EU: December Council Meeting

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what, if any, changes they envisage in the United Kingdom’s relationship with the rest of the European Union following the summit meeting of 8–9 December 2011.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, Britain remains a full member of the European Union and will continue to work hard with our many allies in Europe to advance our national interests as well as those of all other EU member states. Nothing arising from the December Council meeting alters that.

[Lord Soley]

I am grateful for that reply but, intentionally or unintentionally, at the December meeting the Prime Minister gave the very strong impression that Britain could never accept the concept of the ever closer union spelt out in a variety of treaties signed by the United Kingdom over many years. Will the Government give a clear answer, not least for that section of the Government led by the Prime Minister, as to whether we are on board for ever closer union, or do we reject that concept?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that most people looking at the 21st century have found the concept of ever closer union implying more and more centralisation as, frankly, yesterday’s stuff. This is not the way in which the European Union will strengthen its cohesion and flexibility in the face of the new international landscape. While certainly the events of the December Council struck a particular view in regard to the safeguarding of Britain’s interests in the light of the plans which are now going forward and in which we are participating for the new fiscal union and possible fiscal union treaty if one emerges, I do not think that there is anything very revolutionary or new about recognising in the debate on the reform and development of the European Union that ever closer union as a simple integrationist concept is out of date.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I ask this question for future reference. Surely it is the case—perhaps the Minister could confirm it—that the central aim of Her Majesty’s Government in Europe is to make sure that we have no friends there whatsoever.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am afraid that that is upside-down thinking, because the enlightened view in Europe is that we should move towards the reform of the European Union in all aspects. Everyone agrees that maybe the time has come to revise its great purposes in the 20th century. I was fascinated by a remark made the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who I hope will speak in a moment on this issue. He rightly said that the old arguments for Europe will no longer do. We are in a new situation in which many intelligent people throughout the European Union realise that new approaches are needed. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not one of them.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the concept of ever closer union in the treaties was about an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe? Nothing that this coalition Government are doing would prevent a closer relationship between the peoples of Europe, but that does not imply the Governments of Europe for ever being bound in ever closer unions. On the financial transaction tax that France has agreed to pursue unilaterally, our understanding is that the German Government are reluctant to proceed unilaterally. Are we having conversations with the Germans on the effects of the tax should it be implemented more widely?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the first point. The peoples of Europe, the communities of Europe and the interests of Europe are binding more and more closely together in the internet age and in the age of the information revolution, but the question of how this resolves at governmental level is obviously much more complex. She is absolutely right about that. As far as the financial transactions tax is concerned—the so-called Tobin tax—Her Majesty’s Government’s view is that if this was a universal tax, the chances of which are frankly pretty remote, it would begin to make sense to apply it, but that if it was merely going to be for the European Union or even for selected countries in the European Union, it would not make much sense at all. That seems to be a view that increasingly the Germans are sharing.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, if what the noble Lord says is true, that everyone throughout the European Union agrees that there are better arguments for the future, why were we left isolated on 8 and 9 December? Why did nobody agree with us then?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The precise issue was that the safeguards against additional incursions into financial interests, of which this country holds a very large proportion in Europe, were not going to be agreed. This led my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reluctantly to say that he could not agree to the kind of treaty being proposed. The other 26 countries are looking at it—as are we, in participating in the current operations and examination—and are finding out whether it works for them. I am not sure that in the end either the 26 or even possibly all 17 countries will be really prepared to go along with every detail of the treaty so far. However, a new draft has been produced that already begins to adjust somewhat to the concerns that my right honourable friend voiced and that other countries have expressed as well.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, was the European Union not supposed to bring peace and—

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

Is the noble Lord aware that this question of ever closer union could not be agreed at the Messina conference and could not be interpreted in the Rome treaty? As a result, a compromise amendment was made that the Court of Justice could deal with the matter, which is where we are today. We are now in the twist of a federal demand that we should remove, with other people, our residual sovereignty for imposed financial restriction, to which I personally object.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course, the European Court of Justice is applicable and is an instrument of the European Union treaties. Ad hoc arrangements and other co-operation arrangements that are not within the treaties would not be covered by the European Court of Justice. I was interested to see in the draft of the fiscal union treaty that is now circulating that the proposition that the ECJ should have precedence over national laws has been removed. I appreciate that my noble friend’s long-term considerations go much deeper, but it may be that here and now some of the concerns that he has expressed are being recognised.

[Lord Liddle]

Will the Minister bear with us as we continue with an old argument? Will he confirm that it is the clear policy of the Foreign Secretary and the coalition that there will be no attempt to repatriate powers from the European Union during this Parliament? Will he confirm that that is the Government’s policy and, if it is, how does he justify the Foreign Secretary permitting civil servants in his department to work with the new All-Party Group for European Reform to explore what powers might be repatriated? How is this Conservative initiative consistent with the policy of the coalition?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not want to play with words but I understood that in all parties, including the noble Lord’s party, and in the think tank with which he is closely associated, clear and forward-looking minds were looking at ways of rebalancing powers between Brussels and the member states as a whole—not just between Brussels and this country but between the European Commission, the European Council, the European institutions and the nation states. Again, there seems to be a very enlightened argument—of which I thought he was part, although he seems not to be so at the moment—that certain powers, particularly social powers and other detailed regulatory powers, would be far better administered close to the recipients, those in need of social care and those on the workshop floor, than by central organisations in Brussels. This is a sensible way forward and I am very glad that our officials are studying it closely.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in response to reports of violence in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo following recent elections.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the break.

We are working to tackle the threat of armed groups in a number of ways. We have pressed to ensure that the protection of civilians remains the priority for the United Nations organisation stabilisation mission—MONUSCO. We are supporting the disarmament, demobilisation and repatriation programme to remove fighters from the battlefield peacefully. We have also supported UN sanctions against members of armed groups who breach humanitarian law.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for reflecting the Government’s commitment to those actions. I had the immense privilege of being in the DRC for the recent elections as an international observer, and I praise the ordinary Congolese people for their determination to vote in secret and safely as often as they could, despite provocation at times. I also praise the ordinary Congolese people who conducted the vote at the local level, but the parties continue to dispute the result of the elections. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for maximum transparency in the election results so that any dispute is based on fact rather than accusation? There is also a need for reconciliation between the parties, perhaps led by the international community, to ensure that the country can move forward and develop rather than continue in conflict.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

First, I salute and congratulate the noble Lord on the role he played in participating in EurAc, the network of European NGOs’ elections observation mission to the DRC elections in November. His questions are extremely apposite and are obviously backed by a deep hinterland of information.

The noble Lord asked what we can do to meet the particular problem that was reflected in the recently reported horrific FDLR killings in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo the other day. Our strategy has three elements. First, we are funding the demobilisation, repatriation and resettlement programme, which helps to remove fighters from the battlefield. Secondly, we are very substantially supporting the UN force, MONUSCO, to the tune of £69 million, which represents over 8 per cent of its entire budget and is coming from us here in the UK. Thirdly, we are supporting sanction regimes that are aimed on a continuing basis at identifying leaders of armed groups and seeing how they can be removed from the battlefields. Those are the three broad aims that we are activating over and above the fact that the Department for International Development has a budget over the next four years of £790 million for development in DRC. This is a hugely effective programme.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, does the Minister believe that the sheer scale of irregularities in the recent DRC elections and the violence and intimidation that has arisen could have happened without the complicity of the authorities there? In the east of the Congo—the Kivu and Goma regions to which the noble Lord’s Question refers—rape has been used as a weapon of war, and in a country where more than 6 million have died in what many call Africa’s first world war over the past 25 years, what can the Government do to assist MONUSCO, particularly in the protection of vulnerable women and the bringing to justice of those responsible?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The killings in the east of the Congo that we were debating a moment ago are one thing, and it is not for me to declare that they were to do with the undoubted violence that occurred during the actual elections. I fully concede that, as the noble Lord has rightly pointed out, there were reports of irregularities during the elections, and we are not going to just ignore them and pretend that nothing went wrong; it did. The Minister for Africa, my honourable friend Henry Bellingham, has called on the DRC authorities to investigate all irregularities promptly and fairly, and we have pressed the Congolese electoral commission—CENI—to make key improvements in the compilation process for the legislative count. We will also urge CENI to carry out with international help an in-depth review of irregularities raised by the observer missions, and will press it to implement any recommendations. We are not letting the matter rest. We recognise that there were some serious irregularities and that these need to be pursued and reviewed with great vigour.

[Lord Chidgey]

What will be the Government’s response to the UN group of experts’ report on the DRC, which highlighted the failure of the Mines Ministry to take control of mining out of the ICC-indicted military’s hands? This has resulted in increasing criminalisation and increasing funding streams to military groups, which are all part of the problems of violence in the Congo. What steps will the Government take to raise awareness among UK-based firms of the risks they run in the mining industries and of the international diligence standards for mineral trade? What has been done to put forward the UN conditions, which were introduced more than a year ago, on the trade in conflict minerals?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

These are very detailed questions on which I would like to write to my noble friend in more detail. Generally, we recognise these problems and general approaches to them have been taken, particularly in our close work with MONUSCO and the UN, but I shall write to him in more detail on his precise analysis.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the systematic violence against women by police, military and non-state armed groups in the DRC that the engagement of women in security sector reforms is absolutely essential? Through UK funding to the DRC, will the Government ensure that women’s groups are provided with the knowledge, the skills and the resources they need to hold the security services to account?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, we will. I think I can speak on behalf of my honourable and right honourable friends in DfID in saying that this is a central consideration in the substantial programme of aid, assistance and reform that the department is carrying forward, as well as in all our concerns in dealings with MONUSCO and the United Nations.

Eurozone Agreement

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will next meet other European Union member state Governments to discuss the December 2011 Eurozone agreement.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, two meetings of the ad hoc working group on the fiscal stability union, in which the UK is participating, have been held so far. The first was on 20 December and discussed general views on the draft international agreement on a reinforced economic union and the practical arrangements for the preparatory work. The second meeting, on 6 January this year, discussed the proposed provisions in the draft agreement, particularly those relating to consistency and relationships with the law of the Union and fiscal issues. The ad hoc working group plans to hold a minimum of a further meeting a week.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As the Liberal European leaders gave such good advice over the weekend, what is the coalition response to the points that they made, including the vital point about whether there should now be a full EU treaty?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The views expressed by the group to which my noble friend has referred were of course very interesting and coincided broadly with what we all accept: if, as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly said, the UK’s interests are properly and fully safeguarded, then eventually this could emerge as a European treaty. However, at the moment that is not the position, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had to make clear in the December Council, where it was plain that our interests were not safeguarded. Until that matter is resolved, it is difficult to see how this can become a full European treaty.

[Lord Soley]

Can the Minister explain what the Deputy Prime Minister meant when he said that the agreement would be folded into existing treaties, and does he think that that could be done with or without a vote, as has been suggested by the Government?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understood the Deputy Prime Minister to say that the UK would want to make sure that the basic building blocks of the single market—namely, a level playing field upon which competition takes place—are properly safeguarded. It is a question of safeguards. I think that the meaning of what is said by anyone who applies a constructive approach to this whole situation is that, if there is to be a fiscal union treaty and it is to go forward in a way that the whole European Union can support, it will have to safeguard the issues that we regard as vital to our national interest, which means preserving open competition and preventing further discrimination against our financial services. That is what all who have applied their mind to this issue agree is the right way forward.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, can the Minister possibly say what provisions of the draft agreement which have been discussed in Brussels are objectionable to the British Government and prevent them signing?

Can the Minister also give me an answer to the question that I put to the Leader of the House after the 9 December meeting? Why did the British Government abandon the tried and trusted approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the Milan European Council and the one before the Maastricht negotiations started, of making clear certain objections but also making clear that she would make up her mind whether or not to agree only at the end of the negotiating process?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I shall take those questions in reverse order. Unfortunately, one of the leading voices at the December meeting—namely, the French leadership—made it absolutely clear that there would be no acceptance of the safeguards which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was seeking. I refer not to safeguards to give special protection to existing interests but to safeguards against further intrusion and further discrimination against interests, which would have affected Britain in particular but other countries as well.

I do not think that the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that we do not publish informal draft text proposals. He may not like that but that has been the practice for a long time and it continues to be the practice, particularly when those taking part are in the middle of negotiations.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, does the doctrine of collective responsibility apply in these matters?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Broadly, yes—but occasionally with some flexibility, particularly in the coalition, which I know my right honourable friend strongly supports.

[Lord Barnett]

Does that reply mean that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated to the Prime Minister that he will have his full support at the next Council meeting at the end of the month, as after the previous meeting he initially indicated his support for the veto even though he now says it stopped nothing—as it did not?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

One can trade many words on what occurred at the December Council, but certainly something was stopped: namely, the proposal that there should be a pan-EU, 27-member amendment to the Lisbon treaty. That was stopped by my right honourable friend when he found that the safeguards he sought would not be available and that new intrusions on, and discriminations against, open competition were to be put in place. No doubt what emerges in the future will be developed in a constructive way and, I am sure, will have the full support of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and all members of the coalition Cabinet.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, do the Government agree that the Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and other people would not be suffering as they are if it were not for the misguided project of European integration, complete with its ruinous euro? Has not the time come for the eurozone to abandon the euro and for all its members to return to their national currencies in an orderly fashion, complete with their own exchange and interest rates? Is that not the only sensible way forward?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The frank and sensible answer given by much higher authorities than me to the question, “Has the time come?” is, “We do not know”. As far as the situation of the Club Med countries is concerned—this applies in particular to Greece, which is having great difficulties in its debt restructuring—we hope that they will achieve it but we do not know, and we are not at all sure whether the necessary measures are in place to meet that short-term need. The broader issue of the fiscal stability union is aimed at the longer-term attempt to make sure that the eurozone is not constantly vulnerable to future crises. However, in the short term, if I told the noble Lord that I knew exactly what would happen, he would not believe me—and he would be right.

[Lord Teverson]

Does my noble friend agree that it is important in European economic and financial affairs, as it is in personal and social affairs, that one is seen not to snub one's friends, particularly when one might need their help in future?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have to agree with that general proposition. As far as I am concerned, no snubbing went on. The UK sought to protect its interests and the integrity of the European Union treaty. We will continue to work both for our interests and for the stable and orderly development of EU economies generally. That will require a lot of co-operation but certainly will not require the UK, for instance, to join the eurozone, and no snubbing is involved in saying that we would rather stay out of it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I understand the Minister's difficulty in answering some of these supplementary questions. There may not have been 27 countries that took a different view, but there were 26. One reason was that there was little diplomatic contact before the event to discuss it. Indeed, the Minister will find that the officials in his own department lamented the fact that they were not tasked with engaging diplomatically in advance of the December meeting. What can the Minister say about a positive programme of re-engagement to engage and repair relationships—because unless those relationships are repaired the prospects for us having a substantive input are very small?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Words such as “repair” are overdramatised. We are involved in the ad hoc working group and participating not just as observers. We want to see the eurozone crisis resolved in an orderly way for the obvious reason that implosion and disorder on the continent of Europe would undermine one of our chief markets. We are working very closely with our colleagues and the relationships and involvements continue as before. To dramatise this as a tremendous break and imply that Britain is isolated and marginalised is to falsify the position. On the contrary, we are in a very strong position and are anxious to see the European economy recover.

Cyprus: EU Presidency

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we are confident that the Republic of Cyprus will carry out its presidency responsibilities as defined by the Treaty on European Union. It is for the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to set the objectives for its presidency of the European Union from July to December 2012.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

However, my Lords, have Her Majesty’s Government considered the consequences for the United Kingdom when it endorses an EU presidency by a bankrupt nation that has for 40 years maintained a dishonest and discriminating policy towards Turkish Cypriots and has survived under a leadership that has recently been defined by 90 per cent of its own people—Greek Cypriots—as corrupt? What will that say about our national values?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think the whole House recognises that criticisms can be levelled at a number of countries, including the Republic of Cyprus, which, in the list I have here, comes 30th out of 191 countries in Transparency International’s examinations of levels of corruption, and comes 16th out of 30 countries in the European Union. There is obviously a problem there which I think is recognised in the republic itself. As to the future presidency, it is our hope that there will be decisive progress in the coming months towards a settlement that everyone in the north, Turkey, Greece, the Republic of Cyprus and indeed this country desires. If we can move forward in that way, everyone benefits.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have just returned from a visit to Cyprus that was funded by the north Cypriot Government. Is the Minister aware that the Turkish Cypriot north set up and established the Immovable Property Commission in 2006, thus allowing mainly Greek Cypriots to get compensation for properties that they had lost? To date, the commission has received 2,629 applications and has paid out more than £63 million. As the Minister will know, this has been ratified by the European Court of Human Rights. Are Her Majesty’s Government aware that no such local remedy is available for Turkish Cypriots to claim for properties they have lost? Hundreds of people have had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to claim their compensation. Is this acceptable for an EU country that is about to take over the presidency of the EU? Should it not set an example?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We want to see progress on all sides on this vexed question of property. The commission that my noble friend mentions is making a positive contribution. Ultimately, we believe that the whole property issue can be solved only as part of a comprehensive settlement. We certainly support any efforts to resolve the issue, whether in the north or in the republic. I cannot say more than that at the moment.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, I, too, declare a pecuniary interest as having returned from northern Cyprus on a visit sponsored by its Government. Does the Minister recall a Question that I laid earlier when I asked the British Government to use their best interests to bring together both sides so that the presidency will bring renown to the island of Cyprus and to its two peoples? Unfortunately, there is little working together for a common purpose, as was demonstrated during our visit.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do indeed recall the noble Lord’s earlier Question in which he rightly expressed the hope, which we frankly all share, for decisive progress. The next meeting in the UN process under the Secretary-General of the United Nations takes place at the end of January, and we all hope for further progress. At the latest meeting, the stance was not totally negative but there was not much progress, and we hope that they will do better this time. The gains for all sides from a successful advance in the UN process are so enormous that one longs to see it move forward, but so far, I am afraid, we have been disappointed.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I take the opportunity to wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, a happy birthday, he having been a Foreign Secretary who worked tirelessly for a solution of the Cyprus problem. Does the Minister agree that it would be rather useful if the Governments of both Cyprus and Turkey reconsidered their attitude towards each other? The petulance with which the Government of Turkey are approaching the Cyprus presidency would seem to be barely fitting for a rising nation of great importance to us. As for the Government of Cyprus, their blocking Turkey joining the EU to work on measures against Syria and their blocking of many of the chapters of Turkey's accession is entirely counterproductive for their own interests. Would not some reconsideration by both sides of their attitude towards each other be in order?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

First, I warmly endorse the noble Lord’s wishes for the happy birthday of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I think I can speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in presenting those congratulations to him on his 86th birthday. That is terrific.

As to the broader points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, he himself has played a significant part in trying to get the parties to take a more reasonable attitude to each other. He is right: the compromise that will emerge from the end of Cyprus’s tribulations can be achieved only if there is a more giving and revised attitude on both sides. Very hard lines have been taken up. There has to be compromise, there has to be movement, there has to be some revision of views between the two sides. Then we will make progress. What the noble Lord says must be right, and we have to work for it.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is no intention to change the status of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus or the military facilities there?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can confirm that. As the noble Lord knows, there was a recent review of the sovereign bases. A Statement was made to Parliament indicating that the review has been completed. It has not been fully published, but its broad conclusions are established, which are that the bases are vital and will certainly continue. There was, of course, already the view that in the event of a settlement and the unity of Cyprus, 50 per cent of the sovereign base area would be part of the settlement and would be available to help it. Generally, the commitment is as firm as it has always been that the sovereign bases are important and will remain.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, on the other hand, can we not look forward to a happy and fruitful presidency of Cyprus, which after all shares so many of its attributes with the bloated Commission in Brussels?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is tempting me into wider issues and debates, which I will vigorously resist.

Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2010-11

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely well informed debate, as one would expect. I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, found the Government’s response—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, as I was saying, this has been a highly informed and expert debate conducted by many expert people. I was regretting that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, found the Government’s response a little lacking in sharpness and focus or perhaps lacking flavour; I shall use my best endeavours to add a bit of pepper and salt to the meal and perhaps make it a little more tasty.

Before turning to address a range of detailed points, which I intend to do, first let me thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, for opening this debate and the two Members of our House, the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who are the representatives of the House of Lords on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The words before me are to thank in a rather formal way all the other members of the Committee, but I would like to go a bit further than that. First, I would like to thank the staff as well as the committee members, and secondly, I would like to say frankly that I am awed by the amount of expertise and the work and dedication that are put into the committee’s work. In a sordid world of gain and loss, this committee has no obvious reward and there is no dose of the elixir of publicity that politicians like—it is toiling in solitude, and it is magnificent work. One sometimes half-wishes that the media would pick up on the fact that all this work is done, because they are oblivious of the amount of effort involved. They may comment on the results and the things that titivate the public, the media and so on, but they are rather oblivious of the amount of work that it is put in by people such as the noble Marquess, the noble Lord and the committee. I can see that too much publicity is not desirable, but a little greater recognition in the media of what is being done in the national interest would sometimes be appreciated.

It is vital that we have a strong framework for overseeing the work of the security and intelligence agencies. The ISC’s annual report is of the highest quality and underlines the unique and valuable role in this framework that the committee plays; I do not think there is any question about that. We should also think about the subject matter: the agencies. We should be proud of them. Their staff work day in, day out, often at very great personal risk to themselves, to keep the nation and its people safe. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and, as the committee notes, those working in this field continue to excel at a very challenging task. Again, those words are inadequate for the sheer danger often involved in the task. I remind noble Lords of the very striking speech made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 16 November about the work of the intelligence services, in which he highlighted the extreme, often fatal, danger faced by those working in those agencies. I am sure that noble Lords will join with me in sending them our thanks and our praise for the work they do for our nation.

As my right honourable friend said in that speech, these agencies not only defend us from threats to our national security and to the lives of British citizens but they also provide vital support to British military operations and diplomatic intelligence which gives us a key national advantage in foreign and security policy. It is precisely because of the vital importance of the agencies’ role—and much of it must inevitably be kept away from the public gaze—that their work should be, and is, properly scrutinised.

Now let me turn to the detailed issues raised, after which I will turn to the detailed points made by individual Members in this debate. First, the Government’s Justice and Security Green Paper—it is white, but never mind—has generally been recognised as a very striking and strong contribution to the evolution of thinking in this area. The Government’s aims were set out in the Green Paper. These are: to better equip our courts to pass judgment in cases involving sensitive information; to protect UK national security by preventing damaging disclosure of genuinely national security-sensitive material—I will come in a moment to how that balance is to be struck; and to modernise judicial, independent and parliamentary scrutiny of the security and intelligence agencies to improve public confidence that executive power is held fully to account.

The Green Paper is one part of a package of measures announced by the Prime Minister in July 2010 aimed at restoring confidence in our security and intelligence services and allowing them to get on with the crucial job of keeping us safe. The Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Detainee, or Gibson, inquiry. He published the consolidated guidance issued to intelligence officers and service personnel on engaging with detainees held overseas by third parties. He also announced the intention to reach a mediated settlement of the civil claims brought by former detainees of Guantanamo Bay because those claims could not be properly tried. This was achieved in November 2010 and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his very sagacious intervention.

Combined with the proposals in the Green Paper aimed at improving the courts’ ability to handle intelligence and other sensitive material, this represents a comprehensive package to address these difficult issues and to enable our security and intelligence agencies to get on with the vital task of keeping the nation safe. The Green Paper consultation process is under way and closes on 6 January. In answer to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the aim is to go for legislation as soon as practicable, or thereafter. The comments in this debate will also receive full attention as part of that process, along with the range of responses from the public, which have been fairly extensive and substantial.

There are two distinct parts to the Green Paper proposals: reform of judicial scrutiny of intelligence and other government-held sensitive material, and reform of the non-judicial scrutiny of the intelligence community by independent and parliamentary bodies. I am going to deal with both of these. Reform in each area in its own right is required and necessary.

On judicial reform, the Government favour legislation to make closed material procedures available in civil legal proceedings where they are not currently available and in the rare instances in which sensitive information is centrally relevant to the case. The role of special advocates to represent the interests of the excluded individual is central to ensuring a sufficient degree of procedural fairness in closed hearings. The Government will ensure that this, and all other legislative proposals in the Green Paper, are consistent with our domestic and international legal obligations. The two drivers in this whole process are to increase fairness to all parties in civil proceedings, and to ensure that sensitive material is adequately safeguarded from public disclosure. That is the balance that has to be struck. This last point is critical, especially the importance of keeping safe information passed to us by other Governments, which several noble Lords, including the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred to. We expect other Governments to keep our material safe when we pass it to them, and of course they expect the same of us. This goes to the heart of the control principle. Where it has in the past been offended—one instance was quoted—the repercussions were serious, sensitive and difficult to handle.

On non-judicial reform, the Intelligence and Security Committee has put forward in its excellent report, and indeed in the debates that took place in another place, reform proposals that the Green Paper largely supports. We have here a concurrence of support. The Green Paper proposes: changing the ISC’s status to a statutory committee of Parliament, answerable to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister—a point that almost all noble Lords have raised; formalising the ISC’s role in overseeing the work of the wider intelligence community—that is, defence intelligence and the OSCT central intelligence machinery in the Cabinet Office; reforming the ISC appointments process to give Parliament a more substantial role; reviewing the ISC’s resourcing and accommodating the ISC on the Parliamentary Estate—a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Lothian—and the Government are reviewing the central question of resources for the ISC as distinct from resources for intelligence operations generally; and the question of the ISC having the power to require information from the agencies, subject only to a veto exercisable by the relevant Secretary of State. That is our positive and detailed response to the Green Paper, which coincides with what noble Lords have been saying.

On a more sensitive and difficult area, the Government are giving careful consideration to the ISC’s proposal, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and I think by my noble friend Lord Lothian, to extend its remit to include operational aspects of the work of the agency. At the risk of too much repetition, I can only repeat the words of the Green Paper about how far one can go on this front. The consequences of creating a general power are significant and need careful thought to ensure that the implications have been understood. The principles that the Government believe are important in considering this issue include safeguarding the integrity of ministerial responsibilities, avoiding overlap with the roles of other independent oversight bodies and ensuring that there is no lessening in the effectiveness of the work of the agencies or undue resource burdens placed on them. In addition, any such oversight of operational work would need to be clearly retrospective and, in the Government’s view, would need to be focused on matters of significant national interest. The point was rightly made, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that we do not want to go down the path of our American allies or the Washington procedures, which go into areas where we would not want necessarily to follow. Any change of the kind that we suggest or has been suggested would therefore need to be based on a clear understanding between the Government and the committee on how this should work in practice, articulated either in legislation or possibly in a supporting document such as a memorandum of understanding.

Before I come to the detailed points that have been made, let me refer to cybersecurity, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and several others. Of course there are concerns and of course the Government share them. The Government have recognised the real and increasing risk to the UK’s national security from cyberattack. The National Security Council has assessed cyberattack as a tier 1 threat in the national security strategy and has allocated additional funding of £650 million over four years to respond effectively to threats from cyberspace through a transformative national cybersecurity programme.

In fact, my right honourable friend William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, hosted a conference on cyberspace at the beginning of last month, which looked at how Governments, businesses, individuals and non-governmental organisations can maintain the economic and social benefits of the internet and guard against criminal and security threats posed in cyberspace. All delegates agreed that immediate steps must be taken to develop practical measures and shared understanding, and to agree common approaches and confidence building through the UN group of government experts and through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other regional organisations. The UK is taking a leading role in initiating these important international discussions and we are pleased that the London agenda will be carried forward at a further session, which will be held in Hungary, and after that in South Korea. So we will continue to be very vigilant on that front in both overseas fora and at home.

I was going to add something on the Olympics, which did not come up in this debate but was certainly a matter aired in the debate in the other place. Therefore, for reassurance and for the record, I say that the Government are committed to a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games. With less than eight months to go, safety and security activity is on track and well advanced, including within the intelligence community. Funding for Games security has been protected. The Government remain confident that the core safety and security programme can be delivered within the £475 million announced in the spending review of last December. The venue security budget is separate from the budget for policing the Games. We are confident that the 2012 Games will be delivered within the £9.3 billion public sector funding package. These costs are an appropriate investment in the safety and security of the public and our international visitors.

I have covered some of the points raised but let me turn in more detail to the excellent and informed comments of various Members during this debate. I repeat: the ISC report is excellent. My noble friend Lord Lothian made a number of central points about status and so on. I have already mentioned that. He asked about funding changes if the nature of the threat changes. This is something that can and does happen. The nature of the threat changes and there needs to be flexibility. Where unforeseen emerging threats place new demands on the SIA, the first response has been and will be to reprioritise within existing work. Agility and flexibility to redirect effort towards emerging threats and away from receding ones are core established strengths of the British intelligence community. That is splendid language for saying, “Don’t go on spending on things that have been solved and have passed. Focus on the new challenges and switch your resources to them”. There are mechanisms in place for doing that. The Government’s top requirements are given the priority and resources that they need. The point that there is a need for flexibility and that things can change rapidly is well taken, and the operational systems are in place to meet it.

My noble friend also mentioned the overseeing of operations by the ISC and closed material procedures, which I have already covered. He also mentioned a rebuttable statutory presumption. With a statutory presumption against disclosure, it must be possible for the courts to rebut the presumption if necessary. The Government’s analysis is that such a rebuttable presumption, while carrying the weight of Parliament’s opinion, would not alter the decision-making process of the court, which is anyway already deferential to the Executive on national security-related decisions. That is the Government’s comment on that point, which my noble friend Lord Lothian raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, spoke about a number of relevant issues. He talked about the composition of the committee. The obvious answer is that party politics and the balance between parties are not relevant to the nomination of individuals to the committee. It is not seen as a political matter at all. It is a matter of gaining people with first-class experience. It might well be that in one Parliament or one set of membership there would be two or three members of the Opposition and one or two on the Government’s side. The people who serve on the committee are not connected to the balance between the parties. I have to say that to the noble Lord. He may say that he wishes it was but that is just not the way it is.

Should it be a committee of Parliament? The answer is yes. That is what the Green Paper proposes and that is what we are moving towards. We will work out how to do that. I have answered the noble Lord’s question about the timing of legislation.

The noble Lord turned to the national security adviser, and I do not think I am going to make any personal comments here, except to agree with him that of course all departments put up their defences—he used the word “blinkers”. All institutions put up their defences and fight their corners, and they are right to do so, just as Ministers are right to try to remove the blinkers. They do not always do so to roars of applause, but these things have to go on, and if Ministers do not do that, they are not doing their job. That is the remedy for his concerns.

As for co-ordination and who co-ordinates what, the whole point is that the National Security Council, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, is an amazingly important innovation, co-ordinates. It is under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, and it is the co-ordinating body. That is the way the new system works and is the whole point of the National Security Council in its developed role under this Government. It is a very significant change. There is co-ordination right under the Prime Minister. He has advisers and that committee, and there is a relationship with the JIC as well, which is charged with looking at, responding to or putting into effect the kind of agenda that the NSC establishes and lays down.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, also asked about Scotland and the security implications of Scottish independence. I am not sure I am in a position to give an answer to that, or even want to, but one can safely assume that the relevant departments are assessing it, and if such a thing were to occur, the machinery would go forward to examine all the implications for all aspects of UK policy of Scottish independence. I do not think I can say more than that. The noble Lord very generously reminded us again to thank the intelligence services for their skill, professionalism, integrity and, I would add, sheer courage as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that he had been a customer of the services. So was I for a time in the past, and I suppose we were good customers because we are here to tell the tale. He mentioned BBC Monitoring, which is important, and I have a note on it that I would like to share with him about the real cuts that had to be applied when the new Government came in. We did not have any choice. The cuts were discussed with BBC Monitoring in principle before the start of the financial year, and we have worked closely with BBC Monitoring, and continue to do so, on the best ways of minimising the impact of reduced funding. I am advised that the Cabinet Office is currently working with stakeholders and BBC Monitoring to agree the form and structure of BBC Monitoring during the transition period and after it has joined the BBC, which will be in April 2013. That is what is going on there. That is what I wanted to tell the noble Lord about that.

The recruitment of people who are not conventional civil servants, in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, brought back memories—and I suspect it does to a number of noble Lords—about life in university days when people appeared from unmarked offices in London and wanted to have tea to look you up and down to see whether you were suitable material for their purposes. A number of my friends went off for long strolls with those gentlemen and may even have received invitations afterwards. I waited eagerly to be asked to go on a long stroll or to have tea, but an invitation never came my way, so I was obviously considered unsuitable material, much too conventional or wrong in some sense, right from the start. The eye was clearly out, and is always out, for the original person, the non-conforming, challenging, questioning person, man or woman, and they are the people with the flair and the ability for quick lateral thinking that the intelligence services clearly need.

From my experience in and out of ministries over almost half a century, the old phrase “the conventional civil servant” is vanishing. The officials that I encounter are anything but conventional. They are a lively, original and disparate group of people who are bringing to bear ingenious minds on the increasingly complex world of government—which, of course, it is. The internet now empowers the individual and challenges the data monopoly of government, and the whole business of government is infinitely more difficult than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

I would like to say a number of things on training, which is a very important aspect that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and others. Policies for the recruitment and retention of specialist staff are the responsibility of individual departments—that is rather obvious—but under the national cybersecurity programme the Government are supporting individual departments and agencies in developing cybersecurity training and skills capabilities for their staff. In addition, the Cabinet Office and GCHQ are both supporters of initiatives such as the cybersecurity challenge, which promotes careers in cybersecurity by annual competitions and events while providing advice and opportunities to individuals who wish to learn how to start a career in the information security field. This is a busy area and we recognise that technologists specialising in internet security, especially with experience at GCHQ, are very highly prized within a competitive external industry. GCHQ, therefore, has a retention payments system to retain its competitiveness with industry where it can. This is reviewed from time to time to ensure it remains competitive and these bonuses—because that is what they are—and the appeal of GCHQ’s mission help to keep leaver rates low compared with industry peers. That is the position; that is what we are doing. Obviously, not everything works, but the main thrust is there and will continue to deliver requirements.

On psychological training—even if I knew a great deal about it, I would not be sure whether it was right to reveal it—it would pass belief if there was not a very heavy emphasis on psychological training inside the intelligence services. One is dealing with psychological situations, so training of that kind is necessary. I would take a bet—it should perhaps be an assurance—that such training is in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked about research sources. Yes, a great deal of research is carried out internally, but we also turn to independent external research support to an extensive degree. That will certainly continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, shared with us a fascinating thought about anti-government street protests, political instability and so on arising in Europe: are we informed about where the next so-called Arab spring phenomenon is going to occur? It might occur anywhere. The intelligence services tend to keep as much of an eye on this as well-informed politicians and journalists. It does not necessarily need an exclusive monopoly of experts in secrecy to assess when the next riot in the next capital, the next burning of flags, the next raiding of buildings, or anything else, is going to be.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, touched on the fundamental issues, as one would expect, and said that the combination had to be between accountability on the one hand and the proper requirements of secrecy on the other—that is the challenge. He referred to new spying technologies, and there are plenty of those. One tends to learn about them mostly in racy novels and then, a few years later, you discover that the intelligence services have either caught up or have been practising these things all the time. I commend particularly to your Lordships the Swedish novels by a gentleman whose name I have forgotten at the moment, but they are very popular and have been made into films. They contain hair-raising matters, broadly to the effect that nothing, but nothing, that we put onto our mobile telephones or computers is private or inaccessible to the right kind of technologies. He reinforced that we must move from a committee of parliamentarians to a Committee of Parliament, and he discussed the operational role issue which I have already commented on in considerable detail to your Lordships.

The question of the interaction between judges and courts and the need to guard sensitive material is very difficult. The noble Lord outlined the difficulty. Whether it can be met in general or whether there will be recurring individual instances where we are in difficulties, I do not know, but it is a matter that must be examined and watched acutely and very carefully. It is partly covered by what I said earlier about the control principle, access to courts for more sensitive material and closed material procedures.

The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, mentioned the American links, which are very important. No-one questions the importance of all our international links, and it may be that we need to develop—this is not a report of what is happening but an opinion by a Minister—links with intelligence in unconventional areas. The truth is that the world’s power, wealth and technological and security capabilities are moving, like everything else, to Asia, to rising Africa and to Latin America. These are the places where we will need to seek services and information. It is not merely a question of us providing them. We will also need to seek an input of new technologies, methods and information from those countries as well. This is an international scene, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, emphasised.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, mentioned the response of the Government, and I have done my best to add to it. He returned to the central issue of training up a suitable cadre of people, and I have described what the Government are doing. He asked about resources and the National Security Secretariat and asked for a list of things that it does. I will give him the following list that may help. It provides support to the national security adviser by co-ordinating the development and implementation of policy for decision-making at the National Security Council; it is responsible for providing policy advice on national security and foreign policy matters to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Cabinet Office Ministers; and it has a wide range of other functions including the co-ordination of the Government’s response during civil emergencies and international crises, overseeing the delivery of the Government’s cybersecurity programme and its overseas single intelligence account, that we have discussed. The secretariat has also delivered a number of cross-departmental projects, including the national security strategy and strategic defence and security review. If I may add my opinion as an old hand, I think that that is a pretty good, detailed answer to the question that the noble Lord asked. I hope he feels that it meets his needs.

We have had a very important and wide-ranging debate this evening which illustrates that it is very important that the public have confidence that the Government’s national security work is being robustly scrutinised. The first duty and the overriding priority of any Government is the protection of the British public. Great progress has been made in counterterrorism and in other areas in recent years, but serious threats to our national security remain on all sides and there are always the new surprises, the unpredictability and the variation of threats which noble Lords have referred to, which we have to be ready to meet. That is why it is vital that we have security and intelligence agencies that can continue to reduce those threats and help to keep us all safe. Their work is among the most important carried out by anyone, so it is right that they should have robust oversight. That is why we are modernising and strengthening the oversight arrangements in the way that the counsel of the debate this evening, the debate in the other place, the ISC report and the Green Paper from the Government have all emphasised. I warmly welcome the latest annual report which we have debated tonight. Its recommendations are informing change as we speak. I look forward to future annual reports being even more useful in helping our world-class intelligence and security agencies to get even better.

I end with one small anecdote. About 47 years ago—no, let me be more accurate; it was 41 years ago—when I first entered the Government as a junior Minister, a Permanent Under-Secretary of great eminence who I will not name slipped into my room one day. I eagerly expounded on the virtues of a freedom of information Act—transparency, better scrutiny, accountability and all the things that young Ministers are keen on, to which he replied, “Very interesting, but just remember, Minister, too bright a light often deepens the surrounding darkness”. That left me thinking, and I am still thinking about that statement now.

Christians in the Middle East

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, this has been a hugely enlightening debate, unlocking the vast stores of wisdom that are to be found in your Lordships' House on the issues that we are addressing, on the history behind them—the hinterland of knowledge—and on the prospects for the present and the future in a very turbulent world. We have had some excellent speeches. I was wondering how on earth how I was supposed to encompass 2,000 years of history and all those excellent speeches in 20 minutes. I suppose that it is possible and I shall have a try, but I really do not know quite how to do it.

What I do know is that we all owe the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury enormous gratitude for promoting this debate and for sharing with us at the beginning of it his wisdom on a whole range of issues. I hope that this has been a valuable debate as a result and, like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it sends a message which will be of support and hope to many peoples who are suffering grievously.

I shall come in a moment to many of the detailed points that the most reverend Primate made, because his speech deserves the closest examination and response, but I should start by saying in more general terms that, as countries embrace reforms to varying degrees, at varying paces and in varying ways in the wake of the Arab spring, which has been referred to by many of your Lordships, it is absolutely crucial that religious diversity in the Middle East be respected. This potential will be realised only if Governments respond to demands for respect of universal human rights by implementing reforms that apply universally to all citizens, regardless of faith, ethnicity or gender, and the central consideration must be the one that has come through again and again in this debate—I think the phrase came from the noble Lord, Lord Patten: that religious freedom is a basic human right. That was repeated by many of your Lordships and is certainly central to the thinking of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with this very fluid and unfamiliar pattern of events which now shapes the whole region. Perhaps the other adage or maxim that lies at the heart of our debate is the one that came from the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, who I always listen to with great fascination. That is that the treatment of religious minorities and the way that Governments deal with them is really the litmus test of whether we are watching a truly liberalising democratic process unfolding in the Middle East region or whether we are merely seeing eruptions, as power moves from one set of hands to another, with a lack of concern for human rights and so forth.

In his speech, the most reverend Primate rightly began by referring to the phenomenon of the Arab spring. He asked whether it is leading to new kinds of oppression on top of the unending story of repression of minorities. He mentioned the increasingly disturbing reports of attacks on other minorities: Christian minorities in Egypt, the Copts in Syria and the dreadful stories out of Iran—an Iran which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others described in such graphic detail. We have discussed them in the House from time to time within the limit of what we are allowed to discuss and the discipline of Question Time, and I have been glad to answer a number of highly informed and penetrating Questions over the past year. What is in no doubt is that reports of attacks have increased.

The noble Lord, Lord Wood, mentioned the United States and how it sees things. I get the impression that among the political establishment in the United States there are some doubts, after earlier enthusiasm for the Arab spring, that these kinds of attacks and repression of minorities are not maintaining the momentum towards democracy and the spring-like evolution of freedom that we all hoped for at the start. I do not think we should get into too pessimistic a mood, but there are clearly some difficulties along the way and major mountains to climb. The Government here will do everything possible at every point to enable the fledgling new Governments, regimes and authorities such as in Libya to overcome their difficulties and move on to democracy.

Then there is the key question that the most reverend Primate put to us of what role moderate Islam, or as I gather it is now called in some quarters, soft Islam, can deliver in seeing these matters go forward safely, and what is the Christian position in all of this? Before coming on to his ideas, proposals and priorities he mentioned the centuries of coexistence between Christians, Muslims and other religions throughout the whole of that region. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to Simon Sebag Montefiore’s magisterial work on the history of Jerusalem starting well before the birth of Christ. It brings home the fact that this precious city at the centre of the world as it used to be seen in medieval times—and still is by some—has been successively controlled by the Jewish people, by Christians and by Islam for hundreds of years at a time. There have admittedly been some hideous deteriorations and some appalling bloodshed, but in between there were long periods of coexistence.

Other noble Lords mentioned the pattern of syncretic worship that emerged after the birth of Mohammedian times between Christians and Muslims. I do not want to strike too banal a note, but I happened to spend the weekend in Muslim countries in the Middle East and could not help noticing that in every airport and in most hotels there were Christmas trees. So there is already a kind of syncretic pattern going on, even in countries that are very strictly Muslim. In one area that I visited in one of the great new city states of the Middle East, where vast wealth has been accumulated, which we will have to borrow and use for our own economic purposes—I am talking about Qatar—there is a permission for churches to be built. That is in contrast to other Islamic countries and, I think—I do not want to get this wrong—in contrast to the position in Saudi Arabia. While we set our example by the building of mosques in this country, we would like to see the Qatar pattern of readiness to allow minorities and faiths to build their own temples and churches, as they wish, extended throughout the Middle East.

I should also mention the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, not just because he has the same name in his title as I have but because he made a fascinating speech about the coexistence of Christians and Islam through the centuries, which of course has been remarkable. I do not think that anyone mentioned some of the extraordinary Governments, such as those in Sicily in the 14th and 15th centuries, when senior officials of Christian and Muslim faith worked very closely together in governing the glittering kingdom of Sicily and Naples at that time. So there are all sorts of examples of how it is not but could be.

Then came the central question of the right reverend Primate’s speech, which was what do we do—what are the steps and priorities? What he had to say was echoed by a number of your Lordships in a very positive way. I am going to parody it and put it in shorthand slightly, but the menu that he set before us was, first, that there should be no superior lecturing as though we had some monopoly of knowledge, faith and rectitude to insist on in dealing with countries in the Middle East. There should be no talk of somehow the Christian communities under attack, or those not under attack, being in some way outposts of an alliance with the foreigners and the West. That is entirely the wrong approach—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, made in a superb speech. There should be no forgetting that Christians are not the only group under attack, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, reminded us. Of course they are not. Minorities are threatened in many countries, in many ways. There should be an insistence on an even-handed rule of law and an absolutely equal treatment under the law, when new constitutions are being manufactured.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the development of the problems of Egypt and the worries there, particularly with the appalling attack on the Copts. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us yet again of these. Marshal Tantawi has, of course, given personal assurances to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that the Egyptian Government are bringing forward a law of unified treatment—a law on which I have reported to your Lordships' House already—to give absolute equality of treatment to all religious groups under the law. That is an undertaking and a law; of course, one wants to see the practice as well. But there should be no doubt in your Lordships’ mind that we rest at nothing in bringing forward the need for such a law and approach to meet the very ugly developments against the Copts in Egypt, which as others have reminded us are not new but have certainly been prominent and most unpleasant in the recent months.

The most reverend Primate and others said that there should be no enclaves. We do not want that kind of division or creation of ghettos, camps and beleaguered groupings or districts with faiths in them. That is not the way forward. It is a mixture of peoples working together socially, respecting each other’s religions, that is required. There should be no talk of new crusades, which of course we hear from some—but they are wrong. That is not the spirit at all. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was very strong on that. We should remember, above all, that Christianity comes from the Middle East. We are talking about the cradle of Christianity, not some outside group that has pushed in from the West to bring the Christian religion. There it was, there it sprang up and there it developed in all its depth. I particularly liked the adage, as it were, used by the Baroness, Lady Cox, that we must approach all this by building bridges and not walls.

With all those ideas, the Government totally concur. It does not mean to say that we immediately assume powers to be able to do everything satisfactorily and carry forward measures on every front. Our powers are inevitably limited. We can do more, though, than just analyse or wring our hands. We can take a number of steps, and we are doing so. I want to describe how we will do that at the end of my comments. Before I do so, perhaps I might go over the many other contributions that your Lordships have made within this broad pattern of positive responses.

My noble friend Lord Storey, on the basis of enormous experience with interfaith work in Liverpool, emphasised the need for respect and understanding between the faiths. That was absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, again reinforced the hideous story of Christians draining out of Iraq and the treatment of Palestinian Christians. It has to be noted that he was somewhat challenged there by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and by my noble friend Lord Palmer, who reminded us that Christians in Israel are actually growing in number, so we need to look on that situation in a factual and balanced way. The need to promote interfaith working was emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter.

My noble friend Lord Patten, who I have already mentioned, seemed to touch the spring of the main theme of this debate: that religious freedom is a basic human right. I repeat that. He also had some queries on a matter that I know he is very concerned about: the treatment of Anglican worshippers in Turkey. We can correspond more on that, but we press the Turkish authorities at all times to repair some of the difficulties and unpleasantness in the Anatolian region and elsewhere, but there is more to be said and, I think, to be done. I am not sure that his comparison with other countries, as though we were lagging in this, is entirely fair but I would be very happy to discuss it further with him.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, characteristically made some deep and important points about the need to support vibrant Christian communities. It is not all gloom, although there are some severe threats around. He urged that the Foreign Office should have regular reports on religious freedom. That is certainly something we could consider more precisely and formally, although posts are very ready to provide regular information—particularly when there are unpleasant and nasty actions and violence, even deaths, to report—and to make HMG’s views very clear to the Governments of the countries concerned. We supported the Alexandria declaration and the Copenhagen summit statements and I am happy to discuss further with colleagues how we can promote that sort of idea further. I think that the Foreign Office has agreed to provide further funding for a meeting of the high council of religious leaders in Iraq, which seeks to bring together religious leaders and combat sectarian violence, and of course to continue the invaluable work of Canon Andrew White, who was frequently mentioned throughout the debate. That is what I wanted to say on the remarks from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, reminded us of the important work of the British Council. That is important and it is supported. We see it as a valuable channel, through which the messages of insistence on tolerance can be promoted with vigour and regularity.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, once again with amazing knowledge and vivid description, described some of the horrors that are going on. The Iranian attack on Christianity and other religions, including Baha’is, is particularly repulsive, and he is right to keep reminding us about it.

My noble friend Lady Morris produced yet another major theme of the debate, reminding us that extremism threatens all religions. The civil war within Islam could lead to—indeed, is leading to—more destruction and more deaths than the ugly attacks on Christianity about which we have been so concerned in this debate.

I see that I have nearly come to the end of my time, with many more fascinating comments from the debate that I long to comment on. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us to be tolerant of everything except intolerance—superb stuff. My noble friend Lord Selsdon took us between heaven and earth, but I do not quite know which side we came down on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, rightly talked about reciprocity. This is something about which a balance can be sensibly and realistically argued, and it is an important thought to feed into the debate. She mentioned the Wilton Park conference. That was a very successful event and we are looking at how best to implement the ideas that emerged from it. There could be an administrative meeting early next year of the leaders of Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Jewish and other faiths to examine the scope for greater involvement in supporting our efforts to strengthen our universal commitment to religious freedoms.

There are many other points to make but no time to make them. Fascinating questions were aired in the New Statesman this very week about whether religion need be associated with violence as it often has been in history. I think my answer is no, it need not. Religion, pure and simple, free from the hands of power brokers, can be basically a non-violent culture; indeed, at the heart of almost every religion there is a non-violent message to be remembered, as people like Gandhi have argued.

I end my comments by saying that, unlike Mr Richard Dawkins, I have faith in the faiths. We as a Government are committed to promoting all religious groups, including Christians, around the world. We will continue to highlight and condemn all instances of violence and discrimination against individuals because of their beliefs, wherever they occur. In the long term, it may be that the Arab spring will be a really positive moment in history. I am an optimist and believe that it will, but that will not be achieved without a clear recognition by Governments in the Middle East that democratic values must be universally applied and human rights universally enjoyed.

I hope that your Lordships are assured that the Government take this whole issue and the theme of this debate, so eloquently promoted by the most reverend Primate, very seriously. We place tremendous value on religious freedoms and are wholeheartedly working to improve the situation. Let us hope that more open and democratic societies take root in the Middle East over the coming years, creating an environment in which all faiths can live and work together in peace and prosperity, as they have at times in the past and could do again if we work hard enough at it.

Kosovo and Serbia

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Sandwich]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress there has been in the European Union’s negotiations with Kosovo and Serbia.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Government continue to support strongly the dialogue that the EU facilitates. This plays a key role in building practical co-operation between Kosovo and Serbia and in helping to normalise relations. This is crucial for both countries to move towards eventual EU membership as well as for stability in the region. To date, the dialogue has secured agreements on freedom of movement, custom stamps, mutual recognition of university diplomas, the sharing of land and civil registries and integrated border management. We urge both parties to implement fully the agreements reached and to work constructively towards achieving further progress.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Kosovo has been a special concern of this country since NATO’s intervention only 12 years ago. However, the shadow of Serbia remains over the north, which has become a virtual no-go area. EULEX law officers are not able to go there; even NATO is restricted. What can the Government do to speed up the European Union dialogue and also to persuade those other member states—Spain, Cyprus and others—that they must recognise Kosovo? There is a conflict around the corner and Kosovo’s very future is at stake.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Earl is absolutely right. This is not a smooth pathway and at every stage Serbia must be encouraged to participate in the dialogue over Kosovar independence in order to see its way into EU membership. As for the five countries of the EU which do not go along with the independence position—Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain—for reasons which one can certainly recognise, we and the rest of the EU engage with them. We seek their constructive involvement. We do not expect them to change their minds overnight, but they all support the broad aim of the EU representative, Robert Cooper, and his team in seeing a way forward for Kosovar independence and a Serbia that accepts that constructively, works toward it and paves its own way towards EU membership.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that Serbia’s progress towards European Union membership, which we would all like to see, will be impeded if Belgrade cannot make it clear that it is opposed to the partition of Kosovo, as it must be also to any attempt by the fellow Serb, Milorad Dodik, to break up the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Would he also agree that Pristina’s chances of getting the wider recognition that we all wish for, which the Minister has mentioned, will be impeded if it is not able to take more concrete steps to assure the rights of minorities in Kosovo, especially of the Serb population?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very glad that the noble Lord made it back from abroad to make those two very valid points. Of course, he is absolutely right that we must ensure that Serbia is not minded to retain the utterly destructive views of the partition of Kosovo, or indeed Bosnia—so yes, very much, to the first point that my noble friend makes. The Kosovar Government have made some progress in the protection of minorities but he is absolutely right that major challenges remain, notably with regard to Kosovo Serb communities in the north. We urge the Kosovar Government to do all they can to guarantee the rights, identity and culture of Kosovo’s minority communities and set out a comprehensive strategy for the north, where the difficulties are acute, as my noble friend knows, to cover areas such as health, education and employment. These are two areas where I totally accept what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, the Opposition thank the noble Earl for his timely question, and welcome the progress made in normalising relations. Will the Minister convey our congratulations to the distinguished British diplomat, Robert Cooper, on the role he is playing as EU mediator working to achieve integrated management of border crossings? Does the Minister agree with me that this demonstrates the value of the new External Action Service in strengthening the capabilities of the European Union? How does the recent progress affect the prospect of negotiations being opened for Serbia’s membership?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I hope the answer is that it will be positive. The noble Lord is right. Robert Cooper is an extremely able servant of the European Union and, indeed, citizen of this country. The role of the EAS is relevant, although I know that the noble Lord is the first to recognise that with a number of international organisations down there—the UN, the EAS, the ICO and so on—co-ordination is very important. I cannot give an estimate of the speed of progress. It will all come up at the European Council tomorrow. We may see some progress after that but I cannot predict it.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, with the EU’s attention currently and squarely focused on the financial crisis within its own borders, is there not a real danger that there will be less time and energy to understand or respond strategically to events in its most immediate neighbourhoods? Will the Minister give an indication as to how the eurozone crisis has impacted on the EU’s foreign policy and its ability to deploy soft power in an area such as the Balkans? Will he also tell the House whether, on the expiry of the mandates of the International Civilian Office in Kosovo and the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX, these mandates will be renewed?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I can tell the right reverend Prelate that the mandate for EULEX will be renewed. As to the broader question, clearly the minds of the leadership of the European Union are distracted by the eurozone problems but I do not see that they should impact necessarily on the expertise and determination being applied by the EU authorities in pursuing the dialogue and seeing that Serbia recognises the need to accept and accommodate the independence of Kosovo in its thinking, attitudes and policies so that it can go forward to membership of the EU.

Pakistan

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, Pakistan remains an important partner in the fight against terrorism. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated following his meeting with President Zardari on 4 July last,

“working together to defeat terrorism in all its forms is very much top of our agenda”.

The al-Qaeda core has been severely weakened over the last six months. It is important that the UK and Pakistan, together with other key international partners such as the United States, continue to work together to disrupt terrorist groups which threaten all our interests.

[Lord Ahmed]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join me in sending condolences to the families of 26 Pakistani soldiers who were killed by a NATO air strike a few days ago? Is he aware that Pakistan has lost over 30,000 civilians and over 5,000 soldiers—more than any other country in the world—as well as $75 billion to $80 billion, and that Pakistan has hosted over 6 million refugees from Afghanistan? Separating the sacrifice made by the people of Pakistan from Ali Baba and his 40 companions, will the Minister assure the House that the British taxpayers’ money allocated to DfID for education and training teachers will not end up in this individual’s private accounts in Switzerland?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, my Lords, as regards condolences, I certainly join the noble Lord. In fact, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan only the other day to offer his deepest condolences. A full investigation of that really tragic and dreadful incident is, of course, under way. I hope Pakistan will participate fully in that investigation. The United States has expressed its regret at the loss of life.

As regards the suffering faced by Pakistan, I think we all acknowledge the colossal strain on Pakistan, its society and all its citizens, with the conditions they face not only on the terrorist side, but also through the visitations of floods and other challenges, all of which add great difficulty to Pakistan’s administration. As for our aid, I can assure the noble Lord that all our aid is independently evaluated and scrutinised under our UK Aid Transparency Guarantee, and that certainly applies to all aid to Pakistan as well.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the most telling contribution Pakistan could make to global security would be to improve levels of effective governance, economic growth and employment within its own borders, and that the international community should not allow its frustration over other issues, however understandable, to divert it from this strategic focus in its engagement with Pakistan?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, that is an extremely wise observation, and I think that Her Majesty’s Government would totally agree with it.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I add my condolences to the relatives of those who lost their lives in the tragic event last week. I ask the Minister whether consideration will be given to postponing the Bonn meeting to allow Pakistan to participate. Could its agenda perhaps be extended to cover discussion of the findings of the NATO inquiry into this tragedy, including an investigation into the allegations made by Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, that it was impossible for NATO not to have known that it was attacking Pakistani posts, and that NATO had ignored mutually agreed communications procedures?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

No, I do not think it would be right to seek postponement of the Bonn meeting which is coming up, and we urge Pakistan to join. I know that in its dismay at this whole event it has thought about not joining, and in a sense that is understandable. But one looks for second thoughts and hopes that Pakistan will join the meeting. It is not a meeting organised by or about NATO, it is about the whole future of Afghanistan. Pakistani involvement would be valuable and we strongly encourage it. We stick to the timetable that has been planned.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, while I was Minister for Security for three years, the country of gravest concern to me globally was Pakistan. Notwithstanding the huge efforts, huge sacrifices and so forth that have been made in Pakistan, does the Minister not agree that one of the greatest risks to that country is violent, extremist terrorism within and around its borders and not threats from India? The fact that India is being looked at by some people within the ISI and the army as the greatest threat has diverted its efforts.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Pakistan has many problems but very high on the list are the terrorist threat and its borders with Afghanistan, as we all know. As to relations with India, we notice that India and Pakistan have recently been talking. We greatly welcome and encourage their dialogue, which we hope will lead to a less tense development on that side and therefore less distraction from the main aims that the noble Lord has rightly identified.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, accepting that Pakistan has been in the front line in the war on terror for the past 10 years, I seek our Government’s assurance that strategically, militarily and tactically on the ground Pakistan’s role will not be diminished and that it will continue to play an integrated role in the war against terror—not watching on the sidelines but being involved and engaged fully to prevent the kind of incidents that we saw recently with attacks on Pakistani forces within Pakistani sovereign territory. I join in extending condolences to the families who suffered loss as a result of that act.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sure that my noble friend’s condolences will be appreciated. These horrific things do happen, and we await an investigation of what on earth went wrong for this to have occurred. Full integration in counterterrorism is very much our purpose. As the House knows, we have counterterrorist discussions with Pakistan, although I cannot reveal the details, and we are determined to use its skills and intelligence availability in the united war against terror.

Arab Spring

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the implications of the Arab spring for religious minorities in the countries concerned.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, it is hard to generalise, given the differing circumstances in each country, but, that said, religious minorities have clearly suffered grievous oppression, often predating the so-called Arab spring, in Egypt, Iran, Iraq and, indeed, elsewhere. Egypt, in particular, has witnessed an upsurge in vicious sectarian violence and we continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to establish conditions in which all discrimination on the basis of religion is prevented. We deplore all discrimination against religious minorities and all constraints on their freedom to practise their faiths.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in these early days of the so-called Arab spring, the impact on religious minorities has so far been favourable for the Jewish and Christian communities in Tunisia, but, as he has already indicated, cause for deep concern in Egypt? Although the Baha’i community has so far been spared violence there, attacks against Coptic Christians have numbered more than 44 since 25 January, and a recent report by Amnesty International claims that discrimination and attacks against the Copts have actually increased since the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces took power. In addition to encouraging the Egyptian leadership to ensure religious freedom for all its religious minorities, will the Government call to account those who are perpetrating the violence?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right in pointing to the violence in Egypt, a matter that must concern all those who believe in freedom of religious worship. We continue to urge the Egyptian authorities on the prime importance of pluralist and non-sectarian policies. The Egyptians are moving towards bringing in a new unified law that will be even-handed between Copts and Muslims, or so we understand. They are also talking about an anti-discrimination law. Those who can be established as being guilty of some of these nastier events should certainly be brought before the courts, but that is a matter for the Egyptian legal authorities.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

How does the Minister respond to critics such as Ann Widdecombe, who say that there are double standards on the part of the Prime Minister in that, quite properly, we withdraw aid from Uganda because it discriminates against homosexuals but do not use our aid policy against countries that manifestly discriminate against Christians and other religious minorities?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is not quite correct that the withdrawal of aid is geared to particular attitudes on policies in the way that the noble Lord describes. Support for Governments through aid is brought into question where they are upholding policies that we clearly regard as highly undesirable and objectionable. It does not mean to say that aid does not continue through non-governmental agencies and, as directly as we can organise it, to good development causes and projects—indeed, even in support of private sector operations. These things can be done without having to uphold the views of Governments. The noble Lord says that that is double standards, but in the real world one has to talk about selectivity and to make selections and choices. Some Governments are clearly ones whom we want to support; some are ones whom we would have great reluctance to do anything to enhance or entrench.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his insistence on the importance of constitutional guarantees and anti-discrimination measures, but does he recognise the importance—I think he has begun to go there—of remedying some of the institutional shortcomings that limit human development and social cohesion? I am aware of the high levels of economic disfranchisement among some of the religious minorities throughout the Middle East that risk inflaming and adding to the fuel of a volatile social mix in some of the poorest areas, particularly where religious communities live in close proximity to one another. How are such considerations informing government policy towards the region?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The right reverend Prelate is correct that a whole nexus of undesirable social customs and pressures creates the bad conditions in which this kind of discrimination can occur. Our policies, such as our Arab partnership policy, contain specific modules or elements that are designed, for instance, to support the rights and position of women, to promote family law in every possible way and to challenge some of the highly coercive and illiberal practices of the past. There are difficulties, as the right reverend Prelate will appreciate, but we must not go around intruding heavily on the practices of other countries. Why should we do that? However, we must certainly support and encourage the kinds of practices that bring equality and decent values to countries where, in the past, darker customs have prevailed.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, have the Government had any consultations with these Middle East Governments about reforming personal status laws so that the 14 million Christians who live in the Middle East might have access to divorce in civil courts if they wish to do so, rather than having to convert to Islam or other religions?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those issues come into our fairly constant dialogue and exchanges with the countries of the Middle East as they go through reform processes at varying speeds and to varying degrees. That is the content of our exchanges in seeking to support and encourage the peaceful, democratic, liberalised development and opening up of these countries, which is directly in our own interest as a great trading nation as well.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I am grateful. Does the Minister agree that there are worrying parallels with the situation in Iraq and Palestine, where large numbers of Christian minorities from the ancient churches have had to flee? Has he seen the figures published by the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organisations showing that over 100,000 Coptic Christians have left the country since March this year—I declare a non-financial interest as president of the UK Coptic Association—and in particular the quotation from its director that:

“Copts are not emigrating voluntarily, they are coerced into that by threats and intimidation of hard-line Salafists, and the lack of protection they are getting from the Egyptian regime”?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have seen a range of figures, although whether I have seen the specific reports that the noble Lord refers to, I am not so sure. I am the first to agree that these are large and worrying figures. The noble Lord mentioned Iraq. Although I do not think the Arab spring has operated to the particular detriment of religious minorities there, there have been a number of targeted attacks on minority communities—Christian, Yazidi, Shabak and others. These are worrying matters and we are constantly raising them with the Baghdad Government. As for the Egyptian situation, I have already indicated our extreme concern and our continuing dialogue, and that will certainly continue.

Lockerbie

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will continue to make representations to the National Transitional Council of Libya to make available any evidence in their possession concerning the attack on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 to the Lord Advocate and the Scottish police to assist their investigation.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya’s newly formed transitional Government about getting the Dumfries and Galloway police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The National Transitional Council chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other ongoing investigations.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

While I welcome the Minister’s statement, does he believe that the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, and of the intelligence archives in Tripoli, may finally provide the vital information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries? I ask this question as one of the two former Ministers who were at the crime scene within a few hours and who met some of the relatives shortly afterwards. In order to bring closure to the families of 270 victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what happened 23 years ago, and precisely what the background was to this monstrous crime?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, it is desirable and yes, indeed, it was the most monstrous crime. We are seeking confirmation from the Libyan Government regarding the reported detention of Abdullah al-Senussi. We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice. Al-Senussi’s arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime’s dreadful crimes. As I just said, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to it and indeed to the Lord Advocate. I am confident that the new Libyan Government will act in accordance with Chairman Jalil’s commitment to co-operate with the UK on this and other investigations, and bring closure to the concerns and misery of the families of the victims.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would also shed light on this matter if the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission were published in full, so far as is possible?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course, there has been the report of Sir Gus O’Donnell. It has been placed in the Library and it was fully discussed when it was produced some weeks ago. Further light needs to be shed on this and I am confident that, with the full assistance of the new Libyan Government, we will get the papers and the evidence to show exactly what was said and by whom.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us that in addition to pursuing the issue of Lockerbie, the Government will rigorously and vigorously pursue the issue of compensation for all UK victims who were damaged by weapons supplied to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime and that the Government themselves will lead those negotiations rather than leaving them to third parties?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

At present we are looking at all possible options with the Libyan Government to get a resolution on the legacy issues, including this one, which is certainly a very high priority. It is very early days for the new Libyan Government as they have only just been appointed, but we want to see a broad proposal for embracing questions of compensation, reconciliation and, indeed, investment in Northern Ireland. We are trying to develop a broad approach with, and led by, the Libyan Government.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is utterly natural and inevitable that parliaments the world over should seek to have as much light as possible cast upon the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing? However, technically speaking, a request should be made formally by the Scottish Parliament themselves—bearing in mind, of course, the transfer of jurisdiction in relation to that. As for this Parliament, could the same principle not also apply to casting light upon those who were responsible for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the second point about WPC Yvonne Fletcher, that is most certainly so. We are in touch with the Metropolitan Police about reopening their investigations into the perpetrators of that hideous crime. On the former question, the decision was made by the devolved Scottish Government and it is a matter for them to pursue. We have indicated that the Government in London will give full assistance to the devolved Government in pursuing their inquiries.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have passed a request from the devolved Administration to the Libyan chargé d’affaires in London asking that the supervision arrangements of Al Megrahi’s licence are observed. Part of the investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway police will also embrace the question of his condition, but we are awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government now.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

Does the Minister accept that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request to the National Transitional Council and that a statement has been issued by the Crown Office to the effect that the trial court of Mr Al Megrahi accepted that he did not act alone?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am not sure that I can comment on my noble friend’s second point, but it is certainly correct that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request, and indeed has made that absolutely clear to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We are collaborating closely on this.