UN: Security Council Composition Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Richard
Main Page: Lord Richard (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Richard's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberNo, we have not abandoned that position. We continue to work very closely with the French. We are completely committed to enlarging the Security Council and including India, Brazil, Germany and Japan as permanent members. However, in the absence of agreement, which it would be nice to see, together with France we have suggested the intermediate model, which has already been referred to.
I have listened to the noble Lord talking about enlargement of the Security Council and having four new permanent members. Is the Government’s position that the veto privilege should go with that membership?
I did not quite catch the noble Lord's question. Would he just repeat it?
Yes, certainly—the question is very simple. The Government are suggesting that there should be four new members of the Security Council. Will they have the right of veto?
The problem is that there is more than one idea around, including the two from the high-level panel of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was a part. One, indeed, was that the new members should have the right of veto, with, I think, six non-permanent members added. Another proposition is that the whole structure should be altered and the right of veto should be developed in different ways, with some vetoes on some issues. The noble Lord has been deeply involved in the United Nations—indeed, he was our representative there—and knows the difficulty of getting agreement on any of these patterns. One possibility is that the veto should be offered to new permanent members, of which the four are the front-runners, but it is only a possibility and I cannot put it higher than that.