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

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the G8 Summit which took place on 15 to 17 July in St Petersburg. I pay tribute to President Putin's chairmanship and the Russian Government's handling of the summit. The whole of the summit was understandably overshadowed by the tragic and terrible events in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. For days, we have seen the innocent killed by terrorism, as a deliberate act, by Hezbollah; civilians killed in the course of military retaliation by Israel; and the disintegration of our hopes for stability in this, the most fraught area of dispute in the world.

“Over 1,600 rockets and mortars have fallen on northern Israel, in an arc from Haifa to Tiberias, deliberately targeting civilians. In Lebanon, more than 230 people have been killed, the vast majority of them civilians. Houses, roads, essential infrastructure, factories and Lebanese Army facilities have been damaged. Once again, we have made it clear to Israel that it is essential to take account of the humanitarian situation, and ensure that military action is proportionate. We grieve for the innocent Israelis and innocent Lebanese civilians who are dead, for their families who mourn and for their countries that are caught up in the spiral of escalating confrontation.

“There are also more than 10,000 British nationals in Lebanon, and probably many more, including a significant number of dual Lebanese British nationals. I know that people who are there, and their families in the UK and elsewhere, are worried about the situation. We are working as hard and as quickly as we can to ensure that we are able to evacuate all those who wish to leave. We evacuated 63 of the most vulnerable British nationals from Beirut by air yesterday, but the safest way to evacuate large numbers of civilians is by sea. This is a complex and enormous logistical operation, which we are co-ordinating with our EU and international partners.

“Teams of consular, military and medical officials have deployed to Beirut, Cyprus and Damascus. We have six ships in the region or heading for the region: the “York” and the “Gloucester” are now offshore, and the “Illustrious”, “Bulwark”, “St Aubens” and “RFA Victoria Fort” are heading there. The first evacuation by ship is taking place today, and further evacuations will follow. The advice to British nationals is to stay put and remain in contact with the British Embassy.

“However, we should be in no doubt about the immediate cause for this situation. It started with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier in Gaza and then action by Israel, targeting Hamas on the Palestinian side. Then, without provocation, Hezbollah crossed the blue line established by UN resolutions, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more. Israel then again retaliated in air strikes against targets in Beirut. This situation therefore began with acts of extremism by militant groups that were, as the G8 said unanimously, without any justification and, of course, were designed to provoke the very response that followed.

“In the communiqué issued by the G8, we refer to and condemn the activities of the extremist groups and, more elliptically, as we say, ‘those that support them’. For most of us at the G8, we can be less elliptical. Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria: by the former in weapons—weapons incidentally very similar if not identical to those used against British troops in Basra—by the latter in many different ways and by both of them financially. Therefore, what is at stake could not be more stark.

“On the one side, there is Lebanon, a remarkable democratic achievement from the days when Lebanon was a by-word for instability and conflict. I have once again given the Prime Minister my solidarity and support in the immense difficulties he now faces. There are also those in Israel and in Palestine desperate to see progress towards the only solution that will ever work there; namely, two states, Israel and Palestine, both democratic, both independent, both at peace. But on the other side are those who want no compromise, who cannot see that terrorism is not the route to a solution but a malign, fundamental obstacle to it. They persist in terrorism, knowing that its impact there is the same the world over: to divide, to create hatred and to drive out negotiation. That is the purpose of it.

“So what can be done? I know many wanted the G8 to call for an immediate ceasefire on the part of Israel. Of course, we all want all violence to stop and to stop immediately, but we recognise that the only realistic way to achieve such a ceasefire is to address the underlying reasons why this violence has broken out.

“In respect of Lebanon, the G8 proposed rapid work on inserting an international security presence in southern Lebanon to stabilise the situation, ensure that the terrorism from the Lebanese side ends, and, most important, to provide conditions in which the Lebanese armed forces can take control and assist in doing so.

“Meanwhile, the UN Secretary-General's special envoys are in the region, and will report to the Security Council later this week, and US Secretary of State Rice also intends to make an early visit. We welcome and support these and other efforts to calm the situation.

“We also encouraged dialogue between the Lebanese and Israeli Governments and we pledged at the G8 further economic support to Lebanon. And of course we demanded the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Only in this way can we at last implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1680.

“In Gaza, we made clear that our goal was an immediate end to the violence, and we put forward the measures necessary: release of the Israeli soldiers and of the Palestinian Ministers and parliamentarians; an end to attacks on Israel; resumption of security co-operation between Israel and Palestine; restarting political contacts between Israeli and Palestinian officials; and an end to Israeli military operations and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. But let us be very plain. We can and must stabilise the existing situation in Lebanon and in Gaza. We must use such stabilisation to help Lebanon rebuild and eventually to re-begin negotiations between Israel and Palestine. But at root, we need to recognise the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region, which has such far-reaching consequences far beyond that region and consequences even in countries like our own.

“All over the Middle East there are those who want to modernise their nations, who believe as we do in democracy and liberty and tolerance. But ranged against them are extremists who believe the opposite, who believe in fundamentalist states and war not against Israel's actions but against its existence. In virtually every country of the region, including on the streets of Baghdad, such a struggle is being played out. The danger is that moderate voices get squeezed. When this current vision abates, this is the issue to which we must return, in the way the G8 outlined two years ago but has not so far put fully into effect.

“Let me touch on issues that were raised elsewhere. On Africa, we made modest, but important, progress in taking forward the commitments of last year through the discussions on infectious diseases and education, including: scaling up action on HIV/AIDS through replenishing the Global Fund in 2006 and 2007; new initiatives on vaccines for malaria and pneumoccocus and fully funding the education fast track initiative. We agreed to review progress on Africa again at the G8 Summit in 2007 and I have asked the International Development Secretary to set out key milestones for the coming 12 months in his next report to Parliament. These will include us supporting 10 African countries, developing long-term education plans and getting the debts cancelled for five more African countries. Kofi Annan will also convene the Africa Progress Panel to monitor progress on commitments given.

“I also discussed Sudan with a number of G8 leaders and Kofi Annan. We agreed the situation in Darfur continues to be unacceptable and the need for a quick deployment of the UN force.

“On trade, at the final session, it was at last agreed by all to empower their negotiations to go further. The cost of failure for the world's poor, global growth and multilateralism would be high. Presidents Bush, Barroso, Lula, Mbeki, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Singh of India all agreed to show flexibility, so we asked Pascal Lamy to immediately convene trade negotiators to turn this clear commitment into action that delivers real cuts in agricultural tariffs, and subsidies and progress on non-agricultural market access. I do not minimise the very substantial obstacles that still remain, but at least this renewed commitment from the US, the EU and the G20 was immensely welcome.

“We also agreed a strong package for poor countries, including $4 billion a year aid for trade and action on rules of origin and we remain fully committed to ensuring that, in any event for this round, it would be utterly wrong for there not to be a full development package for the poorest nations.

“There was a fascinating debate on energy at the summit, of direct relevance to this country. There was a virtual consensus around the fact that energy prices will continue to rise, with an increase now predicted of around 50 per cent in energy demand by 2030; that climate change is now universally accepted as happening, including by the United States, and therefore there is an urgent necessity to take the measures to make further economic growth sustainable; and that countries will therefore need to have balanced energy policies in which clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, renewables and nuclear power will have to play a part. Our own energy review was therefore absolutely in line with that consensus.

“On nuclear, what was interesting was the statement by China that it intends to develop nuclear power, by India that it regarded it as indispensable and by many of the main oil producers including Kazakhstan that they would also balance their reliance on their own oil and gas with nuclear. It was also the conclusion of the J8, the young people from around the world who debated the issue.

“The G8 also agreed on the need to accelerate discussions on an inclusive dialogue for a post-2012 framework and that framework importantly includes the United States, China and India.

“The G8 supported the need for a goal to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations, which will be a central part of the future framework. The Gleneagles dialogue meeting in Mexico would be the next step in taking this work forward.

“This was a summit held in circumstances none of us could have foreseen. It was dominated by the Middle East, but its conclusions on Africa, on trade and on energy will, I hope, stand the test of time and I commend the conclusions to the House.”

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement—an unusually lengthy Statement and a very useful report back. We had a full Statement yesterday on the grave situation in the Middle East and the House will be grateful for the further update that we have just been given.

Do the Government agree with the view of the United States that much of the responsibility for the fomenting of terrorism— I think that was the word President Bush was feeling for—lies with Syria, whose president was recently feted by the Government in London? What leverage has that courting of President Assad given us in Damascus?

Do the Government also agree with the view of the United States that the greatest responsibility for the financing and arming of terrorism lies with Iran? Is it not essential that Damascus and Teheran get a united message, not only from the G8, but also from China and India, so recently tragically affected by terrorism, that the promotion of terrorism must stop?

How much could have been done to relieve the evils of poverty and suffering that we see in Gaza and in Lebanon if only one hundredth of the money poured into financing terrorist training guns and arms had gone into education, the fight against disease and the promotion of civil society, as the G8 rightly asked?

It is clear that a solution must include the release of Israeli hostages, the end of rocket attacks on Israel, the end of the bombardment of Gaza and Lebanon, whose governments were lawfully elected, and a future for Lebanon without armed militias, as so many of its people have shown they want.

The G8 brought together leaders of the world’s major powers. There were great declarations but what specifically will be done? Some people have the impression that the role of the Prime Minister is largely to act as a Sherpa for President Bush. Can the noble Baroness assure us that Britain will make a distinctive and independent contribution? How widespread is support for the Prime Minister’s concept of an intervention force? How could it be injected when the level of violence is so high and without the consent of the contending parties? How could we make it more valuable than the existing UNIFIL? Would it have a potential combat role in restoring stability, that the British Army finds itself undertaking in Afghanistan? If so, who would take part? What undertakings were given in St Petersburg? How could our stretched Armed Forces help?

We know that the Prime Minister is considering visiting the Middle East, preparatory to a possible visit by the US Secretary of State. Is there any view on when that visit might take place and what the objectives would be?

Naturally the whole House is concerned about the safety of British citizens, but who is co-ordinating the evacuation effort? How many British citizens are in Lebanon? How many have been evacuated? Is it 10,000 in, 63 out, as the Statement indicated? What is the current advice to British citizens and are they all able to access it? Does the noble Baroness have any concerns that our efforts to date have been less decisive than those of some other countries? How many people can be accommodated on Cyprus and what contingency plans are being put in place for a long stay?

We welcome the united stance of the G8 on restraining the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, but what in practice was decided in relation to North Korea? President Putin said that it was too early to speak of sanctions on Iran, but if Iranian intransigence continues, will the G8 states not have to return to the Security Council with a view to possible sanctions? He also laid great emphasis on energy policy, which is scarcely surprising. Was the UK one of the countries that, in the words of the communiqué, underlined the important contribution of nuclear power to global energy security? Does the noble Baroness share my disappointment at the relatively weak emphasis on reducing energy consumption when there was a great deal on advancing oil and gas sales? Can she confirm that all states subscribed to the declaration that producer countries, notably Russia, should be enabled to take over energy assets in consumer countries? Does that mean that the UK Government will positively welcome acquisitions by Gazprom and other Russian giants in the United Kingdom? Can she write to me if she does not have the answers now about what discussions there were, if any, about corporate governance issues?

I know that the noble Baroness will share my disappointment that the crisis in the Middle East meant that there was less momentum behind the initiatives on Africa and fighting world poverty. The communiqué was a little thin on concrete action on that front—“modest” was the word that the normally effusive Prime Minister used. The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I ask her to tell the House what steps were agreed against the murderous Mugabe regime. I note that that was not mentioned as one of the key milestones for the International Development Secretary to report on.

A successful trade round will do more than anything else to alleviate poverty. Are the UK Government satisfied that all the G8 leaders are prepared to compromise to do a deal? Time is running out, but world attention is focused elsewhere. There was discussion on Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh. Does the noble Baroness agree that the only sensible outcome should be multiethnic? Did the UK Government raise the issue of Georgia and separatism in Abkhazia and Ossetia? How does the UK assess risks of linkage if western members of the G8 encourage independence for Kosovo?

This is a time of major tests for the G8. The urgent need is for peace in the Middle East and a common front to eradicate violence and terrorism, but the vital need for long-term progress is on trade and the eradication of disease. Does the G8 not also need to show renewed momentum and intensify efforts to achieve those worthy goals?

My Lords, for the man and woman in the street, I suppose there could be no greater contrast in watching their evening news than seeing the pomp and circumstance of a St Petersburg summit—a gathering of the most powerful nations on earth—and a fast cut to a disaster in the Middle East, of which those mighty powers seem totally impotent to influence the outcome. That is the worry: the juxtaposition between the activities of the big powers and the capacity of individuals and organisations to set in train destabilisation of a whole region. In the light of the experience in St Petersburg, has the quartet of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU any feelings of special responsibility and activity at present? If we have to understand why there should be no call for an immediate ceasefire, when should such a ceasefire take place?

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke of the situation of UK nationals in the conflict zone. A large number of countries are taking action at present. On the tapes I saw about eight different evacuation plans under way. Is there any co-ordination to make those plans more effective?

Like the noble Lord, I should be interested in clarification of the reported interest of the Prime Minister in undertaking some kind of shuttle diplomacy in the region. I may return to that subject when concluding my remarks. I agree with the Prime Minister that the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region has to be understood. Do the Prime Minister and the Government accept that a settlement of the Palestine/Israel conflict is a precondition of winning the war on terrorism? If the conflict goes unresolved, it will remain the major recruiting sergeant for extremists seeking a holy war with the West.

Do the Government agree that a disproportionate use of force is counterproductive and has within it the seeds of a wider regional conflict with unforeseeable consequences? In that respect, have the Government made any further clarification of their policy on UK arms exports to the region?

On the other issues in the summit, progress was made, not least on trade. But there was a feeling that the crusading urgency that dominated Gleneagles a year ago as regards the war on poverty has been lost. As one aid organisation observed, after the G8 leaders promised to make poverty history last year, this summit has been a damp squib. Is there not a particular onus on the United States and the EU to stop blaming each other and to take action to follow up the Gleneagles promises to break the trade deadlock?

On energy, I find it most interesting that Russia, although no longer considered a military superpower, is undoubtedly an energy superpower. Do the Government have initiatives to involve Russia more fully in future discussions about energy needs?

There is a dilemma in respect of Iran. On the one hand, we want to talk to Iran about its nuclear ambitions. Yet it stands squarely in the dock as the major funder of terrorism. How shall we have a dialogue with such a country? Who will take the lead in trying to talk to Iran?

Whenever I am faced with these issues, I feel somewhat old-fashioned and dated. I belong to a generation that thought that we could settle disputes by the international rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Yet each day we see people who believe that being marginalised by those who think that those disputes can be settled by military action and by violence, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

That is why I return to the Prime Minister. It is important that we do not allow moderate views to be squeezed out by those, whether they be Islamic fundamentalists or American neocons, who think that they can set the world to their own particular idea of right. I believe that the Prime Minister has a much larger role than he seems to give himself. I do not want to see him as a Sherpa for American Presidents or Secretaries of State; I want to see him using his undoubted international stature to be active in bringing some sense and reason to this situation. He knows that, if he does, he will have support from across this House and the country.

I shall try to respond to the points raised. If, however, I miss any out, I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or to the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

We are very concerned about the role of Syria and Iran. Through their support for Hezbollah, those countries are encouraging extremism, threatening the stability of the region and putting peace in the Middle East further out of reach. On what the UK Government can do particularly about Syria, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, might have missed the fact that we no longer have ministerial contact with the Syrian Government since the murder of Rafiq Hariri. However, we will continue to work with others who can put pressure on Iran and Syria and, through them, on Hezbollah.

The G8 statement makes it absolutely clear that there was support from all G8 countries for a stabilisation force. Clearly, there is an issue about the relationship between that force and the current UN force in Lebanon, which has a role in monitoring. At the Security Council on Thursday this week, all these issues will be discussed and looked at further. The important thing is that we want all sides to stop the fighting.

On the issue of our citizens, we, the United States, France and Canada probably have the largest numbers of nationals in Lebanon. We think we have about 10,000, plus as many more who are dual Lebanese citizens. The arrangements that we put in place in case every one of those individuals wants to leave have to be robust, safe and secure. That is being co-ordinated through my right honourable friend Adam Ingram. The MoD, the Foreign Office and all the relevant parts of government are working together on this. I can assure noble Lords that we are doing much of the international co-ordination and are working very closely with our EU colleagues.

Obviously, we have to work closely with the Government of Cyprus. They have worked closely with us on this. It happens to be the holiday period in Cyprus, so they are also dealing with a large number of holidaymakers. However, I must say to the House that they have dealt with this extremely impressively. Our plan is to charter aircraft from Cyprus to bring individuals back to the United Kingdom.

I can say more about the number of British naval ships that are close to Beirut. We will continue the evacuation in the coming days, but things are moving fast and I have no doubt that we will issue a Written Statement to the House if there are any more developments.

On energy security, the G8 made a number of things clear: the importance of the increased diversification of sources of energy; the fact that nuclear power has a role to play; the focus on renewables and alternative energy sources; and the importance of an inclusive dialogue post-2012 to include China and India. This builds very closely on the Gleneagles dialogue, and I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we were very pleased that what came out of this year’s G8 summit mirrored so much of what came out of our own energy review.

On the wider issues relating to Russia, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned, I understand that there were robust and frank discussions about G8 values, human rights issues, the need for G8 countries to be open to criticism and therefore the importance of having independent media and an independent judiciary. These were not reflected in the communiqué, but these discussions were held and included a discussion of the situation in Chechnya.

On Iran, to which the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, referred, there is a plan for a UN Security Council resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme in the next 10 days or so. As to who will continue that dialogue with Iran, we would like the Iranians to respond to what we thought was a very generous package from the European Union. If it does not respond positively to that package, we will have to look at this issue again and think about how we continue the dialogue.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the quartet, which we see as the custodians of the road map. We want a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, but this needs to happen on all sides. I think that we would all agree that we cannot only look to Israel in that respect.

I assure the House that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others will continue to work extremely hard to bring about a resolution in the region. This issue has personally engaged the Prime Minister for many years. I remind the House that on 4 July he said to the Liaison Committee,

“unless we manage to get the situation into a different position then the Israelis are going to continue to take punitive action and the Palestinians are going to continue to have a burning sense of injustice. Now I have learned enough about this situation over the years to realise that going in and condemning either side is not deeply helpful … What frustrates me more than anything else about the Israeli-Palestinian situation is there is no agreement about the final outcome”.

My right honourable friend has been dealing with these issues for many years, and he will continue to exert all the influence that he can to ensure that we make progress.

On trade and the deadlock, my right honourable friend chose his words very carefully when he talked about those at the summit who were prepared to go further in the trade negotiations and to deal with them flexibly. On the basis of that agreement, Pascal Lamy had a meeting last night with the G6 countries. I do not know what the conclusions of that meeting were, but next month will be critical. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I, too, am old-fashioned and I cannot say how much it pains me that those who want to negotiate and who have moderate voices on these issues are being squeezed out by the terrorists. We must do all that we can to ensure that the conclusion of the crisis in the Middle East is one that we want and not one that we would all find it impossible to support.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and her answers, and welcome the impetus given to the trade talks in Geneva. Will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government and, through them, the EU will at the right moment encourage Pascal Lamy to come forward with his own set of tie-breaking proposals? That is only too likely to be the only way of ensuring that there is not yet another deadlock. Given that the Director-General of the WTO does not have the power of initiative in this, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, he needs encouragement. I noticed that the list that she gave of those who have given encouragement so far did not include the head of state of Monsieur Lamy’s own country. No doubt that was not fortuitous.

My second question involves a matter not in the Statement but in the documents, for which I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me. I regard as a major step forward the effort that is now going on at the International Atomic Energy Agency to work up a scheme for guaranteed supply of enrichment and reprocessing services. We have gone from having a situation in which there were no proposals on the table to one in which there now appear to be three proposals, which is probably two too many. However, will the Government give a high priority to getting agreement at the IAEA on such a scheme, recognising that this is a crucial element—particularly in the light of the large amount of nuclear build that is likely to take place in the coming years—in ensuring that proliferation risks do not increase?

First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the issue of encouraging Pascal Lamy, that my understanding is that he is already thinking about the possibility of coming forward with his own set of proposals, given the deadlock that there has been so far in the talks. As we are extremely keen to see these talks move forward, I am sure that we would encourage him to go in that direction should there be no other way of progressing.

On the second issue, I have to confess to the House that the IAEA is not a matter that I know a great deal about. My understanding is that we are very positive about the moves so far. I am absolutely sure that we would want to see one of these proposals agreed. In that sense, we would want to give high priority to it.

My Lords, we should not be surprised that terrorism is used in the Middle East. After all, Israel was established by terror, by the blowing up of Deir Yassin, by the hanging of British sergeants in an orange grove in Beersheba, and by the Stern gang riding through Jaffa saying to the Arabs, “You must all leave with the British”. Two million Arabs have been removed from Palestine. Not surprisingly, they are cross about it.

We must understand what drives people. I am not making a judgment; I am stating historical fact. Unfortunately, that injustice of 2 million Arabs being asked to leave has not been addressed for 60 years. Something has to be done about it. A much less intransigent territorial dispute, that between Germany and France over Alsace-Lorraine, took place between 1685, when the French nicked it, and 1945, when the Germans finally gave up wanting it back. That was a minor dispute compared with what is going on in the Middle East. We must be less sloppy about using the word “terrorism”. One man’s terrorism is another man’s freedom fight. If you see that terrorism has worked in the other guy’s hands, you are likely to use it yourself. I make no moral judgment, but draw the House’s attention to the historical facts.

My Lords, I think we agree that there are different ways in which to read history. I know that from my own background and, indeed, from my presence in this House. The impact of colonialism and imperialism on countries in the Caribbean is viewed in very different ways in the country where I was born from how it is understood in the United Kingdom, so it is absolutely right that we appreciate how people understand their history. But our responsibility now as politicians is to seek a way through what is a highly complicated, emotive and deeply sensitive issue. That lies at the core of our responsibility. I make no judgment in terms of whether we should be surprised at what is happening in the Middle East, but we should seek to use the influence and power we have as a nation, working with those around us, to try to find a solution. That will not be easy, especially given the deep-rooted and deep-seated historical nature of this crisis.

My Lords, moving to the current terrible situation, the Leader of the House will know that for every day that there is not a ceasefire, scores more innocent civilians will be killed in Israel, in Lebanon and in Gaza. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the United Kingdom Government are solidly behind the call for a ceasefire, and in particular what consideration has been given to the proposal made by the Prime Minister of Lebanon that Hezbollah should withdraw back to the Litani river, thus creating a situation of ceasefire because it could no longer reach key towns in Israel? Can she tell us whether that proposal, made by a Government very much under threat—but, as she observed, democratically elected—has been seriously considered at the G8 Summit?

My Lords, all the proposals which have been put forward over the past few days have been looked at either in formal or informal discussions in a number of ways. Of course we want a ceasefire; that is our top priority. But it has to involve the participation of all sides in the conflict. Therein lies a major problem because those countries which have an influence on Hezbollah are fuelling the conflict. At this point they are not remotely interested in moving forward in a negotiated way.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. With my hat on as the chair of Christian Aid, can I encourage the Government in the G8 process with the aid/trade/debt cycle that was begun last year and on which there is a still a long journey to travel? In the midst of all the other issues that are lurking, I hope that we shall not lose energy around that.

I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to comment on the wider issues at stake here. Again without making any judgments because we all understand the huge political complexity surrounding these things, does she accept that there is potentially a lethal cocktail at work in all this, one made up, first, with the despair of millions of people who have been displaced in the Middle East? I have met some who are still carrying in their pockets the keys to their houses from nearly60 years ago. Secondly, the reality is that we are dealing with predominantly young societies with the future in front of them, so despair is a very lethal force in the Middle East. Thirdly—and the noble Baroness might like to comment on this with regard to the G8 summit—there is an impression that the leaders in the G8 are not entirely in agreement among themselves about what to do. That leads to a sense of impotence. When you have despair and impotence at work, is that not the sort of lethal cocktail which drives people into the hands of those who present other sorts of solutions, ones sadly involving violence and damage to innocent people?

My Lords, with respect to the issues of aid, trade and debt, which I forgot to mention in my opening response, I can tell the right reverend Prelate that we are not losing energy on those issues. We always knew that this was a year of consolidation and implementation. Many of the commitments made at the G8 last year run to 2010 or 2015. Therefore, it is important for us to have a clear plan in terms of how we will deliver on those commitments.

I have to tell the House that since last year 21 countries have already qualified for 100 per cent debt relief. We hope to add to that list another five African countries. We have seen the education fast-track initiative take off and we want to develop long-term educational development plans for 10 countries. In addition, of course, there is the commitment to ensure that further funding is found for the Global Fund on HIV and AIDS.

On the wider situation in the Middle East, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Sixty per cent of the population is under 25 years of age — a young population for whom in our own country we would want to see the benefits of the development of education and a secure future. That is what we are all fighting for in this region.

My Lords, are we to understand that there was no mention at all of Zimbabwe either in the conference or in the margins of the conference? If that is correct, is it not rather extraordinary, given the importance that the Prime Minister has attached to the whole of Africa over the past few years? Considering the absolutely appalling conditions in Zimbabwe, which get worse every week, is it not surprising in relation to the credibility of the treaties that the African countries have signed to exercise human rights, the rule of law and good governance? Is it not also relevant that, after many years, the Government of Zimbabwe have not yet replied to the biting criticism made by the Human Rights Commission of the African Union of conditions in Zimbabwe? Should not these matters have been raised?

My Lords, Zimbabwe was not discussed. I do not find that extraordinary, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord has just set out. If you look at the whole of Africa, you are talking about 53 countries, of which Zimbabwe is one. In the light of the G8 agenda and the agenda of the continent itself with respect to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, and in the light of the peer review mechanism, where we have seen Ghana and Rwanda go through a very intense period of having their economies, political systems and governance looked at, we have seen the stable transition from one democratically elected Government to another, we have seen conflicts resolved, but where we have a continuing difficult situation in the Sudan, it would be absolutely wrong to focus on Zimbabwe as an example of what is happening in the entire African continent.

My Lords, does the Minister feel that the G8 summit adequately addressed the catastrophic issue of AIDS? Last year the G8 gave the very welcome commitment that all who needed treatment should be in receipt of it by 2010. Warm words were expressed at this summit, but little by way of action that could be charted. Indeed, the concentration on infectious diseases tended to emphasise, if anything, the flu pandemic, which obviously does not at the moment threaten the same number of people as does the AIDS crisis.

My Lords, last year, a very clear set of actions was set out with respect to HIV/AIDS, which is precisely what I meant in responding to the right reverend Prelate about the importance of monitoring and implementation. At this year’s summit, part of what the G8 did was to look at the replenishment of the global fund on HIV/AIDS and make a commitment that those replenishment rounds would be fully met. There is a plan for HIV/AIDS looking forward to 2010. What happened this year was part of the monitoring of that plan. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness setting out the detail if it would be helpful.

My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government quietly urge the Israelis to be more careful and selective in their retaliation against Hezbollah? Killing more than 200 civilians, only a small proportion of whom are Hezbollah supporters and a high proportion of whom are children, and causing hundreds of millions of pounds of damage to the Lebanese infrastructure which was so laboriously built up after the long years of civil war, is hardly likely to win friends for the West or to lead to a long-term peaceful settlement.

My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the statement by the G8 because it absolutely addresses his point. It states:

“It is also critical that Israel, while exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions. We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government”.

My Lords, the Statement mentions urgent work on inserting an international security presence in which no doubt we shall be involved. The Statement comes hard on the heels of another on reinforcements to Afghanistan in which the strain on our resources was illustrated by the fact that we were counting platoons that we send out in reserve. The House is anxious about that. Can the Leader assure us that we shall be kept informed of any commitments of significant size that are intended in this instance?

My Lords, I recognise the anxiety in the House on this issue. Of course we will keep the House informed. This was an idea put to G8 members which they endorsed in their statement. It will be looked at in detail at the UN. As noble Lords know, there is already a UN force in Lebanon. The role of any such force and where resources should come from need to be discussed and debated. I undertake that the House will be kept informed of those discussions.

My Lords, I welcome very much the statement concerning the Doha round. If we remind ourselves that this round of negotiations has been going on since 2001, to have now a deadline of one month is at least a challenge to the international community. I am very aware also that we have one year now during which the President of the United States has his fast-track authority to agree such deals.

However, we have a problem with the European Union. How does the Leader of the House feel that the British Government will influence even the European Union to ensure that the Trade Commissioner has sufficient authority in this last month to make sure that this deal happens? Apart from the immediate challenges of the Middle East, which are huge, this is one of the most important elements of the G8 discussions over the past weekend.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the time that this has taken. I take very slight comfort from the fact that the Uruguay round took much longer before it was completed. On the British Government’s role with respect to the European Union, the noble Lord will know that it is not just a case of influencing the European Union and the Trade Commissioner. The Trade Commissioner is operating on behalf of 25 EU countries. Part of our responsibility is to influence our EU colleagues. Having been involved in some of these discussions myself over time, I know that that is not always as easy as it should be.