House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Dec 1990

Mr. Hurd : I think the whole House would be very pleased if we could move from a situation in which a certain number of hostages--a few dozen here and a few dozen there--are doled out to eminent visitors at the whim of President Saddam Hussein, to the situation for which we have been pressing, in which all hostages are released. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am bound to have regard to the subsequent business before the House. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate, so I shall take three more questions from each side. I bear in mind the fact that we will have a debate on this matter on Tuesday.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is the Foreign Secretary of the view that the message should go out from the international community loud and clear that the totally unprovoked aggression which occurred on 2 August must come to an end? We must remember, of course, that the people in Kuwait are also hostages to the criminal and terrorist regime of the past few months. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that many Opposition Members opposed the Tory action in 1956, when the Government collaborated with France and Israel against Egypt, and those of us who demonstrated against that totally unjustified aggression take the view that, to be logical, we must totally oppose what happened on 2 August and insist that Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait?

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman has always been consistent in his belief that on this occasion the Security Council resolution should be fully complied with.

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the hostages and their relatives

Column 473

who have suffered a period of great stress will be delighted at the statement. Without waiting for further details from Baghdad, will he make arrangements for planes to be available to take all the hostages back home to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd : We are looking into that matter. Recently, the Iraqis have insisted that people leaving should leave by Iraq Airways. One of the points that we need to establish quickly is whether that will remain their requirement or whether it would be possible for us to mobilise and send aircraft to carry people home.

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) : May I ask the Foreign Secretary to say as much as he can about this welcome news and the suggestion that the Americans will support a middle east peace conference? Is this part of a peace package? When, as I presume, the Prime Minister meets Mr. Shamir later today, will he say to him that there can be no double standards in the middle east, that just as Saddam Hussein must withdraw from Kuwait, so must Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, and that the way to long-term peace and disarmament in the middle east is the settlement of the Palestinian issue?

Mr. Hurd : I would discourage the hon. Lady from linking those matters. That is why I spoke rather cautiously about the reports of an international conference. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is seeing Mr. Shamir at this time. I am sure that he will set out for the Israeli Prime Minister the efforts that we are making--it is not a matter of dissent between the parties--to bring about a just settlement of the Arab- Israeli problem.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that the news seems to be helpful, but that it hardly gives rise to optimism in the face of the previous behaviour of Saddam Hussein? Can he reassure the House that we will maintain all pressure through diplomatic channels to ascertain the timing of the release and to press for as speedy a release as possible? That is crucial, for political and humanitarian reasons.

Mr. Hurd : I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich) : In welcoming the Foreign Secretary's statement, may I ask him whether he will once again press the Iraqi authorities to allow the two remaining diplomats to the British embassy in Kuwait City to resume their proper duties so that they can assist in what we hope will be the repatriation of the 440 British subjects still in hiding in Kuwait?

Mr. Hurd : Yes. Mr. Michael Weston and Mr. Banks have persevered in circumstances of growing difficulty precisely because it was their wish, as well as mine, that they should continue to be able to give some help--not as much as they would like--to the British citizens in Kuwait. I am sure that they will want to continue that.

Column 474

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : While sanctions no doubt play their part, does my right hon. Friend agree that the threat of force was no doubt the critical element in the decision? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men of our armed forces and their families who have been under considerable stress for their part in what is undoubtedly a sacrifice for all concerned?

Mr. Hurd : I gladly join in that tribute. The Security Council resolution last week and the knowledge that it has brought home to Baghdad- -that the military option is not a bluff and that, if Saddam Hussein does not leave Kuwait in peace, he will be forced out--is the strongest of the peaceful pressures which can be brought to bear.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,

That European Community Document No. 6864/90, relating to a research programme in information technology, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker : No, please.

Mr. Hill : Yes, Mr. Speaker. I seldom raise points of order, but, after that statement, I must record the tragic death of one of my constituents who was held as a shield. He died of a heart attack in Iraq. There is still no knowledge of where he died. When we talk about the promises made by Saddam Hussein, we must not forget the terrible tragedy that he has inflicted on many British citizens.

Mr. Speaker : I have allowed the hon. Member to make that comment, in view of the sad occurrence that he mentioned.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : No. It was not a point of order.

Mr. Hoyle : It is very important.

Mr. Speaker : Everything is important.

Mr. Hoyle : I know that you are irritated.

Mr. Speaker : I am not irritated at all. Equally important are the 30 hon. Members who wish to participate in the next debate. Is the hon. Member's point of order more important than them?

Mr. Hoyle : I do not rise to my feet on a point of order very often- -and yes, it is more important. At 12 noon today, one of my constituents heard that her husband was coming home. She heard that from the Iraqi ambassador himself. Although we have had the statement from the Foreign Secretary, can everything possible be done to get those people home to their families before Christmas? That is a very important point of order.

Mr. Speaker : It is of course very important.

Column 475

European Community (Developments)

[Relevant documents : Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5th December (House of Commons Paper No. 77-i) ; European Community Documents Nos. 5749/90 and 9258/90 on implementation of the Single Market.]

Mr. Speaker : I must now make a rather sad statement. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the next debate, I shall have to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

4.48 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : I beg to move

That this House takes note of--

(a) developments in the European Community, in particular in view of the forthcoming European Council in Rome on 14th-15th December, with reference also to the White Paper on Developments in the European Community January- June 1990 (Cm. 1234) ; and

(b) European Community Document No. 9431/90, the European Commission's opinion on the calling of the Inter-Governmental Conference on Political Union which was issued in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty.

The main purpose of the debate is to look forward to the summit, the meeting of the European Council, at the end of next week and to the start of the two intergovernmental conferences that will begin on Saturday 15 December, one of them on economic and monetary union, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the lead, and the other on institutional change in the Community, in which I will take the lead.

I do not intend to speak about economic and monetary union today, because I understand that there will be a debate on it before long. I do not believe that there will be detailed discussion of the subject at the summit at the end of next week. There has been no change in the Government's policy on the matter. I should like a little later to say something about the other intergovernmental conference on institutional change, sometimes called political union.

I will run quickly through what I think will be the main items on the agenda of the European Council. The Prime Minister and I will be carrying to that Council the central message from this Government and country that we want and intend to play a full, central and positive part in all debates on the future of the Community to which we belong. We want to preserve and promote the national interest and to build an open, confident, outward- looking European Community with influence in the world.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) rose --

Mr. Hurd : I will make a little progress with my speech before giving way.

I wish to add a word to our continental partners about recent events in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) represented this country at 31 European summits, and not many among those present at Rome next week will be able to remember any other Prime Minister speaking for Britain. My right hon. Friend had her own manner of dealing with Community issues-- [Interruption.] --which was often

Column 476

controversial, often effective and always distinctive. I know for certain that many who crossed swords with her on those occasions are feeling sad now that she is no longer there.

It would be a mistake for anyone to suppose that, because the leader of the Government has changed, the policy will be reversed. For the last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister and I have, with other colleagues, worked out and elaborated the policies for Britain in the Community which we believe to be in the national interest as well as in the interests of Europe.

Of course, the style will change--because the choice of words will change ; those are personal things--but we shall enter the IGCs, the inter- governmental conferences, intending to make a success of both of them, equipped with our ideas for bringing about that success, and they will still be the main means by which, in the next year or so, the Community will evolve.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has gone, that may already be happening--that other Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers know that they will have to come out and insist on more detail, when previously they could rely on her to do it?

Mr. Hurd : That may well be true. The present Prime Minister will be no less energetic in advancing Britain's ideas, as he was as Chancellor of the Exchequer. His views will not change because he has been promoted, and my views will not change because I have not been promoted.

I would hate there to be any misunderstanding on that point. If our partners go to Rome expecting consistency and continuity in British policy, they will not be disappointed--continuity in the line we take and consistency in our ultimate objectives. The interests of this nation and of the House are paramount, and our policy will be based on a clear appreciation of those interests.

I come to what I know will be the main items before the summit. I shall not say much about the Gulf, except that it is certain that the Community, the summit, will need to have a full discussion on the Gulf. The House will have an opportunity next week to go into the substance of the matter, and hon. Members had an exchange today about the hostages.

It is clear from my discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday that the whole Community, all 12, is united behind the Security Council resolutions, including the last one for which Britain and France voted in New York last week, No. 678, authorising the use of force. I am sure that the European summit will want to make that point clear in Rome at the end of next week.

Another item that will be prominent is the position of the Soviet Union and the extent to which the Community should help that country. We see President Gorbachev and his colleagues striving now--it is not an exaggeration--to save the Soviet Union. In part, they are still using the traditional apparatus of command, and in part they are bringing forward reforms, both political and economic.

I do not think we should pretend that our sympathy and help will be decisive. We cannot solve the problems of the republics and their relationship with Moscow. We cannot ourselves rescue from disintegration the command economy to which the Soviet Union was accustomed. We

Column 477

cannot ourselves replace that command economy with a lively free market. Those are all things that they must work out for themselves. If we can give useful help--I underline the word "useful"--it is in our interest to do so, because it is not in our interest that the Soviet Union should dissolve into rival warring republics or lapse back into some form of dangerous tyranny. But untargeted help would not have a great impact. Indeed, it might even help to prop up the crumbling structures.

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) rose --

Mr. Hurd : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. What we must try to do--in what Britain and the Community does--is help the Russians to mobilise their own huge resources. That means that the Community should agree practical measures of technical assistance to help provide western know-how in key sectors of the economy. One obvious example is energy, about which the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, put forward an interesting plan which I hope the summit will help to carry forward.

We want to help create an active private sector in the Soviet Union, and in the long run that country will need private sector investment from the west. But that requires a degree of certainty and confidence--a framework within which investors can work--and that is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward ideas in that sphere.

The most pressing need is on the food side. The best available evidence we have suggests that, after a record grain harvest, there exists sufficient food for all. It exists and it is there, but problems of hoarding and distribution prevent it from getting to the places where there are shortages. The full picture is far from clear. Anecdotal evidence contradicts itself to some extent, and I hope that the summit will receive- -we have asked for it--a clear and expert assessment of identifiable needs and of ways in which the Community could respond usefully.

Mr. Grant : It is rumoured that the Soviet Union has tremendous gold reserves and billions of dollars in western banks. Is it reasonable for the European Community to give food and monetary aid to the Soviet Union when it already has substantial sums of money and, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, food, when there are starving people in third world countries who could use that money and aid?

Mr. Hurd : I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when people are starving, it is right that humanitarian aid should be given. That applies in the horn of Africa and in the Soviet Union--provided that the food will reach the people in need, and that is a big proviso. As for the bigger questions of financial help--balance of payments help and so on--I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, and I was coming to that point. I do not think it is sensible to rush into giving that kind of help, at least not without a proper assessment, not just by the European Commission but by the International Monetary Fund--something with which African countries are familiar. One must respect the position of the Soviet Union, its history and its sensitivities, but I believe that there is a clear distinction between what we can do in terms of food and

Column 478

technical assistance--the case for technical assistance is overwhelming--and the longer-term, larger-scale balance of payments help, which must be carefully considered.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : Given the success of the Red Cross in distributing German supplies in the Soviet Union, might there be a case for having an arrangement to encourage British transportation to distribute Russian food?

Mr. Hurd : There might be. The question of the distribution of food is crucial, and when I announced the British know-how fund for the Soviet Union a few weeks ago, I listed food distribution as an area in which Britain could be of particular help, and projects of that type can be among the first calls on the know-how fund.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity, following the welcome resignation of General Ershad as President of Bangladesh, to make clear to the Bangladesh military that, if it was unwise enough to stage a coup d'etat at this time in an effort to stop free and fair elections being held in Bangladesh--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order.

Mr. Madden : --to elect a president and parliament that the British Government and the international community

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist in ignoring the Chair. I fail to see what relevance his intervention has to the matter before us.

Mr. Hurd : I cannot reward the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for that. I would rather prepare and choose my words carefully on the subject of Bangledesh before discussing it. I shall move on to a related issue that will certainly be on the summit's agenda, eastern Europe as a whole--

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) rose--

Mr. Hurd : I shall proceed for a little longer, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene.

The countries of eastern Europe rely to a substantial extent on the Community and the western world for help in bringing forward their reforms. Britain, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, took the lead in encouraging reform in eastern Europe and stimulating international support for it. We recognise that the new democracies need trade as much as aid. That is why we have proposed, and the Community has endorsed, association agreements between the Community and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. They will provide a framework for the sort of wide- ranging co-operation we want, with the eventual goals of free trade arrangements and a clear link with the Community.

The newly democratic countries face a serious economic problem as a result of the Gulf crisis and the rise in oil price. That subject is being, and will need to be, discussed. Without going into it in detail, I would simply say that we are clear that those new, pressing needs of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other such countries cannot be tackled simply by using the Community's resources. It will be necessary to bring in the resources of the entire Group of 24, including the United

Column 479

States, Canada and Japan. I think we should also bring in the resources of some of the Gulf countries which benefited substantially from the same process.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : It is important for my right hon. Friend to clarify one aspect of what he said about Government policy. Sustaining President Gorbachev in keeping the USSR cohesive is one thing, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that that does not prejudice the position of the three Baltic republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the overrunning of which by Soviet Russia the United Kingdom has never recognised as an extension of Soviet territory to include those republics? We must not betray them merely because there are other difficulties within the Soviet Union.

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend is entirely right--

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : I suppose all that is in order.

Mr. Hurd : Of course it is in order, because I have been talking about the Soviet Union. It is not for me to say, but I should have thought that it was naturally in order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hislop) is right--we have constantly made it clear to the Soviet Government that we regard the three Baltic republics as being in a different position, legally and historically, from the other republics of the Soviet Union.

The subject of the negotiations between the Community and the European Free Trade Association, and the enlargement of the Community may come up at the summit and is, anyway, of interest to the House. We believe that the Community should be open to new membership for those who satisfy the obligations of membership and to increased and more liberal trade with third world countries. At present, the EFTA countries are negotiating with us to extend the Community's internal market to encompass them, and we strongly support those negotiations because it is important that they should succeed. That may or may not lead eventually to full membership of the Community by the EFTA countries.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) rose --

Mr. Hurd : I should like to get on.

We have received an application from one of the EFTA countries, Austria. As the decade goes on, there may well be other applications for full membership from some of the newly democratic countries of central and eastern Europe that I mentioned. If so, the association agreements to which I referred, which we strongly support, will be seen as a bridge to full membership. Negotiations on when and how full membership of those countries can be achieved will be necessary. We must not say to countries that apply, "You may be European and democratic and have a free market, but we think that 12 is a good number, so goodbye."

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : The right hon. Gentleman appears to be reviewing priorities for next week's talks. In that regard, what can he tell the House today about the Community's posture on the Uruguay round negotiations? Is he aware of the deep

Column 480

concern about that issue in New Zealand, Australia and many of the poorest developing Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Hurd : Indeed : that was to be my next topic, which shows the wisdom of trying to make progress in a speech before giving way. It may be useful to discuss that subject at the European summit, although that depends slightly on what happens in the negotiations in Brussels in the next few days. Today, the Ministers are continuing the meeting in Brussels, but the position changes almost every hour. Overnight, the Uruguayan chairman proposed that the five key subjects in the negotiations-- agriculture, services, textiles, intellectual property and the general agreement on tariffs and trade rules--should be taken together. When I last touched base with Brussels, it was not clear whether that proposal would go forward or talks had broken down or been suspended. The crisis was triggered by the American rejection of the Uruguayan chairman's approach, because the Americans were insisting on separate Community concessions on agriculture first. Today, the Community has indicated that it is willing to be flexible on that issue, but the Americans also need to make concessions, particularly on services.

The aim of GATT is that everyone should gain, which will require everyone making concessions in order to achieve the desired overall gain. There is a sense of crisis--which may have been necessary to jolt people out of their entrenched positions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that there now has to be genuine negotiation.

Another item on the summit's agenda will be the Commission's report on progress towards a single market. I hope that the House will not lose sight of what has been, and continues to be for this country, one of the main objectives of the Community over recent years--we are in sight of a single market of 340 million people, a unique achievement in history. It will be dynamic because, as the Scrutiny Committee well knows, beneath the simplicity of abolishing the trade barriers lies a complex programme of legislation.

The Common Market programme is about two thirds complete, and the summit will review progress on the basis of a report from President Delors. Britain will have to set the priorities for the next phase and ensure that enforcement of measures already agreed is adequate. The key sectors where we want to see quick progress include public procurement, financial services and liberalisation of transport. The intergovernmental conference on institutional reform is called political union, although that is a somewhat misleading phrase. During recent weeks, our concern has been to ensure that there will be no attempt at the second summit in Rome at the end of next week to pre-empt that conference by laying down what it should or should not decide before it has even met. We have been anxious to avoid a repetition of what occurred at the first Rome summit in October in relation to economic and monetary union. I was reasonably encouraged by the discussions that we had in the Foreign Affairs Council-- [Interruption.] May I hold the attention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for a few minutes longer?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when he said that he did

Column 481

not want a repeat of the events of October, I was merely reflecting the fact that I agree with him? Having lost the then Prime Minister, we certainly do not want to lose the present one.

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman was not reflecting--he was chatting, which put me off my stride. I am grateful that he has got his not particularly pertinent point off his chest.

I was reasonably encouraged by the discussion on the subject at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday. It seemed that a genuine effort was being made for the summit to consider the matter on the basis of the different opinions so far expressed, rather than try to create, on Friday and Saturday morning, a mandate for a conference that starts on Saturday afternoon. I hope that there will be no last-minute surprises on that front. We will go into the intergovernmental conference with our ideas and proposals. Others will put forward their ideas, which we do not find convincing.

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic problems is that there is no clear definition of the principle of subsidiarity or of how it can be implemented practically as an ever wider range of measures comes from the Commission? So will one of the ideas that my right hon. Friend takes forward be a clear definition and method of enforcement of this principle?

Mr. Hurd : I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come to his point shortly.

We will put forward our ideas and others will put forward ideas that we do not find convincing--that is the nature of discussion in the Community and in this House. We are not persuaded by the case that some people make for an extension of the competence of the Commission, or of the case for the wholesale extension of qualified majority voting, or of the case for adding again to the legislative powers of the European Parliament. To make any of these changes, a convincing case would be necessary, but it has not been made. We do not see the Community to which we belong as a river or glacier that moves inexorably in a preordained direction. That is not how it works or how it should work. The Community evolves, but that evolution takes place by working out what its needs are, not by some inevitable law of gravity or some movement in the stars. That means that we should not say "never" to any change in these matters. What we can say and what we have been saying under the last Prime Minister and under the present one is that we are not persuaded of the case for such changes.

Because we are not persuaded of the case for a change in the three respects that I have mentioned, that does not mean that our stance in this conference will be negative.

Mr. Gill : I invite my right hon. Friend to comment on subsidiarity, which no doubt will form part of the conference agenda. Will he bear in mind when discussing it how imperfectly the principle of subsidiarity is applied even in our country? Many Members of this House would like to think that the powers ceded to the higher authority will be agreed by the lower tier rather than the other way round. We do not want crumbs from the Commission's table.

Mr. Hurd : Of course, my hon. Friend's second point is right. A large part of discussion within the Community is about whether it is sensible for nation states which have

Next Section

Home Page