| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 562 on the Order Paper? [That this House seeks an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not remove the ban on the irradiation of food until many unresolved safety issues have been addressed, in particular its effects on packaging, pesticides and food additives, and that it will not introduce irradiation without a practical and reliable set of tests that can detect irradiation and the dosage in all foodstuffs ; and welcomes the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Consumers' Association lobby on 22nd February highlighting consumer fears of irradiation and requesting that Her Majesty's Government guarantees time to both Houses to debate this issue prior to the introduction of regulations.]
Better still, has he seen the 500 charming and persuasive ladies in the mass lobby on behalf of the National Federation of Women's Institutes who have come to support the early-day motion? May I go and tell them that, if not next week, at some time the House will have an opportunity to debate food irradiation? Before we do so, the House ought to be given access to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's information about the safety of irradiated food.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend does not need me to remind him that food irradiation has been thoroughly researched and that the process has been pronounced safe by international, Community and United Kingdom independent expert committees. However, the subject has aroused widespread interest. My hon. Friend recognises, I think, that there will be an opportunity to debate the process when the Food Safety Bill is considered. In that context, I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East) : The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Chope), had written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to say that, if he had misled the
Column 1078
House, he would withdraw what he said. Should not the Under-Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement? Several years ago, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) said something to me across the Floor of the House that was challenged. The following day he came to the House and honourably made a statement withdrawing the accusation. Surely the straightforward course of action would be for the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement. He deliberately misused information that he was not entitled to use. Therefore, he should clear up the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.Sir Geoffrey Howe : The facts remain fundamentally simple. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has made it plain that his residence is in Coventry. It is a matter of public record that he is registered for the community charge in Wandsworth. My hon. Friend the Under -Secretary therefore inferred that his Wandsworth home was his second home. The fact that that home was on the public register led my hon. Friend to conclude that he had not sought anonymity from the community charge registration officer. I repeat again that, if, in the correspondence that has already taken place between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, either of those inferences is incorrect, naturally I would wish to have them corrected at the earliest opportunity. That remains the position, that is the record and those are the facts as presented by my hon. Friend.
Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington) : My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that various county councils are lodging their structure growth plans. Is he also aware that the advent of the M40 is generating tremendous pressure for extra housing in the middle of England, particularly in mid-Warwickshire? I suspect that it is happening in other parts of the country as well. In those circumstances, there are enormous pressures on the green belt, which Conservative Members have always regarded as sacrosanct. Does he agree that there will be some advantage in due course in having a debate on the preservation of the green belt?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : As my constituency demonstrates many of the same anxieties about the importance of the green belt, I understand why my hon. Friend raises that issue. I cannot promise him a debate, but I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the Government entered a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong and allowed 670 tonnes of elephant ivory to come on to the world market, the Kenyan wildlife director, Richard Leakey, has announced that poaching has risen sharply in Kenya, where conservation of the elephant is under very strict control, so it must be worse in other African countries? Is he not now convinced that it was a total mistake on the part of the Government to allow that Hong Kong ivory on to the world market? Will he allow the House to have not an Adjournment debate but an Executive debate and a vote so that we can discover whether the House wishes the Government to reverse that reservation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman, who takes a tenacious interest in that topic, knows that Hong Kong is not a market for poached ivory, because there is already a total ban on imports of ivory. The strict controls there
Column 1079
include licensing for possession of quantities over 5 kg and monitoring movements of ivory between licensed holders. If there is any evidence of Hong Kong complicity in poaching, and in particular if Dr. Leakey can produce evidence of complicity by Hong Kong traders in illegal trading in ivory, we shall investigate it.Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Rather than discussing the European Court of Auditors, does not my right hon. and learned Fried agree that it would be even more topical to discuss yesterday's decision by the European Court of Human Rights which means that hundreds of thousands of people living near Heathrow who suffer from the noise of 900 flights every day cannot sue for nuisance and have no legal remedy? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am concerned about the welfare and peace of mind not only of my constituents in Twickenham but of residents of neighbouring boroughs such as Wandsworth, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend raises a matter of importance for him and his constituents. He may not appreciate that the Patronage Secretary and I represent constituencies that are contiguous to another London airport, Gatwick, so we share his concern. However, I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : May I for the third time ask for a debate on wages in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons? Is the Leader of the House aware that I have a letter dated 20 June 1989 from the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), saying that there are some people in that Department who are underpaid? He admits that they are underpaid. May we have a debate on the matter, because it seems that the Committee is taking no action and some action should be taken?
In the light of what my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said, there has been a breach of regulations in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask only one question at business questions, in fairness to the other hon. Members.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : What action will be taken?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman should raise, in such detail as he wishes, the wages of staff in the Refreshment Department of the House in correspondence with either the Chairman of the Sub-Committee or with myself, as Chairman of the Services Committee, rather than raising it, as he has done several times, on the Floor of the House. Let him set it out in an orderly fashion in correspondence, and it will be studied.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : In supporting the request made a little earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), may I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 571 on educational funding? [That this House believes that following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management for schools, there is now a
Column 1080
changing role for local education authorities and a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central Government.]It has been signed by more than 50 Conservative Members. Will he find time for a debate on the need to transfer the total cost of education from local government to central Government to make the community charge, which is right in principle, sensible in practice?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I take note of the fact that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would like the matter to be debated, but I am unable to promise the prospect of a debate. The Government have no plans at present to change the way in which education is funded.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 429 on New Consensus in Ireland? [That this House gives its full support to the broad-based Irish group New Consensus which aims to challenge at every opportunity apathy and ambivalence about the right to human life in Northern Ireland, to promote the equal right of all citizens to the democratic control of their destiny, to defend the principles of mutual respect and civil liberty as the basis for democratic, non-sectarian social activity in Ireland, North and South, and to reject all forms of paramilitary activities ; and further supports the initiative of New Consensus in organising a dignified picket of the Sinn Fein annual conference in Dublin on the weekend of 3rd and 4th February, to call upon the Irish Republican Army to stop its murder campaign and to reject the claim that they act in the name of the people of Ireland.]
What inference does he draw from it? New Consensus has been established to oppose any ambivalence or apathy to the right to life in Northern Ireland. Its representatives have been in the House today. Might it be a good opportunity for us to debate democracy and civil liberties in Northern Ireland and Ireland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am not familiar with all the aims and ambitions of New Consensus. In so far as it draws attention to the evils of terrorist violence and seeks to counter the actions of the Provisonal IRA and Sinn Fein, the Government welcome its activities. Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : A number of hon. Members are rising who were not rising previously. In view of the great pressure on the following debate, in which I shall have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches, questions will continue until half-past four, when we must move on.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Is there not a need for an early debate on local government finance, so that we can congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on doing what everyone in this country is entitled to do--order their tax affairs to their best advantage? If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about living in Wandsworth and a Militant force coming round to kneecap him, perhaps we could do a swap. I live in the London borough of Lewisham, which has a high community charge. I should be happy to move to Wandsworth and let the hon. Gentleman have my secret address in Lewisham.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : Far be it from me to intervene in the somewhat hazardous domestic arrangements suggested by my hon. Friend.
Column 1081
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : The Government will be aware of the Gardner report on leukaemia clusters and the comments that have been made in the wake of it. One thing is sure : a massive financial investment in both civil and military installations is required. The Government's watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, has asked the Department of Health to undertake a study of the medical records of more than 100,000 people who have been exposed to radiation since 1946. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to make a statement on this issue?Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot give such an undertaking, but I shall bring the question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Further to the question about my constituent, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), will my right hon. and learned Friend grant the request for a debate? It would enable us to explain that Wandsworth borough council may reveal who has registered for the community charge, but it will never give out a private address and never say whether it is a community or standard charge. A debate would give the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East the opportunity to say whether his main home is in Wandsworth or Coventry. It might also offer Opposition Members the opportunity to explain why so many of them live in Wandsworth, with its benefits of low community charge and high services. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accede to that request.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend has done so well in representing the interests of his constituents and of Wandsworth council that I hardly need to offer him the benefit of a full debate.
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Is the leader of the House aware that the British film industry is the best and finest in the world? Is he aware also that an all-party group visited Pinewood last week to find out about the problems in the industry? It is going downhill, and has been for a considerable time. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can consider seriously what help can be given to the industry? Incidentally, I am waiting for a contract. I hope that the Leader of the House will do something about the problem.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The persuasive clarity of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of the subject commends it to me more than many that have been mentioned this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) : In the light of the unfortunate and unseemly scenes on the Floor of the House at Question Time yesterday and immediately after, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it might be wise for us to have a further debate on procedure so that we can establish when points of order should and should not be taken?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I fancy that the House has had its fill of debates on procedure for a week or two.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the Leader of the House reconsider the question of having a debate about the poll tax and in particular its--
Mr. Nicholas Bennett : Where is the hon. Gentleman's second home?
Column 1082
Mr. Skinner : It is in highly rated Lambeth--and I am only a lodger.
Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate about the transfer to central Government of teachers' salaries, education as a whole, fire, police and so on--a plea voiced by his hon. Friends? The Leader of the House is well known for using coded language to explain his differences with the Prime Minister. He could take part in that debate and tell us exactly what he feels. I warn him, however, not to become too semi- detached.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am always grateful for warnings from the hon. Gentleman, even when I think that they are wholly unnecessary.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us feel that the agony of the poll tax could have been spared us had the burden of education been transferred from the rates long ago? Is he aware that many of us believe that the case is stronger than ever now for that burden to be transferred to central Government? May I add my plea to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others that we debate the matter very soon?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I understand that a number of my hon. Friends have an interest in discussing the subject. I must tell my hon. Friend of the general rule that the transfer of a burden from one place to another does not always result in it becoming any more comfortable.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Despite his cool and legalistic interpretation of the High Court judgment yesterday concerning the administration of the social fund, is the Leader of the House aware that that decision had profound implications for many scores of thousands of people who are in receipt of income supplement? May I ask for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the matter? Such a statement, among other things, should point out what advice or directives have been sent to local offices of the DSS to enable people to reapply for grants and loans which were denied them under the disgraceful administration of the fund.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : As I have already told the House, the court judgment did not call into question the basic aims and operation of the fund. I have explained why, for that reason, we do not regard a statement as necessary. I also told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that I would consider the request and bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I give no undertaking in respect of it.
Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : May I again draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 571? [That this House believes that following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management for schools, there is now a changing role for local education authorities and a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central Government.]
It has now been signed by 57 of my hon. Friends of all varieties. I am very much looking forward to the signature
Column 1083
of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) being added to the list. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to an early debate on education, so that the educational case for making the transfer of funding to the centre may be fully put and debated in the House?Sir Geoffrey Howe : I understand my hon. Friend's representation of an additional reason for discussion of that motion. I shall give consideration to it, but I cannot give any undertaking on the prospects for a debate.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye) : Can the Leader of the House explain why, within 24 hours of the severe weather hitting the south of England some time ago, the Department of the Environment volunteered an oral statement on a Friday morning, when, a full four weeks and more after similar severe weather hit Scotland, the Scottish Office has not made an oral statement? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early oral statement from the Scottish Office and, in particular, one that will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and myself to point out the deep sense of grievance felt in the Highland region because the damage done in Strathspey and Inverness- shire, in our respective constituencies, has not been acknowledged financially by the Scottish Office?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was offered in response to a private notice question. That is a difference of some importance. On the substance of the matter, all I can do is to draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider organising another debate on South Africa to give the Opposition spokesmen the opportunity to explain why they try to present Britain as uniquely soft on sanctions when imports from South Africa to Socialist France have increased threefold since 1985? Does that not show a great deal of hypocrisy, and not only on the other side of the Channel?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend raises an important point. However, he will recall that the subject has been the subject of two statements from the Dispatch Box and one debate in the past 10 days.
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : Can my right hon. and learned Friend give a reassurance that the Government will be in a position to ratify the United Nations convention on drug misuse and trafficking before the special demand reduction conference takes place at the beginning of April? Can he tell the House whether necessary legislation will be brought before it to do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot give a firm undertaking in that respect. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government are using their best endeavours to do so. The position will depend on the progress of legislation now before Parliament.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow an early debate on the
Column 1084
arrogance of those small-minded councillors, whoever and wherever they may be, whose selfish obsession with programmes for which the public does not wish to pay has blinded them to the savage financial impact that their empire building will have on those who are least able to pay?Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am not sure of the need for an early debate on that matter. We hope that the increasingly effective impact of the community charge will bring that message home to voters as well.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the deplorable state of education in certain parts of London? Is he aware that, in 1988, only 29 pupils obtained A-level German in the 12 inner-London boroughs and that only 137 obtained A -level French? Is that not a scandal, which underlines how the Labour party's education policies have failed the people of London? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the best results come from Conservative- controlled boroughs in London and the worst from Labour-controlled boroughs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I understand the importance of that point. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the disappearance of the Inner London education authority shortly will fortify the message that he is trying to get across.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members of all parties--excluding, alas, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)--have taken part in recordings for "Songs of Praise" from St. Margaret's next Sunday? Does he consider that the interest in "Songs of Praise" means that the House is now ready for a full debate on school assemblies and on Christian-centred religious education in schools?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I understand the importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that the performance of the House on that occasion is necessarily the best argument in its favour.
Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a debate on freeing the remainder of the ports of the United Kingdom? I am thinking of the trust ports, some of which are having great difficulty in operating commercially, because everything has to be done through a private Bill passed through the two Houses. Would it not be a good idea to have a debate on trying to finish what we started, which was privatisation of the ports in the United Kingdom?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend understands that it is not appropriate for me to comment on private business. However, on the principle that he has raised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering whether to introduce legislation to enable port trusts to be converted into companies. No decisions on that matter have yet been taken.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
Column 1085
Points of Order
4.33 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At column 836 of Hansard an allegation was made against the Army. I have spoken
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg : I am raising this at the first opportunity, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
I spoke to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) this morning on the telephone to tell him what I proposed to raise. He was content with what I wish to say. Hansard shows that an allegation was made, that a vehicle
"carrying such a device was travelling through the centre of a major city in Britain"
and, according to the hon. Gentleman,
"fell off the back of the lorry."--[ Official Report, 20 February 1990 ; Vol. 167, c. 836.]
The hon. Gentleman has made a retraction to the national press, which I am delighted to see. However, Hansard is a record of what has happened in this place, so I must ask how a retraction of those words, which I am sure were uttered in good faith but which turned out to be wholly misplaced, can be effected in Hansard?
Mr. Speaker : This matter arose on Tuesday and was raised again on a point of order yesterday. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have been present, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was present here, but I do not think that a retraction was called for at the time.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg : The retraction by the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter does not appear because he was not involved. I am asking how an allegation which he has now said was wholly wrong can be put right by him. I could not raise the matter yesterday for reasons of which you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and I have taken the first proper opportunity--
Mr. Speaker : Order. It may be the first opportunity for the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that he was not here
Column 1086
yesterday when the matter could have been raised and when the hon. Gentleman involved could have responded. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue the matter now. The hon. Member for Leicester, East came to see me last night to inform me that he was leaving for India today.Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The top of page 119 of "Erskine May" states : "The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt."
We do not know whether the statement made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) earlier this week was deliberately misleading, but we do know that it was misleading. It should be possible for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House to tell us about the statement that he made which put a police operation at risk. We are all concerned about terrorism in this country and--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He cannot raise the matter now. It should have been raised at the proper time. This happened on Tuesday.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, from time to time the opportunity arises for hon. Members of all parties to earn an honest crust outside this place. I have an opportunity to get myself a fiver. It arises from an offer made in Private Eye. If someone can find out who is circulating copies of a Central Office publication on the National Health Service, called "Our Ace of Hearts", using House of Commons stationery, which is something upon which you, Mr. Speaker, have remarked in the past, which is being circulated in West Sussex, Private Eye will pay a fiver. I should like you to order an inquiry so that we can find out who- -
Mr. Banks : --and I shall share the fiver with you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is some time since I have seen that admirable publication. I do not know anything about that matter.
Column 1087
East-West Relations
[Relevant document : un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 15th December 1989 on the Community- USSR Agreement on Trade and on Commercial and Economic Co-operation]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
Mr. Speaker : Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who may be called before that time to bear that limit in mind. Furthermore, I hope that the House will think it fair if today I give priority to those right hon. and hon. Members who were not called when we last debated this subject, on 1 December, even though they may be Privy Councillors.
4.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : We are debating the future shape of our continent : the impetus towards democracy in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union ; the emergence in the centre of Europe of a united Germany ; and the reduction, on an unprecedented scale, of the armed forces that for decades have opposed one another across a divided Europe. All those developments we can welcome. All those developments will need a mass of continuing work.
It seems that a lot is going on. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had talks in London with the Polish Prime Minister and the French and German Foreign Ministers. President Havel of Czechoslovakia will visit Britain next month. Next week, I go to Hungary. In April, I shall visit the Soviet Union for talks with Soviet leaders. Those are just a few of the array of visits and meetings now in progress. The airways of Europe and the Atlantic are thronged with travelling Ministers. At first, all the visits and discussions seemed somewhat formless. That was my first impression a few weeks ago but now I begin to see new patterns of consultation and sensible understandings emerging.
The first phase of smashing statues and hunting secret policemen in eastern Europe is almost over. The more difficult task of building democratic institutions and creating free market economies is beginning. As that happens, we enter a completely new phase of East-West relations. Until now, the challenge for the West was to manage a relationship between adversaries. The overriding need was to avert war--
Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hurd : No, I must get on a little.
After that overriding need, we had to seek progress with arms control and greater respect for human rights. Much of our effort was directed to limiting the damage of the cold war, exposing the abuse of human rights and countering the disruptive influence of the Soviet Union worldwide. That traditional effort required perseverance and sometimes courage. We did not need to look beyond political alliances, political systems and certainties. Now, many countries, including the Soviet Union, are being transformed.
Column 1088
We shall still need steadiness and courage, but we must welcome fresh ideas and original thought. That is undoubtedly the new mood in Britain, the rest of Europe and across the Atlantic. That came across sharply in the remarkable series of meetings in Ottawa last week. It turned out to be a diplomatic festival as well as a formal conference. The Foreign Ministers of NATO and Warsaw pact countries were there to discuss an open skies regime. In practice, our talks ranged far more widely. It was less a case of open skies than open house. It was an extraordinary experience to talk and listen to the Polish, Czech or Hungarian Foreign Ministers and hear, for the first time in nearly half a century, genuinely national points of view emerge.I came away with a strong sense that the Soviet Union is no longer sure of its moorings. The Warsaw pact is no longer biddable. Democracy is starting to encroach. Soviet foreign policy is much more sensitive than before. I have the impression that, perhaps for this reason, it at present contains more questions than answers. I admire the Soviet leadership for riding the tide of events, but the pace and strength of the tide will increase over the next few months. The dominating issue at Ottawa was German unification. The western allies and, as the House knows, successive British Governments, have always supported the principle of German unification, to be brought about as the result of the freely expressed choice of the peoples of the two Germanies. We can be glad, as friends of the new and democratic Germany, that the years of painful division are coming to an end.
Momentum toward unification has built up fast and it is now likely to happen sooner rather than later. The political momentum is largely due to the continuing flow of people from the German Democratic Republic to the Federal Republic and the desire of those who stay behind to share in the prosperity of their fellow Germans in the West. There is also, as we can all understand, an emotional momentum, which, in a way, is the most powerful of all.
Other, equally important realities can now be taken into account. German unification, of course, closely affects other countries--her immediate neighbours, her partners and allies in the Community and in NATO and the four powers that retain rights and responsibilities in Germany. There are, therefore, external aspects to the German question and alongside self- determination goes the need for joint determination of those external issues.
Before the Ottawa meeting, we felt that the external aspects were not always adequately heeded as the West German Government grappled with the rush of events in the GDR. Until last week we lacked a framework for discussing the external aspects of German unification. We were not alone in our concern as others were worried that we seemed to be in a scramble towards unification without the framework for handling the external aspects, including membership of NATO by a united Germany, the implications of that for the territory of what would be the former GDR because of the Soviet troops there, the status of Berlin and the final settlement of borders, as well as the implications of unification for the EC.
Our message was not one of obstruction, but that we risked muddle and instability if the issues were not addressed in some orderly way. Many felt those anxieties and told us about them and we were probably foremost in spelling them out. Because of that, a notion grew up, particularly in parts of the German press, that we were in
| Next Section
| Home Page |