| Home Page |
Column 1137
Yugoslavia
3.31 pm
Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Yugoslavia and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : As hon. Members will know, the Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Slovenia issued declarations of independence on the evening of 25 June. The Yugoslav federal authorities responded by declaring those declarations illegal and by mobilising military units in both republics. The extent of those deployments is unclear, but their primary purpose seems to be to maintain federal control of Slovenia's borders. The three airports in Slovenia are closed. A small number of deaths have been reported in Croatia from clashes between the police and the Serbian community. The level of tension is now dangerously high.
The Slovene and Croat leaders deny that they intend to secede and say that they are willing to continue negotiations with the other republics. We welcome their willingness to persevere in the search for new constitutional arrangements.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expect to discuss the crisis with our European Community colleagues in Luxembourg tomorrow. Our primary purpose will be to use every means at our disposal to urge the Yugoslav republics to avoid bloodshed and to resolve their differences through negotiation. We stand by the declaration that was issued by the 35 countries of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Berlin on 19 June, which stressed that the way out of the present difficult impasse should be found through democratic development, without recourse to the use of force and in conformity with Yugoslavia's legal and constitutional procedures.
I believe that the Slovene and Croat leaderships should seek their future in the framework of a single reformed Yugoslav state, based on consent, within the country's existing borders. The form of that state can be decided only by the Yugoslav peoples. With our European Community partners, we stand ready to give any practical assistance that the Yugoslavs may need to achieve that aim.
Mr. Fry : I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Will he join me in expressing concern and sympathy for all the peoples of Yugoslavia? Will he confirm that it is the Government's view that, if widespread civil disturbance is to be avoided and international confidence restored in that country, there must be many more concessions and compromises by all the parties and all the republics in Yugoslavia? That is necessary if legitimate individual liberties and reasonable freedom of choice are to be ensured.
What advice is my hon. Friend giving the many British subjects who are on holiday in Yugoslavia or are contemplating going there over the next few weeks?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in expressing concern and sympathy about the
Column 1138
developments in Yugoslavia. As I said, the future of Yugoslavia is a matter for the Yugoslav peoples. Of course, we will do everything we can to help in any way if requested by the Yugoslav peoples. At present, we do not think that it is necessary to advise those who are on holiday to leave. However, our advice is that all non-essential visits to Yugoslavia should be postponed. We are, of course, reviewing the situation on a day-to-day basis.Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : Does the Minister recognise that some of us believe that Yugoslavia is a prime example of a failure to apply federal principles and that the imposition of a centralised, autocratic state may give way to better arrangements as the British Government wish?
Will the Minister make it clear at the Council of Ministers meeting that, if the military uses force against or slaughters the people of Yugoslavia, that will lead not only to the cessation of western help but to the country's immediate expulsion from observer status at the Council of Europe?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it would be particularly helpful if this afternoon we discussed the future of Yugoslavia along the lines which he suggested. However, I can confirm that over the past six months we have repeatedly made it clear to the Yugoslav authorities that we would deplore the use, or the threat, of force to intimidate or coerce the democratically elected Governments of Slovenia and Croatia. I must add, however, that the Yugoslav federal army might have, under the constitution, a role in restoring order if there were widespread civil unrest.
Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the fragmentation of Yugoslavia may have its dangers, we should be careful about the kind of unity we back? The unity that is sought has a brutal and reactionary side to it. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should perhaps analyse that carefully and realise that Slovenia and Croatia deserve some sympathy in their desire to escape from that domination? My hon. Friend speaks of a reformed Yugoslavia. That is the right emphasis, rather than just blandly supporting the present attempts at imposing unity on the Croatian and Slovenian people.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : We and our western partners have a clear preference for the continuation of a single Yugoslav political entity-- those words are carefully chosen and are capable of being developed and further interpreted. I can confirm that we are concerned at persistent human rights abuses in some parts of Yugoslavia, notably in the Albanian province of Kosovo.
Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : What is being done about our citizens who are on holiday in Yugoslavia? In my experienced, there is much brutality hidden in the various republics. If any of my people were there, I would want to be sure that there were contingency plans to get them out.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I have already answered a question about that, but I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman
Column 1139
that, although our advice is that those people on holiday in Yugoslavia need not leave as of this moment, that position is reviewed on a daily basis.Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the principle of self-determination of freely and democratically elected Governments is one which the Foreign Office should not treat lightly, and that if there is to be condemnation of any course of action it should be a condemnation of sabre rattling and the coercive use of force by the central power, in this case the central power of Yugoslavia? If the wishes of the freely elected Governments of Croatia and Slovenia are ignored, that precedent will re-echo around eastern Europe, and it will not do that cause of democracy any good at all.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : As I said earlier, it was very much in the minds of the 35 countries of the CSCE meeting in Berlin that the way out of the difficult impasse should be found through democratic development, and we are very mindful of the need to respect that aspiration.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : Does the Minister see a parallel between the position of the northern republics of Yugoslavia and that of the Baltic states? In both cases, democratic Governments are trying to break free from former communist states, and the former communist states are using force to prevent that. Is it not sad that in both cases this Government are, in effect, lining up behind the former communist regime to obstruct democracy?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : We can all develop our ideas in discussions with our Yugoslav friends and contacts. I said--and I reiterate--that I do not think that it would be wise to debate these matters on the Floor of the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Does my hon. Friend accept that the tragic events in Yugoslavia highlight the general threat of mass immigration from the Balkans and the Soviet Union into the European Economic Community? Will he assure the House that the Government will continue to resist the policy of a free flow of immigrants across national borders within the EEC and that they are also taking contingency measures to plan for mass immigration into the EEC, especially as regards the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I hope that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that although my hon. Friend's point is very important, I do not think that it would be right to pursue it this afternoon.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a private notice question. I shall accept four more questions, and then we must move on.
Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : Does the Minister believe that there is a Yugoslavian people, or does he accept that there are several quite distinct peoples locked together in an artificial nation created by the great power politics of this century, and that it does not work and has
Column 1140
not worked? Why do we not accept that the Slovene and Croat peoples have the same right to their own political and cultural identity and freedom as we have demanded for ourselves? Why are the Government propping up a bankrupt concept created by great power politics at the end of the first world war?Mr. Lennox-Boyd : It is important to recognise that the future of Yugoslavia must be for the Yugoslav people to decide, and everything that we say in the House must respect that fact. We should be happy to assist the Yugoslav people to develop their country in whatever way the constituent parts see fit.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Does my hon. Friend accept that some people believe that if countries such as Yugoslavia, Ethiopia or the Soviet Union want to break up we should let them get on with it, and that it is none of our business?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The important point made by my hon. Friend is that it is a matter for the people of the countries involved. I accept that, but if we can play a part through whatever institutions are available in helping them peacefully to that end if they so wish, it would be sensible to do so.
Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : Does the Minister agree that any crass analysis of what Yugoslavia is or is not must be balanced by the reality that even this century, great brutality has often occurred between the peoples who make up the state of Yugoslavia, and that the Stalinist regime and the regimes that have followed it have also served to mix up ethnic groups within Yugoslavia? There is no easy answer within each of the states that make up Yugoslavia. We must look very carefully before we come up with any facile recognition of the emerging states to ensure that human rights inside them are far better than they were within the state of Yugoslavia as a whole.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The hon. Gentleman has reminded us that the situation in that part of the world has been a cause of many troubles in Europe this century. I heartily agree with that and I have no intention of trying to solve the problem on my feet this afternoon.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : May I endorse completely the Government's approach on the matter, which is also, as the Minister has pointed out, the approach of the European Community and of the United States Administration? It is that there is nothing to be gained for Europe, for European security or for the different peoples of Yugoslavia from the break-up of that country or from the instability that would flow from the Balkans to the rest of Europe. It is facile to create an analogy between the Baltic states, which were annexed against their will by the Soviet Union, and the constituent republics of Yugoslavia, which came together voluntarily. If there is to be any change in the structure of Yugoslavia, it must be done by the free agreement of the constituent parts of Yugoslavia under its federal framework.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support and I confirm what he says. Clearly, we shall all have to await developments to see how we can assist all the Yugoslav people in their future.
Column 1141
Business of the House
3.46 pm
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : The business for next week will be asfollows :
Monday 1 July----Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Church of England (General Synod) Measures. Tuesday 2 July-- --Opposition day (16th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "The Housing Crisis". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Conduct of Affairs in the Privatised Electricity and Gas Industries". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Severn Bridges Bill.
Wednesday 3 July----Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on aid to Iraqi refugees, followed by a debate on future levels of employment and unemployment. Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
Thursday 4 July----Estimates day (3rd allotted day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on the steel industry, assistance to redundant steel workers, and Scottish Enterprise, followed by a debate on the waiting list initiative.
Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
At ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding estimates.
Friday 5 July----Private Members' Bills.
Monday 8 July----Consideration of Lords amendments to the Road Traffic Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 3 July to consider European Community Document No. 4466/91 relating to informing and consulting employees.
Wednesday 3 July
Estimates
Estimates class II, vote 5, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office--Overseas Development and Administration : Overseas Aid so far as it relates to aid to Iraqi refugees.
Relevant document : Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee : Aid to Iraqi Refugees, Session 1990-91 (HC 528) (to be published Monday 1 July).
Class VI, vote 1, Department of Employment : Programmes and central services and class VI, vote 2, Department of Employment : Employment Service so far as they relate to future prospects for levels of employment and unemployment.
Relevant document : Third Report from the Employment Committee : Future Prospects for levels of employment and unemployment, Session 1990-91 (HC 228).
Thursday 4 July
Estimates
Column 1142
Class IV, vote 1, Department of Trade and Industry : regional and selective assistance, suppport for aerospace, shipbuilding and steel and class XV, vote 3, training programmes and industrial support, Scotland, so far as they relate to the steel industry, assistance to redundant steel workers, and Scottish Enterprise.Relevant document : Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee : British Steel--Ravenscraig and Clydesdale, Session 1990-91 (HC 63) and Second Special Report : British Steel--Ravenscraig and Clydesdale Government Observations on the Second Report, Session 1990-91 (HC 473).
Class XIII, vote 1, hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England and class XVI, vote 8, hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales, so far as they relate to the Waiting List Initiative.
Relevant document : First Report from the Health Committee. Public Expenditure and Health Services : Waiting Lists Session 1990-91 (HC 429--i) ; Minutes of Evidence from the Welsh Affairs Committee Session 1990-91 (HC 390--i to iii).
[Wednesday 3 July
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
4466/91 Informing and Consulting Employees (European Works Councils)
Relevant report from European Legislation Committee
HC 29--xv (1990-91)]
Dr. Cunningham : Will the Leader of the House assure us that, when the Prime Minister returns from Luxembourg next week, we shall have an oral statement in the Chamber so that hon. Members of all parties not only can hear the report from the Prime Minister on the important meeting but have an opportunity to put questions to him?
May we be assured that, when we have the Opposition Supply day debate on nationalised industries which have been privatised and which have resulted in the creation of private monopoly powers, the Minister speaking for the Government will have something more to say than the Prime Minister has yet been able to manage about the grotesque abuse of those private monopoly powers and about the abuse of consumers, shown most flagrantly in the past few weeks by the enormous salary increases that people in charge of those industries have awarded themselves? Many more private monopoly industries are to report in the next few weeks. May we have an end to the abuse of their private monopoly powers and a little more defence of consumers who, after all, have no choice in the matter--and, apparently, no protection from the Government either?
On a lighter note, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the weather? The whole country is talking about it, and some people are even blaming the Government for it. Perhaps we should have a debate and, if we do, I have no doubt that it would be appropriate for one of the right hon. Gentleman's drier colleagues to report to the House.
Column 1143
Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will follow the normal convention in these matters and make a full report to the House next week.
On the second point, my right hon. Friend has already made clear his view, which I share, that excessive salary increases are not right. We believe that management should take the lead in setting an example of pay restraint. My right hon. Friend has also said, however, that these are commercial matters for the companies concerned. I am sure that whichever of my right hon. Friends deals with the debate on Tuesday will make clear to the House the considerable and wide-ranging benefits to consumers--from price increases below the level of inflation to considerable improvements in the range and standard of services--that have resulted in respect of many privatised industries.
On the third point, it is typical of the Opposition to call for Government intervention on matters right across the board. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of following the last Labour Government's example and appointing a Minister for rain, or whatever.
Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the term "market socialism" is an oxymoron, and that it is one of a growing number of terms emanating from the Opposition whose purpose is to conceal rather than to illuminate Labour's economic policies? May we have a debate on economic policy to examine the term, and others coming from the Opposition?
Mr. MacGregor : Yesterday's debate should have given us the opportunity to examine the Opposition's position on Europe and to clarify the 228-word sentence--not just two words but 228--that emanated from the Leader of the Opposition, which served to conceal the divisions rather than to enlighten anyone on the Opposition's policies. There will be a number of opportunities to consider various aspects of the Opposition's economic policy, not least when the Finance Bill returns to the House, at which point we shall be able to explore the very big increases in the basic rate of income tax to which the Opposition are committing themselves.
Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne) : Will the Leader of the House find time, next week or the week after, for a debate on the future of football in England and the blueprint that the Football Association has produced and circulated, so that the House may intervene in the disagreements between the Football Association and the Football League and so protect the smaller clubs, which would go to the wall if a super league were set up?
Mr. MacGregor : I have to say to the hon. Gentleman--as I shall probably have to say on a number of occasions this afternoon--that, if we are to rise for the summer recess at what anyone in the House would regard as a reasonable date, I shall have to refuse requests for Government time to be given to a number of subjects. We already have a great many commitments to cover, both during the remainder of this month and throughout next month. The hon. Gentleman will have to find another way of pursuing the matter in the House before the recess.
Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) : Has my right hon. Friend been made aware of the fact that, in the Republic of Ireland this morning, there was a leak of an
Column 1144
authoritative document about the MacSharry proposals on agricultural pricing? Is he aware that, if that leak is correct, and those proposals go ahead, it will be a disaster for British farmers? Can he assure me that, if there is any truth in the leak, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take an early opportunity to speak to the House about it as the matter is of supreme importance to our hard-pressed farming community?Mr. MacGregor : I have seen only this morning's press reports. I understand that there are no papers or proposals from the Commission and nothing has yet been put to the Agriculture Council. I understand that we do not expect proposals or papers to emerge until about mid-July. If the press reports prove to be correct, it would appear that the package under consideration has similar features to those to which we objected earlier this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be extremely assiduous, as he has been throughout, in opposing and rejecting proposals that discriminate against the United Kingdom's interests. I have noted my hon. Friend's request for a statement. We need to see what happens when we receive some official information about what Mr. MacSharry is likely to propose.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Will the Leader of the House persuade a Minister in the Ministry of Defence or a Minister of State at the Foreign Office to make a statement in the House next week about the news that British service men in the Special Air Services trained Khmer terrorists for six years between 1983 and 1989, something about which they misled the House and which in an answer to a planted question on 25 June, buried deep in Hansard, they now admit to? I should have thought that that should have been the subject of today's private notice question. I was surprised that the Minister could find time to come and talk about the internal affairs of Yugoslavia but have nothing to say about the grave state of affairs in which British taxpayers' money has been used to fund terrorism in Cambodia.
Mr. MacGregor : The private notice question was about Yugoslavia, and it was therefore appropriate to concentrate on Yugoslavia. With regard to the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, he will have seen in the written answer to which he referred that my hon. Friend made it clear that the United Kingdom has never, and will never, provide training to the Khmer Rouge.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there is confusion in some parts of the House about the implications of a minimum wages policy. Does he agree that a debate on that subject would flush out a few people? Conservative Members are totally opposed to such a policy because we believe that it would cause chaos. However, some Opposition Members seem to believe that a minimum wages policy would be a good thing, although they are receiving advice from eminent authorities in the socialist party that such a policy could lead to the loss of up to 2 million jobs.
Mr. MacGregor : The estimates vary, but clearly there would be a substantial number of job losses. I agree with my hon. Friend that most of the objective comments and the comments from most economists, including some who normally support the Labour party, have made it clear that there would be significant job losses. My hon. Friend
Column 1145
and others will have an opportunity to develop those points further if they so wish in the second estimates debate next Wednesday.Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 882?
[That this House views with great concern the possibility that Hanson plc will soon be making a takeover bid for ICI ; notes ICI is Britain's largest manufacturing company and a major export earner ; believes a Hanson plc takeover would result in ICI being broken-up and sold off in parts to the highest bidder, which would be a devastating blow to Britain's chemical industry which does not need another forced rationalisation ; notes ICI is one of Britain's few industrial success stories with about 70 per cent. of ICI's research being carried out in Britain with about half its manufacturing capacity based here, at over 50 production sites and with a further 200,000 jobs depending on its business in Britain ; notes the chemical industry is a net contributor to Britain's balance of trade and that if ICI is sold off it may fall into the hands of an overseas company resulting in productive capacity and research and development moving abroad, and markets won by ICI being taken over ; believes Hanson plc's record on long-term investment should give this House cause for concern as it has a very poor record on research and development expenditure in an industry where this type of expenditure is essential ; calls on the Government to indicate that it would oppose a Hanson plc takeover of ICI, and refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as being against the public and national interest ; and further calls for legislation to be introduced to tighten up regulations governing takeovers and prevent companies that invest in Britain from being taken over by unwelcome predators.]
That motion and early-day motions 997 and 1001, which have been signed by more than 100 hon. Members from both sides of the House, relate either to ICI's record or to the possibility of a takeover bid by Hanson plc. Does he agree that our largest manufacturing company--ICI--which employs directly more than 56,000 people, which spends 4.5 per cent. of its total sales on research and development and which exports more than 50 per cent. of its output is threatened by an asset stripper? Does he not agree that the uncertainty for that company should be removed? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement in the House to the effect that such a bid by Hanson would be unwelcome instead of his remaining silent, something that would not happen in any other European country, least of all in France and Germany?
Mr. MacGregor : I have said before, and I repeat, that no takeover bid has been announced. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment on a hypothetical matter.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : My right hon. Friend has always made it absolutely clear that the principal aim of the House of Commons is to ensure that we can properly question and examine the Executive. Is he aware that, following the advent of the televising of the proceedings of the House, there is widespread concern and interest among our constituents in the Opposition's policies? Will he therefore, without prejudice to his next statement, consider whether we should debate procedure in the House with the aim of instituting a question time so that Opposition policies can be properly scrutinised by Conservative Members?
Column 1146
Mr. MacGregor : I shall shortly make a statement about procedure. It will be open to my hon. Friend to put that suggestion to the Committee that I am about to announce,. We are managing to find a considerable number of opportunities to expose some of the very substantial defects in the Opposition's policies.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : The Leader of the House will be aware that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has found that 1 million people are missing from the electoral register. Should we not discuss that serious matter to discover why so many people are missing and begin to take action to put the matter right?
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before. I think that I am right in recalling that I suggested to him that there are other ways in which he can discuss this matter in the House other than in a debate in Government time, for which, quite frankly, I do not have time in the coming weeks.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : My right hon. Friend will be aware of my ten-minute Bill, which will be on next Tuesday's Order Paper. It is a matter of great concern because it relates to the loss of 420 jobs in Wigan, Skelmersdale and Warrington. The matter requires changes in company law. Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a debate next week?
Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise my hon. Friend time for a debate on that matter next week, but there will be opportunities, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. to raise such issues in debates before the recess.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : May we have a statement next week about the Leeds-Bradford electrification proposals? As the Leader of the House will know, loan approval has been given for the overhead equipment, but no approval has been given for the rolling stock to run underneath. One is absolutely useless without the other. Unless loan approval is given in the very near future, the price of rolling stock will increase, and the rolling stock manufacturer, Hunslet of Leeds, will face the possibility of having to reduce a skilled and dedicated work force.
When will the Government stop dithering, approve the programme, which has been before them for more than 12 months, and make a decision? The project is supported by all parties in the area. They want that investment, and they want the Government to stop dithering.
| Next Section
| Home Page |