---

G8: 2008 Summit

My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, down the path of making cheap remarks about the sushi or the menu and, despite urging from the Benches behind me, I would not dream of making a Heathcliff joke in front of Cathy. But I can speak from personal experience on what the noble Lord said in that I was a spear carrier at the first G6 summit at Rambouillet and the subsequent summits in the 1970s. I remember that Mrs Thatcher—now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—always followed them up by saying that they were talking shops and a waste of time. So, in a way, nothing much has changed, although we all need to take stock. When one looks at the immediate post-war world and how the giants at that time responded to the massive problems facing them with such courage, vision and imagination, and even in the 1970s when the oil shock was upon us, one sees that the major economies seemed to have a clear cohesion and sense of purpose. Watching the events in Japan from afar, there was a worry of rabbits caught in headlights and the need for a sense of urgency. It underlines again the problem of whether the machineries set up in the immediate post-war world are now adequate for the challenges, and whether they are sufficient to meet those challenges to allow the G8, like Topsy, to keep on growing and growing. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right: those first meetings genuinely were small gatherings—with the Heads of Government and one other sitting around the table talking about the issues—and all the better for it. The meetings are now mega-jamborees that seem to have a momentum all of their own. One wonders whether most of the discussions about individual agenda items have the right people there—for example, whether climate change needs Brazil, China and India; whether oil prices need the Saudis; whether Africa needs the South Africans and the Nigerians. Somewhere between the machinery created in the immediate post-war world and the G8, there is an urgent need for reform, but not much sign that that urgency is being acted on. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his place; I hope that I am prompting him to intervene later. Obviously we welcome the statement on Zimbabwe, but I again echo the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: people want to see real and specific action against those named individuals. The City of London has a role to play, as does the EU. It is an affront to see this illegal regime attending international meetings. It is also time for some really candid talk with South Africa about the damage that Zimbabwe is doing to the whole region. The bilateral talks with Russia were interesting. There is a lot of machismo in the British press about who wins and who loses in such discussions, but I always recall an old mentor I had in the Foreign Office, Sir Frank Roberts, who used to say that with the Russians you are engaged on all issues at all levels at all times. That is still very good advice even with the new Russia. I again have to echo the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who asked about the Doha round. It is a bit wrong that our gallant new hero—as we heard from all parts of the House at Question Time—Commissioner Mandelson, should be going into battle with a feeling that his sword may have been blunted by the President of the EU for the time being. We need that enthusiasm for the Doha round if it is to be carried through. Of course we welcome the various and many initiatives listed. For me, they underline some of the debates we had on the Lisbon treaty. Surely this report underlines the fact, if that were needed, that the EU should get on as quickly as possible with the real issues facing the citizens of Europe, rather than being paralysed by constitutional navel-gazing. I hope the Minister will assure us on that. I am a little worried about the second to last paragraph in the Statement—that the IMF will be a better early-warning system for the world economy. I have always liked the definition that economists are men trained to predict the past. There is certainly a need for a better early-warning system, but simply to rely on the IMF goes back to the question in my original point about whether the international institutions set up in the 1940s are in need of fundamental reform, and what priority the Government will give to that reform.