G8 Summit

HL Deb 04 June 2003 vol 648 cc1327-41

3.16 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

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

"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement about the G8 summit in France.

"I pay tribute to President Chirac's very skilful chairmanship in guiding our deliberations. We reached significant conclusions on the Middle East, on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and on Africa and sustainable development. In addition, we committed ourselves to strengthening the conditions for growth in the world economy. In all, there were 16 action plans and statements released at the summit, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

"First, on the Middle East, we all recognised that a solution to the Israel/Palestinian problem is not only vital for stability across the Middle East; it would also deprive the terrorists of an issue which they exploit for their own inhuman ends.

"I need hardly remind the House of the bleak pattern of mistrust, hatred and violence that has blighted the lives of generations of Israelis and Palestinians. Children have been growing up in an area with seemingly no prospect of peace. Since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000, until the end of March of this year, 2,300 Palestinians and more than 600 Israelis have been killed.

"There have been too many dashed hopes to be anything other than cautious in assessing the current situation but, since I last reported to the House, the road map for peace has been published, the Israeli cabinet has accepted it and there has today been the historic meeting between President Bush and the Palestinian and Israeli Prime Ministers in Jordan. The whole G8 Summit united together behind the initiative that President Bush is taking and fully endorsed what is now agreed on all sides as the only ultimate answer: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.

"That is an objective of historic significance both for the Middle East and indeed for the whole world community. We in the United Kingdom will continue to support it with every means at our disposal.

"Secondly, on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, there was striking unanimity of purpose that we must urgently strengthen our co-operation in the fight against these two closely related threats.

"On weapons of mass destruction, we underlined that North Korea's uranium enrichment and plutonium production programmes and its failure to comply with IAEA safeguards were a clear breach of its international obligations. We called on it to dismantle its nuclear weapons programmes. We emphasised the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear programme and called on Iran to sign and implement an IAEA additional protocol without delay or conditions.

"President Putin made it clear that in the mean time Russia would suspend its exports of nuclear fuel to Iran. These are important steps to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and I welcome them.

"In addition, we took stock of progress on the 20 billion dollar programme launched last year to prevent terrorists acquiring nuclear, biological or chemical materials left over from the former Soviet Union, to which Britain has made a commitment of up to 750 million dollars.

"We put in place mechanisms to improve the prioritisation and co-ordination of technical assistance for countries seeking to assist in the war against terrorism. We launched new initiatives to tackle man-portable surface-to-air missiles and to tighten security controls on radioactive sources. And we agreed on a new drive to cut off terrorist financing.

"Thirdly, on Africa and development, the summit brought about the welcome participation of many African and developing nations. We all agreed that of central importance is a successful outcome to the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun in September and the successful completion of the development round by 2005. The wealthy nations of the world simply cannot any longer ask the developing world to stand on its own feet but shut out the very access to our markets necessary for them to do so. Reform of the common agricultural policy will be vital in this regard.

"In addition, we agreed to resolve all other outstanding WTO issues, including the compulsory licensing of drugs—the so-called TRIPS question—which is important for poorer countries to access drugs for their people, and is also essential for progress in the Doha round.

"We had extensive discussions about the problem of HIV/AIDS which afflicts 42 million people around the world. All of us welcomed President Bush's recent announcement of a 15 billion US dollar initiative to combat it. I hope that at the European summit in Thessalonika the EU will agree to match the US commitment to the global health fund, potentially up to 1 billion dollars a year. We remain on course, too, to eradicate polio from the face of the globe by 2005.

"I set out in some detail my right honourable friend the Chancellor's proposal to establish a new international finance facility, which could deliver a doubling of current aid flows for recipient countries committed to economic reform and good governance.

Finance ministers have been asked to report back to leaders on this proposal by September. It is important that we now sustain the momentum behind this initiative.

"G8 leaders also took the opportunity to discuss with President Mbeki and other African leaders the good progress that we have made in partnership with NePAD leaders over the past year in implementing the Africa action plan launched at Kananaskis. Over the past year we have seen the largest ever US commitment to aid for Africa, and many EU countries, including our own, are increasing substantially our aid and development programmes. Consistent with this African-led initiative, we discussed the steps they are taking to resolve the current appalling crisis in Zimbabwe. We condemned the action taken by the Zimbabwean authorities on Monday against their own people and called on the Zimbabwean Government to accept their citizens' right to demonstrate against the regime peacefully.

"I was also pleased that we endorsed the initiative, which I launched last year, to reduce corruption by getting companies in the extractive industry to make public the tax and royalty payments they make to governments, and for those governments to publicise their receipts. I believe that this simple idea could have a powerful impact. Transparency and increased accountability are the best defences against corruption.

"Leaders also had a full discussion on the world economy and agreed on the central importance of fostering macro-economic stability and intensifying structural reform as the essential pre-conditions for strengthening growth. Chancellor Schröder briefed us on the steps Germany is now taking to modernise its health and pensions systems and to increase the flexibility of the labour market. And President Bush expressed confidence in the strength of the US economic recovery based on rising productivity and a pick-up in domestic demand.

"Finally, G8 heads agreed to step up our collaboration on science and technology to help combat the long-term problem of climate change. It is crucial that we tackle this, but in ways that encourage sustainable growth and development. The G8 must lead the way, working in partnership with developing countries. We shall focus, for example, on renewable energy, the hydrogen economy for transport, fuel cells and biodiversity.

"After the sharp disagreements in the world community over Iraq, the summit represented an important coming together by leading nations. In the past few weeks, we have seen the restoration of unity in the UN with Resolution 1483. As important as anything else, on the very issue of WMD and terrorism, there was a renewed sense of urgency and purpose. Of great significance, we have seen the Middle East peace process, despite all the cynicism, moving forward again.

"Whatever the differences of the past few months the summit showed common purpose on these key issues. It is now the task of the whole world community to build on the objectives that have been reached which are of such fundamental importance to us all".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.25 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place earlier today.

It was an important summit. Perhaps the most significant thing about it was that it linked the United States in partnership with Europe. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can agree that nothing is more crucial than that relationship and that it should be maintained. Like it or not, the United States will be the predominant power in the world for the rest of our lifetimes.

The concept floated by France and Germany of a multipolar world in which some European power—governed we know not how—could be created to counterbalance the United States is in my view an illusion. The United States has been, and can continue to be, a power for liberty, freedom and democracy in the world. We should work with it. We can, of course, collude against it, as France and Germany did earlier this year. But I believe in working with it. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the Prime Minister made that firmly and unequivocally clear to Mr Chirac and Mr Schroeder at the summit?

Turning to the Middle East, we stand four-square with the Prime Minister in backing the bold initiative of President Bush. We welcome the hopeful and promising declarations made only two hours ago, or thereabouts, at Aqaba. We welcome the road map to peace in the Middle East and sincerely hope that it may succeed.

As the Prime Minister said, a two-state solution is inevitable, and it is right. It is good news that Israel has now officially welcomed it. Terrorism must end. But the search for peace must also be multilateral.

Can the noble and learned Lord explain to the House how Syria and Lebanon will be involved in this process? Does he believe that Iran and certain circles in Saudi Arabia will now cease to finance and support terrorism? Can he also assure us that France, which dabbled so damagingly in Saddam's Iraq, fully supports the initiative?

We greatly welcome the statesmanlike action of President Putin over Iran's nuclear programme. We agree with the Prime Minister and the G8 that the threat of proliferation in Iran and in North Korea is a major one. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether our Government have ruled out military action in North Korea under any circumstances? Does he think that it might be helpful for the Government to publish dossiers on the nuclear policies of Iran and North Korea?

Much has been said in the past few days about the case made by the Government before the war with Iraq. Let me make it clear that we on this side need no persuading that the war was justified. And, incidentally, will the noble and learned Lord make it clear that we have no truck with allegations about the behaviour of our own troops? Our Government must give no houseroom to the hypocrisy of human rights campaigners who were silent about Saddam for so long, but who now target our soldiers on the flimsiest of evidence.

Saddam was a threat. He did use weapons of mass destruction. He was a merciless tyrant, not least to his own people. We need no persuading that Iraq and the Middle East are well rid of him. But some people did need persuading. That is why the material published by the Government before the war and the Statements made to this House and another place raise issues of trust and parliamentary accountability. Something so solemn as a war must be founded on fact. There can be no suspicion of half-truths or spin.

That is why we believe that an independent judicial inquiry would be desirable to clear up this matter. It would help the Government and underpin the integrity of the Prime Minister. Will the noble and learned Lord use his considerable influence to persuade the Prime Minister of the wisdom of that course? Will he consider ways for Members of this House to be involved in any parliamentary inquiries that might take place?

There is another factor that is peculiar to this House. Many of us regret the unworthy accusations levelled at the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that somehow his advice on the legality of war was not as unqualified as the published documents suggest. Therefore, would it not be sensible in any inquiry into the publication of the intelligence dossier for the scope to be widened to explore the background to the advice given by the Attorney-General? An independent examination of that, too, would be helpful. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also use his influence in that direction.

Can the noble and learned Lord tell us a little more about the likely timetable towards self-government in Iraq?

I wish to press further the noble and learned Lord on the important declarations on Africa. We welcome the commitment of the G8 to further help for that benighted continent. However, we still deplore the generally pusillanimous stand being taken by the international community over the savage dictatorship of Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Words and declarations are fine, but when will effective action be taken to remove Mugabe?

Given the importance of the summit talks on Africa and discussions on medical supplies and relief in Iraq, can the noble and learned Lord give the House any hope of an early debate or a full Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development to lay out in some detail the Government's strategy? We are privileged to have a Secretary of State in this House. Surely, we should hear from her on these matters, at least before the House rises in the middle of July.

Furthermore, while on the subject of debates, I note that another place is rightly going to debate the crucial issues of the future of Europe before the EU summit at Thessalonika. I urge the noble and learned Lord to press his deputy leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, to change the Foreign Office's view—as I understand it—that a debate in this place also is not needed before that vital summit.

President Bush has given inspiring leadership in the world in the past few months. The Prime Minister has been right to support him. So long as he does so and does not veer off to chase the rainbow of integration in Europe before the rock of co-operation with our greatest ally he, too, can rely on our support.

3.32 p.m.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I begin by picking out certain aspects that we on these Benches very much welcome and which I am sure the wider House welcomes.

First, there are the steps taken, evidently successfully, to limit nuclear proliferation. In that context, like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I ask specifically whether the noble and learned Lord can bring us up-to-date on whether there has been any response from either North Korea or [ran to the representations made to them: first, with regard to their nuclear programme; and, secondly, with regard to nuclear enrichment facilities. I also echo the question as to whether the Lord Privy Seal is willing to rule out the prospect, at least at this stage, of any military action being considered with regard to Iran.

Secondly, perhaps I may say that we very much appreciate the statement made about the international finance facility, which is a real opportunity to increase the level of investment in Africa. I agree strongly with the statement that this is an initiative by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which deserves strong support from the international community. We wish it well and hope that it can be speeded on its way. September is, after all, for many thousands of people quite a long way off.

Thirdly, I echo what has been said about the road map. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, was, in our view, absolutely right to express caution and to suggest to us that we need to emphasise the hopeful side of this, which is, after all, the first constructive development towards resuming the peace negotiations in Israel in the past three years. Does she agree that, first, it was not specifically an American initiative but one which was started by the quad, which of course indicates the significance of a multilateral approach, not least when the European Union is bound to be one of the significant financiers of any final peace settlement, particularly with regard to reconstruction on the Palestinian side? Therefore, it is crucial to emphasise that this is a multilateral exercise and that it is all the more important for that.

Finally in that context, I think that all of us agree that the path forward must be pursued by reconciliation and reciprocation between the two sides. We can all hope that any move forward on one side will be matched as quickly as possible by a move forward on the other. Therefore, the citizens of Israel and of the Palestinian territories will be able to see a steady move forward in the direction of peace. Anything less than that will sow only disappointment.

Having said that, I turn briefly to Iraq. In particular, I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal can confirm that it is likely that an Iraq interim authority will not be in place for at least another year or 18 months, which is the slightly gloomy indication we have had from that quarter? I raise a matter with regard to Iraq, not least because of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the current debate on WMD and the doubts about whether the intelligence was based on factual material. I shall not pursue that matter further. It will be pursued on many other occasions.

However, for those on these Benches the issue raises a larger question about whether the involvement of the so-called "Iraq survey group" now being launched—as the Prime Minister said in another place—to investigate the possibility of weapons of mass destruction throughout Iraq and involving, we understand, no fewer than 1,300 people drawn from Australia, the United States and Great Britain, will not seriously feed the problem of credibility since all those people will come from the so-called coalition. Would it not be better to leave the matter to experts who are regarded throughout the world as people who have no axes to grind and who do not come from one side or the other; in other words, the UN inspectors? In that context, we should pay tribute to Hans Blix, who is leaving office today, for all that he attempted to do and actually achieved as an independently-minded and uninfluenceable chief inspector.

I turn from those favourable issues to what I regard as the other side of this Statement. I regard that other side of the Statement—the one that concerns Africa and the developing world—as an utterly inadequate response to a world in which the inequities and unfairnesses are so great that they are now at the level of obscenity. These statements were made by the G8 when the western world—and in particular our own government and that of the United States—took credit for what it had done in Iraq. It cannot I think take credit for producing a peaceful proposal that would begin to limit the sense of profound injustice that exists through much of the world.

In that context, I refer to the 16 action plans of precooked honeyed words that seem to us to add up to extremely little in terms of action. Perhaps I may give two examples. The first relates to what the Prime Minister had to say about the common agricultural policy. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could tell us why at a time when, unusually, President Chirac of France proposed the ending of subsidies on EU products exported to Africa, particularly of food exports, the United Kingdom was one of three countries that objected to that initiative alongside the United States and, I believe I am rightly informed, Japan. That was the first move by France towards beginning to dismantle the common agricultural policy. We on these Benches cannot begin to understand why that was not welcomed and pressed forward in every possible way.

The other example I want to give is equally sad—I would even call it shocking. It is the proposal that was put forward to allow African countries to buy drugs to deal with the major diseases that today rack those countries—HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis—which led again to an initiative by the European Union for the rules that protect copyright to be relaxed so that those products could be bought at the generic price, and alternatively that they could buy them from other developing countries such as Brazil on the basis of copyright being extended to those countries and the generic price being charged. It is to us a tragedy that it was among others our own country, and in particular the United States, that refused to accept that initiative. Therefore, although the United States has given 15 billion dollars in aid to Africa, which we welcome, much of that money will be absorbed in the fact that the market price for the drugs is seven times the generic price. That means that the profits will simply go back again to the very companies that led the lobbying for that objection.

In conclusion, the medical director of the UK branch of Médecins sans Frontières referred to promises that are mostly unfulfilled. With regard to the developing world we must fulfil our promises and not produce any more words that do not mean anything. Let us be sure that of the 16 action plans at least a few come to fruition. The Government will then have the right to take credit for that part of the Statement, as they have reasonably and rightly taken credit for the earlier part of the Statement.

3.40 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am grateful for the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. There were a large number of questions and I have about five minutes to deal with them, unless your Lordships can be patient enough to let me stray a little beyond.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, urged me to look for the rock at the end of the rainbow. That is an interesting intellectual conceit that I had not encountered before in my sheltered life. The noble Lord's first point was absolutely right. It is wholly false to suggest that our future lies either with the United States, our historic ally, or with Europe, which is growing in confidence and power. I agree with him entirely that they are not alternatives and that they are not exclusive. Was that made plain to President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder'? I think that they understand quite well.

On the question of President Bush and the Middle East peace process, it is important that we recognise what is happening. There are historic opportunities. The Israeli cabinet has accepted the way forward. That is not an achievement that should be overlooked. It struck me particularly when I was in Buenos Aires for the installation of the new Argentine president that one of the representatives of the State of Israel there was a cabinet minister telephoning his assent. That was a truly historic opportunity that we must all work to support. We should not also underestimate in our own interests the extremely persuasive and powerful influence that our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have had. There is no doubt in my mind that without their intense commitment we would not be at this stage, however early it may be.

The noble Lord asked about military force being used against Korea and the noble Baroness asked about military force being used against Iran. The answer is to be found in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the G8 declaration on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Paragraph 3 states: We have a range of tools available to tackle this threat", and, right at the end of that paragraph, if necessary other measures in accordance with international law". Paragraph 4 states: While all these instruments are necessary, none is sufficient by itself". So I think that that gives the answer. France does indeed support the initiative.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, troubled me as I was paying careful attention by using that dreadful word "dossier". I hope that it is not the result of rogue elements in the Conservative Party. I agree with him that those torture chambers and those mass graves were not built and excavated by the United States or any western power. They were all the result of bestial dictatorship.

The question of accountability in the parliamentary context is very important. It is Parliament that should bring Ministers, governments and executives to account. That is what is being done by the Senate Committee investigation in the United States in Washington, and that is what is going to happen in this country. As the Prime Minster has made perfectly plain, any document called for by the Intelligence and Security Committee will be provided, evidence will be given, and the report that the ISC produces—subject to the constraints of intelligence sensibilities—is going to be published.

The Foreign Affairs Committee may or may not have its own investigation, but if we speak of parliamentary accountability, should we not deal with it in Parliament? After all, we have a Member of this House, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell who is on that committee. His views on the conflict are well known. His integrity is absolute. I think that we should, to use the noble Lord's phrase, rely on parliamentary accountability. Whether the ISC chooses to call for the Attorney-General's advice, I respectfully suggest, is a matter for it.

Have I a timetable for Iraq? No. I suggest with great respect that the conflict has been over for such a short time. It is idle to think of setting a timetable, because timetables, as we know so well in the context of Northern Ireland, have a habit of becoming more important than the process.

I do not think that the approach to Zimbabwe has been entirely pusillanimous. There was an interesting contribution on the "Today" programme this morning. I am not speaking of Dr Reid interviewing John Humphrys. There was the most fascinating contribution by the brother of President Mbeki. He is the chairman of an independent authority and I think that his remarks deserve careful attention and scrutiny.

Regarding requests for early debates, however passionately they are made, I dispassionately reply that that is a matter for the usual channels. I agree that I am one of the usual channels and I will use my undoubted influence, to coin a phrase, in the appropriate way.

I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the Chancellor the Exchequer's initiative. He has been well known for his imagination and determination to eradicate the grossly unacceptable—I think the noble Baroness said obscene—discrepancies. She is right. It was a quartet initiative—that is extremely important. We should not forget that one of the quartet is President Putin's Russia. We also should not forget that the other contribution is from the EU. Everyone in this House recognises the overwhelming importance and significance of the role that the United States must be called upon to play. President Bush promised in Hillsborough that he would apply his energies to the matter, and so far, one has to say fairly, that he has. He has been successful. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that reconciliation is the only key. We know that ourselves from Northern Ireland and she is quite right to say that she hopes that one party will not say "we shan't do anything until you have done something first". We should learn the lesson of 30 years past in Northern Ireland on that.

The Prime Minister has made it plain that the survey group of 1,300 will have ample opportunity to detect what evidence there is or may be about weapons of mass destruction. We ought to wait to see what will happen, as the Prime Minister has said. I do not think that all those documents were simply, again I quote, "pre-cooked, honeyed words". It is a great opportunity today for metaphors not entirely unmixed. I do not think that those words should be so described—they are serious declarations. The noble Baroness is right to say that September is a long way away if you are poor and starving, but setting a deadline of September was important. There are many bases for optimism in the documents, not least the fact that they are coming from a large number of different countries that do not always share the same starting point.

I have over-run by three minutes, but I thought that you Lordships desired the answers.

3.49 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the obscene gap referred to by the noble Baroness is best illustrated by the fact that life expectancy for a baby born in this country is more than twice as long for one born in, for example, Sierra Leone, where the income—the GDP per capita—is one forty-ninth of what it is in the UK. It is accepted that that is a great contributor to the ease with which terrorist events are now brought about, because of those perceived iniquities. Therefore, I was glad that the Statement included the sentence: We all agreed that of central importance is a successful outcome to the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun in September and successful completion of the development round by 2005". I could not find those words reflected anywhere in M. Chirac's summary issued after the summit. I was surprised that when, at 2.20 p.m., the Library told me that the Foreign Office could not produce a final communiqué. No doubt there is a reason for that. It remains the case that the WTO has a crucial role to play in stabilising the world, as well as making it more just and safe. I read that the WTO has 28 or 29 members from countries that are too poor ever to send them to it. The WTO itself funds a number of countries to enable them to attend twice a year. Surely something is needed of the order of Short money—we are familiar with that process in this country—because to be effectively represented means to have someone there able to attend meetings two or three times a week, not twice a year.

Could the project in paragraphs 2, 39 and 40 of the Government Command Paper, Eliminating World Poverty, published in 2000, which allocates money for the machinery of WTO, be focused in such a way as to make those countries more effectively represented? Secondly, as the WTO works by consensus—

Noble Lords

Question!

Lord Elton

My Lords, I think that noble Lords are looking at their watches; I shall content myself with that question.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There was a final communique, but it is the chairman's statement, which he correctly referred to as M Chirac's statement, which has been placed in the Library.

I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord said. Earlier this week, when asking a question of my noble friend Lady Symons, he put it extremely eloquently by pointing out that if there is that obscene and indecent disparity, there is not only a moral imperative on us to reduce it, but, to put it at its meanest and in terms of realpolitik, it is in our own self-interest. Trade eventually means internal judicial systems that must be appropriate and proportionate; the increased benefits of doing away with malnutrition for lengthening life expectancy; and that, eventually, we shall benefit in all sorts of not so subtle ways.

It is true that the chairman's summary was simply that, but it refers to the problems to which the noble Lord referred. Paragraph I on page 1 is entitled: "Strengthening Growth World-Wide",

and covers, Macro-economics, structural reforms, trade and responsible market economy". Paragraph 2 is entitled: "Enhancing Sustainable Development". That paragraph contains a bullet point on Africa; a bullet point on famine, which deals in particular with emergency food aid needs; a bullet point on water and on health; one on financing for development; and one on debt.

I recognise that few of us have had the opportunity to study the documents in detail, but there are references there to the problems correctly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

Lord Williamson of Horton

My Lords, in relation to development in Africa, can the noble and learned Lord tell us what has happened to the suggestion that there should be no subsidies for food exports to Africa—a suggestion that has been strongly pressed for by many non-governmental organisations for many years? Further, did the British Government oppose it? I ask that because, if I may say so, half a cake—it is quite a large half of a cake—on the common agricultural policy is something that we should welcome. because we do not usually get a crumb.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for so gently and indirectly reminding me that I have not dealt with the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. In fact, we welcomed the French proposals; specifically, we said that they must go much wider than Africa, because two thirds of the world's poor live outside Africa. We therefore wanted a different approach. So it is not correct to say that we objected to the French proposals; we said that they did not go far enough.

Lord King of Bridgwater

My Lords, will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the perfectly sensible choice of the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct the investigation in no way prevents it, if it so wishes, from sitting in public; that it may ask for the attendance of any person—including officials, who are often prevented from attending Select Committees by Ministers; and that the Prime Minister confirmed today that any information that the committee requires will be provided to it?

I did not spot this in the communique, but the noble and learned Lord said that the war in Iraq is over. Recognising the continuing losses of American troops, which are occurring day by day, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that it may be a year or a year and a half before an interim administration is in place, is not one of the most critical needs at present to ensure that the situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq can be sustained? That will require a considerable number of people and considerable resources. Was there any discussion in the G8 of other members playing a full military and security part to help to achieve that?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord; we all know of his great expertise in the context of the ISC. He knows, because we had discussions on the matter, that I myself gave evidence to the committee and was happy to do so. If the ISC comes to the conclusion that certain areas of evidence could be properly and safely explored in public, we would welcome that.

The noble Lord is quite right and extremely generous in drawing to the House's attention what the Prime Minister said: that there will be full cooperation. The Prime Minister repeated more than once in the House of Commons that such reports as the ISC thought prudent to make would be published, subject to the usual constraints.

The noble Lord is quite right. He says that I said that the war had finished; I think that I actually said that the conflict, in the sense of the grand conflict, had concluded. But he is quite right; soldiers are still being killed, as are civilians; military and quasi-military activity continues.

The discussions about military and general resistance to which the noble Lord referred are continuing. It was an optimistic development that troops from Pakistan, for instance, are to be committed to the reconstruction of Iraq. It seems to us that the more multilateral the approach, the more likely it is to succeed. However, I agree with his necessary implication that one cannot set a timetable; this will be a long haul. If we were not committed to the long haul, we should never have been committed in the first place.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I very much welcome the international financial facility. Does the noble and learned Lord think that that will lead directly to universal primary education? Would that not be about the most welcome possible kind of globalisation?

As for Iraq, a Question in your Lordships' House only yesterday about the looting in Basra University drew attention precisely to the importance of policing. Will the Government discuss with the American authorities the possibility of recruiting Arabic-speaking police officers from the rest of the world to serve in Iraq during the interim period? Will they further discuss with the Americans the vital importance of disarming the population of small weapons?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know of his concern about universal primary education; I share his approach. He will know—because both of us have been in the Chamber on previous occasions when my noble friends Lady Symons and Lady Amos made it plain—that it is our long-term aim that that should be a truly universal right, rather than simply a universal ambition.

On the question of police, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point, which is not entirely unrelated to similar helpful observations that he has made about widening the police recruitment base in Northern Ireland, for instance. In reply, I am happy to tell your Lordships that we have already sent police experts out there to see what could usefully be done. His specific point seems to me one of great value and I undertake to transmit it to the appropriate quarter.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, are there any plans to help Israel to overcome its major difficulty of settlements in which settlers, I understand, are determined to stay? For example, might Egypt be asked to lease some of the Sinai desert, so that they could use their skills on that? It is the most difficult question, and I wonder about the thinking.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. It is a very difficult question that will require enormous courage by the Israeli cabinet, not least because the cabinet is a coalition and a coalition of views as well as a coalition of parties. What has been done so far is a courageous first step.

We ought to recognise that these matters must initially be for internal decision by the Israeli cabinet. However, we stand ready to assist in all appropriate ways. I think we have made that plain.

It is going to be very difficult on a human basis to ask or require settlers to move. They have committed their lives and their energies, determination and dedication. It is a very difficult problem for the cabinet in Israel to resolve and to try to reconcile different views. Again, I shall transmit the noble Lord's suggestion. It is a suggestion worth considering, but what the ultimate worth of it would be, I cannot say without further examination.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, in the course of my noble and learned Lord's emphasis on the further inquiries to be made, he was kind enough to indicate the agencies that would provide the information. A little phrase crept in with which I am thoroughly familiar. I think the House is familiar with it too. The words were "subject to the usual constraints". This is a vital phrase. If, for example—as seems likely on the face of it—our intelligence services and other official and governmental services were to provide further and enlightening information, this should not be subject to customary practices and restraints. So whenever I hear governments in this place—and I have been here a long time—talk of "usual constraints", my ears prick up immediately. It will not amount to very much and I doubt whether it will be significant in the ultimate, but I have to inform noble Lords that my ears will be very alert for the sources and nature of the usual constraints that are about to be deployed by the Government.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I know from past experience that the noble Lord's ears are constantly in a state of pricking, but I think he has mistaken the point and the approach made by the noble Lord, Lord King, to which I responded.

The noble Lord, Lord King and I share one thing in common at least; we have both had to read intelligence material. It would be foolish and dangerous to recite it all in public and, for instance, to identify sources who might be in mortal danger. That might compromise future intelligence operations. But one is able to describe conclusions as, "Are the assertions made that the Prime Minister lied? Is that borne out by the material or not?" That committee can come to that conclusion. I personally resent the suggestion—it is more than an implication—that the Prime Minister has lied. If the ISC came to the conclusion that on the material available he had not, it is able to come to that conclusion. It does not have to publish chapter and verse on every informant. As soon as you publish an informant's name two consequences follow: he is likely to be killed and you will not get a large crop of informants for the future.