House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1991

Column 83

to reward political and economic reform in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. All of us recognise the great difficulties that stand in the way of that process, and the length of time that the change will take. The nature of those changes is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to determine. We have no right--indeed, we lack the capacity--to influence the way in which the Soviet peoples will ultimately determine their future. It is not for us to seek the dissolution of the Soviet Union or to determine the shape of the constitutional arrangements that may be devised. Our interest--it is also the interest of the Soviet Union itself--lies in seeing the republics agreeing with the Soviet Government on new methods of working together harmoniously and with mutual consent. Our motives are simple. We believe that political and economic reform in eastern Europe and especially in the Soviet Union is desirable both for those who live in those countries and for all of us who inhabit the continent of Europe. By assisting the process whereby individuals within the Soviet Union gain greater economic and political freedom, we hope to see that country develop its great potential. Moreover, and as a general rule, democratic states do not fight aggressive wars.

That was the background to the decisions that were taken by the European Council on 14 and 15 December 1990. The Community wanted to reinforce the movement of reform within the Soviet Union by sending a clear signal of support. That is why the Community decided on four specific measures : food aid, worth £175 million ; a guarantee for credits to purchase food, worth £350 million ; technical assistance to the value of £280 million, and the negotiation of a new and wide-ranging agreement for our mutual relations. The Government supported all those decisions. However, we believe that there should be a close connection between the delivery of support and the fact of reform. Furthermore, we were and we are concerned that food aid should be targeted at the genuinely needy, and that it should be closely monitored to ensure that it reaches those people.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : I have been closely following what the Minister is saying. Democratic groupings in the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria have stressed the importance not only of monitoring to whom the food goes, but the method of distribution. In other words, will the ancien regime get the credit for distribution through its own tentacles of apparatus, or will we ensure that the distribution of food does not become a political instrument for propping up the old and discredited administrations?

Mr. Hogg : The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious and important point. We will endeavour to ensure that the method of distribution is not that described by the right hon. Gentleman and that it does not have the effect that he fears.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : With regard to the question that the Minister has just answered and with respect to the food aid for humanitarian purposes, which non-governmental agencies within the European Community will monitor that distribution in the way requested by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)?

Column 84

Mr. Hogg : Management committees will be set up on which officials will be represented. They will have an overall and over-arching duty to monitor. I cannot at this moment tell the hon. Gentleman whether any non- governmental organisations will be involved in that process. However, I will make inquiries about that during the debate and if I have an opportunity at its conclusion, I will try to deal with that specific point then, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me. As I was saying, it is important that we ensure that the humanitarian aid reaches those to whom it is directed. It is also very important not to disrupt the Soviet Union's agricultural market. It is also important that we do not stand in the way of much-needed improvements in the existing food distribution system.

We must recognise that within the Soviet Union the greatest shortage is not of food, but of expertise and that is precisely what we have to offer. We can offer knowledge to develop an

entrepreneurial system ; training and advice to those engaged in new projects and market-oriented enterprises ; and assistance to those engaged in constructing the legal framework for a market economy. That approach is the objective of the United Kingdom's know-how fund for the Soviet Union and it was also the purpose of the Community's technical assistance programme.

As I have already said, we believe that there should be a close connection between the delivery of support and the fact of reform. The tragic events in the Baltic states have brought into question the Soviet commitment to reform and those events have caused real damage to east-west relations.

The British Government have never recognised the forcible incorporation of the three Baltic states into the Soviet Union. We have repeatedly emphasised our belief that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have the right to determine their own futures. We wholly condemn the way in which the Soviet forces behaved in the early days of this year. The loss of life in Lithuania and Latvia was tragic and deplorable.

Following those killings, we and our partners within the Community took urgent steps to emphasise to the Soviet Union that our measures of support were not unconditional and would not survive continued repression. We therefore suspended the bulk of the measures previously agreed at the Rome European Council. However, since that suspension, there have developed modest grounds for optimism. For example, the Soviet Government have appointed delegations to begin discussions with the three Baltic states.

Moreover, the Soviet Government have distanced themselves from the bogus salvation councils that were brought into existence earlier this year. However, we must recognise that we are still some way from seeing proper and serious negotiations between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Government.

It is against that background of modest improvement that we should consider how the west in general and the European Community in particular should proceed. Should we turn our backs on the Soviet Union? Should we withhold all the support and encouragement that I have described?

I cannot believe that such a course would be right. The benefits of co- operation are obvious and mutual. The west has vital interests at stake. We therefore believe that, provided the response is positive, we should continue to

Column 85

encourage and assist those working for reform within the Soviet Union. That is the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is delivering this week in Moscow. He will emphasise that very substantial help is available. He will say that the benefit that will flow from integration into the international economic system is great. However, all that depends upon the Soviet Union continuing with political and economic reform.

The motion refers to Bulgaria and Romania to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green) : While we are considering economic aid, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is sympathy with the Soviet Union's position particularly when it has told the Baltic states that economic arrangements must be made? It is very difficult for any state to lose suddenly a vital part of its economy when its economy is in such difficulties.

Mr. Hogg : My hon. Friend has made an important point. However, we must go back to first principles. In this case the first principles are that we did not recognise forcible incorporation of the three Baltic republics into the Soviet Union. That was achieved in a deplorable and unlawful way. That is the foundation on which the debate must stand. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the loss to the Soviet Union. However, at the same time my hon. Friend would be the first to concede that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have a right to determine their own futures.

I am sure that the right approach for the House and for the Government is to say that we recognise the right of

self-determination within the three Baltic republics and very much hope that there will be serious negotiations between the Soviet Government and those republics from which will emerge a solution that is acceptable to both parties. That may take the form of complete independence, but it may take a different form that falls short of complete independence. However, that is a matter for the parties to that negotiation.

Romania and Bulgaria have a great need for food and medical aid. That is why the Government supported last December's decision of the European Council to provide £70 million of food and medical aid to both those countries. We are now pressing for the rapid disbursement of that aid.

I am glad to say that the Bulgarian Government are actively pursuing a programme of economic and political reform. The United Kingdom Government recognise that and therefore two weeks ago, during the visit to this country of President Zhelev, we extended the know-how fund to Bulgaria.

There is evidence that Romania is also pressing ahead with reform. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noted last Tuesday's speech by the Romanian Prime Minister, Mr Roman, in which he emphasised his Government's intention to restructure his country's economy along free market lines. We believe that the Community must encourage and assist that process, and we welcome the decision taken last January to include Romania in the PHARE programme. That decision was reached only after the European Community had carefully monitored events in Romania over the preceding six

Column 86

months. I assure the House that the Community will continue to monitor events in Romania to ensure that reforms happen.

Sir David Steel : Political as well as economic reforms ?

Mr. Hogg : The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. I agree that political and economic reforms are linked.

Our policy towards Romania provides a good example of the Community policy of conditionality. By making support conditional upon democracy and economic liberalisation--taking the point that the two stand together--the Community encourages reforms in those areas. By delivering a programme of support, we help the reformers to honour their undertakings.

I hope that the Soviet Government have drawn the right conclusion from the delay in implementing the European Council package, and we believe that the time has come to move forward. Discussions on food aid and on credit guarantees have continued, and that work is more or less complete. The United Kingdom has insisted that food aid be properly targeted and monitored. Both food aid and credit guarantees will be under the supervision of management committees, which will permit strict member state control.

Adverting to the intervention by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow when he asked about the extent to which non-governmental organisations will be involved in monitoring distribution, I confirm that we have pressed for a role for NGOs, and that the Commission's proposal includes provision for such help. The Red Cross is an obvious candidate in that respect, and the Crown Agents are another. No decisions have been taken as to which NGOs will be involved, but that NGOs should be involved is accepted.

Discussions were resumed at today's Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, where our approach was endorsed by other member states. Financial aspects remain to be resolved with the European Parliament. The European Commission has yet to table a proposal on technical assistance, but we believe that it should continue its preparations. That view is endorsed by the Council.

However, we believe that we should hold something in reserve, so a decision on the Commission's expected proposal on technical assistance will be taken in the light of the political and economic situation then prevailing. Only then will it be right to decide whether the financial perspectives should be amended to permit the release of the funds necessary to support the programme.

Mr. Anderson : The Minister mentioned the Red Cross in relation to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about NGOs. May one take it that, in addition to working through those agencies, the British Government and the Community will work through the republic Governments, as well as through the central Government? There is clearly a power struggle under way between the Kremlin and individual constituent republics.

Mr. Hogg : Yes, for the reasons suggested by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, and by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. It is important not to support by the provision of aid simply

Column 87

the status quo or the Governments that are too closely associated with the ancien regime. It is often important to deliver aid at the lowest effective level.

It is the British Government's earnest wish that conditions within the Soviet Union will permit early Council agreement to an extensive Community programme of technical assistance and, in due course, to a broader framework for our respective relations.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : The Government keep talking about the Soviet Union, perhaps quite rightly, but what is the Soviet Union today? Only yesterday, we heard that 70 or 80 per cent. of the population of Estonia and Latvia do not want their countries to remain part of the USSR. Will we not have to give serious consideration to helping countries such as Romania and Bulgaria individually? To put it bluntly, the USSR no longer really exists as a power bloc that is able to assist all the countries that are going through what we in Brum call a hell of a time.

Mr. Hogg : I cannot entirely follow my hon. Friend in that. There is a distinction to be drawn between, on the one hand, Romania and Bulgaria, which are sovereign states, and, on the other, the three Baltic republics that are currently within the union ; and on the third hand--if one can have three hands--

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : That must be why the hon. and learned Gentleman's watch has stopped.

Mr. Hogg : --the other republics in the union.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : But they do not want it.

Mr. Hogg : So far as the three Baltic republics are concerned, we did not accept their forceful incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1941, and we hope that they can negotiate with the USSR a relationship that is acceptable to them both. As to the remainder of the Soviet Union, I remind my hon. Friend of my earlier remarks.

Mr. Foulkes : The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not in the Chamber at the time.

Mr. Hogg : I believe that my hon. Friend had a pressing engagement elsewhere, but it is always nice to see him.

It is not in our interests to seek to bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That is not the purpose of our policy. We are not in the business of doing that. Europe has much to gain from co-operation and closer links with the Soviet Union, but co-operation can continue only as long as we are confident of the Russian Government's commitment to the principles of reform. Our support for President Gorbachev is not unqualified or uncritical. We support not Mr. Gorbachev the man, but Mr. Gorbachev the reformer.

8.17 pm

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : Last year, I attended the European socialist parties congress in Berlin, just after everything started to happen in that part of the world, and was privileged to address that great assembly.

Column 88

However, I came rather low down in the pecking order after the Kinnocks, Craxis, Mitterrands and Brandts had departed, so I addressed what was left of the audience.

I was able to tell the delegates from central and eastern Europe in particular that one of the great things that the British parliamentary system teaches is how to speak to empty halls. I advised them to prepare for the day when the crowds will have left Wenceslas square, when they will also find themselves addressing empty halls. That lesson is useful, too, when contributing to foreign affairs debates in the House.

This is a timely debate, as the Prime Minister arrives in Moscow this evening, and as European Community Foreign Ministers meet in Brussels today to discuss the same subject. I am grateful to the Government for arranging this debate so soon after we requested it. I also pay tribute to the Select Committee on European Legislation, which singled out these documents as being especially important. The debate gives us a chance to review not only the Community's programmes of immediate and longer-term aid, but the prevailing circumstances in the countries of central and eastern Europe, as well as the Soviet Union itself. Understandably and inevitably, our recent preoccupation has been with the middle east rather than with the eastern part of our own continent. That preoccupation may well continue for some time, but we must never allow it to drive from our minds the dangerous fragility of the newly democratised nations in Europe. Nor should we forget the forces that are changing and, in some respects, destabilising the Soviet Union--still a military super-power with more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, and still a vitally important player in the modelling of the new international order, whenever that will take place.

There is an apparent lack of control in the Soviet Union at present--the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) perhaps took it to extremes--which must perturb all of us. I was reminded of a story told by Sir David McNee, a former Metropolitan police commissioner, about his days as a police constable in Scotland. Having stopped a car that had been weaving along the highway, he went to the car window and asked the driver to wind it down. It became glaringly obvious what was wrong. He bent down and said to the driver, "Sir, you are drunk." The driver turned on him with a grin and said, "Thank God ; I thought that my steering had gone."

There is a feeling that eminent men are sitting in the Kremlin wondering whether they are drunk or whether the steering has gone. But, of course, the Soviet Union is still crucially important in world affairs, which is precisely why our Prime Minister is in Moscow this evening, and why his discussions there are so important. This may not be the place in which to say this, but, when we consider providing aid for our own continent, we must constantly remember the fate of the millions who, as we speak, are dying in the African famines. We must never allow our proper concern for the stability of Europe and the long-term democratic base of our neighbours to divert attention or resources from the pressing and urgent demands for the feeding of the millions who now face starvation.

The documents that we are considering allow us both to examine the programme of food aid to the Soviet Union--which, latterly, has turned out to be somewhat controversial--and to hear the Minister confirm that

Column 89

humanitarian aid has, indeed, reached the Soviet citizens for whom it was primarily intended. I am sure that I am not alone in welcoming the fact that the Government are considering establishing that by means of non-governmental organisations such as the Red Cross and the excellent Crown Agents.

There is no shortage of food in the Soviet Union, which can cope easily with the food demands of its own population. The problem, which has created a crisis for, especially, those living in the cities, is the collapse of the distribution network in that huge country. While we may criticise a system that provides for shortages, we cannot get over the fact that it is the people themselves who are suffering.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : My hon. Friend said, rather woundingly, that I had been extreme. That is not in my nature.

The problems faced by those in the Soviet Union are very much of their own making. They gave thousands of millions of dollars of aid to Cuba, and still do so ; they gave thousands of millions of dollars to support the fighting in Afghanistan, and thousands of millions of dollars to Iraq, all of whose weapons turned out to be like the weapons of toy soldiers.

The idea that someone is extreme, or is exposing himself in public, if he draws attention to such matters does not hold water. Russia must be told, "Your days are over." It is no good the hon. Gentlemen saying that it is extreme to say such things ; by one means or another, we want a peaceful entente.

Mr. Robertson : First, let me apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him extreme. His moderation is highlighted by the fact that he calls me his hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : His steering has gone.

Mr. Robertson : I assure my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman's steering has not gone. I took exception, however, to his implication that the Soviet Union no longer existed as a nation. Of course it has major problems, and considerable difficulties face its administration ; but it is still there, and still represents a significant force in the world today. None of the facts adduced by the hon. Gentleman diminish that truth, but I accept his apologies for calling me a friend.

The debate also allows us to examine the mechanics of the European Community, and some of the more substantial programmes of technical assistance in which it has been involved, including the PHARE programme-- Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much of that programme will emanate from this country. As he will know better than I, PHARE programmes are initiated by individual Community countries. Accusations have been made, I hope unfairly, that we are not getting our fair share of the programmes set up under this admirable scheme. I am sure that the Minister will want to correct that impression before it is too widely accepted.

Last month, in an excellent article in the Financial Times, Mr. David Buchan--who provides an enormous amount of information for all of us-- called the European Community the

"World leader of the salvation army'".

Given the obligations that it has taken on under the G24 programmes, that is what it increasingly resembles.

Column 90

The importance of our assistance to these countries should never be underestimated, and it would be helpful if the Community, as well as others, stopped calling it aid. Not only is that not a fair or accurate description of the technical and economic co-operation in which we are involved ; it has the doubly harmful effect of legitimising an apparent competition with the third world. Assistance with the setting up of a stock market in Budapest, or a school for auditors in Prague, is radically different from the provision of food and medicine for starving babies in Ethiopia and Sudan. They must never be seen to be in competition for the same finite resources, and it is a matter of shame that some countries and individuals have raided one to pay for the other.

None the less, it may be prudent to remind ourselves why we are involved in the provision of assistance for central and eastern Europe. It has only a little to do with altruism and moral obligation and a good deal to do with self-interest. There is nothing unwise or reprehensible in that, of course, as self-interest has motivated international relationships down the centuries. It was, indeed, self-interest--interest in our own survival-- that drove us for 45 years to invest vast, almost limitless, funds to defend ourselves from a threat from the military machine of the eastern bloc. It must be in that same self-interest to ensure that instability and economic self-destruction do not become the hallmark of the newly liberated nations of eastern Europe.

We must welcome, as I am sure the Minister does, the moves by the Community to construct new association agreements, fashioned as European agreements to distinguish them from the others, which I hope will lead in the foreseeable future to full Community membership for those countries. It is also sensible that we restrict the countries, for the moment at least, to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but in the long term and even in the medium term we must not be seen to exclude Bulgaria and Romania.

More than anything else, it was a tide of unsatisfied consumer pressure-- people materially denied by corrupt and unworkable economic systems--which finally swept away the communist states. How ironic it would be if a disillusionment with the alternative systems were to bring other nastier alternatives back to power.

Only two weeks ago Mr. Miklos Nemeth, the former Prime Minister of Hungary who is now, admirably, vice-president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, said :

"The democracy of poverty is dictatorship. Real democracy can only be achieved against a background of economic security."

He concluded :

"The future--not only the future of Central Europe but the safety of the whole of Europe, largely depends on how the former West and the former East are able to make this recognition a reality in practical economic co- operation."

Those were wise words to which we should listen with great care, as we should listen to the views of the Bank for International Settlements whose recent quarterly report made it clear that : "official aid is critical to the success of the economic reform in the region."

All that is self-evident, but it needs constant repetition to get the business and financial world to listen. I know that the Government have made great strides through the know-how funds, on the advisory board of which I serve with the Minister, and through the instruments that we are

Column 91

extremely fortunate to have. In particular, I think of the British Council with its network already in place to ensure that our assistance gets right to the grassroots quickly. We should also pay tribute to the Confederation of British Industry, whose scheme for training managers has been a great success and, I understand, is to be expanded.

Mr. Foulkes : The co-operative movement, too.

Mr. Robertson : Indeed, I also pay tribute to the co-operative movement. It has acted as an example in setting up co-operatives and a form of a co-operative bank. Such matters cannot be left to luck and good fortune. Public stimulus will continue to be required if the private sector is to be encouraged to move into these regions. In addition to the shock to the eastern economies brought about by having to pay new higher prices for Soviet oil and in hard currency at that, is the shock of the Gulf impact on overall oil prices and supply. Where it was difficult and dangerous to restructure economies, the task has been made even more dangerous and risky --all at a point where access to international lending has been severely restricted. Unemployment, a previously unknown experience, is rising in all the countries and it may well provide a breaking-point strain for the shaky, democratic institutions.

The practice of government is not strange to any of those countries, even if it is now much more difficult than when all dissent was suppressed. What is crucially missing is the practice of opposition--that patient, frustrating mixture of criticism of Government and the assembly of a palatable alternative. We have built up that expertise over 12 years and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy it before the year is out. That careful mixture of responsible, loyal opposition will be crucial for the long-term, political stability of those nations and is essential in providing a secure environment for economic investment.

Last week we received a prescient warning from two senior citizens of the central and east European environment. President Havel of Czechoslovakia said of his country :

"The danger lies in permanent instability and chaos, which would affect not only neighbouring countries but also Europe and the entire world."

Then, in the words of Mr. Adam Michnik, the prominent Polish opposition figure and editor of the Solidarity daily newspaper, Gaseta Wyborcza --I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for help in pronunciation because he trained in the diplomatic service and his language skills are much greater than mine :

"the cult of the central plan has been replaced across Eastern Europe by the cult of the free market."

He also warned that these societies were psychologically unprepared to deal with the effects of that--unemployment and bankruptcies--at a time of rising consumerist expectations. Those are serious signals from serious, responsible, distinguished politicians in central Europe. They point to the problems which face them and which we must face.

The Minister was right to point out the qualitative and quantitative difference in the Soviet Union from that of the new democracies. It is right that we should treat carefully the type of assistance and its targeting that we give to the Soviet Union. I, too, believe that President Gorbachev

Column 92

deserves and should continue to receive our support. After all, his experiment is a mere six years old and it has changed the face both of the USSR and the world. However, there are forces abroad in the Soviet Union--anti-western, right-wing and isolationist. That is a tide that we cannot encourage. It means that the assistance, both humanitarian food aid and technical, offered by the Community and Britain must be selectively directed and conditional on the maintenance of the improved human rights and reform record that we have seen since President Gorbachev came to power.

We cannot overstate the influence that we shall have. We must not be over- moralistic, because the size of the Soviet Union and its problems is so vast that its salvation can eventually come only from inside. We can make our views known and hope that they will help to keep the right pressure in the right direction.

There are major dangers ahead for the countries of east and central Europe, but we face some of those dangers ourselves. Just as the unification of Germany gained its impetus from the pressure to emigrate west if nothing was done, so if our assistance falters or if we fail to deliver what is necessary to underpin the democratic experiment that is going on, the fall- out may not stay easily confined at home and will certainly not be confined to the Oder-Neisse line. Sometimes I fear that it could become one of the biggest problems that we may face in the late 1990s. I believe in being optimistic and that there is a case for optimism, but that prospect is, indeed, a spectre that is realistically before us. That, alone, should be enough to motivate us for the better.

8.38 pm

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel) : I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the two Front-Bench spokesmen. It is important in these matters that, as far as possible, a common voice should come from this House, and I believe that it has. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister put the matter into perspective persuasively and helpfully and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), reflecting his work on the advisory body for the know-how funds and the Great Britain-East Europe Centre, brought breadth of vision to the subject. I welcome this debate, and I want to concentrate on Bulgaria for reasons which I shall explain.

I was glad to see the relatively late addition to the proposals of medical assistance, which has been added to food assistance in the cases of Romania and Bulgaria. I shall not repeat the arguments about the Soviet Union except to say that one of the best ways of helping the democratic and economic development that we all want in the Soviet Union is to help its former satellite countries to become successful in their own right. In a limited way they can show economic and democratic developments going hand in hand and working, and that may help the Soviet Union.

I wish to discuss Bulgaria partly because I am chairman of the British- Bulgarian parliamentary group and partly because Bulgaria has not featured as largely in these debates as it should have--partly because of its small size compared with that of the Soviet Union and also because countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland tend to have their natural constituencies of interest. They draw in private investment in a way that is more difficult for Romania and Bulgaria to achieve. Whatever one says

Column 93

about Ceausescu's regime, it had at least the one great advantage of leaving his country with virtually no foreign debt, which gives Romania a certain amount of elbow room. Moreover, in the strange way in which these things happen on our country, media interest in Romania, for reasons on which I need not expand, has been great. In my constituency--this may be mirrored throughout the country--there is enormous interest in the voluntary sector in supporting Romania, especially its AIDS-infected babies. Every month a lorry with food and medical supplies leaves my constituency for Romania.

Against that background, I want to discuss Bulgaria's problems, which have gone largely unknown hitherto. I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the economic and political reforms which were recognised in the announcement of the know-how fund. The visit by President Zhelev was timely in that regard. There are grounds for optimism about a growing interest in Bulgaria given the number of exhanges between, for instance, this House and that country. There was a recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit, and the CBI is looking into the possibility of joint ventures. The Great Britain- East Europe Centre, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and certain Opposition Members serve, will also help to redress the balance and meet the need for greater understanding of the great humanitarian needs of Bulgaria. I visited Bulgaria in 1988 for the first time since becoming a Member of this House, but I was there before, in the 1960s. There has been a sad progression in that country. It became almost helpless following the break-up of the traditional Soviet and east European trading patterns. Bulgaria is a small country with only 9 million people. In some ways it used to be the fruit basket of the communist bloc ; suddenly it found itself in an exposed position. Its relationship with the Soviet Union broke down and the break-down of its barter trade with oil was also a factor.

Bulgaria produces oil but has to blend it with imports of oil, as does Britain, so it has experienced great difficulty because of rising oil prices and because--this brings us nearer to home--it is owed large sums of money by Iraq. Iraq's unwillingness to pay its debts of recent years has caused great difficulties for many countries, including Bulgaria.

Bulgaria is heavily dependent on electricity--hence the importance once again of oil. Almost everyone in Sofia cooks with electricity ; vast numbers of people must sit hungry in the cold and dark. And there are chronic shortages of medicine.

The food shortages have not been as bad as they might have been because this winter has been relatively mild, but I am advised of extreme shortages of meat, eggs, butter, sugar, cheese and cooking oils. Prices are 10 times what they were a year ago. People can buy food, at uncontrolled prices, because of the slaughter of milk cows and of poultry that should really be used for egg production. The motion this evening suggests a way of beginning to help to get a free market working in countries such as Bulgaria. The present price distortions are leading to hoarding and black marketeering. The urgent provision of food from Community surpluses gives us a chance to get prices back into balance and to make hoarding a less attractive proposition. I welcome the proposals in that direction in the motion.

Column 94

I should like the Minister to put the food and medical aid that we are discussing in a wider context. What estimate has been made of the effect of this aid? How far will it meet the need and complement other aid of which we are aware? Over what period will it take effect? In what sense is it related to other relevant aid--for instance, for food production? Bulgaria used to be a natural food producer and processor ; tourism was also important, and there was some light industry. It is of the utmost importance that the country's food production be restored. It is said that next year's harvest may be doomed for lack of the necessary agro-chemicals and investment.

Last December the state monopolies in tobacco, fruit, vegetables and poultry were all disbanded. They were closed down, and their component parts are now small companies in a free market economy. Naturally, I welcome that, but the process urgently requires certain skills and inward investment. The latter is arriving only slowly and Bulgaria has had to attract British companies in competition with other countries in central and eastern Europe. There are ways of helping the country internally--in management training, in finance and in marketing. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about how the know-how fund is related to what we are discussing, and about how we shall bridge the gap between Bulgaria's needs and what it is receiving. I welcome the extension of the know-how funds to Bulgaria. It is clear that it is directly related to the process of trying to develop a free market.

How far does what we are currently doing help to forward the attempt by Bulgaria to establish a more free-standing and logical structure for its food and food processing industries? How far is that seen not just by the Government but by the Community as a continuing process of aid? There is a real fear of deaths this winter in Bulgaria and those who will suffer are the most vulnerable--the old and the very young. There are real problems of malnutrition and hypothermia and a shortage of medical supplies.

The hon. Member for Hamiliton was right to remind us that we cannot divorce the subject of the debate from the overwhelming problems in Africa and Asia which suffer from famine. However, in Bulgaria there are fears of famine. I am told that for some time there has been no insulin or none of the equipment that is necessary to test blood for the presence of hepatitis or AIDS. Drugs sold on prescription and even everyday drugs such as aspirin are not available.

Helping Bulgaria cannot be a matter just for the Government or our partners in the Community. Every hon. Member has a role. Widespread recognition has been accorded to Romania, and it is reasonable to suggest that it should extend to Bulgaria. It has many similar problems, but it has not received the level of media interest that can help to bring forward voluntary help. However, such interest can lead to unfair discrepancies of the type that I have sought to outline. I hope that all hon. Members agree that it would be reasonable and appropriate to urge people to extend to Bulgaria the voluntary activity that was harnessed to help Romania.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton said that there was a need to ensure that supplies get through. They will both be aware of the new and dynamic ambassador, Mr. Ivan Stancioff, at the Bulgarian embassy. That shows that Bulgaria is addressing the problem, and I am advised that there is a depot in Reading

Next Section

Home Page