House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Dec 1990

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a further statement from the Foreign Secretary after the one that he is to make this afternoon to mark the fact that this weekend will see the third anniversary of the intifada in the occupied territories

Column 462

in which more than 1,000 people have been killed, many of them children, and tens of thousands have been injured? Why have the Palestinians waited 23 years for action to be taken against Israel's occupation of the west bank and Gaza? Do the Government have any new proposals?

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is sitting beside me and has heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that he has answered the hon. Gentleman's point on many occasions.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to arrange for a statement on Monday from the Foreign Office on the Antarctic treaty negotiations which are taking place in Chile this week?

Mr. MacGregor : I believe that a lengthy statement has recently been made on that.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a matter which is not mentioned a great deal but which is set out in early-day motion 1159.

[That this House is concerned about the plight of the estimated 98,000 incidences of children who run away each year and end up missing on the streets of our major cities ; takes note of the Council of Europe recommendation R79(6) adopted in April 1979, which calls on member countries to develop systems to trace missing persons ; further notes the recent report from the Association of Chief Police Officers recommending the establishment of a computerised national register to aid in tracing missing persons ; and calls upon the Government to ensure that such a system is set up as a matter of urgency so that these children may be protected from danger, their problems may be addressed and reconciliation may be effected where possible.]

That has the signatures of no fewer than 219 hon. Members and it concerns the tracing of missing children. It requests a computer register of the large number of missing children, many of whom come from the north to London. May we have a debate on that important subject?

Mr. MacGregor : I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am trying to keep up with all the early-day motions that have appeared on the Order Paper this Session, but I have not recently read those from the previous Session. I will have a look at early-day motion 1159.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House next week and announce the identities of those Opposition parties prepared to join him in discussions on the poll tax? If the list should include the Scottish National party, that would be no surprise. It saved the skins of the Tory party in 1979 and it is prepared to repeat that heinous crime in 1991. The people of Scotland are surprised that it refused to join the Scottish Constitutional Convention to discuss the future of the Scottish people, yet it is now prepared to join the Tory Government in order to save them again.

Mr. MacGregor : A statement will not be necessary because the position will become very clear. The situation now is vastly different compared with 1979.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Column 463

Mr. Speaker : Order. I will do my best to call all those right hon. and hon. Members who are on their feet, but I ask them to confine their questions to the subject of next week's business.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : May I ask the Leader of the House to make time next week to debate the GATT negotiations ? The last such debate was dominated by agriculture, but time should be given to discussing also the textile industries. The GATT negotiations, which will affect 500,000 textile and clothing workers in the United Kingdom, should introduce protection against dumping and a social clause. In Bradford, 14,000 workers depend on the textile industry, and there ought to be both a statement on the GATT negotiations and a debate in Government time because it is the Government and the EEC who are conducting them on behalf of this country.

Mr. MacGregor : I have already made it clear that I will consider the most appropriate way of reporting developments in the GATT negotiations to the House. Agriculture is critical to those negotiations, so it is understandable that much of the last debate was devoted to that aspect, which is important to the future of our farmers. That recent debate was in Government time.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : In the light of the fact that Allerdale district council poll tax payers face the prospect of picking up a multi-million pound bill for a failed timeshare development which was built on the ill-considered recommendation and advice of that authority's chief executive, should not that matter be referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment and a full inquiry be undertaken to allay public concern?

Mr. MacGregor : I have read the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion on that subject, but, as he knows, local authorities are independent bodies responsible to the courts and to their own electors for their actions. It is not for the Government to intervene in such matters.

Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston) : I welcome the fact that, thanks to the Opposition, there is to be a debate next week on the recession.. Before then, will the Government make a full statement, which right hon. and hon. Members can take into account when preparing their speeches, on the projected closure of two British Aerospace factories and the loss of 5,000 jobs? Surely the fatuous words of the Secretary of State for Employment about self-employment for those redundant workers cannot be the Government's sole response to the crisis.

Mr. MacGregor : It would not be right to make a statement on that matter in advance, simply in order that right hon. and hon. Members could respond in their own way during the debate. The Government's position on British Aerospace's proposals is already clear. The closures can be raised in next week's debate, but it would not be correct to make a statement in advance.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : When the Leader of the House refers the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to the Secretary of State for Transport, will he emphasise that if British Rail decides to extend the line to Castleford and Normanton, that will be very welcome in an area which has been devastated by the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal mining industry?

Column 464

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I will convey the hon. Gentleman's remark to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) : Will the Leader of the House find time before Christmas for a debate on the worrying decision by the Department of Education and Science to move the National Environmental Research Council from Barry Dock to an inferior location? That will result in the loss not only of many jobs but of a centre of excellence which has directly contributed to Britain's world lead in discoveries relating to the depletion of the ozone layer and to North sea pollution.

Mr. MacGregor : I think that that is a matter for the Natural Environment Research Council. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can promise a debate in Government time on that matter.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : I wonder if the Leader of the House can help me as you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to help me the other day when we had an announcement on the opting out of hospitals. Many hon. Members, with hospitals in our constituencies that had been given permission for trust status, were unable to ask the Secretary of State about those matters. Could the Leader of the House find time in the days available before Christmas for a debate on that subject? Otherwise, the whole question of losing many hospitals from the health service cannot be debated until mid or late January, when it will be too late to do anything about it.

Mr. MacGregor : It is not a question of hospitals being lost to the national health service or opting out of the service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made that clear in answer to the private notice question earlier this week. It is important that misleading statements of that sort should not be made. We were endeavouring to find the best and most convenient way for the House to ask questions of my right hon. Friend on the subject. I cannot promise a debate on the subject, but there are opportunities available to hon. Members to ask questions about particular hospitals.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : May I warn the Leader of the House that hot air from Henley will not be enough to save the Government from the poll tax revolt? May I assure him that all Opposition Members, and I suspect many Conservative Members, would be prepared to sit up all night every night for as long as it takes to abolish the poll tax and to replace it with a fair rates system, linked to the ability to pay, with generous relief for the poorest in our community? When will he have the guts to come forward with such legislation, on behalf of the Government?

Mr. MacGregor : That is rather ridiculous, because we had a full debate on the subject yesterday. Moreover, I suspect that the idea of staying up night after night for all-night sessions and not going to bed will not appeal to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Will the Leader of the House try to understand that his previous answer about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was wholly unsatisfactory, and will be neither understood nor

Column 465

forgiven in Scotland? I assure him that there is no problem in finding Opposition Members who are prepared to serve on that Select Committee. Will he therefore concede that it is desertion of parliamentary duty by Conservative Back Bench Members which has led directly to the disgraceful situation in which the Scottish Office, with an annual budget of £11,000 million, is the only major Department of state which is not subject to scrutiny by the Select Committee procedure in this place.

Mr. MacGregor : I have already made the position clear on that matter, and I have also made it clear that there are many opportunities to probe Scottish matters in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Now that the Leader of the House has made a statement about Members of Parliament having a three-week holiday, what is he going to do and when will he make a statement about staff in the Refreshment Department in the Houses of Parliament, who are being called upon to work on Christmas Eve and on New Year's Eve, at single-time payments of £3.50 per hour? [Hon. Members :-- "Why? Who for?"] That is the situation for people who work here, when Members of Parliament, including the right hon. Gentleman's Tory friends, will be sunning themselves in the Caribbean and other places. Is this what he means by a classless society? Why does he not treat them right?

Mr. MacGregor : Those were irrelevant and inaccurate remarks. The point that the hon. Gentleman was raising is a matter for the chairman of the relevant committee--the hon. Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I think. I think that he has answered questions on this matter in the House, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : Will the Leader of the House think again about early-day motion 161 ?

[That this House notes the encouraging tone of the Prime Minister's reported remarks in the Mail on Sunday on 2nd December, relating to the introduction of more sensible hours and conditions for the House of Commons ; and calls upon the Lord President of the Council to bring forward, after due consultation, proposals to effect such a change.]

It has been signed by hon. Members from all parties in the House. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made encouraging and sympathetic noises on the matter. Will he tell the House how we may best process our views, and give him the views of all parties so that we can drag this place into the 20th century while there are 10 years of it left?

Mr. MacGregor : I have already said that I am happy to consider ways in which proposals might be taken forward. Obviously one of the key ways is through the Procedure Committee. I am happy to consider this matter, and perhaps discuss it more widely in the House, but I repeat that the co- operation of all hon. Members is required if any changes are to come about. The kind of remarks we heard earlier, urging all night sittings on one issue, illustrate some of the difficulties that we face.

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : May I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for a review of the hours that the House sits? Does he recognise that night sittings are a deterrent to

Column 466

women coming into the House, and that few hon. Members would claim to be at their best after 2 o'clock in the morning? We are heading towards the 21st century with a House of Commons which is stuck in the 17th century. Should we not have businesslike hours, so that we can operate effectively instead of operating like a gentlemen's club?

Mr. MacGregor : I have already expressed my willingness to consider the matter. I suggest that, if the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who is sitting on the left of the hon. Lady, will not have a word with her about it, she should perhaps have a word with him.

Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles) : May I remind the Leader of the House that he promised two weeks ago to send his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary a question of mine about a timetable for the debate on the ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child? To date, I have received no reply. May I repeat my request for the matter to be discussed in the House as soon as possible? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to redeem himself in the eyes of the children of this country, will he also take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I will look into it again.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : May I point out to the Leader of the House that Monday's private business concerns the revival motion for the Kings Cross Railways Bill? The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is generally accepted in the House that the private Bill procedure has been entirely discredited, and is inappropriate for the discussion of important matters such as the location of an international station in London.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor gave us a fairly clear indication that the necessary primary legislation would come before the House so that we could change the procedure? There was nothing about that in the Queen's Speech. Can he give us any idea whether we shall be able to discuss such legislation during the current Session? Perhaps if we are running out of business and there is to be a spring election, we shall not be able to do so until the new Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what work is in progress?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree that some matters relating to the private Bill procedure need to be examined, and I believe that action needs to be taken. I must tell the hon. Gentleman in all frankness that I think it unlikely that primary legislation will be possible in the current Session, but I hope that some recommendations can be dealt with without the need for such legislation ; I understand the concern felt by many hon. Members.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : May we have a debate next week on an aspect of the economy to which the Government have paid scant regard--the way in which landlords are exploiting the homeless? One landlord in north Birmingham is renting out eight rooms in a house, charging £126 per week per room, and the Department of Social Security is paying £116 per week. That is exploiting both the taxpayer and homeless people. I cannot understand why the public money involved cannot be converted into capital assets so that homes can be built for people to rent.

Column 467

Mr. MacGregor : In view of the need for us to get on with today's important debate, and also the next statment, I do not wish to become involved in the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I do not think that we shall have an opportunity to debate them next week.

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) rose--

Mr. Speaker : Was the hon. Gentleman here when I said that I would call those hon. Members who were standing?

Mr. Wray : Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker : Then of course I will call him.

Mr. Wray : I was beginning to think that you had forgotten my name, Mr. Speaker. You have not called me for some time.

Mr. Speaker : I did not see the hon. Gentleman rise when I said that I would call hon. Members who had been rising. As I have said, of course I will call him if I have made a mistake.

Mr. Wray : Will the Leader of the House summon the Prime Minister to our next sitting and ask him to give us his definition of a classless society? My constituents are finding it very difficult to understand the Prime Minister. During his term at the Treasury, 90, 000 people lost their jobs, 22,000 businesses went bankrupt and 27, 000 people's houses were repossessed--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been here--

Mr. Skinner : This is a very important question.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I asked hon. Members specifically to relate their questions to next week's business, and not to make constituency points. I do not think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) can have been present to hear me say that.

Mr. Wray : My question does relate to next week's business, Mr. Speaker--I should like issues that I have raised to be on the agenda. People have had their child benefit frozen for the past three years. If the Prime Minister says that he believes in a classless society, let us hear his definition.

Mr. MacGregor : I believe that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters tomorrow, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be here to make his points. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about tomorrow in his opening remarks. I am happy to point out to him that since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in government, the work force in employment has risen by more than 3.6 million and, in the period for which figures were last available, 1, 700 net new businesses were being opened each week.

Column 468

Gulf Hostages

4.25 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make statement on the hostages in Iraq and Kuwait.

President Saddam Hussein has today sent a letter to the Iraqi National Assembly requesting that the Assembly

"allow all foreigners on whom restrictions were placed to enjoy the freedom of travel and to lift these restrictions".

This appears to mean that all foreign hostages in both Iraq and Kuwait will, once the Assembly has given its approval, be free to leave.

The Government welcome this implementation of one of the Security Council's requirements. We have throughout been pressing for the release of all hostages. We are delighted for all the hostages and their families. They have suffered with great dignity and courage over the past weeks and months. We are in close contact with our embassy in Baghdad over the practical arrangements for the departure of all British citizens trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. The ambassador is actively seeking early clarification from the Iraqi authorities. We will then do everything in our power to help those concerned get home as soon as practicable.

Saddam Hussein should now implement in full the United Nations resolutions, which means withdrawing unconditionally from Kuwait and allowing the legitimate Government to return to that country.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : I thank the Foreign Secretary for responding to our request for a statement on this matter. We express satisfaction at the decision to release the hostages who, of course, should never have been detained in the first place. We share the rejoicing of the hostages' families that their ordeal will soon be over and that they will be reunited with their loved ones. We greatly welcome the news, not simply for its human implications but for what it may signify.

This is the first positive response by Iraq to any of the United Nations Security Council resolutions--namely, No. 664. Since the inhumane purpose of holding the hostages was to use them as human shields in the event of war, this decision may carry important implications for Iraqi policy. It suggests that the talks between the United States Administration and the Iraqi regime could have a chance of bearing fruit. Taken with the report that the United States may now join the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in advocating an international conference on the middle east, it signals the possibility of a transformation for the good of the agonising situation in the region.

It is clear evidence that sanctions are working, and that they should be given a chance to work further to bring about, if possible, the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait by peaceful means. The United Nations has been and continues to be steadfast on this issue, and a great prize may be available to reward that steadfastness. We remain absolute in our support for the United Nations.

Mr. Hurd : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for welcoming the news.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the news is correct, as we hope it is, it is very welcome? Even in this moment of welcome, will he not

Column 469

forget the other hostages--I am sure that he would not do so--who have been held in Beirut for much too long, and who should be released as soon as possible? They should have been released long ago. Will he reassure us that despite this, and even with the news of the international conference on long-term security in the middle east, nothing will detract from the determination of the nations of the world to fulfil the United Nations' resolution to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait not only unconditionally and completely but immediately?

Mr. Hurd : I confirm the last point that my right hon. Friend made. I cannot possibly predict how long it will take to carry through what President Saddam Hussein has asked the Iraqi Assembly to consider and to do. I gather that the Assembly is meeting tomorrow. We have many people involved. There are 440 British nationals in hiding in Kuwait. I hope very much that they are covered. We have 355 British nationals at liberty in Iraq and a further 342 detained at strategic sites--about 1,150 all told. The references that have been made to the international conference relate to reports of discussions in the Security Council, particularly between the United States and several non-aligned delegations. The British Government have long felt the need for an international Arab-Israel conference as a way of carrying that forward. It is a little too soon to say whether that possibility has been brought closer. I would advise the House to be a bit cautious.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : Will the Foreign Secretary ascertain whether the statement to those who have successfully evaded capture in Kuwait and that they will be free to leave without intimidation? On the wider issue, does he agree that, although there is naturally rejoicing for the hostages and their relatives, there should be no votes of thanks to Saddam Hussein for undoing something that he should not have done in the first place? He must be hoping that, by this manoeuvre, international resolve may weaken. It would be a terrible indictment of the House or of anybody else if we were simply to say, "Our citizens are free, therefore we can forget about Kuwait." Will he reaffirm that we shall remain resolute on the wider issue?

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman's first point, about the position of our people who are in hiding in Kuwait, is one of the main points that our ambassador is trying to clear up with the Iraqis. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right on his second point. Three main requirements were laid down not by us or by the President of the United States but by the Security Council of the United Nations--the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of the Kuwaiti Government and the freeing of all hostages. If the third of the requirements is carried through, that is welcome news, but it does not detract in the least from the importance of the others.

Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we welcome the statement from Baghdad today, we should not forget that the hostages should never have been taken in the first place? The fact that they have been released does not make Saddam Hussein a hero.

Column 470

Mr. Hurd : No, indeed. His policy has been entirely wrong. I hope that today's announcement means that President Saddam Hussein realises that it has also been a mistake.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in the Palace of Westminster at the moment are 12 women whose husbands are held hostage in Kuwait or in Iraq? They are determined to make their way to Baghdad to obtain the release of their husbands. In the light of the statement that we have heard today, would it be appropriate for a Minister to meet them to give them counsel and advice in this new situation?

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me of this, and I am glad to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, in conjunction with him, will gladly meet those ladies. I hope that their journey may no longer prove to be necessary.

Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : In welcoming the announcement that apparently has been made today, may I echo my right hon. Friend's word of caution? Will he clarify whether a clear indication has been given of the timing of the release of the hostages, whether they are part of the human shield or whether, as was said previously, they are still in hiding?

Mr. Hurd : In his letter to the National Assembly of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein refers to the fact that he had earlier considered a different timing and concentrating on Christmas and the new year. The implication, but not the clear statement, is that he is now talking of immediate release. But that is an implication. It must be cleared up, as must the crucial question whether all the British people, whatever their circumstances and whether they are in Iraq or Kuwait, are covered by the announcement.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Secretary of State aware that, having spent three hours with Saddam Hussein and his Cabinet last week trying to persuade him to do the very thing that he has now done, including the form of words "freedom of movement" for every resident and an amnesty in Kuwait, I strongly welcome what has happened? However, is it not important now that some of the loose talk from Washington and from Ministers about toppling Saddam Hussein, about demilitarising Iraq by force and about bringing him to trial as a war criminal should be abandoned? There are no United Nations resolutions that encompass that in any way. The path is now open. Saddam Hussein's compliance with the resolution on Kuwait, which I also put to him, would be accelerated if he could be persuaded that he would not be attacked whatever he did.

The question of disputed territory, on which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has touched, should be dealt with by arbitration, and the compliance by Israel with resolution 242 and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon are part of a long-term peace process. The lives have been saved

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to remind him that there will be a debate on this subject next Tuesday. [Interruption.] Well, there is great pressure on subsequent business. We should confine our questions to the Foreign Secretary today to the immediate issue and not deal with wider issues.

Column 471

Mr. Benn : I respect your judgment, Mr. Speaker. However, you will recall that I asked that there should be a clear Government statement before Tuesday on the matters that I have tried to raise. Otherwise, we shall not know on Tuesday whether we agree with the Government's line.

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman asked in business questions for a further full and authoritative statement ; he will get that on Tuesday. I want to refer him to what the Prime Minister has said, to what I have said and to what Secretary Baker has said--that, if President Saddam Hussein does not comply in full with the Security Council resolutions, he will be forced to do so. If he does comply, he will not be attacked.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Is not it a fact that Saddam Hussein rounded up two Britons in Kuwait yesterday for use as human shields? Is not it also a fact that his dearest wish is to establish some linkage between his invasion of Kuwait and the settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem? Will my right hon. Friend stand against any such linkage?

Mr. Hurd : I cannot confirm my hon. and learned Friend's first point, but I will look into it and let him know whether our information confirms it.

On the second point, President Saddam Hussein has no particular standing as regards the general problems of the middle east or the Arab-Israel question. We have all been trying for many years--many people tried long before me--to achieve a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. There is no reason why we should stop doing that because of the aggression. However, as I have often explained to the House, I do not see, in practical terms, any prospect of useful initiatives on that subject as long as Saddam Hussein remains the aggressor in possession of Kuwait.

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the second most important aspect of the statement--the first, obviously, being the release of hostages--is the fact that Saddam Hussein is starting to comply with the United Nations resolutions? Those hon. Members who are concerned about resolving the issue of the Palestinians and the Israelis should understand that the sooner all states begin to comply with United Nations resolutions the more likelihood there is of resolving the Palestinian question. The Secretary of State was correct. Today's statement on the possible change in United States policy is intended to ensure that the United States does not use its veto in the Security Council. Will he ensure that our ambassador encourages the United States to accept, for the first time ever, a statement in a resolution that calls for the convening of an international peace conference?

Mr. Hurd : We are very anxious that this aspect of the Security Council's discussions should be carried forward without the dissent and upset that go with a United States veto--or with any veto. I confirm that to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir David Price (Eastleigh) : Would my right hon. Friend clarify the meaning of the word "hostage" in his statement? Does it include all the British subjects who were working on contract in Iraq and in Kuwait? I have in mind

Column 472

especially the British service men who were on contract to the Kuwait armed forces. Are they covered by this welcome statement?

Mr. Hurd : The word used by President Saddam Hussein is "foreigners". He does not distinguish between one kind or another. We are trying to clear up as soon as possible the exact scope of the announcement. Obviously, we shall be pressing that it cover all British citizens and all foreigners living in Iraq and Kuwait and wishing to leave.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : On behalf of my colleagues I welcome the statement, particularly as President Saddam Hussein kept his word on the release of the Mivan workers when they completed their contract. I hope that his word now given will be speedily fulfilled, and ask him to bear in mind the fact that, in our understanding, a guest is free to move around in the house or in the country. If there are gatecrashers at a party and they do not quietly withdraw when requested to do so, they would be expelled from the country or the house that they were occupying.

Mr. Hurd : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that this welcome announcement totally vindicates the British Government's stand in refusing to treat with hostage takers and rather endorses the view that we should adopt an uncompromising attitude to those who would seek to infringe human rights and invade sovereign integrity?

Next Section

Home Page