? Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied with that level of commitment?

The Laeken Summit was historic in many ways, one of which was that it will be the last one before the euro comes into physical reality on 1st January. We wish the participants well, although we also remain convinced that it is not in our national interest to join. Was there discussion at Laeken of the five economic tests? What did the Prime Minister tell his partners when they asked about a date for a referendum on the euro—or did he say that his lips were sealed?

A number of stores and other organisations have said that they will now accept payment in euros. Will that also be the case for government offices and agencies? Will it be possible for an EU resident to pay in euros for a driving test or a prescription dispensed in hospital? After all, was that not part of the National Changeover Plan, on which so much as been spent?

Turning to agriculture, I wonder whether the Prime Minister took the opportunity of raising the French ban on British beef, following the judgment by the European Court of Justice. Does the noble and learned Lord have any news on when the ban will be lifted? The Prime Minister has said that former President Giscard d'Estang was his candidate to lead the convention. Did he seek to raise the lifting of the beef ban before his expression of enthusiastic support for a French candidate?

Can the noble and learned Lord say a bit more about the membership of the convention? Will members of the official Opposition in this country be included? Bearing in mind that we have a bicameral legislature, can he give us an assurance that a member of your Lordships' House will be sent? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would no doubt make an important contribution.

What are our objectives in the convention? The Prime Minister has agreed with the Belgian Prime Minister that nothing is taboo on the agenda. Does that include a written European constitution, binding on Britain, and a directly elected president of Europe? Do the Government support those objectives?

We differ from our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who openly support some of those integrationist objectives, whereas we do not. Where do the Government stand? Where in the drive to European integration do they plant their standard and say, "This far and no further"? Will they simply go on as far as they think that they can get away with? Will the noble and learned Lord agree to an early debate on Europe so that the Government can set out their position to Parliament well before the convention is set up?

Finally and briefly, I am sorry to raise a more disagreeable matter, unrelated to Laeken, but since the Leader of the House is here I could not resist asking whether he could say anything about the extraordinary reports in the weekend press about the surveillance of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. The noble Lord is a much respected Member of the House. He is not here, but I apologise to him for not having warned him that I would raise the matter. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord may not be in a position to say whether the noble Lord has been the subject of surveillance, but, as Leader of the House, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to explain the remarks, as reported in the press, of Mr MacShane? Has the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms been contacted by Foreign Office Minister's over the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed? I know that the Leader of the House is as keen as I am to defend the privileges of this House. That includes ensuring that no Member of this House is subjected to bullying by Members of another place. I hope that this episode is not a sign of things to come.

4.9 p.m.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place. I assure him that my remarks and questions will be limited to the Laeken summit.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, although Laeken was marred by minor squabbles about where agencies should be located, it was an extremely important summit. The House should appreciate and welcome the extraordinary fact that no fewer than 10 new member states are likely to join the European Union by 2004—which puts a great many concerns at rest.

Can the noble and learned Lord say something about the candidature of Cyprus? Will it follow some agreement on unity between the Greek-controlled and Turkish parts of Cyprus? Is the noble and learned Lord able to comment on the opening of accession discussions with Turkey? Can he reiterate that for the United Kingdom, as for other EU member states, a crucial condition of membership must be the establishment and strong support of human rights in Turkey? We welcome the advances that have been made as a result of changes in that country's constitution.

We much welcome the suggestion for a constitution that—to use the terms of the presidential conclusions—would clarify, simplify and adjust the divisions of competence between member states and the European Union. That might constitute the return of powers to member states. One of the issues that has soured relations between the EU and its member states has been the lack of clarity about competence. There could be constructive discussion of where competencies should lie. There is no reason for not recognising greater competencies for member states. It would be a great help to clarify the position and, significantly, to establish where the divisions fall.

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say something about the suggestion that there should be greater reliance on framework laws, which would enable member states to complete the framework with their own implementation of its general principles.

On accountability, we would like to hear more about who from the United Kingdom is likely to be involved. We hope that the convention will he fully in touch with the proposed civic forum. We have concerns about the nature of the leadership, in that it looks rather conventional in terms of the individuals chosen. It does not appear that there will be a great deal of room for individuals who have not up to now been within the EU leadership cycle—in particular, minority communities in all our societies, women and marginalised groups. We seek an assurance that the civic forum will be taken seriously and that the Government will do all that they can to encourage dialogue.

If there is to be serious involvement of the people of Europe, as there must be, in the development of the European Union, we need to go beyond the convention to establish a parallel dimension of civic involvement within each member state and the European Union as a whole.

We much welcome the suggestion that Britain could be in a leadership position by contributing between 1,000 and 1,500 troops to a peacemaking and nation-building force in Afghanistan. Can the Leader of the House say anything about the constitution of that body? Will the 1,500 troops be complemented by a civic group able to build an understanding of democracy and the rule of law? That is clearly a crucial part of any contribution that Britain can make. That development reflects recognition of Britain's responsible role in the battle against terrorism. Many other EU states are more than ready to contribute hut, for reasons to do with the formulation of military policy, many have not been invited to contribute as much as they have offered. We may be able to rectify that in Afghanistan.

I emphasise the important and crucial role of the European Union in bringing another element to bear on peace issues. Is it not important that the EU plays a greater role in the Middle East? We need to say loudly and honestly that the current destruction of the structures of law and order in the Palestinian territories is hardly conducive to the battle against terrorism within those territories. Do the Government have anything to say about the dangers of paving the way to a terrorist leadership of the Palestinian territories, instead of one that—for all its flaws—recognises that peaceful negotiation is the only way out of the current terrible situation? Will the noble Lord say something about the role of Britain and the European Union in the increasingly desperate crisis that is overtaking the Middle East?

Finally, can the Leader of the House say something about the arrangements between European security and defence forces and NATO? The Statement makes a brief reference to the difficulty of establishing proper relations. We are conscious of the role of Greece in that respect but we would like some assurances. Clearly the relationship between European forces and NATO is crucially important in future diplomacy between the EU and the United States.

I said "finally" but I have another question. Let us recognise honestly that no solution was found in respect of asylum policy. Does the Leader of the House agree on the crucial importance of common asylum conditions—relating to the Dublin convention, common standards of treatment and common recognition of the responsibilities that all in the European Union bear for dealing with asylum issues? Can the noble and learned Lord say anything further about the extent to which those objectives were achieved at Laeken?

4.19 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.

Britain's way is to be determined to be at the centre of Europe, influential, confident—not the Mr. Faint-heart of the past 15 years—powerful and able to give a lead that historically has long been lacking. Above all—I say this without presumption—Britain's way is to be able to bring the history and traditions of a long democratic life, which many of our colleagues in Europe have not had. We intend to play a powerful role that will be beneficial to our colleagues in Europe and to our country. That is Britain's way.

The noble Lord asked me to consider publishing a list of secondary legislation in Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and I certainly will. He said that Laeken was an integrationist meeting that produced an integrationist document. That is not so—for the reasons well itemised and scrupulously focused by the noble Baroness. Laeken proposed—I paraphrase fairly—that there should be framework legislation. One sees the virtue of that. We ought to use our history, distinct culture and traditions. I take as a fair analogy the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, within which we now legislate domestically. We willingly subscribe to the requirement in the Human Rights Act 1998 that every Minister introducing a Bill must certify, deliberately and seriously, that the proposed legislation is compliant.

The noble Lord asked about Nice, which we are working towards putting into effect. I do not imagine that the noble Lord thought, even in the run-up to Christmas, that I would be able to say when Nice will be ratified by all potential signatories. He asked me to comment on his proposition that the United States is the bedrock of the world's security system. It is—but it is not the sole component. Nor does the United States, in my experience and understanding, wish to be the sole component of that security. It wishes to have co-operation, which is why President George W. Bush has so frequently extolled the co-operation and the full-hearted support—standing shoulder to shoulder—that he has had from the current United Kingdom Government.

The number of troops is between 1,000 and 1,500, although, as the Prime Minister's Statement made perfectly plain, those matters have not been absolutely finally decided. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether there is a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan. If he meant his question to be taken as he expressed it, then I would hope not.

The noble Lord was very generous in saying that I had delivered on my undertaking to speak to him, to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the rules of engagement and other matters. If a change is required, obviously it must be put into effect immediately; but I rather doubt that there will be such a change. However, as the Prime Minister said, it is proposed that we should have the lead role.

I do not know whether the five economic tests were discussed, possibly over cigars, but there could be nothing more interesting than asking about the five economic tests, even over a cup of tea and a sandwich. I do not know the answer to the critical question, which is about to raise calls for my resignation, of whether one may pay for one's driving licence in euros. What I do know is that Sir Stanley Kalms, who is a prominent donor to the Conservative Party and the controlling shareholder, I believe, of a well-known emporium known as Dixons, has said that he is content, happy and even rapturous to have euros handed over in exchange for a DVD—which is a digital video disc.

There is no news on the ban on beef; one would hardly expect it as the judgment was given by the court only a few days previously.

Will there be a written European constitution? I doubt that there will be one in my lifetime. Will there be an early debate on Europe? Yes, there will be. As my noble friend and Deputy Leader of the House, Lady Symons, pointed out to me, the date that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to place in his diary—the correct diary, of course—is 17th January, when we shall consider, on Report, the relevant Bill.

I come now to my noble friend Lord Ahmed and his alleged surveillance. I have made it a rule, which I have found to be a good guide throughout my life, not necessarily to believe everything that I read in the newspapers, particularly on Sundays. I do not know whether there was any surveillance of my noble friend, although I should think it unlikely. None the less, I believe—I read it in the newspaper, so I assume that I can rely on it—that he is intending to make a complaint to the relevant commissioner. That is the appropriate action to take. Nothing unlawful should be done to any citizen, including Members of this place or of another place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that no one should try to bully anyone in this House, not least because, at least in my experience, such attempts always boomerang.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the 10 new member states, and she asked in particular about Cyprus and Turkey. The 10 candidate states are Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The conclusions—I am happy to give this information—specifically state that if the present rate of progress of the negotiations and reforms"— the noble Baroness is quite right about that— in the candidate States is maintained", those 10 countries could be ready.

So that is good news. In the case of Cyprus, it is also very heartening news that, after so many years of misery, and indeed bloodshed, at least some contact is being maintained between the two parts of that unhappily divided island.

The noble Baroness asked me particularly about Turkey. The conclusion was that Turkey had made progress towards the political criteria, which has brought forward the prospect of Turkey's possible accession and certainly of the opening of accession negotiations. The conclusions state that Turkey is encouraged specifically to continue its progress towards complying with both economic and political criteria, notably"— to deal with the noble Baroness's specific point— with regard to human rights. I therefore give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks.

The noble Baroness also rightly pointed out the heartening news that greater competences will either be transferred back or left with member slates. That seems to be right as a matter of practical reality. I believe that such arrangements work better and tend to build up public confidence in the institutions of the Union.

Certainly there will be consultations on the two United Kingdom members to the convention. I do not know whether there will be a member from your Lordships' House, although I did notice that a number of ears pricked up when that question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and by the noble Baroness. I have no news to bring. Along the electric wire the message came: He is no better—he is much the same". I am afraid that I have no news hot from the press, but then one would hardly expect it. It is only Monday today, and they finished only on Saturday, I believe.

Should civic groups be involved in nation building—one cannot even say reconstruction; it is the construction of a civil order—in Afghanistan? I should hope that that will be possible further down the line. I know that the noble Baroness's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has been very astute in trying to engage a wider public in civic and civil reform.

The noble Baroness is in danger of becoming a lawyer. She said "finally" but then confessed her sin and said that she had another question to come. However, we lawyers are used to that as we have been transgressing in that manner all our lives. The issue of the Middle East is of central significance. That is why the Prime Minister's Statement referred to it and reiterated Her Majesty's Government's view that a viable independent Palestine is essential, not forgetting the rights of Israel, which as everyone knows has been under continued external attack since its birth.

On the issue of the defence force and NATO, and in relation to security and defence policy, the Prime Minister said at one point in his Statement: We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations". I cannot go further than that, except to reiterate that sign of the Prime Minister's determination.

The final point that the noble Baroness raised was on the Dublin convention. I think that most people who fair-mindedly examine that document cannot agree that it is an instrument of perfect utility. It needs to be re-examined and reformed. The noble Baroness also asked for my assent to the proposition that there should be a common European approach to the problem, and I agree. I agree also that we should look for common standards. I think that that was the entire thrust of Jack Straw's policy when he was Home Secretary, and it remains so now that he is Foreign Secretary.

4.28 p.m.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

My Lords, with reference to the European arrest warrant, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and is dealt with in paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Council's conclusions, did the Leader of the House notice the outspoken attack by an Italian cabinet minister on the integrity and honesty of Belgian justice? Before the noble and learned Lord dismisses that, will he remember that 300,000 people took to the streets of Brussels to protest against their legal system after the Dutroux case? What is his view on that matter given that the whole basis of the European arrest warrant must be that everyone has 1,000 per cent total confidence in the justice system of every other country? Only on that basis can one sweep away the safeguards that the citizens of this country have traditionally enjoyed.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I do remember the demonstration, which was a very moving one. However, it was not a demonstration against the legal system; it was a demonstration focusing on the alleged—and perhaps the real—defects in the way in which the police had investigated, or failed to investigate, those particular gross criminal acts against young children. I think that the noble Lord will forgive me if I suggest that he puts it a little too high to say that one would contemplate extradition only if one had 1,000 per cent confidence in the other country's judicial system. I do not think that that is so. Indeed, the European arrest warrant was agreed in principle at Laeken. However, it will have to come before your Lordships for legislative scrutiny. It is likely to be included in primary legislation to be introduced next year. It will not comprise a sole item but will be part of a wider review of extradition in legislative terms.

I do not think that one can claim that extradition works perfectly at the moment; there are substantial delays. In the increasingly globalised world in which we live, one wonders whether one ought to he too limited in considering the European arrest warrant. In the past the noble Lord has raised legitimate questions of public interest. There will be an opportunity for this House to scrutinise the concerns that the noble Lord and others have.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that securing a concerted approach to outstanding problems is to be welcomed to the somewhat carping attitude on such matters of the Leader of the Opposition in this House? Is it not important indeed that 10 new members of the European Union are closer to membership than they have ever been? Finally, will my noble and learned friend make it abundantly plain that Israel will continue to exist and that genuine attempts will be made to get a real solution to all outstanding problems? In that regard I hope that he will agree that President Arafat has an important part to play. But, equally, he must be genuinely committed to the whole peace process, including the right of Israel to exist.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there can be no question at all of any doubt about Israel's right to continued existence. Indeed, I do not think that any government in this country since the birth of the state of Israel has ever questioned that. I put it as plainly as I can: the continued existence of Israel as an independent state is a given. There is no question of derogating from that in any circumstance. Equally, it is important to bear in mind that the Statement refers to the, full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state". Some would say that those two elements go hand in hand.

The noble Lord referred to the 10 new members. That is an extraordinary achievement. I shall be selective for a purpose which will emerge. I refer to Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. If we remember for a second their history since 1945, to witness the day when they may join us will be quite extraordinary. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; namely, that if you visit these different countries in Europe, you are humbled when bearing in mind how greatly they admire the traditions and institutions of this country. If, subject to the tests and preconditions to which the noble Baroness referred, they are able to join us, that will be so much the better for us and infinitely the better for them.

Lord Williamson of Horton

My Lords, although I welcome many of the points in the presidency conclusions and the declaration, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the declaration raises an extraordinary number of questions for the convention? On a quick count there are 50 question marks in the relatively short text on the convention. Will the Minister invite his colleagues to give particular attention to two points in order to reduce citizens' discontent, which is one of the main purposes of this operation? The first is to concentrate on reducing secondary legislation. Primary legislation in the European Union is well monitored; secondary legislation is not well monitored, nor is the control which should reduce the amount of secondary legislation fully in effect. That is an extremely important point as regards citizens' reactions. Secondly, in order to improve the openness of procedures, will the Minister support the idea that meetings of the Council when it is legislating should in future be held in public, thus bringing the Council into line with legislative bodies in all democratic states?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. My predisposition is always towards openness as most central authorities that pray in aid secrecy do so for reasons which are not sustainable, legitimate or capable of being rationally defended. In respect of secondary legislation, again I rather sympathise with the noble Lord's sentiments. With regard to the proper scrutiny of secondary legislation, often I question whether we do our duty sufficiently in this House, let alone anywhere else. But perhaps when we improve the way we work we may better be able to discharge our duty.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House really mean to imply that my noble friend Lady Thatcher had been faint-hearted in relation to Europe? Does he consider that the Prime Minister would agree with that adjective, given that he seems to spend much of his political life seeking to model himself on my noble friend Lady Thatcher?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, perhaps both the adjective and the noun are wrong—not faint-hearted, but rather wrong-headed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I certainly welcome the rousing statement by the noble and learned lord the Leader of the House in reply to Opposition questions and statements. But, unfortunately, I cannot reconcile that statement with what appeared in the EU declaration at Laeken. The whole document seems to me to be integrationist. It talks about a greater role in foreign affairs and security and in police and judicial matters. It also talks of economic co-ordination, a European constitution, a directly elected president and European parliamentary constituencies. What is more—apparently with the support of our own Prime Minister—the chairman and two vice-chairmen of the convention are well known rampant zealots for a single European state. That seems to underline the real purpose of the convention; that is, to provide and promote a single European state.

Finally, how is the forum for organisations representing civil society to work, given that a large percentage of people who are very sceptical of the whole exercise will not be represented at all at the convention? How will their representations be considered? How will the forum that is referred to, presumably under the "etcetera" part of the institutions, be consulted? Will it mean, for example, that organisations such as the one I chair, Campaign for an Independent Britain, will be able to make proposals and suggestions and that they will be taken seriously by the convention?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, certainly organisations such as the organisation that my noble friend chairs will be able to make submissions and proposals. Indeed, I do not believe that there is any value in a forum unless it is inclusive in its remit; that is, willing to consider alternative points of view in all circumstances.

I do not think that one can look at this declaration in the over-simplistic way in which some noble Lords have done in seeking to attach adjectives to it. I do not believe that there is a true opposition between the label "integrationist" and the label "subsidiarity". What we are looking for in the constitutional changes, or, I ought to say, the mechanical changes, to which the noble Lord referred, is efficient, effective, transparent, accountable institutions. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would have favoured that. He has often been, rightly, a critic of the inefficiency, secrecy and non-accountability of some European Union institutions. At the same time, it is being suggested that framework legislation should be passed in Europe with a good deal more individual margin of appreciation for member states I should have thought that those went happily together and that one without the other would not be agreeable.

Lord Monson

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tells us that certain competences may be returned to the component nation states of the union as a consequence of Laeken. Does that mean that the acquis communautaire—we have always been told that it is completely sacrosanct and cannot be eroded—is considered no longer sacrosanct?

On Cyprus, the noble and learned Lord said that there had been a great deal of unhappiness and bloodshed in recent years. He may be partly right about the unhappiness but, on reflection, does he agree that in the 25 years since partition became effective there has been little bloodshed, with no more than half a dozen people killed? That is in enormous contrast to the previous 15 years.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Lord takes a shorter historical perspective than I do. In many ways the history of Cyprus over the past 25 or 30 years has not been happy. The noble Lord speaks of only six deaths—he may be right—but I should have thought that those were six too many.

On competencies, the conclusions are designed to bring about this situation. When national institutions, national legislative bodies and national governments are able to deal with matters which otherwise would be dealt with centrally they should be dealt with locally.

Lord Grenfell

My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I welcome the results of the Laeken Council. I think that the Belgian presidency did extremely well to get as much agreement as it did. The situation was not always easy.

I have two questions. First, given the welcome prospect of as many as 10 countries now coming into the European Union within the next four years, was anything said at the council about the confidence of the European Union to accommodate the costs up to 2006 within the 1.27 per cent GDP ceiling?

My second question relates to what appears to be a contradiction. The Laeken Statement says that in parallel with the proceedings of a convention a certain number of measures can already be taken without amending treaties. It lists proposals for adapting council structures and functioning. At the same time, it seems clear in the appendix that such an issue will be discussed in a convention. With discussions on two parallel tracks, are we in danger of being at cross purposes, making the operation of a convention somewhat difficult?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. I shall deal with his second question first, if I may.

The convention review is time limited to about a year. At the same time it is proposed to see whether there can be accommodation regarding existing practices. I agree with him that both parallels must not be allowed to operate so distinctly one from the other that muddle and confusion arise.

It is believed that the 10 countries joining can be welcomed and the costs accommodated.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I have a couple of general questions for the noble and learned Lord. In answer to my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Lamont he says that we shall have the power to scrutinise this arrest warrant when it comes before us. Can he be specific? Is it not true that we shall not have any power to change what has been agreed at Laeken?

On the general points, is it not pretty clear that one question which should be on the convention agenda is whether the European Union should continue in anything like its present form or whether it should be wound up and replaced by inter-governmental collaboration and free trade under NATO? After all, we all know that the European Union is at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous for its two pretended purposes: to guarantee peace and to foster trade. So why keep the European Union?

Secondly, assuming that some of the other nations are foolish enough to proceed towards their megastate—and of course we cannot stop them—the question must be whether the United Kingdom should be part of it. Surely the noble and learned Lord agrees, because he is a reasonable man, that the Government cannot answer that question unless they have a clear idea as to what life might be like outside the European Union. So will the Government now agree to set up an impartial inquiry to inform the British people of the advantages and disadvantages of staying in or leaving the European Union and of just what liberation and riches might be ahead if we left the ill-fated venture? Surely it is only honourable for the Government to agree that we cannot have this debate unless we know what life might be like outside the thing altogether.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Surely we cannot have this debate". I must be mis-remembering. Most months we have a debate in your Lordships' House along the "Pearson of Rannoch lines" in one way or another—it may be only at Question Time. The noble Lord—here must be another budding lawyer—says, "Surely the noble Lord must agree"—that always implies that if one does not agree one is somewhat deficient "that the 10 candidates should be told how awful life might be within or without the Community". They know life outside the Community.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I refer to the people of the United Kingdom. I am quite content for this debate to take place in the United Kingdom.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the people of the United Kingdom have frequent opportunities—I think that they are called general elections—to express their views. We know what happened when the pro-Pearsons put forward their modest platform at the last election. I seem to remember that it did not achieve resounding support among the populace. Perhaps that is the fault of the populace but it might be the fault of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, the debate at the last election was purely about the currency, not on whether we should he in or out.

Noble Lords

Oh! Sit down!

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, no, we should not stifle debate. We are part of a civilised parliamentary democracy. I am happy because the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes up my 20 minutes quite agreeably.

On the European arrest warrant, that will have to be given effect in primary legislation. It will be part of a larger Bill to do with extradition. It will have to come to this House for scrutiny.

Forward to