asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they are planning to close the British embassy in Madagascar.

My Lords, as my noble friend the former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, stated on 15 December 2004, we are making changes to our overseas network to reflect changing demands and challenges and the need better to align our resources with our priorities to ensure that the United Kingdom has a cost-effective and flexible network of overseas representation.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I declare an interest. As chairman of the English-Speaking Union, I opened the ESU in Madagascar in April 2003. Can the Minister explain why the decision to close our embassy and outsource it to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away, is being taken just as English is becoming the preferred second language of young people on the island of Madagascar and is being taught in all its primary schools? Why is this closure occurring at the precise moment when decisions on very significant investments in the island are about to be taken, when other European countries are opening embassies there, and when the United States millennium fund has just awarded $110 million to Madagascar in recognition of its progress in,

"governing justly, investing in its people and promoting economic freedom"?

Noble Lords:

Oh!

My Lords, in short, why is this penny-pinching Government choosing to close this crucially important representation at a time when, in the same breath, they say that Africa is their top priority?

My Lords, in short, the answer is that which I gave initially. We are trying to align the resources available to the demands placed on us. My conversations with people from Madagascar have to be conducted in French. I am extremely glad that the noble Lord has found people who wish to conduct most of their discussions in English. I have not had that good fortune.

Quite aside from the decision that was taken some time ago—this is not a recent decision—it has not altered the write-off of the debts in Madagascar, which in our case is £27 million, and the UK-led multilateral debt initiative of £1.5 billion of debt relief of which we shall cover approximately 10 per cent. All those arrangements have continued in place. I suspect that they will be of the greatest benefit to the people of Madagascar.

My Lords, I visited Madagascar some years ago and even then it was vitally important that we kept our embassy open. Am I right in thinking that tourism is increasing there? Although French may be the major language, they do not like the French. I am terribly sorry to say that, but they hate them and they love us. It would be terrible for us to close our embassy there. I entirely agree with the questioner.

My Lords, as ever, the noble Baroness is right in her facts and that is perfectly true. I am not talking about who loves the French or not; I am talking about the increases in tourism. I am pleased to say that there have been almost no demands on the consular service alongside that increase in tourism. We believe that it should be possible from Port Louis to deal within two hours with any cases that arise. The logistics and the direct flights should make that possible. No one likes closing an embassy, but we believe that the arrangements are sustainable.

My Lords, when the Minister refers to the resources available he is of course referring to the latest expenditure round. Is this not a pattern of closures across the world? Is it not the case that the diplomatic budget is still somewhere around £1 billion per annum; whereas two government departments overspent by that amount last year? Do the Government intend to continue to run a global diplomacy?

My Lords, we do. There has been no saving out of some of the realignments that have taken place, including this one. The fact is, as I am sure noble Lords will know, that a number of costs have increased considerably. Post-Istanbul, the security costs of making sure that those who work for us or those who visit our embassies and high commissions are safe have increased considerably. We have boosted our missions in parts of the world that are particularly sensitive—the realignment. Iraq and Baghdad are an example of that.

There is not an infinite capacity to make such provision. We must make sure that where demand exists we cover it completely. No savings will be made that way; it is realignment.

My Lords, would it not be more sensible to keep open our embassy in Madagascar and to axe the post that the Government have created for the Scottish Executive to have a diplomatic representative in Washington?

My Lords, I have never ceased to wonder at the ingenuity with which the noble Lord manages to raise the same proposition. Sadly, of course, he receives the same answer. Devolution has created a number of demands around the United Kingdom to make sure that all parts of the United Kingdom are effectively represented.

My Lords, further to points about the importance of the security of embassy staff, what progress has been made in sharing with our European Union and other partners premises that are well secured?

My Lords, some progress has certainly been made. I was pleased a couple of weeks ago to have seen a successful embassy on one such shared premise in Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania. However, even there our European partners and other nations involved in that project are concerned that we should create still greater security and greater stand off, particularly where the consular end of the work is done, because that is often where it is most vulnerable to people coming in from outside.

All those security issues are extremely sensitive. The overriding principle must be that if it takes some additional money to make sure that people are secure, we provide it.

My Lords, the Minister is invariably eloquent and sympathetic in his defence of government policy, but will he recognise that there is a conflict here? For example, the embassy in Lesotho, which is one of the poorest countries in Africa, and in the world, is also being closed. There is a stand off between the Government's attitude toward Africa, which many of us on these Benches and elsewhere in the House strongly applaud, and the withdrawal of diplomatic presence in countries that are desperate to have their voices heard. Will he ask the Government to reconsider?

My Lords, the decisions on the closures have been taken and I do not want to place any gloss on that in front of the House. More posts are being closed in the Americas than in Africa. Many people will no doubt feel that that is wrong as well. The critical issue is to make sure that the resources we have are pointed in the direction in which they need to be pointed.

I have a great deal of sympathy—not synthetic but real sympathy—with wanting to make sure that our diplomatic footprint is widely spread. But we must make certain that we meet our priorities. Were we to fail to do that I suspect that there would be a great deal of criticism in the House, and I would share it.