Lords Sitting of 28 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Congestion Charging
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with plans to manage traffic congestion in the major towns and cities of the United Kingdom.
Lord Fiilkin: My Lords, reducing congestion is a key target in the Government's 10-year plan for transport. Many policies in the plan will contribute to achieving this. In particular, we have planned for £59 billion to improve local transport in England, with a further £25 billion for London. Local authorities are best placed to tackle congestion in their areas, and they and the Mayor for London have discretionary powers to introduce congestion charges or workplace parking levies as part of their integrated transport strategies.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I declare an interest as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport. The congestion targets contained within the Government's 10-year strategy are based on the introduction of 20 workplace parking schemes or congestion charging schemes outside London. Given the Government's apparent ambivalence towards charging in London, can the Minister give some assurance to local authorities that if they bring these schemes forward they will be welcomed?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness is a member of the commission, I am sure she
2
is aware that the Government have set up a body whereby 35 local authorities which have expressed interest in introducing congestion charging are working closely with the Government and the department to explore how best and when it could be introduced, if it is judged to be appropriate in their areas. The premise is therefore false—there is no ambiguity by the Government. They are clear that congestion charging should be introduced only when there is public support for it and it has been properly thought through and consulted upon.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is concern in London about the proposed charging? Is he further aware that there have been reports that, if the Greater London Authority does not come up with a scheme to reduce traffic at the same time, the Government may not approve the GLA's plan? Can my noble friend explain how the Greater London Authority can introduce measures to reduce car traffic and encourage people on to public transport if it cannot raise any money to do so through congestion charging or workplace parking levies.?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be very surprised if some concerns were not expressed about the proposed introduction of congestion charging anywhere in the country because it will clearly have an effect on the cost of travel for some people. On the other hand, the benefits of well-produced schemes should outweigh such concerns. The GLA has no powers in terms of the proposed congestion charging for London, although the mayor, should he decide to introduce it, would at least have to consult with the GLA upon it. The current position is that the mayor has indicated publicly that in the middle of February he will say whether, in the light of his latest consultation, he intends to proceed with the revised scheme as proposed last summer, or to put it off for further consultation or other forms of discussion. My noble friend is right, the revenues from congestion charging—which is where the Government have some

3
locus; they have to approve the spending plans—will be a major source of finance, potentially generating £130 million per year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware—or has he come to suspect—that that answer was drafted by a super-cautious minion in the department? Is he further aware that many people are now in a state of mourning over the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who was starting to do some very effective work in the Department of Transport before he got buried alive in the tomb of the Cabinet Office? I invite the Minister's attention to the old problem—which contributes to congestion—of people who are allowed the quite unforgivable and unreasonable privilege of digging holes in the highway wherever they want.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I sincerely hope that all of my briefing has been drafted by super-cautious civil servants, for very good reasons. It is an excellent start to the week to hear such praise for my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I am sure the whole House endorses that.
Noble Lords: Lord Macdonald!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is even better to have compliments for two members of the Government within five minutes. We are really pleased to endorse them. Seriously though, my noble friend Lord Macdonald made a major contribution to transport policy in Britain. He is now making an equal contribution in the Cabinet Office. I am sure that we shall experience the benefit of that in years to come.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, speaking as a member of a local authority, is the Minister aware that the Mayor of London is already reported to have signed contracts of some £20 million with companies to implement congestion charging, and that this money will have to be paid whether or not the scheme is ultimately introduced? Will he indicate whether the Government will give support to London boroughs to compensate for this extra amount if congestion charging does not come about?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether or not the mayor has signed contracts as allegedly reported in the papers. I find it impossible to believe that a properly advised elected politician would sign contracts of that scale without a clause making it subject to the necessary consents—and the necessary consents have not, as yet, been given. It is perfectly possible that these are forward contracts subject to X, Y and Z and not of the nature described by the noble Baroness.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Minister may have seen the statement in today's edition of the Financial Times that we are to lose 2 million bus journeys next year as a result of companies withdrawing because of
4
congestion. Will the Government stop using the figures in the 10-year plan and face up to the reality that most local authorities will find it extremely difficult to implement congestion charging without the full-hearted support of the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand any rumour that the Government are not in full-hearted support of properly prepared congestion charging schemes brought forward by local authorities. Indeed, we expect that there will be one or two such schemes over the next couple of years. The 10-year transport plan indicated that eight such schemes could be introduced.
The idea is one that I should have thought the noble Lord would support. Under the scheme, local politicians have to develop a consensus within their communities—with both business and the public—that the level of congestion in the area is bad, that public transport improvements have been put in place to deal with the displacement that is likely to take place, and that, therefore, they are ready to move forward on congestion charging. I believe that this will happen over the coming years. Therefore, I believe that the impression that there is hesitation is wrong.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the Government are encouraging the pedestrianisation of town centres, will they ensure that adequate arrangements for access and parking are made for disabled drivers and that this is not overlooked?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, how town centre pedestrianisation schemes are handled is largely a matter for the relevant local authorities. However, the noble Lord has a relevant comparison. When town centre pedestrianisation schemes were first proposed, there were many voices saying that they would mean the end of western civilisation and the collapse of retail trade in town centres. In practice, the reverse happened. Properly implemented congestion charging schemes may well have the same potential to deliver benefits to all sections of the public.

Rosyth-Zeebrugge Ferry Service
2.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have made a grant of £12 million to a Greek-flagged ferry company operating between Scotland and Belgium.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in November 2001 the Secretary of State announced his decision to award grant towards the capital cost of setting up a new ferry service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge. The scheme has since been refined. The Government will now pay £10.9 million to Forth Ports plc to assist with the cost

5
of a ro-ro terminal for the new service. No grant money will be paid to the Greek ferry operator, Superfast Ferries.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am sure the fact that the ferry is operating out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency has nothing to do with the matter. Nevertheless, this is a payment to a ferry company which is in competition with P&O in particular but also with the Danish ferry company DFDS. P&O has just paid £200 million for two new North Sea ferries. Where is the fairness in acting in this way towards one company and in another way towards P&O?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, P&O was an unsuccessful bidder for the new scheme out of Rosyth. In practice, the Government's reasons for supporting the scheme were, first, the strength of opinion in Scotland, from both business and the public, that there was a need for a direct ferry route from Scotland to the Continent, and, secondly—and fundamentally from the Government's point of view—the indication that a remarkable amount of heavy lorry traffic would come off the roads as a consequence. The Scottish Executive has forecast that 430 heavy lorry trips will come off the roads, largely in England. The operator will have to reimburse the taxpayer fully if it does not achieve the required level of traffic.
Lord Elder: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the enormous reduction in the weight of traffic on the roads between Scotland and the north-east of England, as well as producing an environmental benefit, will also assist other road users who find the congestion in that area extremely worrying and difficult? Does he further agree that there is ample evidence of sufficient trade to keep the new route in the North Sea going, providing welcome competition while not seriously threatening any other operator?
Lord Filkin: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is substantially how the Government see the matter. Clearly, no company welcomes additional competition. However, in recent years ferry traffic on the North Sea route has been increasing by 7 per cent per annum. So we are talking about a buoyant market.
The environmental benefits are costed by a standard and accepted method; namely, by examining any consequent reduction in traffic, accidents, pollution, congestion, and so on. The benefits forecast of £36 million compares with the cost of the scheme at just under £11 million. So there is a high pay-back ratio in the scheme.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, were my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie in his place, he would, I am sure, welcome the restoration of the historic links between Scotland and the rest of Europe. It is precisely the substantial reduction in lorry miles which makes the awarding of a freight grant such an important part of transport strategy in that part of the
6
country. Do the Government have any plans to be similarly generous to, for example, the Argyll to Antrim route, which is currently a reserved matter?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, "Not to my knowledge" is the short answer, although, clearly, if a proposal comes forward from a ferry operator and a port. the Government will be happy to consider it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am slightly confused as to why the noble Lord is answering the Question. He said a moment ago that the project was being funded by the Scottish Executive. If it was a decision by central government, why is it not being paid for by central government? If it was a decision of the Scottish Executive and being paid for by the Scottish Executive, why do the Government feel that they are accountable to this House?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, under the Scotland Act 1998, any grant for a transport linkage between Scotland and somewhere outside Scotland is a reserved matter for the UK Government. The decision therefore has to be taken by the UK Government, but it is perfectly in order for the Scottish Executive to reimburse the UK Government for that expenditure if they wish to do so.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the company that is going to be running the ferry service between Rosyth and the Netherlands recently won the European ferry service of the year award and that it will therefore provide excellent competition for the other operators across the North Sea?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I was not so aware, but I am pleased and relieved to hear it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to tell me what similar subsidies or grants are being given to ferry companies operating out of other parts of the British Isles—out of England, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, to my knowledge, this is the only such scheme at this stage. Up to now, such grants have tended to be used more for inland waterways rather than for high seas ferry routes.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
2.51 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether American abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty implies a change in British policy towards United States use of intelligence and early warning facilities under United Kingdom sovereignty, and towards their future development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, last December, the United States, exercising its treaty rights, gave Russia six months' notice of its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States and Russia continue to discuss a future strategic framework for relations based on mutual confidence, openness and co-operation. Our position on the use of intelligence and early warning facilities remains unchanged. We have received no requests from the United States for the use of UK facilities for missile defence purposes and it remains premature to indicate how we would respond to any specific request.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I note that the United States and Russia have not yet come to any agreement on what might replace the ABM Treaty. Does the Minister accept that our arrangements with the United States have to operate within the framework of international law and treaties and that if the position of the United States towards that framework begins to weaken, a number of questions will arise? Is he happy that the arrangements for Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are still covered by the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 and that there has been no recent report to this House or to the other place reflecting the enormous changes in the use of those facilities since 1951? Is he aware that there is now a planning application before Harrogate Council for a third large radome to be erected at Menwith Hill, which I think must be for a space-based infra-red system for use in anti-missile systems? Even if the United States Government have not yet asked the British Government, the British Government might perhaps notice that it is about to be erected, as I notice the first two when I go past them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, RAF Fylingdales and RAF Menwith Hill have performed functions vital to the security of the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO for many years and will continue to do so regardless of how the United States Government seek to proceed with missile defence. We believe that the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 still applies. The new radome that the noble Lord asked about will update equipment currently in use at the base and is unrelated to missile defence.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is not the situation the reverse of that stated by the Minister? If the American Government abrogate the treaty, might they not be unwilling to share information with the United Kingdom, as they have done in the past?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords. First, the United States Government have not abrogated the ABM Treaty. They have given Russia six months' notice of their intention to withdraw from the treaty. The treaty makes explicit provision for such a course of action, as Russia has acknowledged. The Americans have also made it clear that they will not violate the treaty while
8
they are bound by its terms. There will be no difference in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States on intelligence.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are paddling in dangerous waters? Will he confirm to the House, in case we should be contemplating any quixotic gesture, that the balance of intelligence between this country and the United States is weighted heavily in our favour? If that exchange should cease, our national interests, not theirs, would be damaged.
Lord Bach: My Lords, whichever way it is balanced, it is clear that it is in the mutual interests of our closest allies and ourselves that intelligence should continue between us.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for all the talk of national missile defence leading to a nuclear arms race, in fact the reverse has happened and that both the United States and the Russians are reducing their nuclear arsenals following America's plans for missile defence?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. There is no doubt that the new relationship between Russia and the United States and the new relationship between Russia and NATO are of huge potential benefit to world peace.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the excellence of the British intelligence agencies enhances the relationship between the British Government and the United States Government? Does he also agree that British intelligence greatly informs British foreign policy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the answer to both my noble friend's questions is yes.

Age Discrimination in Health and Social Care
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the King's Fund's report Old Habits Die Hard: Tackling Age Discrimination in Health and Social Care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government take the issue very seriously. The National Service Framework for Older People, published in March 2001, sets the elimination of age discrimination in assessing National Health Service or

9
social care as a priority. To help to achieve that, it provides a programme of actions and milestones to be achieved over the next 10 years.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome that reply in part, but does not the King's Fund report illustrate the belief of senior managers that ageism is endemic in the health service? Whatever the facts of last week's incidents at the Whittington hospital, would not the Government be well advised to change their mind—as they have done on a number of other occasions—about whether to introduce a duty of age equality into the health service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the King's Fund report is a valuable contribution to the development of policy in this area. It shows that practitioners in the NHS and personal social services recognise that there is a problem of age discrimination. I believe that the establishment of the 10-year National Service Framework to ensure that the issues will be tackled consistently throughout the country is the best approach.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the codes of conduct and practice recently issued by the General Social Care Council will be very important tools in ensuring that discrimination of any kind is not acceptable to those who work in social care and to those who employ them? In putting that question, I declare an interests as the interim chair of the General Social Care Council.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to pay tribute to my noble friend's work as the interim chair of the General Social Care Council. I am sure that she is right. The King's Fund report shows that more can be done to raise awareness among practitioners and managers of the impact and manifestation of age discrimination. Some of the examples that have been given include low referral rates to particular services and unthinking and insensitive treatment from individual members of staff. As my noble friend has suggested, codes of practice and training regimes may be one of the ways in which we can bring to the minds of all staff the need to be very much aware of the potential for age discrimination.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that age discrimination in health and social care has a lot to do with structure and organisation'? For example, I know of patients with serious mental illnesses who may have been dealing with one team of workers throughout their lives, but who, at the age of 65 or 66, are told that that team can no longer look after them because of the age that they have reached. Does the Minister agree that that has nothing to do with person-centred care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that arbitrary cut-offs are completely unacceptable. The National Service Framework for Older People makes it
10
absolutely clear that discrimination on the basis of age in relation to treatment options is not to be tolerated. As for the noble Baroness's specific question on different policies in different parts of the National Health Service, I think that the work of the NSF shows that different approaches are taken in different parts of the NHS. The important point, however, is that all staff are trained to provide services to older people so that, regardless of how the services are provided, there is indeed a continuum of care.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister throw any light on the number of older people, mostly women, who are in hospital when they should not be? Does he agree that the term "bed blocker"—which is hardly a human term at all—applies to such people, who are in hospital simply because there is not sufficient capacity for them outside hospital? Is that not a disgrace?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that the term "bed blocker" is very much to be deplored. I think that the terminology currently being used is "delayed discharge". The noble Baroness will know that the Governmem have placed an extra £100 million into the system in recent months to allow for more places to be provided outside hospitals, and that intermediate care is designed to ensure that people are not stuck in hospital but rehabilitated and enabled to go back into their own homes. That is the broad thrust of the Government's policy in dealing with that particular problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the front-page article last week in my local newspaper about one such case in which social services said point-blank that it did not have any money to transfer the elderly patient back into the community—where the medical staff at the hospital said that she ought to be?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have the benefit of reading the noble Lord's local newspaper. However, on the issue of the local authority's policy, 1 point out to him that, for next year, local authorities will be receiving 3.9 per cent extra in real-terms growth for social services. I should also mention the additional money that we have put into the system this winter. We believe that, ultimately, the resources are there to ensure that local authorities can make the right decisions in relation to providing support in the community.
Earl Howe: My Lords, one concern raised in the King's Fund report is the current lack of specialist palliative care. Does the Minister recognise the severe funding difficulties being experienced by the hospice movement? What steps are the Government taking to reverse the diminishing level of public funding for hospices?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, the Government have taken various steps to ensure that the funding needs of hospices are taken fully into account by health authorities as they develop

11
palliative care plans for their local health communities. He will also know that we are expecting to see increased expenditure in palliative care services which will benefit both services provided directly by the NHS and those provided by voluntary organisations. Of course we recognise the enormous contribution that the voluntary sector has made in this area. We expect that, because of renewed and local discussion between voluntary providers and health authorities, we shall achieve greater stability and certainty in funding support, which will be of benefit to the voluntary sector.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the increase—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this corner. Is the Minister aware that older people are not only concerned about clinical discrimination but very concerned about the way in which they are treated in hospital wards? As he will be aware, they are concerned about being treated in mixed-sex wards. We were promised that such wards would be eliminated by 2002. We have reached 2002. Will the Minister give me a progress report and tell me whether mixed-sex wards have indeed been banished from the National Health Service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what I would say to the noble Lord in that corner is that the target to which he referred is to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation in 95 per cent of NHS trusts by December 2002. My understanding is that we are well on track to meet that target.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the increase in the number of elderly people needing intermediate care greater than the 3 per cent real terms increase that the Government have given local authorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, intermediate care is a crucial part of the strategy to provide services for older people. As for resources and funding, we expect to spend by 2003–04 an extra investment of £900 million annually for intermediate care. We reckon that, by the end of the current year, compared with 1999–2000, we shall have an additional 2,400 intermediate care beds, more than 6,000 non-residential intermediate care beds and 137,000 people in receipt of intermediate care services. I think that noble Lords will see from those figures that intermediate care has indeed provided additional services and that, overall, with the extra money we have put into the system this winter to deal with the discharge problem, considerable improvements and progress are being made.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, my noble friend Lord Grocott will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Tokyo conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.8 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean) rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the Lord Tomlinson and the Lord Macleannan of Rogart should be appointed the alternate national parliamentary representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during our consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill we have had occasion to debate the future of Europe process on more than one occasion. At Report stage of the Bill, I promised to bring before your Lordships this Motion which seeks the agreement of your Lordships' House to nominate Members of this House as representatives from the UK Parliament to the convention. Another Motion will be debated separately in another place on two representatives from that House: one member from the Conservative Party and one from the Labour Party. Consequently, this Parliament will have representatives from both Houses and from all main parties. I believe that that outcome is a good one. I am particularly happy to have succeeded in securing representation by two Members of your Lordships' House.
The heads of government decided at the Laeken European Council that the convention should be set up to take forward the debate and to prepare a series of options for change which an intergovernmental conference in 2004 will then consider. It is a huge task and a daunting responsibility that those chosen to represent the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Parliament will be undertaking.
Each national parliament in existing member states and candidate countries will be represented at the convention by two members and two alternate members. Your Lordships' House was ably represented at the similar Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. At that convention there were also, of course, two Members from another place.
At a meeting I held for your Lordships on this subject on 31st October 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, recounted to those present that membership of the convention that he attended had represented a great burden in terms of both time and commitment. The Government therefore feel that, as allowed to this and other parliaments by the Laeken declaration, it is sensible to nominate four members to share the burden of the convention we are now discussing. It will be even more wide-ranging than its predecessor and will last much longer. I hope, therefore, that all four nominees will be able to share the burden and, of course, have the chance to contribute their expertise and experience.
Following consultations, the Government have put forward this Motion nominating as alternate members of the convention the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Tomlinson. Both have excellent credentials for representing this House and this Parliament in the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is an accomplished lawyer, specialising in international law, and will, I am sure, make an effective contribution to the debate. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson was a Member of the European Parliament for 15 years. I am sure that he will be able to use his considerable experience of that institution and the European Union in general to effect.
If your Lordships are to make the most of the opportunity before us to shape the future of Europe debate, effective lines of communication between this House, its committees and the representatives of the convention will be very important. I hope that some system can be arranged for the representatives to have a continuous dialogue with your Lordships' House while they carry out their duties. I shall be happy to contribute whatever I can in my Foreign Office capacity.
The Laeken declaration states merely that members and alternate members may not attend meetings of the convention at the same time. It does not lay down how the four representatives divide the burdens and responsibilities; nor is this a matter for the Government. It is rightly a matter for each parliament to decide how the system will work for its own representatives in practice. I hope that the members themselves will be able to reach a sensible agreement on attendance at meetings and preparation of the issues under discussion in order to maximise the influence of this Parliament in the convention's deliberations.
It is true to say that never before has there been such wide consultation in the EU about its future. We have an historic chance to bring together some of the best minds in Europe to debate the issues and suggest changes to the EU that will make it more effective, more efficient and more able to deliver the real results that people expect from it. I am very happy that two such respected and well qualified Members of your Lordships' House will be able to play a part in that process. I commend the Motion on the Order Paper to the House. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the Lord Tomlinson and the Lord Maclennan of Rogart should be appointed the alternate national parliamentary representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Motion was not agreed by the usual channels. I make that clear because normally these kinds of what you might call "housekeeping" Motions moved at this time of the afternoon are, after amicable discussions, agreed by the usual channels as fair and in the interests of your Lordships' House. However, this one is a diktat from
14
Downing Street. It is a small example of how our current elective dictatorship treats Parliament in general and this House in particular.
As the Minister said, the Motion provides for the two noble Lords mentioned to be alternate members of the body being set up to be called the Convention on the Future of Europe, by which, of course, is actually meant the future of the EU rather than of Europe, but we shall let that pass.
Under the agreement each country is entitled to one government member of the convention, plus two full members and two alternates representing the national parliament. Downing Street has decided that the two full members from the British Parliament should both be from another place, one Labour and one Conservative, and that the alternates should both be from this House, one Labour and one Liberal Democrat. Britain will, therefore, in total be represented by three Labour Members from both Houses, one Conservative Member and one Liberal Democrat Member.
One might have thought that the obvious and fair arrangement was for one full member and one alternate member to come from each House. One might also have thought—I certainly think this—that the Cross Benches have a much better right to one representative than the Labour Party has to a third representative. In some respects I think that the Cross Benches have a better right to a representative than the Liberal Democrats. After all, more Peers sit on the Cross Benches than sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches in both Houses put together. We all, including the Government, attach great importance to the independent Members of this House. although I find as I go about my day-to-day duties that all Members of this House are pretty independent! But when it comes to appointing representatives to this Euro discussion group, the Government ignore the Cross Benches altogether.
There are, of course, some Peers on the Cross Benches with particularly high expertise in this matter who have risen to very senior rank working on exactly these questions. I shall not mention names but noble Lords will know of whom I am thinking. They have deep knowledge and long experience of how the EU works; of the people and the groups involved; of what has been tried before and with what effect. They and other Cross-Benchers are the kind of people who could make an impact on a body like this to be composed of the best minds in Europe.
I do not blame the Front Bench opposite in this House for the way in which the decision has been arrived at. The Minister has done her best. Indeed, she told us that she was doing her best last week, just a few hours before the Motion was tabled. I am sure that this is the best she can do. However, the fact is that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has emerged from some process within the Liberal Democrat Party that I know nothing about and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is to be the third Labour name. I am sure that they will be assiduous in their duties.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Quite. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has been in this House only a few months. Not all noble Lords may know him as well as some of us do. Some of us have often heard him speak in another place, sometimes for a long time—well, it seemed a long time, anyway. As the Minister explained, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has long experience of the European Parliament. He is well known to noble Lords and often gives us his views, or, slightly more often, the views of the Labour Party. However, neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, will be able to give the convention their views very often. All we can give them is a ticket for a back row seat at best. I understand that it may be in the public gallery. Certainly, they are likely to sit at the back with headphones on listening to the translation, but they will not have a microphone. Therefore, they will not be able to speak. If a vote is called, they will sit as still as the pictures on the wall. The EU is not driven from the back seats.
I am sorry that none of the Cross-Bench Peers with strong European experience put their name forward, although they had precious little opportunity to do so. Perhaps that shows what they think of this convention and particularly of a back row seat—and perhaps they are right. It is an unsatisfactory matter but we should not decline to appoint anyone. We shall take what is on offer and give the two noble Lords the two back row tickets. With any luck the convention will keep them amused in Brussels.
Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the rather unusual, perhaps unprecedented, opportunity for discussion of a Motion of this kind. The noble Lords proposed in the Motion are, I believe, both well qualified for this function. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, not only has experience as a Foreign Office Minister but also as a Member of the European Parliament and as a very active Member of the European Union Committee in this House. Although my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart is a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, he has been very actively involved in European matters in another place for well over 30 years. He, too, will represent us well.
I do not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, but I, too, regret the relatively limited time available for consideration of and consultation on the proposal and the choice of names, either between this House and another place or within this House. I also understand the concern that the noble Lord referred to about the position of the Cross-Benchers.
A Motion of this kind, whereby the House is asked its opinion in determining such a matter, is rather unusual. However, I notice that the Motion is not a decision by your Lordships' House but merely an expression of,
"the opinion of this House".
The decision, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made clear, is that of the Government rather than of Parliament.
16
The allocation of full members and alternates between this House and another place is less than satisfactory. On this occasion all of the former were given to another place and all of the latter were given to us. That is rather unsatisfactory, in view of the comparative advantage that your Lordships' House has in the consideration of European matters. In particular, the European Union Committee, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has done much work on this and comparable issues.
It is by no means clear whether the full members will be able to attend regularly. I read in the Financial Times this morning that the convention will meet 11 days a month for at least a year. As has been said, that will be a heavy burden. It will meet considerably more often than did the body in which the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, took part, which considered the charter of human rights.
Will the Minister explain whether the alternates will be observers when the full members are present? The Laeken declaration in English states:
"The members of the Convention may only be replaced by alternate members if they are not present".
That is clear; alternates can vote or speak only if the full member is not present. However, it is not clear whether they can have seats in the public gallery, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. That would provide an opportunity to observe and learn and to prepare for those occasions among the 11 days a month when the full members are not able to be present.
I have two further questions for the Minister. Will those members from this House and another place who are being nominated have support in terms of research facilities for what will be a fairly onerous responsibility? The Minister referred to the reporting arrangements. Clearly, there are two different sets of reporting arrangements. There are arrangements so far as Mr Peter Hain, the Government's representative, is concerned. I hope that it will be possible for him to report to this House—to the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—and to another place. It will also be important for the two Houses of Parliament to consider how parliamentary representatives from another place and from this House can report to the two Houses. They will probably do so by making use of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
Despite those reservations and the fact that the way in which the conclusions were reached was not totally satisfactory, we on these Benches hope that the two Peers who have been nominated will make a useful contribution to a matter that we believe is of great importance.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am most grateful, as I am sure are all noble Lords on these Benches, for the remarks of the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Chief Whips on Cross-Benchers and their expertise. Some unattributable intelligence and a little spadework on my part last Wednesday evening

17
revealed that one or two of the alternates might be drawn from your Lordships' House. I registered a possible Cross Bench interest with the usual channels, only to be informed on Thursday morning that there was now very little time: a Motion—the one that is before your Lordships' House—was to be tabled within a matter of minutes, and anyway the Foreign Secretary had agreed that the alternates would be from this House only that morning; that is, on Thursday.
I think that I may assert without fear of contradiction that on these Benches there are some very informed and knowledgeable Members of the House on affairs European. However, in the short time available I was not able to contact any of a number of them.
I was, however, a little taken aback and surprised to be told, when I was hoping to seek an extension of time, that the issue was all highly political. I felt bound to point out that the Cross-Benchers were all parliamentarians, and therefore politicians, albeit not from a party stable. The convention will be a major contributor to developments in Europe. Its membership deserves measured consideration.
I hope that the message will be received that, with more than 20 per cent of Members of your Lordships' House now on these Benches and an increasing number of them being regular contributors to the work of the House, the opportunity to draw on the individual and collective expertise that resides on them will be viewed from the right end of the telescope, and that time will be allowed to make contact with those who often have other than their parliamentary duties to attend to.
Those on these Benches should not be sidelined. I do not wish by these remarks in any way to question the calibre or quality of the two noble Lords whose names appear on the Motion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Minister replies, I hope that she will elaborate a little on the process by which the Motion was arrived at. As I understand it, the invitation was issued not to the Government but to Parliament but that the reply has been sent not by Parliament but by the Government—dictated to this House, it would seem, by circumstances.
We do not, of course, wish to delay the process. I accept the ability of those who have been appointed in the second row, as it were, of the affairs in Europe, on our behalf. However, it is important to recognise the distinction between government and Parliament. Parliament is here in the end to oversee and control government. The power of government should not be so extended that it pre-empts the decisions of Parliament. On a matter such as this, which is riot a party political issue, the decision in the House of Commons may be predictable but the Government cannot normally count on the decision of this House, which contains that body of talented Cross-Benchers
18
and others. I hope that the Minister will show that in some ways this is not a usurpation by the Government of their function as part of Parliament.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, as the representative from this House to the convention that drew up the draft charter of human rights, I shall take a moment of noble Lords' time.
As that representative, I understand that there was a desire in your Lordships' House for a much more open process. Some noble Lords were extremely surprised when they found out that I had been appointed. I also understand that it is inevitable that the usual channels will be involved. They have a part to play in ensuring that there is a political balance, in terms of parliamentary representatives, between only four people.
However, we should not delude ourselves this afternoon into believing that the current process is in some way transparent. It may be rather more open than that involving my nomination by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on the nomination of the usual channels. We do not know anything—or at least I do not; others may tell me that I am wrong—about how the other place came to take both full places.
As has already been said, it is somewhat extraordinary that this House should be overlooked, in view of the remarkable reputation that it has for the oversight of European Union matters and the serious manner in which its reports are received. It is also extraordinary, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, in view of the fact that these places were for the United Kingdom Parliament, not merely for the other place. I do not know—I have not read about this—whet her any representations were made by Her Majesty's Opposition in the other place to ensure that this House was represented. If no representations were made, I am sure that other noble Lords will understand that I would consider that to be somewhat unfortunate. Had the previous pattern been followed, the other full member would have been drawn from these Benches. Certainly, while there has apparently been a much publicised election, I know of no consultation with regard to who should be nominated or who, indeed, should take that place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that I had referred to the considerable burden of the previous convention. It was a burden which I was very happy to undertake. It was an administrative burden, and I believe that that is a serious point which needs to be addressed. The process was very open. Many hundreds of documents were posted on the convention website, including the working documents. On many occasions the documents arrived late—only a short time before the meeting took place. Those who, like Members of your Lordships' House, largely look after such matters themselves, know that that involves searching for the website, running through documents and printing them off on, if any of your Lordships are like me, a rather slow printer at home. The whole process produces a great pile of paper. It is that administration which is burdensome.

19
I, together with a colleague from the other place, was fortunate to serve with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, before his elevation to Attorney-General. Although he was the Prime Minister's representative and a government representative, he and his civil servants were, as one would expect, extremely good to the parliamentary representatives. They supplied information and, if documents arrived late, ensured that we were advised.
However, he was, as will be the Government's representative at this convention, the Government's and not the parliamentary representative. I believe it is important that whoever is responsible in this House makes arrangements for those documents to be supplied to this House on a regular basis and in good time so that Members in this House who are interested in following the proceedings of the convention will be able to do so. That person also needs to provide an adequate service for the two noble Lords who are nominated as alternates if, indeed, they are called upon to serve.
Like other noble Lords, in making these comments I do not wish in any way to be seen or thought of as criticising the appointment of the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson. As others have said, they will bring great expertise and experience to the convention. If the convention is to be a success, it must not be too tightly governed by political parties. The previous convention, of which I had the privilege to be a member, had, to some extent among the parliamentary members, some freedom and was able to achieve results by consensus. If that process is too strictly controlled in this convention, I suspect that it will not work. We all want the convention to be a success. Certainly it requires among its members people who will bring a constructive and positive approach to the workings and future of the European Union.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not dissent for one moment from the noble Baroness's description of the excellent qualities possessed by the two noble Lords nominated by the Government. However, does she agree that at least 40 per cent of your Lordships oppose further European integration? Indeed, many of us believe that it has gone too far already. Conversely, no more than 60 per cent at the outside favour further European integration. That 60 per cent maximum will effectively have two representatives from this House, whereas the 40 per cent of sceptics will have none whatever. Is that fair and is it right?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness informed the House when she opened the debate, the question of representation on the convention and other matters were raised during our debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It is hoped that we shall complete the final stage of that Bill today. I am not at all sure that the matters raised were resolved either in Committee or on Report. However, we now have the opportunity to discuss the
20
appointment and, indeed, the method of appointment of parliamentarians from this Parliament to the convention.
My first question goes back to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I understood—I may be wrong; perhaps the Minister will put me right—that the invitations relating to both the Government and Parliament were sent to the Government. However, my view, and I should have thought the view of most, if not all, Members of this House and another place, is that the invitation to parliamentarians should have been sent either to the Clerk of the Parliaments or to the Speakers of both Houses. They are the proper routes by which invitations to Parliament for attendance at conventions and other such matters should go. I should like an answer to that point if possible.
I listened with great interest to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who, I believe, raised a very important point. If we are to have Cross-Benchers in this House, then they should be entitled to equal consideration with all other sides of the House. I am not suggesting that this corner of the House should have equal treatment; nevertheless, the Cross-Benchers should be considered. I am surprised that they were given such short notice of the proposal which we are now discussing.
I am also surprised—no doubt there are very good reasons for it—that the noble and gallant Lord did not table an amendment to the Motion. If he had done so, he would have given the House the opportunity to make a real choice. He must have been surprised to have been given such short notice on this occasion, but in future he may like to take that into account.
As other noble Lords have said, the noble Lords who have been proposed are excellent people; there is no question about that. They have given great service to both Houses. Certainly that of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Maclennan, is rather shorter than that of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. Nevertheless, he has an excellent record in Parliament, as does the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
However, there is a problem. I believe that both are very much in favour of further European integration and, therefore, the other point of view will not be represented. During our debates at the Committee and Report stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, we questioned the noble Baroness as to how the views of the very large minority—I do not believe that it is a majority—of people in this country who are opposed to further integration, many of whom would like to withdraw from the European Community entirely, would be expressed. We shall certainly need to address, first, how those views are to be sought by the representatives and, secondly, how they are to be put across.
Another question that I want to ask the noble Baroness—if, indeed, she knows the answer—is whether Eurosceptic outside bodies will be able to submit papers to the convention. If they are able to do so, will those papers be considered by the convention

21
and not merely summarised and brushed aside by the president, the two deputy presidents and the bureaucrats who serve them?
Those are the questions to which I should like to receive an answer. I believe that this is possibly the first time—and I am very pleased because I consider it to be progress—t hat this House has had the opportunity to discuss the nominations and the system.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I strongly support the nominations before us. Both are eminent noble Lords with great expertise in European matters. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the issue of independence because of the way in which he perceived the process to have taken place. For 15 years I was a neighbouring Member of the European Parliament to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. From personal experience I know that he has a great record of being extremely independently minded and will no doubt bring that to the work he will do.
I also know that he will put first and foremost his accountability to this House in reporting back to us on the work of the convention. Indeed, with his record on budgetary matters, action against fraud and on chairing our committee in this House he will be someone in whose hands our views, concerns and opinions will be extremely safe. I would also say the same of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I suppose that whether one supports the nomination of the two noble Lords to the convention, depends on what the agenda of the convention will be. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can enlighten us. Is there any suggestion that the convention should go hack to basics and start by wondering whether the European Union should continue at all, or has the time come to wrap it up and rely on free trade, inter-governmental collaboration, defence from NATO, and so forth?
I imagine that the noble Baroness will reply that that is a very silly question and that of course that will not be on the agenda. Therefore, if that is so, we must assume that the idea is for the United Kingdom to continue as a member of the European Union, the future shape of which is somewhat uncertain at present. However, I think we can take it for granted that it will riot be a shape which entails any less power in Brussels.
The Government say that they want a public debate on this matter. I do not see that we shall get that by the appointment of the noble Lords as proposed or, indeed, anyone else to this convention, which will, after all, be a convention of politicians and like-minded people. How are the British people to be involved in this debate? The noble Baroness will be aware that if opinion polls are to be believed, many British people, perhaps even a majority, now favour reducing our relationship with the European Union to one merely of free trade. How can the people decide this matter if they do not know what are the alternatives to our continued membership of the European Union?
22
I put it to the noble Baroness that the Government should now set up some form of cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union so that the work of this no doubt excellent convention can be taken into consideration by the British public, who should then be allowed to make up their minds as to how this project should proceed, or otherwise.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Stoddart, got it right when they pointed out that the very fact that we are debating this issue is unprecedented. Although the invitation to participate has been a process evolved by the Government, that was in discussions with other parties. I believe that this opportunity for both Houses to comment on the names put forward is a welcome precedent. I hoped that perhaps it would have been given a rather more generous welcome from some noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
We first discussed this matter in a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in October. On 31st October last year I held a consultative meeting in your Lordships' House to which every one of your Lordships was invited arid to which every single Member of this House could have come, had your Lordships so wished. That was three months ago. To describe this as having been a very rushed job is somewhat gilding the lily. We have had three months. Sadly, that meeting was poorly attended. With some honourable exceptions, noble Lords did not avail themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was very kind insofar as he was able to give us the benefit of his knowledge about what had happened on a previous similar occasion.
Noble Lords say that this matter has not been agreed through the usual channels and that it is a great pity that the two full members—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not agree that an invitation to the very important meeting which she has just described should have been made in a different way rather that in an answer to a supplementary question in your Lordships' House? I have no doubt that the noble Baroness was trying to help and wanted to hold the meeting as soon as possible. However, perhaps in future when she holds such meetings she will give better notice and in such a manner so that all people, even those who cannot catch up with Hansard every day can respond?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would always wish to give noble Lords the maximum opportunity to attend meetings which might be of interest to them. Having made the announcement on the Floor of the House, naturally it was published in Hansard. I understand that the Whips' offices of the main parties represented in your Lordships' House were given notice of the date of the meeting. Again, that meeting was unprecedented. It was a genuine effort to try to do everything within my power, meagre as it is, to hold consultation.

23
There has been criticism that the two full members will come from another place. I have no problem with the two full members coming from the elected House. I am bound to say to the Opposition that if they had a problem with that, it was within their power to make their arguments to their own Front Bench in another place that it should be a Member of this House who was the full member from the Conservative Party. It was within their power so to do. I do not know whether they did that. Whether they took that up is entirely a matter for them. However, I find no problem with the arrangements as far as concerns the representation from my own party.
The party opposite is also very worried indeed about the representation from the Liberal Democrats. That is a matter for the Liberal Democrat Party. The Liberal Democrats were generous enough not to make comments about representation from the Conservative Party, although I understand that at one stage there was a certain amount of conjecture about that. We have to tolerate each other's ways of doing this. It is right and proper that we respect each other's processes.
The point has been made about the Cross-Benchers. Again, the Cross-Benchers had the opportunity, not only to attend the meeting to which I have just referred, but every opportunity in the past three months to make their representations. The noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, says that he did. As he said, to be fair to him, that was pretty late in the day, but there has been that opportunity. The Order Paper has been before your Lordships and any of your Lordships could have tabled an amendment. That has not been the case. I do not want to encourage amendments; I shall be extremely grateful if we can reach the end of this matter in fairly good order.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked whether the alternate members can be observers when the principals are there. The answer is yes. The noble Lord asked about support. These are parliamentary representatives. It is up to the House to arrange that. I sought to imply that the Government will be happy to provide whatever briefing the representatives from Parliament may wish to have. In making that suggestion, I hope that I am not encroaching on any of the understandable distinctions that noble Lords would wish to draw—I say this to Members of my own side—between the Government as government and the Labour Party. The parliamentary representatives are representing the Labour interest and not the Government.
The noble Lord. Lord Roper, asked about reporting back. It is not possible for me to guarantee an amount of time for that. That will be for the usual channels to decide. However, it is important to have full reporting back. I believe that all information should be made available. I hope that the usual channels will be able to facilitate that.
24
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was kind enough to talk about the arrangements made last time. I fully appreciate that he would rather have received his paperwork independently. I hope that he agrees that where the Government were able to help—the system may not have worked as effectively as it might have done—that was useful. I believe that the Government's attitude on future occasions will be no different.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that 40 per cent of your Lordships opposed further integration and that, therefore, the "eurosceptic" view—-that was the term he used—should have greater representation. It is difficult to say that someone who opposes further European integration is a eurosceptic. I do not believe that that is true. But we have had a lengthy debate on the Nice Bill. I am mindful that we have Third Reading later today. Despite the 40 per cent to which the noble Lord refers, the Government have not done too badly in getting through their agenda. The Nice Bill was firmly placed in the Labour Party manifesto which went before the country in June last year and we know what happened in that election.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords. this is a difficult argument which is often produced by the Government to justify their stance on the European Union. Surely the noble Baroness will agree that the manifesto contained nearly 200 commitments, of which this was only one; that the people voted for it en Noe; and that only 59 per cent of the public bothered to vote of which a minority voted for the Labour Government. I cannot envisage how one can take the general election as a justification for the Government's europhile stance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that it was his party, not mine, which sought to put Europe at the top of the general election. That is the nature of democracy. It is a tine debating point but the noble Lord knows that in this country we publish election manifestos. It was clear and unequivocal that this Government would take forward the Nice treaty. Yes, it was one of many commitments made and honoured by this Government. That is the nature of democracy, difficult as the noble Lord may find it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Baroness to say that the Conservative Party put "Europe" on the agenda at the last election. We did not. We put the currency on the agenda which the people knew was to he subject to a referendum. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, stands; I tried to underline it. In this convention we are talking about the future of Europe. We are not talking about the currency. There is a big difference.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my other point on Nice: that this takes forward the agenda. The noble Lord and I have had interesting and sometimes extremely

25
lengthy exchanges on the Nice Bill. The noble Lord may toss the matter to one side, saying that the outcome of the general election on the basis of a clearly articulated promise to the British people is neither here nor there. I take a somewhat different view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, was entirely right to say that the representatives from your Lordships' House will be independent. I agree that they are independent not only on their standing with regard to the convention but also by the nature of the noble Lords concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether we would go back to first principles. The noble Lord will not like the answer which I gave in the recent exchange. We said that we shall take Nice forward. We have taken Nice forward. I hope that we shall get through Third Reading. I do not think that the Government's position could have been made clearer.
We are where we are on this. I did my best genuinely to obtain representations from your Lordships' House. I do not believe that the argument is between the Government and Parliament. The arguments adduced have been more about the balance between the two Houses. As I urged noble Lords last week to do, it was the responsibility of us all to take forward that argument through our party political channels. I say gently to the Cross-Benchers, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, that if their arguments were so pressing they could have been put some time ago. They had the opportunity for amendments.
I understand that there is still a little unhappiness. However, we shall have the opportunity to discuss the convention. We shall get our views over through the usual means: questions, debates and our own excellent committee on the European Union. With that assurance, and with the assurance that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer the important question on whether the invitation to send delegates from Parliament was sent to the Government or the Clerk of Parliaments and the Speakers of both Houses?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that I had answered that point in my opening remarks. It was for the Government, as all other governments, to decide the process for determining parliamentary representatives. The noble Lord should not be under the misapprehension that invitations were sent to Parliament. We discussed this matter when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, first raised the question. I said that it was a matter ultimately for the Government to decide: that the Government would do so on the basis of as wide a consultation as possible. I believe that our tabling today of this Motion on the Order Paper fully fulfils that commitment.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.58 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraphs 7 and 8, revising Articles 29 and 31 of the Treaty on European Union),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our debate on 17th January at the Report stage of the Bill, I raised the question at col. 1219 of the Official Report as to whether the new European police force, Europol, was to have immunity for its actions. When I did not detect an answer in the reply of the Minister, I repeated the question at cols. 1222 and 1223. The noble Baroness still did not quite answer my question but was generous enough to say:
"Nothing in the establishing of Eurojust trespasses on the Europol issues which the noble Lord has raised. I shall do my best to put some more flesh on the bones for him. if that is possible at this stage. I understand why the noble Lord is so concerned".—[Official Report, 17/1/02, col. 1223.]
In the absence of any flesh on those bones, I am bringing forward the question again today as a specific amendment.
In the meantime I have done more homework and regret to say that it looks as though Europol's officers are indeed to have almost total immunity for their actions. I say that because I have discovered a Statutory Instrument, No. 2973, dated 17th December 1997, which appears to confirm just such immunity. The whole document is available in your Lordships' Library, but I believe it is worth placing on the record what are perhaps the two most worrying paragraphs.
The first is paragraph 6 which concerns Europol as an organisation. It states,
"Europol shall have immunity from suit and legal process, except to the extent that the Director shall have waived such immunity in a particular case, in respect of any damage caused to an individual as a result of legal or factual errors in data stored or processed at Europol".
I believe that your Lordships will agree that this could be a very wide ranging immunity indeed because,
"damage caused to an individual as a result of legal or factual errors in data stored or processed at Europol"
could presumably be very substantial damage. I trust that your Lordships will agree that it is not much comfort for the director of Europol to be given the sole power to waive the immunity granted because that leaves the organisation subject to no outside constraint in that regard at all. I shall be interested to learn from the Government how they justify having agreed to this in December 1997.
Paragraph 15 of the statutory instrument is even more worrying. It is worth placing on the record. It refers to the officers of Europol and states:
"Except in so far as in any particular case any privilege or immunity is waived by the Board, in the case of the Director, Financial Controller and members of the Financial Committee,

27
by the Director, in the case of staff members of Europol, or, in the case of the members of the Board, by the Member State of the European Union of which the member is representative"—
I trust that noble Lords can catch up on all that in Hansard. Now we come to the crunch—
"such persons"—
that is the officers of Europol—
"shall enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts, including words written or spoken, done by them in the exercise of their official functions, except in respect of civil liability in the case of damage arising from a road traffic accident caused by them".
I suppose it is good news that these new Europol officers will remain liable for civil liability—I do not know if that includes accidental damage—if they cause a road accident. Otherwise, they are to enjoy what looks like blanket immunity. Once again, I shall be interested to learn how the Government justify having agreed to this state of affairs in December 1997.
At least one other question needs an answer from the Government today. It is generally believed that Europol has been given the green light to form its own so-called anti-terrorist squad with the right to demand intelligence from MI5 and MI6. I ask the Government whether that is true. If so, it is not reassuring to remember that EU officials were caught selling intelligence information from the Schengen information system only three years ago.
As far as I know, the instrument and the immunity it confers were not even debated in either House of Parliament: it went through on the nod. Therefore, I believe that we should let in a little light today.
I have one last question for the Minister which I also asked on 17th January, at col. 1219, and to which I did not receive a reply. Do the Government agree that Europol and Eurojust, the EU's fledgling prosecution agency which will be working under the new European judicial network, and all these new creations, when taken together with the infamous European arrest warrant, are indeed the first steps towards corpus juris or the common EU legal order? I believe that we should clarify the issue before we leave consideration of the Treaty of Nice.
If the answer to my question is yes—and it seems pretty clear that it must be—then should we not have a specific debate before long so that we can at least express a view and inform the British people of what is being done in their name with their legal system? I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his amendment to discuss this important question. In our earlier discussion, I gained the impression, perhaps wrongly, from the reply the noble Lord received, that the Foreign Office did not know about the legislation passed in 1997. If so that is very worrying because I believe that we should have joined-up government and that every department should know exactly what is going on in another department and what they negotiating over in Europe.
28
It seems to me that as a result of the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the safeguards and constraints which apply to our own police forces do not apply to the foreign police agents of the EU, because that is what they are and no mistake should be made about it. As I understand it, the Police Complaints Authority will be powerless to act in abuse cases as will police forces and individual police officers, due to the immunity granted by the order.
I seem to recall that when the order was discussed the impression was given that immunity would apply only to a very narrow band of crimes, for example, fraud against the EU and drugs smuggling. Now, with the advent of the European arrest warrant, these foreign agents of the EU may perhaps be able to intervene and investigate all the crimes mentioned in the framework agreement on the European arrest warrant. I believe that they total 39. Frankly, that covers just about everything, so far as I can see. It is an important issue which the noble Lord has brought forward. I feel sure that those who fought and died to keep this country free must be turning in their graves at the thought of policemen, perhaps from the countries they fought to maintain that freedom, coming to this country to arrest people and have them tried in another country.
I say also to the press that there are great dangers here for them. If we follow the line of "no xenophobia" and whatever, the Sun will not be able to print headlines such as "Up Yours, Delors!" for fear of those responsible being arrested by Euro policemen, taken across the water and being incarcerated for six months or more before trial and then, if found guilty, incarcerated in a foreign gaol. I hope that that is not taking matters too far. These are the dangers that can arise. It is right that we should at least discuss them before a tragedy occurs and all hell is let loose.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a specific question. When a foreign diplomat commits an offence in this country, he has complete immunity from prosecution. On the other hand, if the offence is a serious one—an assault, for example, as opposed to a minor traffic violation—he is normally asked to leave the country. Will the same request be made to Europol officers who behave in such a way?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have limited sympathy with one aspect of the amendment: it is useful to be sure that we are well informed as to what levels of immunity will be given to the new bodies. Having said that, I remind those who spoke to the amendment that your Lordships' Committee on the European Union has produced reports on Europol and Eurojust which investigated those matters in considerable detail. I am not sure whether those noble Lords took part in our debate on those reports.
The British police and judicial authorities find the European arrest warrants not so much a threat as useful. British criminals tend to go elsewhere in the European Community and it takes a long time to get them back. That is something that happens with

29
increasing cross-border transactions. So I see the provisions not as Gestapo-led threats to British justice but a normal consequence of large numbers of British citizens moving to Spain, for example, for usually legal, but occasionally, sadly, illegal, reasons, whom it is difficult to get back. There are also lengthy court proceedings in Dublin, in which people attempt to avoid extradition procedures intended to return them to the United Kingdom. That is one aspect of the Treaty of Nice that we ought all to welcome.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that I am a little perplexed by the amendment. Although his remarks about Europol were interesting, I was not sure that they were about the amendment. The amendment is addressed to the establishment of Eurojust, but his remarks were addressed entirely to Europol. Officers of a number of institutions have the same degree of immunity as Europol. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with as much information as I am able to garner on the subject. Indeed, I have already asked the Home Office to respond to some of the points that he raised about Europol. The provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord's amendment would delete are absolutely not, as he suggested, about establishing some sort of supranational European police force. The part of the Bill covering Eurojust is about inter-governmental co-operation, not some sort of super-European police force.
Previously, the noble Lord has raised his concerns about a number of issues relating to the Napoleonic code. The provisions are not about the Napoleonic code. They do not give Eurojust the opportunity to range far and wide without being answerable. Eurojust is directly answerable to justice and home affairs Ministers within the Justice and Home Affairs Council. There is no concept of a European public prosecutor concerned with the establishment of a single EU jurisdiction—to answer another point made by the noble Lord. Eurojust does none of that, as we discussed on several occasions in Committee and on Report.
The amendment would delete from the Bill the closer co-operation between judicial and other competent authorities of the member states and paragraph 2 of Article 31, which provides for Eurojust co-operation. The noble Lord ranged wide of that remit by talking about Europol. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. Yes, Europol will have a degree of immunity. shall try to give him some more information. but there is nothing unprecedented in that. In that spirit, I hope that he will accept that I shall do what I can to help him—although I am bound to say that that is not terribly germane to the amendment. None the less, I shall do what I can to answer the noble Lord's questions.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and to the Minister for her more helpful reply. It is probably
30
not worth our having a long debate about the intricacies of the treaty at this juncture. Article 29 includes the new words:
"including cooperation through the European Judicial Cooperation Unit ('Eurojust')".
Article 31 goes on to refer to its action. As the Minister said, the new words in the Treaty of Nice are contained in paragraph 2 of Article 31, which specifically promotes support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of serious cross-border crime, especially in the case of organised crime, and taking particular account of analyses carried out by Europol. So Europol is relevant to the amendment. and it is helpful to have on the record the degree of immunity that we propose to confer on such characters.
I take it that the Minister agrees with my other point, which is that taken together, the whole juxtaposition of Europol, Eurojust. the European judicial network and the arrest warrant constitute the first step towards the European legal order, or corpus juris, as it is known in the European jargon. That ought to be on the record in your Lordships' House; it is an extremely dangerous departure for the European Union. Those powers are largely taken under the bogus cover of darkness of the events of September 11th. They have little to do with terrorism.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he would take my silence to be assent to his point. I am sure that he knows well enough from our previous debates that he should not do that, because I have been quite explicit to the contrary.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Baroness answer my question? Should we not have a separate debate on the progress towards corpus juris, encompassing the aspects that I mentioned: Europol, Eurojust, the judiciary and, in particular, the infamous arrest warrant and everything else that is on the way in the creation of this European federal order?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that we have a great deal of discussion of such issues. If the usual channels find it helpful, I am sure that they will facilitate a debate of that nature. I would not want the noble Lord to take my earlier silence in any way to indicate that I followed his logic and reached his conclusions on the argument. It is a matter for the House whether we have a debate on the extremely interesting matters that the noble Lord has raised. I am bound to say that that would probably be a more appropriate channel for such a debate than the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I shall leave her with her silence. I trust that the House will leave me with my assertion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in accordance with custom, I should like to say a few words before the Bill passes from your Lordships' House after our fairly protracted debates on it during the past few months. I hope that the fact that I have tabled no amendments on Third Reading will not lead anyone to think that we have any particular fondness or liking for this Bill about the Nice treaty or, as it was described in the newspapers this morning, the Nice debacle, as it is now widely agreed to have been. However, at Third Reading, we must recognise that there was a massive majority in favour of the Bill in another place. At the moment, we are still an advisory Chamber, a monitoring and long-term thinking Chamber. We do not yet have an elected element; when and if we do, the view from an elected Chamber would be very different, in the interests of the country and of parliamentary democracy. The Bill adds little to either of those causes.
There are large parts of the Bill—or of the treaty, if not the Bill—that could happily have been left out. As it says in Hymns Ancient and Modern, in which verses are sometimes starred, there are large sections that could have been omitted without injury to the general sense and purpose of the hymn, or, in this case, the Bill. It does not help particularly with enlargement, although we have been told again and again that that is its purpose. In fact, the enlargement mechanisms could probably have been handled differently and have been slowed down by the attachment of all sorts of extra commitments, devices and decorations on the treaty. So far, that has had a fatal effect. The treaty has been blocked by the decision in the Irish referendum.
All along, we have sought to ask what plan B was, and we have not really had an answer. What happens if the Irish cannot somehow turn opinion around in time? The treaty cannot be ratified. We can sign—the former Foreign Secretary has already signed us up—and both Houses of Parliament can pass it, as seems likely to happen. However, that is no good; the treaty must be ratified by all existing members, and there has been little assurance of that.
We are passing a Bill that will not lead immediately to any particular changes. I am not sure that, when it does, the changes will be at all beneficial. The issue of the future shape of the European Union moves now to the so-called Convention on the Future of Europe, which your Lordships discussed earlier this afternoon. I view the whole approach with unease born of past experience. It looks as though, once again, the nomination aspect of the operation has been hijacked by the executive. It certainly appears to have been hijacked by the Euro-elite and the pro-integration political parties.
That is exactly what happened when we had an assise in the late 1980s, in order to try to determine the future shape of Europe. Some said that more
32
democracy was needed, that matters should be returned to national parliaments, that subsidiarity should be made a reality, that repatriation of certain vital powers was overdue and that the European Union's methods belonged to the previous century—that is, we can now say, the 20th century—and were hopelessly centralised. Those views never had a chance. I hope that they will have now and that there may be at least one robust voice in our very small grouping going to the convention. My hopes are not high that that voice will be properly heard.
I remain bemused by the fact that the two Chambers of this ancient Parliament, which has a democratic legitimacy that goes back for hundreds of years, should have its voice narrowed down to so few Members in a convention at which, I understand, there will be 16 from the European Parliament, the democratic credentials of which have yet to be fully established in a way in which even its members would like. We look forward not to a more flexible pattern for a modern European Union, but to something that repeats what the traditional Europe-builders want. One need not be a Euro-sceptic, just a Euro-realist, to see the dangers of that.
The Bill fails to touch the huge, immediate and dangerous issue of the legitimacy and democratic structure of the European Union. Even its most ardent proponents and supporters realise that that is a great danger. On this side of the House, we say, "Good-bye" to the Bill without any enthusiasm. We hope that it will lead to wiser counsels but fear that it will not.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Government for their co-operation in passing the Bill. We do not share the sentiments of the Conservatives, who seem to see conspiracies in every aspect of European legislation.
I shall repeat what I said in Committee. There is, in the House, a Gresham's law of European debate. A certain tone of discussion of European legislation tends to drive out informed discussion of where we are going. I find that unfortunate. It is extremely important that from now on, as we move from this rather modest and disappointing Bill amending the EU treaty, we should have a more constructive debate about what is proposed for the next intergovernmental conference. We hope that the Chamber will find a means of following the progress of the convention that will be equally constructive. I hope that the Government will lead in that and that they will keep the House regularly informed, through Statements and publications, of how the debates are moving forward.
From these Benches, we will give every assistance in making sure that the debate is constructive and intelligent and does not treat all foreigners as if they were threats to this kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in my view, the Bill should not have been brought before Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, the Irish people have rejected the treaty. Because of that, the treaty is, effectively, dead.

33
There is no need, therefore, for us to discuss the treaty, except, of course, to pressure the Irish people into voting differently in a future referendum, assuming that a future referendum is possible under the Republic's constitution. It is improper for Britain—in particular, Parliament—to be party to such pressure.
The treaty has been described as essential to enlargement, but, clearly, it is not. I wish that people would stop talking about it as if it were. Enlargement can proceed with or without the treaty. The Bill was rushed through the House of Commons in three days. That is a disgrace. That was completely unnecessary and completely undemocratic. I am glad that the House has been able to spend more time on the Bill, but it is farcical that the unelected Chamber should be able to discuss the Bill properly, while the elected Chamber was limited by guillotine to only three days. That cannot be right. I wish that the House of Commons would give some attention to that.
The treaty is important. There is no doubt about that. I shall not go into detail, but it takes important steps towards further European integration, including laying the foundations of a European government, foreshadowing a written constitution and setting up the nucleus of a military high command. There are some important things in it, and those are very important and vital matters.
I thank the Ministers and government spokesmen for their attention to the views of those taking part in debate for giving detailed replies to the many questions raised. I thank them also for their courtesy, good humour and tolerance. That was noted by the House and welcomed and appreciated by it. I am sure that, on that point at least, I speak for all Members of the House.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, say farewell to the Bill with some fear and trepidation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that the Treaty of Nice is entirely bogus if it was intended to help with enlargement. Clearly it does not do that. Enlargement was merely taken as the excuse to strengthen the power of Brussels—of the European Union—against the sovereignty of the member states. It is extremely depressing that the acquis communautaire, the ratchet, has gone on grinding relentlessly towards the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, as the treaties demand that it must.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the acquis communautaire was frozen for enlargement and that no additional directives have been put in? Because of the Treaty of Nice, enlargement can progress without further directives on the book.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not referring to the aspects of the acquis communautaire to which the noble Baroness refers so much as the way in which the ratchet towards an EU megastate has moved
34
forward, in particular in the areas of a common legal framework, corpus furls, and other aspects of the treaty.
It is very simple: the European Union is dangerous for peace and irrelevant to trade. I would maintain that all those who support the European Union and the European dream do so from the basis of a fundamental belief that it is obviously good. They even dare to claim that it has had something to do with producing peace in Europe. They certainly believe that it will solidify and guarantee peace in the future, whereas I and others believe it to be a forced or premature conglomeration of different nations. Such conglomerations always end in disaster.
The Union is irrelevant to trade. European Union trade barriers are now down below 1 per cent and therefore leave us only with the Union's very dangerous political ambitions. For myself, I think that the best quotation of our debates came from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He pointed out that the European Union would not qualify for membership of the European Union if it applied to itself for that honour. Nor indeed would it.
I fear that we must leave it there. I should also like to offer my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and her team for their unfailing courtesy in answering most of our questions. Very often those questions have been extremely detailed and I am afraid that they have also been boring questions. However, the devil is often in the detail—boring, but very important for the future of this country. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, fundamental questions had to be faced by those European leaders who gathered at Nice to negotiate a treaty which would manage institutiional decision-taking in a Union almost twice as large as it is at the moment. Many of those issues went to the heart of national pride and to ideas about national influence.
Throughout our debates on the Brill, many have complained that the Treaty of Nice is not a pretty agreement and that it provides a botch-potch of solutions to the problems that have been raised. Yes, some of the solutions are inelegant, but from these Benches we would argue that inelegance is a small price to pay for making enlargement a success. Enlargement is an historic prize and I feel that it is important to remind ourselves of why enlargement is so big a prize for us all to focus on. Not only will it be the final nail in the coffin of the hugely damaging divisions between east and west, it will also actively contribute to peace and stability in Europe. Enlargement will certainly do that, although the noble Lord may doubt whether the Bill before us contributes to it.
Enlargement will consolidate democracy, good governance, the rule of law and respect for human and minority rights across our continent. Furthermore, it will mean that the biggest single market in the world will be formed, with increased prosperity for current

35
and new member states alike. It will also contribute to a greater co-ordinated effort against crime, terrorism, drugs and pollution. Those are all great ambitions, but they are ones that we believe will be taken forward with the treaty that we have been discussing.
It is a prize worth winning. We believe that it is our duty to ensure that the European Union is in a state to receive new members. The Treaty of Nice delivers the reforms that will enable us so to do.
Some noble Lords have relied on the argument that Nice contains certain provisions which are not directly related to enlargement, but I am bound to say that that does not affect the simple kernel of the argument; that is, that the Nice treaty is primarily—although I grant not exclusively—about the reforms that are necessary for enlargement.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned in his remarks a few moments ago the issue of defence. I should like to make a point about that issue once more. It is absolutely vital that the Government make it plain once again that the security and defence policy is nothing to fear. It is a capability, it is not a permanent force or army and is designed to complement NATO, not to compete with it. There will be no rival structures and no competition over managing any operations. It is enormously important to put again on the record the fact that NATO remains the cornerstone of European defence.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Irish question. I fully anticipated that some noble Lords would do so and I say once again that the Government respect the outcome of the Irish referendum and it is clear that the Irish people certainly had concerns about the treaty and quite possibly about the EU in general. Clearly those needs will have to be addressed but, as I would remind noble Lords, the Irish Government agreed, along with all other EU governments, that following the referendum the ratification process should continue while they consider how those concerns should be addressed.
Now is the time to look forward. The Nice treaty has laid out plans for further reform. We have discussed the means by which we shall take questions forward. That is because when the noble Lord pointed out a few moments ago from the Front Bench opposite that the Bill failed to touch on what he described as the "crucial issue" of legitimacy in the European Union, I had some sympathy with those words. But then the Bill was not designed to discuss those crucial issues. That is the debate that is designed to be taken forward in the IGC in 2004. I stress to the noble Lord that, while we have set out in the declaration a number of indicative subjects, many of which we have addressed many times in your Lordships' House, they are subjects inter alia and thus may be added to, as we have discussed in this House when I have been questioned on that point.
It is the Government's view that Nice sets out on the road to positive reform. However, its main achievement is to deliver successful enlargement through sensible reform. That is not the price of enlargement, it is one of the benefits. The Government
36
believe that the Treaty of Nice is good not only for Europe but, indeed, that it is also good for the United Kingdom.
I, too, wish to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I thank those who have made tireless efforts to keep us all up to the mark. I make no distinction between those who are thought to be Eurosceptics, Eurorealists or Europhiles or those who object to those terms. I say to all noble Lords that they have worked enormously hard to thrash out the arguments. All have done so painstakingly and, I believe, driven by the genuine motive of the public good. Although at times our debates have been lengthy, they have been unfailingly good-humoured. I should like to thank in particular noble Lords on my own side for their support during the debates.
Finally, I should like to thank my Bill team. Long hours are no strangers to a Bill team. The team has provided me with timely ammunition as and when I have needed it. Often that has been delivered by a reassuring nod, sometimes by raised eyebrows or by a timely note. Essentially, they have been a source of enormous expertise not only, perhaps I may say, to the Government Front Bench but also to a number of noble Lords who have raised questions with them. They have been an exemplary Bill team and have done a truly splendid job.
I hope that, having held a great deal of debate on the Bill, noble Lords will agree that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed.

Afghanistan: Tokyo Conference
4.40 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to report to the House on the Afghanistan Reconstruction Conference, which was held in Tokyo last week. The conference marked the turning of the focus of the international community onto the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I believe that we now have an important opportunity to provide the people of Afghanistan with the chance of a better future.
"The conference lasted from 21st to 22nd January, and was attended by Ministers and representatives from 61 countries and 21 international organisations. It was co-chaired by Japan, the US, the EU and Saudi Arabia. Chairman Hamid Karzai led a strong delegation from the Afghan Interim Administration. I led the UK delegation. There were delegations from the World Bank, the IMF, the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and the UN agencies. Kofi Annan also attended and addressed the conference. In the margins of the conference,

37
experts met to discuss military demobilisation, military and police training, de-mining and narcotics.
"Chairman Karzai—who performed impressively throughout the conference—outlined current and future priorities for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. A 21-member commission is being set up to oversee the emergency Loya Jirga process, leading to the establishment of a transitional government in five months' time. The Interim Administration's priorities for the next few months will be to expand emergency assistance programmes, to establish an effective government administration, to provide peace and establish the rule of law, to ensure that as many children as possible, particularly girls, are in school when the new school year begins on 1st March; to begin to reconstruct the country's shattered infrastructure, in particular roads, electricity and telecommunications, to rebuild an agricultural system and eliminate poppy cultivation, and to accelerate mine-clearing. The conference was clear in its conclusion that women's rights and women's empowerment should be fully honoured and mainstreamed through all programmes during the reconstruction process.
"Chairman Karzai stressed the Interim Administration's commitment to responsible economic management, transparency, efficiency, and accountability. He was also clear, and we strongly agree with him, that Afghan ownership of the process of reconstruction will be vital to its success and to the full implementation of the Bonn agreement.
"We have the best opportunity in a generation to bring about development and lasting stability in Afghanistan. Learning the lessons of previous efforts to reconstruct failed states such as Cambodia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Tin-tor, it is clear that the United Nations must play a pivotal role. We must continue to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of the UN system. The conference recognised and greatly appreciated the role that the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, has played and his continuing role in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan. We shall need to continue to support his efforts and those of the United Nations Development Programme who have been appointed to co-ordinate the early recovery efforts on behalf of the UN system. It will be crucial to maintain and enhance the existing humanitarian effort while also putting in place arrangements for long-term reconstruction. UNICEF will lead the effort to reopen schools. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF will work with the Red Cross to improve healthcare and the UN Mine Action Service will lead and co-ordinate the de-mining effort. The World Food Programme will continue to supply food for six million people, and will develop food for work schemes across the country plus feeding schemes in schools focused particularly on encouraging girls' attendance.
38
"We need also to make an urgent effort to strengthen the Interim Administration and build its capacity to lead the reconstruction effort. In order to take this process forward, a common trust fund will be established, and we shall work to try to encourage co-ordinated support for the interim authority's strategy rather than a proliferation of donor projects.
"The preliminary needs assessment undertaken by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the UNDP to prepare for the conference concluded that Afghanistan's funding requirements would amount to just over 10 billion dollars over the next five years. At the conference, 4.5 billion dollars from 36 countries was pledged, including 1.8 billion dollars for 2002. I announced a commitment from the United Kingdom—funded from the DfID budget—of £200 million over the next five years. In addition, DfID will make substantial contributions through the EC, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. This commitment is additional to the £60 million that we have allocated in the current financial year for humanitarian and recovery assistance.
"Since my last Statement to the House, a lot has been achieved. The conference in Tokyo was an excellent example of how the international community can achieve results when it works collectively. But there is still a great deal to do. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains fragile, and it is not yet clear whether there will be a fourth year of drought. I believe that we should strongly congratulate the United Nations system, and particularly the World Food Programme, in having averted a major humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan. We must be clear that these efforts will have to continue for some time while arrangements for long-term reconstruction are put in place.
"The most urgent issue that now needs to be addressed is the need to provide security across Afghanistan, and to begin the process of demobilisation and disarmament and the building and training of an Afghan army and police force. As a first step the UK has offered to work with the Afghan Interim Administration on a scoping study. The greatest danger to the future of Afghanistan is the risk of mounting disorder, criminality and faction fighting.
"In conclusion, with the Taliban removed, the Interim Administration in place, and the widespread commitment by the international community to the future of Afghanistan made clear in Tokyo, there is real hope for a better life for the people, and especially the children cif Afghanistan. We must not fail to grasp this opportunity".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. We thank him for his courtesy in making available, in advance, a copy of the Statement.

39
The British contribution of £200 million announced in Tokyo to fund reconstruction of Afghanistan is extremely welcome. Many people were quick to suggest that the West would bomb Afghanistan, and then abandon it. It is encouraging to see that this is not the case. I pay tribute to all those engaged in liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. We wish them success in completing their task.
We share the Minister's belief that there is now a new opportunity for a better future for the Afghans, provided that the solution is looked at in the context of the whole region. That is as important in this part of the world as it was with Kosovo. Only today, the government of Kyrgyzstan resigned—an illustration of the fragility in the area.
There are four points that I should like the Minister to clarify. The first relates to control over spending. Given the fact that £3.1 billion has been offered to Afghanistan, does the noble Lord agree that there needs to be clear monitoring of each project that is being supported? Can the noble Lord tell the House which bodies will be scrutinising the aid provided to Afghanistan? Who will monitor where the aid is being allocated? Is any institution in place to bring coordination to the aid being provided by countries as diverse as Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the EU and Saudi Arabia'? Is the noble Lord confident that the aid being dispersed via the EUworth £500 million—will be dispersed quickly and effectively?
The second point concerns the civil service. Does the Minister accept the difficulties facing Afghanistan at the moment and that reconstruction will fail unless the basic infrastructure of the new government is in place? Given the Secretary of State's high praise for Hamid Karzai, does the Minister agree that the first priority for reconstruction should be to legitimise his government in the eyes of his people to help bring the necessary political stability to Afghanistan? Such reconstruction is something that you do "with" a country and not "to" a country.
My third point concerns the refugee problem. The Minister will be aware that there are more than 4 million Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan. Since 1998, the UNHCR has repatriated 4.6 million Afghan refugees. Can the noble Lord confirm whether there is provision in the reconstruction package for the repatriation of refugees?
Fourthly, the Secretary of State twice mentioned the need to stamp out the opium production. Does the noble Lord agree that installing new irrigation systems would help the possibility of growing alternative crops?
Finally, if we are to look at the long-term rehabilitation of Afghanistan, the international community will need to consider the issue of debt relief. Can the Minister give assurances that he will urge the Secretary of State to look imaginatively at ways of helping the new Afghan government to deal with the issue of debt relief?
40
Again. I warmly welcome the Government's Statement and the results of the Tokyo conference. If we can reconstruct Afghanistan properly, it will be another victory for the war on terrorism.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Statement. The House will remember that among the problems which led to the arrival of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was the failure of the United States and other countries to remain involved after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, and the failure to spend as much effort on reconstruction after the war as on support for the war itself. Nation building is absolutely something which we and other countries have to do, a subject to which the House will return in the context of a different continent—Africa—on Wednesday.
I note with pleasure that there are some very warm words in the Statement about the role of the United Nations. How far beyond current plans do the Government intend to move in terms of strengthening the United Nations? There is much in the Statement about the need to strengthen the United Nations. The UN peacekeeping operations department has been embarrassingly weak for far too long. Progress on reform and strengthening has been painfully slow. Sadly, we may anticipate that Afghanistan will not be the last country in which there will have to he a multilateral effort to rebuild, and it should he very much part of the British and European contributions to ensure that the UN is better equipped for these tasks from now on.
It is excellent that Mr Brahimi is leading in this role. After all, the Brahimi report was about the need to strengthen the UN's capacity in this area. Can the Minister say—now or later—what effort the British Government are putting in to make sure that the Brahimi report will at last be implemented?
As Clare Short has said on many occasions, the provision of security is essential to any form of national reconstruction. There is presently an interim force in Kabul and, I understand, Mr Karzai has been talking about expanding the role of that force across the rest of the country. It would useful to know more about that and whether any expansion of that force's role will carry implications for the British, who are now playing a large role in that force.
The British have a worthwhile tradition in the provision of educational assistance to countries in need, and the entire educational system—from primary to higher education—will need to be reconstructed in Afghanistan. In the tradition of joined-up government, has the Department for Education been brought in on this?
Lastly, this cannot be about Afghanistan alone. There are problems with Afghanistan's near neighbours and we need to make sure that Iran and Pakistan are fully on board. There are a number of other extremely weak states to Afghanistan's north. The heroin trade from Afghanistan to Europe came through Tajikistan. Kazakhstan and elsewhere. Can

41
we be assured that in the response of the international community to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the weak states of central Asia to its north—some of which also have within them a degree of Muslim terrorism—will be a part of the overall package?
4.55 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I appreciate the continued support of both parties opposite, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for the Government's efforts, through the international community, to honour our commitment not to walk away from the people of Afghanistan. Both Front Benches opposite sought reassurance that that would not happen—that the Government's commitment and the commitment of the international community would continue—and I can certainly give that assurance as far as it is within my individual power to do so. It is certainly the intention of the Secretary of State and the British Government.
Both speakers drew attention to the fragility of the area as a whole—the "Stans", as the neighbouring states are referred to. It is acknowledged that we are dealing with a difficult situation in a fragile area of' the world. It will take all our skill, determination and continuing commitment to deal with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about refugees. At least 100,000 Afghan refugees have returned from Pakistan and Iran since last November, and thousands of internally displaced persons have also started to return to their homes. The Department for International Development has provided £3 million to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to support its operations in response to the current crisis. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to security in Afghanistan. This was specifically referred to in the Statement and the Secretary of State attaches enormous importance to it. The delivery of aid and the establishment of good governance is preconditional on having a secure country in which to deliver that aid and to begin the process of reconstruction. The interim government of Afghanistan attaches great importance to that issue, as does the United Nations, which is overseeing the operation.
The noble Baroness referred to control over spending and supervision of EU funding. I can assure her that those matters were discussed at the conference and are of great importance. However, I should emphasise two of the strengths of the way in which this on-going situation is being handled. First, there is the abiding importance of the United Nations and its involvement from the start. The Secretary-General's special representative, who has done tremendous work, has been there at all stages, and that has been vitally important. Secondly, there is the crucially important issue of the "ownership"—I do not particularly like the word but the House will know what I mean—of the operation by the people of Afghanistan and the Interim Administration which
42
has been established. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is absolutely right to say that we must work "with" a country and not dictate to it.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of debt relief. It is my understanding that there is no huge outstanding problem at present. If there is, I shall write to her.
Reference was made to opium production. The vital point is that we should not lecture people but give them an alternative continuous and on-going source of income. That is precisely what the intention of the international community and the Interim Administration has been.
It may be helpful to the House if I re-state the six priorities set out by the Afghan Interim Administration, as they cover many of the issues raised. The first is enhancement of the administrative capacity, with emphasis on the payment of salaries in the establishment of government administration—points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The second is education, especially for girls—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The third is health and sanitation. The fourth is infrastructure, particularly roads, electricity and telecommunications. The fifth is the reconstruction of the economic system. The sixth is agriculture and rural development—and relates particularly to the dependence on opium production.
I repeat that the welcome for the Statement from both Front Benches is greatly appreciated. We have moved an astonishingly long way since the dreadful events of last September. It is barely believable that after just five months we are talking about, as we hope, a rather more optimistic future for Afghanistan. That is what the Government and the international community—led by the United Nations and principally by the people of Afghanistan through the Interim Administration—will continue to do.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I strongly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in referring specifically to the monitoring of projects and how the money is spent in Afghanistan. Will my noble friend check with officials in the department that post-project evaluation reports will be used as the means to ensure that money actually gets through to the projects that we want to support? I refer in particular to projects to support women. Much of the international support for the coalition came about because of the problems faced by women in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Many people in this country will want to know that money will get through to women's projects, and that the expenditure will be properly monitored.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. He has taken a close interest in these issues in the other place as well as in this House. I can assure him that enormous importance is attached to the monitoring of projects. I can certainly assure him about the importance that we attach to women's

43
projects, and in particular to the education of women. My noble friend is right to emphasise that, when the debate was raging throughout the world about the operations of the international coalition in Afghanistan, the issue that arose time and again in relation to the appalling nature of the Taliban regime was its treatment of women. It is no coincidence that the international community and indeed the interim Administration in Afghanistan see the empowerment of women, education for women, and the lead that women can take in development issues as fundamental to the reconstruction process.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I declare an interest. As a recently appointed special envoy to the director-general of the World Health Organisation in relation to the eastern Mediterranean region, I led the WHO delegation to Tokyo. Inevitably, therefore, I must ask the Minister why the re-establishment of healthcare for Afghanistan plays so little part in the Statement that he has kindly laid before this House. The infant mortality rate in Afghanistan is the highest in the world—a quarter of children die under the age of five; and the average age of death is 46, the lowest globally. Therefore, should not the establishment of healthcare in that country be an absolute priority for the Department for International Development? I am surprised that it plays so little part in the Statement. I urge the Minister to recognise that the World Health Organisation has created a national health plan for Afghanistan, which has been warmly welcomed by the Minister there, a famous woman, and has now been adopted. Does the Minister agree that that plan must be supported, lest the fragmentation referred to in the Statement should occur? I urge the Government to re-cast the mechanism by which DfID policy is created, so that healthcare can again be an absolute priority, as it must for this particular nation.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Baroness has great expertise in these matters. I know it is difficult when Statements are made and documents are not always seen immediately. There was a specific reference in the Statement to the importance of the World Health Organisation; namely, that the World Health Organisation and UNICEF will work with the Red Cross to improve healthcare. In the list of priorities set out by the Interim Administration health is seen as crucially important. Specific support to the World Health Organisation amounts to £5 million in relation to the redevelopment; in relation to UNICEF, it is £8 million. I should not want anything that I have said—and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not want anything that she has said—in any way to diminish the importance of the statistics that the noble Baroness has placed before the House in relation to infant mortality and life expectancy. They are of crucial importance.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I welcome. However, is he aware of a rather worrying
44
report in today's newspapers concerning the continuing danger from cluster bombs? During the course of the bombing campaign, a number of us raised objections to their use. It appears that the bomblets arising from them are still causing deaths, particularly among children, who are attracted by the yellow colour of the bomblets. Is it not a priority that these remnants of the bombing should be cleared up as soon as possible? It looks as though they are still causing damage. injury and death among the child population.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has taken a close interest in this important issue for a long time. On the issue of mines more generally, the Department for International Development has approved a commitment of £3 million for humanitarian action in relation to mines in Afghanistan. The department has been a principal donor to humanitarian action of this kind. We do not want to go over the whole argument about cluster bombs. However, it should be said that they were carefully targeted to deal with specific issues. I understand that there is close co-operation between the military authorities and the aid agencies in dealing with the problem of cluster bombs. An important part of the reconstruction process is the further training of de-miners to deal with these types of munitions.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, among the many nations involved in the conference taking place on Afghanistan, we are taking particular steps to make sure that the Government of Pakistan, a fellow member of the Commonwealth. are much involved? Pakistan has almost lost count of the number of refugees that it has "imported". Its border with Afghanistan is somewhat "porous". Refugees come and go—and, no doubt, terrorists as well. It is important that we side closely with Pakistan and help it in what is a difficult position for that country. General Musharraf has already taken a brave step and helped us all. It is important that we recognise that and give him the support that he may need.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This has been an unbelievably difficult time for the people of Pakistan, for the reasons that he has spelt out. I mentioned earlier that at least 100,000 Afghan refugees have returned from Pakistan since last November. We are talking about a staggering number of people. I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of Pakistan. The British Government and the international community fully acknowledge the need not to walk away from the consequences for Pakistan of the conflict in Afghanistan.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I apologise for not being present for the beginning of my noble friend's Statement. How are British forces involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance and food, either through keeping roads safe or perhaps through the use of military aircraft and helicopters to get to more remote places?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, there is co-operation at all levels in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I fully

45
understand why my noble friend was not here at the beginning of the Statement. No doubt he was finalising the details of his grilling of the Government on Chechnya, which is coming in a few minutes. I said earlier that experts met during the conference to discuss military demobilisation, military and police training, de-mining and narcotics. Those issues were discussed during the debate on reconstruction.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister accept my delight that the conference was clear in its conclusions that women's rights and empowerment should be fully honoured and mainstreamed through all programmes? That was a reassuring phrase. I also strongly agree with the support for the Afghan ownership of the process. In that context, can the Minister reassure the House about the position of the Minister for Women's Affairs in Afghanistan, who, until the conference, was working out of her own house with no funds for her important ministry? She should at least be supported and reinforced in that ministry.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness's sentiments. I cannot reassure her that things are improving at this precise minute, but I can certainly reassure her that ensuring proper facilities for that vital government department is an issue very close to the heart of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, as your Lordships would expect. We may not yet have all the funds that are required, but securing funds and facilities for the proper establishment of that Ministry is a recognised issue and is being addressed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to return to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lady Turner about cluster bombs. In view of the fact that it is very difficult to get authentic news about exactly what is happening on the military front, but particularly in the light of recurrent reports that our United States allies are continuing their military use, will he convey to the American Government the profound distaste of the British Government for any use of cluster bombs at this stage, whatever the provocation may be and whatever the desire to seek a military solution may be? I am sure that the Minister agrees that these matters are of vital concern not only to my noble friend but to the country at large.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know well enough the concerns of my noble friend and others about this issue. I must emphasise that the international coalition against terrorism—which is properly so called—involves constant dialogue between the countries concerned. The coalition has constantly re-emphasised the fundamental truth that this was never just a military operation: it is also a humanitarian operation—and my word we have seen evidence of that in the number of people who have received humanitarian assistance—and it continues on a diplomatic front. It would be a mistake to see what has
46
happened in Afghanistan as in any way one-dimensional. It would also be a mistake to focus on this particular issue without realising, as I know that my noble friend does, that the problems of mines and of large numbers of people with huge amounts of armaments in Afghanistan are now easier to address—although still phenomenally difficult—as a resullt of the military action that has been taken.
Looking to the future rather than talking about the process so far, successful though I believe that process to have been, I assure my noble friend that, as I made clear in the Statement, there is a very strong recognition of the importance of dealing with the problem that he referred to and related matters in the reconstruction process.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords—
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, given the—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this side and I think that it is customary to intervene on only one occasion.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend's Statement, and particularly that part of it that assures us that women's rights will be fully honoured and mainstreamed. May I press my noble friend to say that the Government will use their influence in the process to ensure not only that women are the recipients of funding, but also that they participate in the allocation and distribution of that funding? They should not be on the receiving end only; they should be fully integrated in the decision-making about the distribution.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that absolute assurance. It is interesting that at least five or six of your Lordships have mentioned the importance of re-establishing the rightful place and role of women in the development of their country, which was so appallingly ignored by the Taliban during their period in control. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that we must ensure not only that women are the recipients of any reconstruction process, but that they are fundamental in making decisions about how the money is spent, knowing intimately as they do the needs of their own local community, whether it is for a school, a health centre or whatever else.

Russia and Chechnya
5.19 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge the Government of the Russian Federation to engage in further negotiation with the elected president of Chechnya to achieve a political rather than military solution to their ongoing conflict.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest in that I visited Chechnya in 1995 on behalf of International Medical Relief during a lull in the first phase of the war. The safety of our group was guaranteed by General Asian Maskhadov, then commander of the Chechen forces. Last week, Ahmed Zakayev, the personal representative of Maskhadov, who since 1997 has been the elected president of Chechnya, visited London where he held a press conference and met junior officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—apparently much to the annoyance of the Russian Government who summoned our ambassador in Moscow to complain that we were supporting terrorists. Maskhadov's right-hand man also visited Strasbourg where he addressed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Paris and Turin. That and other events—such as the Chechen foreign Minister's visit to the State Department in Washington—have helped to put the war in Chechnya back on to the political agenda.
From 11th September until today's article in the Guardian, very little has been reported in the press or other media on Chechnya's continuing guerrilla war, which shows no sign of abating. In fact, however, there is much disturbing news to report. Every day, I receive 10 to 20 items on Chechnya in my e-mail box from a website that scans the world press. On Saturday, a helicopter with five high-ranking officers "crashed". But almost every day a guerrilla attack in which several Russians and/or Chechens are killed is reported. Every few days, there is news of a mopping-up operation, consisting of house-to-house searches and arbitrary arrests. The detainees are usually taken to "filtration" centres where they are interrogated, usually under torture, and too often killed. Relatives have to pay a ransom for their release or to obtain their dead and often mutilated bodies. Ahmed Zakayev gave us confirmation of those reports. He also said that the policy was not only deeply traumatic for the civilian population but demoralising and degrading for the Russians who have to implement it.
Exactly two years ago, the Council of Europe called on the Government of the Russian Federation,
"to stop … attacks against the civilian population and to start—a political dialogue".
The Council also said:
"Failure to meet these requirements will … necessitate a review of Russian continued membership of … the Council of Europe".
One year later, very limited progress had been made. The joint working group on Chechnya which was then set up listed 15 "requirements", including investigations into alleged mass killings; stopping harassment, extortion at checkpoints and arbitrary arrests and detentions; and any physical or mental abuse.
It is perfectly clear that, to date, little progress has been made. My noble friend Lord Judd will summarise the arduous and admirable work that he has done as co-chairman of the joint working group. He will also agree, however, that that work has so far produced token responses, with only a few trials of military
48
personnel who committed human rights abuses, and not necessarily of those involved in the worst cases, such as those responsible for mass killings.
More than half the population of Chechnya are now refugees. The majority of them, about 250,000, are in Ingushetia. Many of them are still living in old tents in below zero temperatures, and more are in other neighbouring countries including Dagestan, Georgia and Turkey.
So far, no meaningful negotiations have taken place between Maskhadov and high-level Russian officials. However, there was a meeting between representatives of the two presidents in Moscow on 18th November. Mr Zakayev told us that there he had put forward three very simple proposals that could lead to a ceasefire on the Chechen side. They were that the Russian Government and people should recognise that Asian Maskhadov is the elected, legitimate leader of the Chechen Republic; that mopping-up operations should cease; and that the two presidents should set up a joint working group to restore peaceful life in Chechnya.
The Russians rejected the proposals and said that no negotiations could take place unless the Chechens gave up their arms, which was unacceptable to the Chechens. However, they agreed to meet again at an unspecified date. Although that meeting has not occurred so far, there is now a small porthole of opportunity, if the will is there.
I hope very much that the Council of Europe's recent stronger tone and the fact that Russia's Chechen policy is again coming under greater international scrutiny will persuade Mr Putin that there has to be a change. I think that he is now sufficiently secure politically to take Russian public opinion with him should he decide to agree to negotiations to end the war. The Russian people are in any case becoming increasingly disenchanted with the war. It is likely that President Maskhadov would agree to some autonomy for Chechnya that is short of total independence. Any peace settlement would be more likely to succeed and endure if a regional dialogue could be initiated that included the other autonomous regions of the north Caucasus—Dagestan, Ingushetia and North Ossetia.
Having agreed to the independence of the former republics of the USSR in 1991, Russia is still reluctant to contemplate greater independence for the peripheral territories, often former colonies of the Russian Federation. As well as the north Caucasus, there are other regions whose culture, ethnic origin and religion differ from those of Russia itself and where the desire for greater self-rule is strong. In Tatarstan, for example, a high degree of autonomy has been granted and is, I understand, acceptable. There are also other provinces to be considered. Belarus and the Ukraine, which have achieved full independence, are by comparison close relatives of Russia. Perhaps the United Kingdom could act as a model. We gave up most of our colonies, particularly the more distant ones, some time ago, and very recently we have even

49
given a quite considerable degree of autonomy to our Celtic fringe. As far as I know, at least so far, the results have been quite benign.
The history of Russia and the north Caucasus is convoluted and very difficult to fully understand, and I do not think that I could even attempt to give a summary of it in my allotted time. However, I think that the Russian Government would like us to believe that the Chechen war is part of the world-wide war against terrorism. There is a widespread mythology in Russia, which is encouraged, I think, by the government, that most Chechens are terrorists or thieves; it is similar to beliefs about the Roma in central Europe. The Chechens are Russia's "bad object".
There is no doubt that some Chechens have taken part in illegal activities, raiding and kidnapping—which I think is their speciality. Particularly unacceptable was the killing of five Red Cross nurses in 1996, and the kidnapping and beheading of three British engineers in 1999. Both of those as well as other similar crimes were strongly condemned at the time by the Chechen government. It is now thought that those two crimes were committed by forces trying to undermine the credibility of Maskhadov's government. It is inherently unlikely that any Chechen hired assassin—unless he was a totally unprincipled hired assassin—would kill foreign workers providing humanitarian and technical assistance to his own country.
The disastrous explosions that destroyed blocks of flats in several Russian cities in 1999, causing a total of 300 deaths, were blamed on the Chechens without any evidence—and none has been found since. The explosions 'were taken as a major reason for launching the second phase of the war. In the city of Ryazan, where explosives were discovered in time to defuse them, there is strong evidence implicating the FSB, the successor to the KGB. A full investigation of all the explosions has not yet been conducted. I wonder why.
There is no doubt that Shamil Basayev, the independent-minded Chechen commander, moved columns of fighters into neighbouring Dagestan in September 1999, ostensibly to assist Chechens living there who were being attacked by the Russians. That act was both illegal and senseless, regardless of whether it was in response to a Russian provocation. It was not authorised by President Maskhadov. However, combined with the apartment block explosions, it was enough to give Russia a reason to start phase two of the war.
Finally, there is the accusation that Chechen fighters have assisted Al'Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. If there are any, the number is quite small; certainly none appears to have been captured. Indeed, there have been more United Kingdom nationals captured than Chechens; all Chechens capable of fighting are needed at home. In the other direction, there has certainly been assistance to Chechnya from other Islamic nations, including some fundamentalists, although the numbers are not great. The Jordanian-born Khattab is the best known. Chechens themselves, while having a strong Islamic faith, are not fundamentalists.
I conclude by asking my noble friend to draw the attention of his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to the points that I have made, and others will make, in this short debate. Perhaps we could return the courtesy and invite, rather than summon, his excellency the Russian ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and point out how the ending of this war would not only end the suffering of many innocent families in both Chechnya and Russia but would greatly enhance Russia's reputation in the eyes of the world.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for this debate.
I should also like to say how very indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the work that he has done as the rapporteur on Chechnya to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and as chairman of the assembly sub-committee on refugees. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's speech. However, I should like to refer to his recent report to the Political Affairs Committee which concludes:
"the general situation in the Chechen Republic has not improved enough to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights and rule of law by the population as a whole".
That is evident from the UNHCR reports and from other human rights organisations.
During his recent visit to camps for internally displaced Chechens in Ingushetia, High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers said,
"We do understand that many of them [refugees] don't find it safe enough in the current situation and I do hope that the political process will prove to be more productive".
However, since September llth and President Putin's support for the international war against terrorism. it seems that western civilised democracies have turned a blind eye to the clean-up operations, illegal detentions by the armed forces and in particular the Interior Ministry's rape, torture and killing of civilians. Chechen people have no confidence in the Russian military authorities and that is the major reason why people refuse to return. In the words of the UN High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers,
"the Russian government was facing three main tasks: to ensure safety in Chechnya, restore housing and provide conditions for people to earn their living".
I have met with Chechen students in London who told me that most people believe that the Russian authorities created the events in 1999 to avenge the humiliation of the earlier war in 1994–96. Tens of thousands of people have been killed and villages and towns have been flattened in the name of "fighting terrorism". Perhaps it was a way to divert the attention of the Russian people from the corruption of past administration.
We know that peace can be achieved only through political dialogue and until the Russians can guarantee respect for human rights and prosecute members of their federal forces who have perpetrated crimes

51
against humanity, restoring confidence in the Chechen people will be difficult. Displaced people are spending a third winter in refugee camps rather than returning to their homes because the mop-up operations in residential areas have resulted in people experiencing human rights violations and beatings.
Although I agree with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that,
"A principal task for the Council of Europe should be to prepare the way for holding democratic elections in the Chechen Republic as soon as possible",
unless all political and official elements in Chechen society feel that the elections will be free from Moscow's interference, they may not bring the stability that the people deserve.
Finally, I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and ask my noble friend the Minister to urge the Government of the Russian Federation to engage in further negotiations with the elected President of Chechnya to achieve a political rather than the military solution to their ongoing conflict.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on picking such a good moment to raise this issue. It follows the Prime Minister's meeting with President Putin in December and comes just after the discussions in the Council of Europe on which we very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord. Lord Judd. It comes before the European Union/Russia summit early next month.
In the present climate of world opinion I believe that it is essential to show that military operations in Chechnya and their consequences cannot just be forgotten or swept aside on the grounds that they are anti-terrorist. Chechnya may be constitutionally part of Russia, but Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and has ratified its human rights convention and other instruments of that kind. Russia has a duty to protect civilians and non-combatants.
I have in the past complained against the use of excessive and disproportionate force and I fear that this still continues as, for example, in the recent bombardment of Argun, the third largest town in Chechnya, and alleged atrocities over the new year in the village of Tsotsin-Yurt.
Perhaps my only qualification for taking part in this debate is some study of Russian and Chechen history and some experience since 1992 of post-Soviet conflicts both in Moldova and the trans-Caucasus. Such conflicts can be extremely bitter and few, if any, can be said to be fully resolved. They mostly linger on in a frozen or semi-frozen state, despite the best efforts of mediators, international bodies and NGOs.
I suggest that it is necessary to try to understand the deep fears on all sides. Because a successful and strong Chechen mafia has flourished in Moscow and other cities, ordinary Russians tend to look on all Chechens as criminally inclined. Explosions in major cities already mentioned were, perhaps somewhat
52
improbably, blamed on Chechens and then used as a pretext for the second recent Chechen war. Rumours have been spread of large numbers of foreigners fighting alongside the Chechens linked with Al'Qaeda. However, the general heading the Federal Security Service said on 17th January that he was facing only 250 foreign fighters. He said that their influx had stopped completely and that the remainder were trying to leave the country. The next day the Federal Security Service was officially stated to be handing over to the Interior Ministry. The number of police was to be increased to 10,000, mainly locally recruited. These recent developments, however, will not easily remove the fears affecting not only the Russian man in the street but also Members of Parliament and officials at all levels.
The Chechens themselves have to cope with a bitter and bloody national history. They resisted the tsars for almost two generations. Their great leader, Shamyl, offered help to Queen Victoria during the Crimean War. Then came the revolution and Stalin's horrific deportation of the whole nation to Siberia. Chechens have recently claimed to have had 300,000 war victims and to have now 30,000 people in prisons or concentration camps with yet more displaced into Ingushetia. They say that Order 541 of 17th September 1999 authorises the persecution of, and discrimination against, Chechens throughout the Russian Federation. They allege that ever since 1994 Russia has been deliberately attacking the civilians of Chechnya.
The Russians on the other hand counter claim that many Chechens are bandits and terrorists and that 2,000 Russians have been kidnapped or killed. The fears on either side are massive and perceptions of "the enemy" are widespread and understandable. Yet these are peoples who have known each other over generations and have on occasions intermarried and traded.
In the midst of this huge gulf of misunderstanding and fear, there are groups such as the Russian Public Anti-War Committee, which has at least one member of the Duma, the human rights body Memorial, and Soldiers' Mothers. I suggest that those groups are very worthy of support. If, together with other friends and allies of Russia, they can exercise moderating influences, there may be some hope. The greatest need is probably for a ceasefire, to be followed by political negotiations leading to demilitarisation.
Whether or not that is an improbable or impossible scenario, my fear is that because of the long-standing denial of their identity and the lack of scope for self-determination, some Chechens will never reconcile themselves to living permanently under Russian sovereignty. Indeed, Dmitrii Olegovich Rogozin, the Duma member, who chairs their International Affairs Committee and leads their delegation at Strasbourg, has spoken about "irreconcilable elements". Surely there should be a safety valve for such people. A voluntary—I stress that word—emigration scheme, perhaps organised by the International Organisation for Migration, might provide such a solution. Will the Government consider how such a scheme might work,

53
recalling perhaps that in a previous century the Dhukobours and members of other minorities left Russia for North America?
Can the Minister give us a general outline of how the question of Chechnya will be handled at the forthcoming EU/Russia summit? Have the principles of a common approach been agreed? I trust that t hose will include the urgent need for a ceasefire, with generous terms for the handing-in of weapons and for voluntary emigration. Independent monitoring and verification may well be helpful and there must surely be provision for the return of displaced people, reconstruction and the highest possible level of self-determination. Finally, do the Government expect that the outcomes of the summit will be positive for Chechnya?
5.42 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for having raised this subject this evening. I should declare an interest as the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has reported on Chechnya, and as joint chair of the joint working group that was set up between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Duma on that subject. That has inevitably involved me in several visits to Russia and Chechnya over the past two years. I was last in Chechnya briefly last month.
The Russians sometimes ask me how September 11th has affected the whole issue. It has made me feel more strongly than ever that while military action may be necessary, the battle against terrorism is won in the long run in hearts and minds. It is for that reason that we have to take the "hearts and minds" dimension of our campaign very seriously, whether that involves the coalition in the context of Afghanistan or the Russians in the context of Chechnya.
I quote from the resolution that was adopted last week in the Council of Europe on that matter. It states:
"The Assembly reiterates that the legitimacy of military action against terrorists cannot be used by any state, including the Russian Federation, as a justification for disrespect for human rights and rule of law or refusal to seek a political solution".
I am 200 per cent behind that, which is not altogether surprising, because I drafted it.
In this debate we are right to ask about what progress there has been with regard to human rights. Progress has been frustratingly slow. I find disturbing the inability of some of those with responsibility in Russia to differentiate between initiating action and bringing legal action to a conclusion. The number of cases initiated is fairly small but the progress on those that have been initiated is not encouraging. Furthermore, we have to note that investigations into the alleged mass killings are conspicuous by their absence. That is very disturbing—I repeat the phrase that was used to good effect by my noble friend Lord Rea.
As a result of pressure by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe, a list of cases has been prepared. When I was in Moscow last December,
54
I found in talks at the most senior level that action in relation to that list is, to say the least, disappointing. The human rights issue is still very real.
What about the military dimension? I am afraid that there is still indiscriminate and disproportionate action and there are still all too many disturbing reports of maltreatment. Indeed, from what I hear, I cannot help feeling at times that elements of the army are still out of control and that in parts of the army there is what could be described as a climate of impunity. It is true that those with responsibility have introduced new rules. For example, there is a rule that when a so-called mop-up operation is being undertaken, the prosecutor general's people should be present. From what I hear, that rule is more honoured in the breach than in the application.
The general conduct of the army is, I am afraid, counterproductive. That creates an atmosphere of oppression and it probably drives a certain number of people, particularly the young, into the arms of what I should be the first to agree are undesirable elements.
What of the people who are described as rebels? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, correctly raised that issue. I detect three elements, but that may be an oversimplification—there are probably more than three. There are extremists, who adopt what we may call the bin Laden approach. There are opportunists—the mafiosi, if you like—who see in this terrible situation an opportunity for profiteering and of advancing their personal material advantage. There are also what have been described traditionally and repeatedly in this Chamber and the other place as freedom fighters. Their role in this context could be compared with other examples in history. They are frustrated at the impossibility of making any political progress whatever and have taken to arms. We may not feel that that is the right thing to have done but if we do not understand why they did so we shall not advance very much. Many of those people would be among the first to lay down their arms if they saw a convincing opportunity for political progress.
What I have been able to see and do makes it clear to me that if the cycle of violence is not rapidly brought to a conclusion, there will be a desolate desert in what is now called Chechnya. An article in the Economist recently referred to the situation as one of stalemate. In an interesting analysis, it argued that the rebels could not win but had control of large areas of the countryside, particularly the hills, and could do much damage at night in the cities. It said that the army and security services had control of the main urban centres during the day, that there was a stalemate and that there was now a mutual interest in getting to the negotiating table.
Of course, my noble friend Lord Ahmed is right: dialogue is now essential. If dialogue is to take place, I believe that it is right to expect the rebels to lay down their arms. But it will also be essential for the Russian federal army to be reduced in size and for the feeling or psychology of repression and oppression in Chechnya to be reduced. It will also be essential for the army to be firmly based in barracks—I do not say confined to barracks—and to be subject to firm discipline.

55
In order to take the situation forward it will also be necessary for the emphasis to be placed on advancing the cause of human rights and the rule of law. There is a very delicate balance to be drawn between human rights, the rule of law and a settlement. A political settlement will come about only if people can see that human rights and the rule of law are being advanced. Similarly, if we really want to see the cause of human rights and the rule of law fulfilled, a settlement is essential. Therefore, the two are intermingled and it is naive to believe that they can be neatly put in order, as we have seen elsewhere in the world—sometimes not far from where we are now.
The issue of an amnesty will also arise, and I believe that it will have to be generous. Meanwhile, we must also address the humanitarian situation, which is grim, particularly in winter. When I look at those in the displacement camps, I consider it to be terrible that people still suffer in such a way. Many of them are in camps in Ingushetia. I am concerned that so much of the relief mobilised by international communities seems to stop at Ingushetia and that it does not reach Chechnya. I am a sceptic about the arguments that I have heard as to why that should be the case. I believe that if there was a will, there would be a way. That is why, since my last recent visit, I have raised the issue with DfID and with my old organisation, Oxfam, of which I was privileged to be director for a number of years. I believe that there must be unremitting pressure and determination to get relief to people, wherever they are.
There is also the issue of reconstruction, which will be huge. Not unlike other conflicts elsewhere, reconstruction is always challenging. It is easy to mobilise the money for bombs, but reconstruction is much more expensive. Again, I believe that we must put our money where our mouth is and back reconstruction to the hilt. Of course, corruption is a big problem in this regard, and one should not underestimate the extent to which corruption at all levels complicates the situation.
Against all that, what is the positive potential? I believe that there has been what I would describe as an "atmospheric" change. When we started on this work two years ago, we encountered total denial. Now, it is possible to engage people at all levels, in particular at the most senior levels in Moscow, in intelligent, rational discussion about the situation. Political pluralism appears to exist.
I should also mention the courage of the Russian NGOs. Memorial has been mentioned, and I cannot praise that organisation too highly for the work that it does. There is the work of Mr Kalamanov, Mr Putin's representative on human rights in Chechnya who has experts in the Council of Europe working in his team. There is also President Putin's initiative. Whatever its limitations, he took that initiative and it would be foolish to overlook it.
There is also the parallel initiative of the Council of Europe. Under that initiative we brought together considerable numbers of Chechens to talk about the need to create a consultative council. Such a council
56
could try to bring about a political atmosphere in which it would be more possible, if I may express it in that way, for President Putin to move forward. Such a council could also begin to put forward ideas about the nature of a political solution that might stick.
However, I can only say that if a consultative council is to succeed, it must be widely based. It will be essential for the Russians to be prepared to talk with those with whom it is not easy to talk. Anyone can talk to friends; but the real challenge in making progress will be to talk to those who are the most difficult. In that context, I believe that the involvement of Mr Maskhadov and his representatives is absolutely crucial. After all, he is the last elected president of Chechnya and I am sure that he should be involved in trying to advance towards a solution.
I should also mention briefly the Council for the Protection of Human Rights, which has been established by Mr Kalamanov and his team in Chechnya. We wait to see how it will perform, but it is an important initiative.
I finish by saying simply that at the macro level I shall take second place to no one in arguing that one of the big challenges that we all face in international politics is how to bring Russia on board and enable it to play a full and dynamic part in the management of world affairs. I believe that any attempts to exclude or bypass Russia have been disastrous in their consequences. We must involve Russia.
History will judge us as to why, in the context of Chechnya, we have not made any reference to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, particularly as that court indicated that it would have been very willing to consider such a reference if one had been made. If we are to have a good relationship with Russia, firm action of that kind may have to be taken. It will be essential to say, on the one hand, "Yes, we want you as partners", and, on the other, "We are not going to turn a blind eye to things that are undermining the cause of building a stable, secure world and, in the end, defeating terrorism".
Not long ago, a Russian diplomat said to me, "Your trouble, Lord Judd, is that your aspirations for Russia are too high". My reply to him was, "No, they're not; they're high but they're not too high". I have profound respect—dare I use the word in this place—affection for Russia and its people. My God, how that country suffered in the Second World War; my God, how it suffered under Stalinism. It breaks my heart to see a Russia that went through all that not leading the campaign for a rational, decent and civilised approach to the problems in Chechnya. In the Council of Europe that is what we are determined to help to bring about in Russia. We believe that the task is to find those within Russia—they are there—with whom we can work. We need to build up their confidence and bring about, within Russia itself, a political dynamic which can lead to change. Without that, there will be none.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I pass over the unfortunate suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Rea,

57
that the English occupied Scotland as a colony. There is a family recollection that a namesake of mine in the 13th century did his best to prevent Scotland becoming an English colony. Ireland, of course, did become an English colony, and that is part of the sad and long history of Ireland with which one can make comparisons.
I very much welcome this debate and, in particular, the delicate role that the Council of Europe is playing in this area. The Council of Europe has found a very useful role working in such areas. We are talking about a long and extremely painful transition from areas that have no democratic tradition into what we hope will be a European standard of democracy, human rights and open society. We appreciate that for Russia, in particular, the problem of adjusting to the transformation from its status as an imperial power with a large number of subject peoples to accepting that it will he a looser federation with a range of independent states alongside it will not be easy. Britain made a large number of mistakes during its transition. British history in Cyprus, Malaya and Kenya is not entirely unblemished, and we must therefore remember that we should not preach too strongly.
I noted the powerful defence given by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the role which the Council of Europe has taken up in that respect. I also noted his praise for Memorial. I see that Mr Orlov, one of its officials, was reported by Agence France-Presse in Moscow on 22nd January as saying very critically:
"We have no hope for anything from the Council of Europe … [the Council of Europe] does not want to understand what is happening in Chechnya. It doesn't want any conflict with Russia".
I believe that we all appreciate how important, and how difficult, it is to keep the Russians on board and to help to pull the Russians in. I attended an EU-Russia forum in the winter of last year at which we heard a Russian deputy Minister justify Russian actions in Chechnya. He accepted absolutely no criticism of the role which the Russian armed forces have played. It is clear from all the information we have that there is a great deal to be criticised about the way in which the Russian armed forces have behaved. They have used far too much force. They are ill-disciplined in all sorts of ways. They have taken it out on local civilians. That has contributed immensely to the problem.
We also have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested, that Chechen culture over centuries of oppression has developed an attitude towards the state and to law which is not dissimilar to that of southern Italy. That has all sorts of implications for trying to resolve this difficult conflict.
In suggesting what the British Government should do, I should like to raise some of the broader regional issues. I know a little about Georgia and the Abkhazia conflict. I recall that part of the origins of the Chechen conflict was the encouragement by Russian federal authorities of Chechen forces to help in the secession of Abkhazia from Georgia. That is another post-imperial conflict which has not yet been resolved. The last time I was in Tbilisi there were still large numbers of Georgians from Abkhazia—the Georgians were the majority in Abkhazia—still living in decrepit hotels
58
and refugee camps across the capital. That is another area in which I sometimes ask myself whether the Russian central authorities are fully in control of their armed forces and intelligence services because they are not contributing to the security of the region. What the Russian Government have been doing in the Caucasus, and also on occasions in Azerbaijan, has clearly not contributed to the long-term stability which we need.
We have some difficulty over how much standing we have here because Chechnya is formally part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, in a sense we are in the same position as that of our allies in criticising British actions in Northern Ireland. We have taken a fair amount of criticism of British actions in Northern Ireland. Patiently, and with a great deal of restraint over the past 20 years, the British Government, with some assistance from their partners, have moved towards the resolution of that extremely painful conflict.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked, the issue has to be very much put in the context of how the West relates to Russia as a whole and how we combine criticism of Russia's behaviour in this area with all of the overtones it has of Russia's imperial past; its links with its subordinate Muslim peoples over the centuries; the role of the Chechens as the people who came and got you in the night in Russian children's stories of the past century, and all of those old myths from the past. We have to say to our Russian friends that this is not the way to behave if they wish to move closer to NATO and the European Union and to be recognised as a valued partner of the West.
We have some means of influence. I am extremely grateful that the Council of Europe is pursuing that influence. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are using their position within the European Union to press in that respect. I am also aware, from meetings of the Russia-EU forum, that one of our problems is that the Russian central authorities are desperate to prevent any further disintegration in this very large federation. In the discussions we have had on what to do about Kaliningrad, the most difficult issue is whether it can conceivably be given more autonomy than any other area of Russia. If so, Vladivostok will ask for it next, then Chechnya after that and the whole thing will begin to disintegrate. There is a whole set of delicate relations which we wish to pursue.
At the same time we have to explain to our allies across the Atlantic that this area is one in which a delicate relationship with the West has to be maintained. There is a sad tendency within Washington at present to embrace Russia as being on our side in the clash of civilisations and to assume that the Chechens are on the other side, and therefore there is no criticism to be made. The last time I was in Washington, the group I was with had been addressed the previous night by Condoleezza Rice. She began her discussion with the heads of a number of American schools of international affairs by saying, "We have to admit that we have not spent enough time trying to understand the Muslim world". That is a message

59
which we all need to give to our American friends. This is part of that overall package in that very delicate region of the Caucasus where all these issues overlap.
We also have to say something to our Russian friends about the whole relationship between Russia and the Muslim world. That is another of the sensitive issues with which we shall have to deal. Her Majesty's Government have only marginal influence on this. I hope that they are giving all possible support to the European Union and to the Council of Europe. It is clear that we should try as hard as we can to bring Mr Maskhadov back into conversations. After all, if we can have Sinn Fein setting up offices in Westminster, there is no reason why they should not do the same. Perhaps we should bring the Russians over to see how one has to reincorporate people into the political process. That is perhaps very much the power of example which the British should be giving to the Russians. Unless that is the constructive way forward, sadly the Chechen conflict is likely to roll on.
Finally, if the Chechen conflict rolls on, problems in the Caucasus will continue to roll on with it. As we all know, this overlaps into Ingushetia, Abkhazia, north and south Ossetia and all of those problems would lead to an absence of development across that entire region.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as several noble Lords have observed, this is a grim, timely debate. The bloody conflict continues in Chechnya, as the news of the past few days reminds us with the killing of senior Russian officials and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned, with the "crash" of the helicopter. It is interesting that our debates in this House seem to focus increasingly, as many people forecast they would, on the unstable areas of trans-Caucasia and beyond the Caspian on the new states of central Asia, which, unlike Chechnya, are not still within the Russian Federation but whose politics and actions suddenly are becoming central to the whole pattern of global stability.
As someone said rather sardonically the other day, those of us who seek to have some knowledge of foreign affairs will have to get to know these "stans" extremely well because we shall spend a lot of time debating them. At the moment we are not debating a "stan", except that Dagestan, within the Russian Federation, comes into our story. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly observed, this is the area to which more and more attention needs to be paid if we are to get a firmer grip on the destabilising forces which blow back into Europe and the Atlantic arena and from which we cannot separate ourselves.
The question which has hung in the air since September 11th is whether that changed the Chechen situation. There is a point of view, which I would not say I am expert enough to deny, that it changed everything and that a tacit deal became established at a geo-political level that in exchange for Russian help with the grand coalition and the war against extremism—whether rightly or wrongly called Islamic
60
extremism; I never know how carefully to choose my words here—and global terrorism, and in exchange for Russia pledging the strongest help and in being as helpful as it could in Afghanistan, the US would turn a blinder eye than hitherto to some of the reported barbarities, atrocities and extreme heavy-handedness of the Russian forces in their attempt to prevent secession in Chechnya and prevent any breakaway tendencies.
At the same time it was widely asserted and indeed stated specifically by Mr Putin and senior members of the Russian Government that that was entirely fair because after all, they said that the Chechen affair was largely driven by Islamic extremist forces and by Al Q'aeda influences. Again, it is hard to distinguish the truth from the myth. There is something in that. There has been evidence of Al'Qaeda involvement.
There is, more specifically, clear evidence of Saudi Arabian money being circulated in Grozny and Chechnya. I think that a Saudi Arabian bank has opened there recently. I am sure noble Lords have no illusions: that it is the machine of Saudi money which, in its ill-distributed way, has helped to fuel a great many of the horrors that have culminated in September 11th. I suspect that with the other place we shall debate often in the coming months the potential for instability in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia if the dual policy of directing Saudi money to the Wahhabis and to extremism of the kind which has given birth ironically to the very man, Osama bin Laden, who wants to undermine the existing Saudi establishment, to get rid of the American troops—he seems to have achieved his first objective already—continues.
The important question—it is difficult to produce an answer—is this. If Mr Putin is a third, half or three-quarters right, I am cautious when people say, "Let's go all out for a political solution". There is a political solution to some issues. But political solutions with some of the maniacal figures who have been driving the terrorist movements which led to September 11th or which brainwashed, promoted and drove to extremism some of the characters we have seen appearing on the world stage are a contradiction in terms. There are no political solutions, as we have discovered bitterly in recent months, with those who do not want solutions. They do not want politics. They want only killing, terror, murder and mayhem against the civilised world. To that extent, one has to watch carefully before saying, "That's fine. Let's go for a political solution".
On the other side, if Mr Putin is only a quarter or a fifth right, and the Islamic extremist element—with talk of a jihad when the Chechens invaded Dagestan to convert it to an Islamic republic— is minor, and the basic issues are the grimly familiar ones of separatism, independence and the sentiments that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us have been brewing in Chechen minds and hearts for hundreds of years, a different approach may be right. With regard to separatism and the yearning for independence—it is everywhere, both inside and outside the Russian Federation and throughout the entire planet—perhaps political solutions are the only way; and, as

61
the Russian army has found to its bitter cost, fighting does not solve the problem. The Chechens will not be and have riot been defeated. That is the reality that Mr Putin and his advisers have to face. Although they have some control in Grozny now, and have cleaned up the Dagestan situation, the Russian army has not been able to impose a halt on the intense desire for separatism and a greater degree of autonomy and independence. How great a degree that is, I am not sure, but the Russians felt that they could never accept complete separation.
They have an impasse. The Russians have taken fearful losses. They have inflicted fearful losses with appalling bloodshed. Barbarity of the kind one tends to get, sadly, in civil wars, which in a sense this is. has occurred. If one goes down that route—I sound as though I contradict myself—political solutions may be the only ones and there must be talks with Maskhadov and the others.
In a sense, the way forward is determined by a full understanding of what is going on and a clear analysis. While urging political solutions to deal with extremists who never want them and would treat any attempt at a solution only as appeasement gleefully seized upon while more terror and horrors are planned, one has to he careful. But if dealing with genuine separatists—I think that Mr Maskhadov does represent them—it is a somewhat different proposition. In an ironic sense, September 11th may have helped because Mr Maskhadov has sought in public statements, as have some of his colleagues, to dissociate themselves to some degree from the extremists—from those who cheered when the World Trade Centre was destroyed and those who cried "I)eath to Americans" and other battlecries and mantras of the kind of extremism which threatens to poison the world.
If one can be clear about the analysis there may be some grounds for hope. The work that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whom we all admire, and the Council of Europe seek to do may have some ground into which to plant its seed. But it must be the right ground. If it is the wrong ground that may make matters worse. The West is still tidying up the grand coalition's agenda. That will continue for a long time. It is talking language which pleases Mr Putin. I hope and suspect that Mr Putin and some of the Russian military leaders, if not all of them, realise that if they are to build successfully on being in the good books of the western alliance and Washington, with the putting aside of the analysis of the hideous barbarities which Russian troops have undoubtedly committed, their best course is to try quite hard now to reach a compromise with Maskhadov and the separatists. How one maintains cohesion and unity in a federation while at the same time allowing independence, diversity and various forms of separate politics remains one of the conundrums of the modern world.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is expert on these matters. However, I do not believe that there is a comparison with Northern Ireland. These matters are so totally different. I always shy away from comparisons between one vastly complex situation—
62
in our case it has been going on for several hundreds of years—and another from different roots which has also been continuing for many centuries.
There are huge issues at stake. There is the cohesion of the giant Russian Federation. There are underlying causes to do with oil production. They will be even more crucial if Saudi Arabia is to be destabilised. The oil output of the region and beyond will become even more vital. There must be constant hope that well-focused humanitarian aid can somehow be brought in to raise Chechnya from the ashes and again make Grozny habitable. We must never forget that Russia is a humiliated nation. That is a dangerous state to be in. Those of us who admire the Russian people for all they have done and put up with must mix any warnings with sympathy. How to achieve that mix calls for the highest qualities of statesmanship. Those are the golden aims to which we should now turn our attention.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask what evidence he has seen in relation to Saudi money being used for terrorist activities in Chechnya. If I am correct, the noble Lord referred to a bank and whether that bank is used for channelling money to the terrorists. Does he say that the former president and government were all involved in terrorist activities? Alternatively, was it a group within Chechnya?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the answer is that the evidence is only a series of reports. Some are to be found on the Internet but some circulate semi-privately. It is not evidence. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard he will see that I said "it is said that". I repeated what I had heard. Of course, I cannot say that these are hard facts but they have been quite widely asserted.
I am not quite sure that I understood the last point made in the noble Lord's question. If am not saying that any senior members of the Saudi Government are involved. I do not know whether Mr Maskhadov and the official Chechen regime receive any succour from this money, but certainly moneys arising from oil revenues from the Saudis have been very widely used to purchase arms and promote terrorist activity. That has been identified and seen in Grozny. That is what I am told. If the noble Lord were to say to me that he can prove that all these reports are wrong, I would not hesitate for one moment in conceding that he was right because we are all trading on anecdotes and reports, some of which are false and some of which are true.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I believe that that last exchange illustrates just one of the numerous complexities which we have tried to address in this short debate. I know that it is a normal courtesy of this House to say that the debate has been excellent and to express gratitude to the initiator of the debate. I do that with particular sincerity in this case to my noble friend Lord Rea. I have known him over many years and he has taken a particular interest in many issues,

63
not least in some of the developments which have occurred in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and in the present Russian Federation. He and I have both taken an interest in these matters for some time. It has been a well-informed and thoughtful debate, recognising the enormous complexities of the issues. As other speakers have emphasised, the contribution of my noble friend Lord Judd was particularly well-informed. He has devoted a large part of his energies to this issue over the past few years.
The current conflict in Chechnya has now entered its third year and, although the intensity of the fighting has died down, casualties continue to mount on both sides. A number of speakers referred to the helicopter crash at the weekend. It goes without saying that, with the latest estimate of 14 people killed, our thoughts go out to the families of those who died in the crash. While it is not clear precisely what was the cause, we await the investigation by the authorities to see what can be found out.
Casualties have occurred on both sides. The militants continue to attack both military and civilian targets. Non-governmental organisations are still making detailed allegations of serious human rights violations by Russian forces. That point was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Rea and also referred to graphically by my noble friend Lord Ahmed. A large proportion of Chechnya's population has been displaced and many are enduring their third winter in makeshift camps, dependent on aid from foreign donors. The conflict has been very costly indeed in terms of human suffering.
Since the start of the current conflict, the Government have clearly and repeatedly stated our position in public and in dialogue with the Russian authorities, most recently at the meeting between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Putin on 21st December last year. As on numerous occasions in other contacts, he emphasised the importance of pursuing a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya.
We have always recognised Russia's territorial integrity as well as its right to defend its citizens from terrorism. We have condemned unreservedly Chechen attacks on civilians, their indiscriminate use of landmines and their maltreatment of Russian prisoners. But we have also stressed that Russian operations must be proportionate and in strict adherence to the rule of law. We have pressed the Russian authorities to investigate thoroughly allegations of human rights violations by federal servicemen. Those responsible should be prosecuted and, where appropriate, punished. We have also called for more effective co-operation between the Russian authorities and the humanitarian aid agencies.
It is true, of course, that the dreadful events of September 11 th have had a profound effect on our bilateral relationship with Russia and its relations with the wider world. A number of speakers have emphasised that, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Russia is a key partner in the international coalition against terrorism. It has played an important
64
role in securing agreement at the Bonn talks on the future of Afghanistan. Russian personnel have also been hard at work delivering much-needed humanitarian aid to the Afghan people. The level of co-operation Russia has provided has been quite unprecedented. Its invaluable contribution should he recognised. We therefore support a genuine partnership between Russia and NATO, closer Russian ties with the European Union and Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation.
Some commentators, including a number of speakers today, have suggested that we have gone further than that and somehow turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in Chechnya in order to secure Russia's participation in the war against terrorism. I can give a categoric assurance to the House that no such change of emphasis has occurred. The events of September 11th have not altered the United Kingdom's position on human rights in Chechnya or anywhere else. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Howell, emphasised the importance of our relationship with Russia and how it is developing. I endorse that.
But we understand that Russia had genuine and legitimate security interest concerns about Chechnya before the present conflict began. Kidnapping was endemic in the region. Noble Lords will recall that four engineers working for Granger Telecom, including three Britons, were brutally murdered in December 1998. Some media reports claim that that they were murdered on the orders of the Al'Qaeda network or the Taliban. We have no evidence of that and we continue our efforts to shed more light on the circumstances surrounding these tragic deaths.
However, it is clear that the influence of extremists was growing in Chechnya before the conflict broke out. In the summer of 1999, Chechen extremists occupied a number of settlements in the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan. Although the incursion was driven back by Russian forces, the attack on Dagestan made Russian military intervention in Chechnya virtually inevitable. Russia also suspected extremists of being behind the apartment bombings in Moscow and other cities in Russia, in which over 300 people were killed. A number of speakers have said that there are problems of evidence about that. There have been questions about who was and who was not responsible. Obviously, that is a concern of the Russian authorities and we all know how such concerns move to the forefront of people's minds in conflicts of this sort.
Extremist elements continue to operate in Chechnya. Their presence cannot be ignored or tolerated, and only serve to damage the reputation of Chechnya in the rest of Russia and abroad. We have therefore called on the Chechens, including Mr Maskhadov, to sever their links with international terror groups immediately and without preconditions.
In the meantime, Russian forces and Chechen fighters are locked in a violent stalemate. I believe that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the historical relationship between the Russians and the

65
Chechens was particularly illuminating and important in this respect. We do not believe that either side can secure an end to the conflict through purely military means. The only way in which peace can be restored to this troubled republic is through political dialogue. There have been indications that the Russian Government understand that. During his recent visit to the United Kingdom to which I have already referred, President Putin remarked that it was simplistic to portray all groups currently fighting in Chechnya as terrorists. He made a clear distinction between C'hechen extremists, backed by the international terror network, and those who are motivated primarily by nationalist aspirations. We were encouraged that President Putin opened the door to talks between his representatives and those of President Maskhadov.
On 18th November, Russian and Chechen representatives met for over two hours. In the context of the history of the area, it is remarkable that those contacts took place. That was the first official meeting between the Russians and the Chechens since the conflict began. Previously, the Russian Government had ruled out such talks. Russian spokesmen had consistently described all Chechen fighters as terrorists. Unfortunately, those contacts have not, to date, developed further. Of course, we fervently hope that they do. We urge both sides to resume their discussions as soon as possible in a spirit of genuine and constructive engagement.
There have been other positive contacts, which have already been graphically described, including the tremendous input of my noble friend Lord Judd through the Council of Europe. Last November, the United Kingdom funded a Council of Europe seminar on human rights in Chechnya, bringing together members of the Russian Government, the Chechen civil administration and representatives of Mr Maskhadov. We view that and other Council of Europe initiatives as an important step in building mutual confidence and understanding between Chechen moderates and the Russian authorities.
But we are still a long way from what could be described as a peace process. There is a wide gap between the Russian and militant positions. From our experience in Northern Ireland—although I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that it is sometimes difficult and may even be misleading to make international comparisons—we know how phenomenally difficult it can be trying to bridge the gap between two sides locked in disagreement, misunderstanding and conflict for centuries.
Some extremist groups will inevitably refuse to renounce violence and will do their utmost to undermine the political dialogue. But we believe that a
66
political process must be central to bringing an end to the bloodshed. It also offers the chance of isolating the extremists, reducing their influence and the threat that they pose to Russia's legitimate security interests. We have therefore encouraged President Putin to pursue further contacts.
I should briefly like to make one further point, which is to stress the importance that the British Government attach to the aid programme in that troubled part of the world. We have continued efforts to alleviate the humanitarian plight of people displaced by the conflict. The United Kingdom is one of the largest aid donors in the region, having in the last financial year contributed £3.2 million to the UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal and £2.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross Moscow Regional Appeal. We have also provided assistance through our contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Organisation's humanitarian operations in the north Caucasus.
We have always recognised Russia's territorial integrity, as well as its right to defend its citizens from terrorism. But we do not believe that the situation in Chechnya can be resolved by exclusively military means. That is why we have always hacked a political solution to the Chechnya conflict and will continue to do so. We are making continued representations at all levels and your Lordships' contributions in this debate are much to be welcomed as a continuation of that discussion.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he say something, at least, about the EU-Russia summit? Do the Government hope for a positive outcome from that in relation to Chechnya? I gave the Minister's office notice of that question this morning.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. He will understand that it is standard practice—it is normal—in advance of discussions of that sort for dialogue to take place in private before statements are made and the EU position becomes clear. I cannot prejudge precisely what will happen at this stage. In a sense, do not look in the crystal ball, look at the history book—look at what the Government have done and what has been our attitude to that conflict in the past. That will give a pretty good indication as to what will be our attitude in future.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.