House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Oct 1991

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail thinks that this proposal is so crazy that it has released to London Members of Parliament four working documents--its internal document, the report of the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, an environmental report and a financial report? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, taken together, those reports show that no decision ever undertaken by a British Government has promised less value for money? Is he aware that, even on a cost-benefit analysis, the taxpayer will end up losing hundreds of millions of pounds?

Mr. Rifkind : We have tabled in the Vote Office the very documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, so they are not quite the revealing scoop which he thought that he had discovered. I think that most hon. Members would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the importance of ensuring a proper infrastructure to meet the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham) : Although I am sure that the majority of my constituents will welcome the choice of an east London route, will my right hon. and

Column 33

learned Friend offer more help to those living alongside the already congested rail lines of south London, which clearly will have to carry the bulk of the freight to the channel tunnel for 10 years after 1993?

Mr. Rifkind : I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend properly raises. Clearly, any new, substantial increase in railway services has implications for those living near the existing railway line. We are considering whether British Rail should be able to assist such persons. This is a difficult matter, and we shall want to consider how it can best be taken forward.

Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : Over the past few years, one of the most frustrating aspects of the delay has been the passing of the buck faced by residents when contacting British Rail and London Transport to get the issue clarified. Will the Secretary of State answer one simple question : who is now in charge of this rail project? Is it the Secretary of State for Transport, the Department of Transport, British Rail or Ove Arup? If British Rail does not agree with the route, how can we possibly expect residents to know whom to contact to discuss what is happening near their homes?

Mr. Rifkind : British Rail has said that it accepts the Government's decision on the eastern route. British Rail is now going forward, at my request, with consideration of the detailed route, and it will then carry out an environmental assessment. Therefore, any questions on this matter that the hon. Lady or her constituents wish to ask should be put to British Rail at this stage.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, I should like to congratulate him and his Ministers on stepping straight into the necessary decision on transport infrastructure. In the past, the Opposition have complained about infrastructure, but this decision has proved them absolutely wrong. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the decision to use the Ove Arup route provides a much greater opportunity for freight to travel on that line than did British Rail's south London option?

Mr. Rifkind : I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that he gave the decision. I said in my statement that I wanted the freight option to be further considered. Ove Arup has certain ideas about the use of freight on that line. Obviously, British Rail will need to consider that matter before a clear decision is made. I believe that the welcome that has been given by all parties in the House to the statement shows that the Government were correct to come to that judgment and that British Rail can realise the consequences its proposals would have had if they had been endorsed.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : May I say to the Secretary of State that he has come to almost the right decision for a number of dubious reasons? With all the confusion and mayhem, it was no way for the Government to have made such an important decision. We still do not know-- we are still uncertain after the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey)--who is in charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be in charge, and he should say so from the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that the route chosen--the Ove Arup route--is not the best one? Instead, the Government should have chosen

Column 34

the route from Hither Green to Canning Town through a tunnel, which then continues up the Lea valley to Stratford. That is the Newham-Colin Buchanan route. Has he studied that route? It would be cheaper and environmentally less damaging. It would not destroy the site of special scientific interest on Rainham marshes. He should consider that carefully. As British Rail is clearly livid with the decision, it must take seriously the fact that Stratford is to have an international station. It must be not a parkway station but a proper international station, with proper connections to the north.

Mr. Rifkind : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial welcome for the decision itself. Part of the problem associated with the proposal to which he referred, which was put forward by the London borough of Newham, was the suggestion that Stratford should be the final terminus of the high- speed line. I have already said why I thought that to be undesirable and unacceptable. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks that British Rail is required to take forward the eastern route as the basis on which the project will go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on choosing the best route for the channel tunnel rail link? It is the best route because it is best environmentally and the best operationally. It is widely welcomed in my constituency. A great burden of anxiety has been lifted from many of my constituents' heads and the community is no longer under threat. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend, however, that there is enduring and continuing blight. British Rail has purchased many houses, and the confidence of the community in the housing market has been lost. Can he give me an assurance that, when British Rail releases the houses that it owns on to the open market, it will do so in a controlled way to ensure that the market is not distorted and the community can regenerate itself?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is highly desirable that any release of the property that British Rail has acquired should take place in a controlled fashion so as not to distort the housing market either in my hon. Friend's constituency or elsewhere where the problem has arisen. He has made a reasonable point that I am happy to endorse.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : Does the Secretary of State accept that if he and his Department had listened a little more closely to Newham Members he could have made a similar announcement a long time ago, thereby saving a great deal of time and money? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us exactly what is envisaged at Stratford? Will he tell us that there will be a proper international station at Stratford? Will he undertake to consult closely with the London borough of Newham on the environmental impact and the reduced disruption and to ensure that the people of Stratford and of the east end generally get the economic and employment benefits?

Mr. Rifkind : It is envisaged that the high-speed train from the channel tunnel to King's Cross will stop at Stratford, and it is desirable to have the consultations with the local authority that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I was pleased that the leader of the Newham borough council welcomed the Government's announcement.

Column 35

Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch) : As a Member whose constituency contains the revised route, may I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that there will be a general welcome in Essex and east London boroughs for the guts of his decision? Will he confirm that the site of special scientific interest mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not be destroyed by the proposal, although it will obviously have some impact upon it? That will reassure those who heard the hon. Gentleman's comment that there will be no long-term destruction of the SSSI.

Mr. Rifkind : Naturally, we want to minimise the impact on any site of special scientific interest. Whichever route had been chosen--whether the eastern or the southern route--would have involved some effect on SSSIs ; that was unavoidable. The purpose of the environmental impact assessment will be to clarify the way in which that problem can best be accommodated.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : The Secretary of State rightly referred to the general welcome given in Scotland to the siting of the second international terminal at King's Cross. In that context, and particularly given the importance of exports to the Scottish economy, can he tell the House what discussions he is holding with the Secretary of State for Scotland, ScotRail and other interested organisations about the development of links between Scotland and King's Cross? In particular, may I remind him that Scotland does not stop at Edinburgh and Glasgow and that great importance is also attached to the matter in the north-east and the north of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind : Of course, these matters are especially important ; in a sense, they are almost more important the further north one goes. At the moment, for example, it takes about five or six days to send freight from central Scotland to Spain, whereas, once the channel tunnel is open, it will be possible to undertake the same journey in 42 to 52 hours. Likewise, the midlands and the north of England will benefit from the tunnel.

These matters are being addressed by British Rail at the moment, and one of the most important decisions that BR will be taking in the near future will involve the choice of a Scottish freightliner terminal, which also has important economic and industrial implications.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) : Notwithstanding the fact that both the new route and the previously preferred route would appear to go through my constituency, may I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend, both from a national and a regional standpoint, on the excellent common-sense decision that he has made? May I also urge him to give early consideration to the deeply serious problems of those living on the existing designated routes to the channel tunnel for whom the problems of blight are every bit as bad as for those on the previously preferred route? Will he please make an early announcement of help for those people whose houses have been rendered valueless?

Mr. Rifkind : I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm welcome of the decision itself. I am aware of the difficulties to which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) referred and, as I said, we are considering the matter to see whether it is possible, in co-operation and consultation with British Rail, to make progress on this difficult and sensitive matter.

Column 36

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Will the Secretary of State again try to explain to us why, of itself, the announcement is good news for travellers from the north, because his first attempt sounded to me like pure gobbledegook? Will he confirm that, at present, there is no guarantee of the financing of the tunnel-to-Stratford link and that, under this Government, there is even less guarantee of the link then being taken to King's Cross? The Government have again this week failed to bring the King's Cross Railways Bill back into the parliamentary timetable.

What will happen? What gurantees are there that we shall have even the point of interchange at King's Cross, let alone direct connections, to give a proper service from the north? Is not it an absolute disgrace that, on the morning after the announcement was finally made--after all the delay-- Ove Arup, the sponsor of the group, still says that it has no idea where the money is coming from? It has no idea on the tunnel-to-Stratford link ; it certainly has no idea on the Stratford-to-King's Cross link.

Mr. Rifkind : It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who made it clear that she welcomed the announcement and believed that it would be beneficial to Scotland. Moreover, I believe that the announcement has also been welcomed by Labour Members representing constituencies north of the border. The choice of King's Cross, as opposed to Stratford, as the terminus has been warmly welcomed by Scottish industry, the Scottish CBI and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that fact rather than carping about the matter.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a decision which I believe will be in the long-term interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, but may I also remind him that for many months British Rail has been telling the long-suffering commuters who use the north Kent line that the proposed fast link into central London will be their salvation? Now that that will clearly not be the case, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me and the House that money will not be diverted from much-needed commuter programmes to subsidising the fast link?

Mr. Rifkind : In its assessment of the two routes, British Rail assumed that, whichever route was chosen, there would be the same number of daily commuter services from Kent into London. Obviously the choice of route influences the places to which commuters may go and at which they may alight, but the number of commuter services will continue to be increased and improved and many commuters will benefit substantially, irrespective of the choice of route. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that there will be no question at all of commuters being expected in any way to see a diminution in their services to provide funding for the channel tunnel service. We have already made it clear that whatever route was chosen, if there were commuter benefits as a consequence of the new line, the Government would be prepared to fund those benefits in the usual way.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : As the Secretary of State has given his preference for the second terminal to be at King's Cross, will he now consider the link between Stratford and King's Cross? Will that link be through a tunnel on a dedicated line or will the north

Column 37

London line be upgraded to link with the western region and the north-west? That is important because the north London line has experienced underinvestment for some time and the people who live along that line need to be aware of the future of that route.

Mr. Rifkind : The intention is that the stretch of line between Stratford and King's Cross should be a tunnel, and that clearly will be more acceptable to people who live in the locality.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am aware of the importance of the matter, but we have a busy day before us. I will allow questions to continue for another five minutes and we must, I regret, move on. Will hon. Members please ask brief questions?

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : I do not believe that commuters will carry on as they do now as electronic communications are developing so rapidly, and I do not believe that the European Community will continue to accept the ever-increasing numbers of even heavier lorries. Freight is the key to all this. Will my right hon. and learned Friend upgrade his assurance that freight will be central to the assessment of the route?

Mr. Rifkind : It is important to ensure that the opening of the channel tunnel enables major benefits to be achieved by the United Kingdom economy as a result of improved freight times for exports and imports from sources in the United Kingdom to the continent. The Government believe that that is important, and I would expect British Rail to treat it as important.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the choice of the eastern route to King's Cross and Stratford as opposed to the central route advocated by the London borough of Newham was made for developmental reasons? Is it not a fact that lucky landowners near designated stations on the route between London and Ashford will have direct contact with Paris and London? Will that not increase the value of the land? As the Secretary of State for the Environment created the London Docklands development corporation, which has not been a general benefit to most of the inhabitants of east London, does the Secretary of State for Transport accept that there is a certain amount of cynicism about the motives of the Secretary of State and the decision taken on the matter?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman may wish to suggest that he is cynical, but that does not appear to be the reaction of those who have welcomed the project, including people in the Labour party in the London borough of Newham. The hon. Gentleman is alone in his cynicism.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on a welcome for the orderly marketing of the homes which have been bought up in my constituency and in other constituencies? Does he also recognise that delay will mean more traffic on roads through constituencies such as mine? If we can have environmental protection for a railway, why can we not have the £10 million recommended by two inspectors for the road through Oxleas wood?

Column 38

Mr. Rifkind : Each project is considered to discover whether the resources would produce a commensurate benefit. I am sensitive to the point made by my hon. Friend about Oxleas wood. He is aware of the reasons for the decision taken by my predecessor. I see no reason to depart from that conclusion.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Stratford may be the right decision, but it is not easy to tell because the Secretary of State sat on the professional reports until today. Will he be assured that my constituents in Leyton, which is next door to Stratford, will not tolerate their area being turned into a giant car park, motorway or traffic logjam to facilitate Stratford? Will he undertake urgent studies into the implications for neighbouring boroughs? The M11 link road was approved on a false prospectus. Now that Stratford has been chosen, there will be much more traffic on the road. Will the Secretary of State review urgently that Department of Transport scheme?

Mr. Rifkind : Naturally, all the local boroughs will wish to consider the implications of the announcement in terms of their own traffic patterns. We are anxious to ensure that there should be the maximum benefit from the choice of the eastern route. It has been widely welcomed, but I accept that a lot of detailed work of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman and others have referred needs to be done.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : As a Member whose constituency has been directly affected as it is on the north side of the Thames, may I give a qualified welcome to the scheme, provided that the railway line travels through the derelict marshland which borders much of the north side of the Thames and will not take out the 18th hole of the Orsett golf course? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the needs of the commuters who use the congested and almost derelict Fenchurch Street line will also be borne in mind so that as the new railway line is developed it may offer better facilities for the commuters who daily use that appalling railway?

Mr. Rifkind : I must confess that those who briefed me on the likely questions to be raised by hon. Members did not anticipate concern about the 18th hole at my hon. Friend's golf course. I cannot comment specifically on the implications for that site, although it would probably come under the environmental impact assessment to which I referred. I assure my hon. Friend that the points that she has raised, which are important, will be taken into account.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the channel tunnel link is to have any benefit to people in the midlands or the north, we in turn need good direct rail access to London? In that connection, what will he do about British Rail's decision to axe the inter-city route from Telford to London, which is a grave threat to the economic development of the region? When will he set British Rail free and allow it to electrify the line from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury?

Mr. Speaker : That question is a bit wide of the statement.

Mr. Rifkind : I expect British Rail to take into account demand for the line and the likely use of any of its services when determining whether to continue or terminate them.

Column 39

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : None of the proposed routes has ever gone through my constituency, but my constituents look forward to the day when some relief is given to the north Kent line. They hope to see that route planned and built much sooner than the most pessimistic estimates of 2005, for they look forward to relief from their daily misery on what is the worst commuter line in the country.

Mr. Rifkind : There appears to be substantial competition among hon. Members for that title. I recognise my hon. Friend's point ; it is a perfectly fair comment. His constituents are not as well served as they should be, and my hon. Friend is right to draw that point to the attention of the House.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all hon. Members who wished to speak, but I shall certainly bear them in mind when we return to this matter.

Column 40

Yugoslavia

4.37 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on events in Yugoslavia.

When the House rose for the summer recess, it was clear that Yugoslavia was facing a major crisis--and indeed Europe a major challenge. Since then, and despite many determined attempts by the European Community, the crisis has deepened. The fighting that we have witnessed is dreadful.

Together with our European partners, we have tried to restore the peace. British monitors have been involved in the European Community's efforts to stabilise the situation in Slovenia and Croatia and to negotiate local ceasefires. We hope that this operation will soon be extended to Bosnia- Hercegovina and other areas. The bravery of the monitors is much to be commended and their presence in Slovenia has significantly contributed to the peace in that republic. Yet more important is the conference in The Hague, convened under Lord Carrington's chairmanship, to discuss the future of Yugoslavia. This is the only framework in which the various parties can discuss their differences--it is important that it should continue.

Sadly, there have been repeated ceasefire violations--on both sides. The Yugoslav federal army has continued to bombard civilian targets, despite the signatures of the Serbian President and the Yugoslav Defence Minister on numerous ceasefire agreements. Irregulars on both sides have been active. It is proving extremely difficult to halt the fighting. Political leaders on both sides must reassert control over the military and the irregulars. We shall apply all the political pressure that we can. European Community Foreign Ministers have looked closely at the economic and other measures which can be applied to Yugoslavia. We are considering the suspension of the Community trade and co-operation agreement with Yugoslavia and also an oil embargo. We will consider other steps, including action at the United Nations. We need to ensure that as far as possible the measures are selective, hitting the guilty rather than the innocent. The only solution that can last is a political one, freely reached among the Yugoslavs themselves. There is no military solution to this problem, let alone one imposed from outside. In the present circumstances "peacekeeping" is not a policy option--because there is no peace to keep : we cannot use our forces to separate the combatants. In common with our European partners, we are clear that there cannot be a peacekeeping role until there is a durable and effective ceasefire and until all the parties agree to have foreign forces deployed on their soil. Also, it is vital that a peacekeeping operation should in itself contribute to a solution of the underlying political problems.

Yugoslavia cannot be held together by force : nor can the old Yugoslavia be recreated. The republics that wish to achieve independence will have it : that principle is not in doubt : what is still uncertain is when and how. The independence of one or more republics should not be achieved at the expense of others. We believe that it is right to work for an overall settlement. Without one there can be no effective guarantees for the rights of minorities ; unless minority rights are protected the region will remain unstable.

Column 41

Together with our partners, we are ready to help the people of Yugoslavia to find a way out of their nightmare. The fighting must stop. Wholehearted negotiations must begin. That is the only way forward.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : I thank the Minister for his statement. Like him, we deplore the loss of life and the damage to property consequent on the tragic conflict in Yugoslavia. We condemn the bombardment by the Yugoslav federal forces of the international treasure of Dubrovnik. All such action must stop, or else the international community must take action to stop it. We support all efforts by the European Community and the work of Lord Carrington to end the fighting and to bring an end to the conflict, because without that no settlement of these difficult problems is possible. We also pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the British monitors.

Although we endorse all the action that has been taken by the European Community, we believe that the United Nations Security Council should be more actively involved. Resolution 713 of 25 September rightly commends the efforts of the European Community, but, equally rightly, states :

"the continuation of this situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security".

We support the arms embargo that was imposed by that Security Council resolution. Although we would support the suspension of the European Community's trade and co-operation agreement and an oil embargo by the EC, we believe that such action should be much wider in scope and should be undertaken by means of a Security Council resolution. Will the Government consider sponsoring such a resolution?

It is clear that the Yugoslavia that was can never be put together again. The new structure that will emerge from the present turmoil must respect national and ethnic aspirations within a context of stability and guarantees for the rights of minorities. Whether those objectives can be achieved will be a critical test of the new world order.

Mr. Hogg : I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and am grateful to him for the support that he has given the Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the United Nations Security Council has a role to play. He knows that the British Government supported resolution 713 and played a part in its drafting.

He also knows that the Secretary-General has been invited to report to the Security Council and that he has sent to Yugoslavia Mr. Cyrus Vance who, I hope, will report back to him before the end of the week. It may very well be that we should seek another resolution, but, by the nature of things, we must await the report of the Secretary-General's representative.

I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about minority rights. The protection of minority rights is one essential if a peaceful solution is to be long lasting.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : Is my hon. Friend aware that Ministers' efforts to deal with the tragedy during the summer months are much to be commended, as are the Herculean efforts of Lord Carrington in trying to bring peace to the tragedy? We all admire what he has undertaken to do.

Both my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that

Column 42

Yugoslavia cannot be recreated and that the various republics will achieve their independence. I am sure that they are right about that, but would it not be wise at this stage to advise the Serbian expansionists and Mr. Milosevic that that will happen--that there will be independence and that the Serbian minority in Croatia must be guaranteed its position and its safety, and that, given that that independence will be recognised by the EC and the wider community of nations, there is no point in Mr. Milosevic, with the help of the federal troops, continuing the bombing, killing and bombardment in an attempt to seize Croatian soil? Would not that be the way to bring home the utter pointlessness and futility of this tragedy continuing?

Mr. Hogg : Again, I find myself in considerable agreement with what has been said. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks about Ministers and entirely endorse his comments about the sterling efforts of Lord Carrington. The Serbian Government know the positions of the European Community and the United Kingdom Government--that we think that the republics will achieve their independence and that that principle is not in question. Indeed, Mr. Milosevic appears to have conceded that Croatia is entitled to its independence. However, the Serbians need to understand that the international community will not accept or tolerate any change in internal frontiers by force. I took the opportunity of a recent meeting with the deputy Prime Minister of Serbia to spell out that fact clearly.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : If we accept that there is now no Yugoslavia, why are we talking about sanctions? If sanctions were applied to the whole of what was Yugoslavia, they would inevitably be one-sided as we are witnessing an all-out attack by land, sea and air on Croatia by the Serbian military leadership. Has the resolution of the plenary session of the Council of Europe on 21 September, which argued for recognition of Slovenia and Croatia and for the sending of a United Nations peacekeeping force, been drawn to the Minister's attention? Does he agree that the chances of such a peacekeeping force succeeding are now greater because it could supervise the withdrawal of the federal troops from Croatia and give the Serbian enclave some confidence? Will the Minister reconsider his position? Does he recognise that, contrary to what he has said, many people feel that, on this matter, the European Community and the United Kingdom have been slow, divided and ineffective?

Mr. Hogg : I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman's last criticisms. The European Community has acted in a co-ordinated and coherent way and its policy has been broadly supported. The hon. Gentleman does, however, have a point about sanctions. The trouble is that sanctions are a blunt instrument, which is why I said that we are trying to devise a selective approach to that matter. With regard to peacekeeping, I must reiterate what I have already said. It is not a case of peacekeeping, because there is no peace to keep. It would be a case of using our forces to prise combatants apart, which is wholly different. A situation may arise in which a peacekeeping force could be deployed, but it has not yet arisen. There is, of course, an argument in favour of recognition, but, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly said, the

Column 43

problem is that minority rights are at the heart of this matter. I refer, for example, to the issue of minority rights for the Serbian enclaves within Croatia. They are best safeguarded within an overall agreement. In an ideal world, recognition of independence should follow that overall agreement.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that from the Croatian point of view the United Nations arms embargo is merely a reinforcement of the current position, which means that the federal troops--in reality the Serbian troops--have hundreds of tanks, guns and aeroplanes, while the Croatians have only a motley variety of small arms? Is not there a danger that the Serbians will advance village by village and slaughter the majority of the Croatian population?

Mr. Hogg : I know that my hon. Friend was in Croatia last week and therefore brings to this sad question a great deal of personal experience and knowledge. However, we would not advance the cause of peace in that part of the Balkans by introducing more weaponry. There is a great deal of weaponry already there. I would not urge the House, or, indeed, anyone else, to import arms into Croatia.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : I commend the emphasis placed by the Minister on the political and humanitarian efforts made by the EEC, but will he watch the French, Germans and Italians, who seem to be leading us into a military involvement? If they want to know more about it, they should have a word with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who can tell them that it is a good deal more difficult than it looks from the outside.

Mr. Hogg : The words of the right hon. Gentleman are wise indeed. I suspect, although I have not asked him, that they would be echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). For the reasons which I have already outlined to the House, I do not believe that we should introduce troops of any kind into Croatia at this time.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : The House will be grateful to the Minister for giving an account of the Government's policies and actions on this tragic matter during the summer recess. Those actions appear to have the general support of the House. Following on from the previous question, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that one action of the Government that has the broadest support in the House is that of seeking to curb the desires of those hotheads within the European Community who at one time appeared to want to rush in with armed forces from the Community while the fighting was continuing? The Government's action in dissuading them was most commendable.

Lastly, will the Minister please be good enough to bring up to date his advice to any British citizens who may still be in Yugoslavia and any who are contemplating going there?

Column 44

Mr. Hogg : May I deal with the last part of my right hon. Friend's question first. Our advice is not to travel to Croatia or to Bosnia- Hercegovina at all and to defer non-essential travel to other parts of Yugoslavia.

On the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, there have been voices in the Community urging a more dashing policy--that we should contemplate either recognition or the deployment of some peacekeeping forces. In fact, the European Community has acted collectively and effectively. But my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been prominent among those who argued against the dangers of both premature recognition and deploying a peacekeeping force when there was no peace to keep. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall persist in that policy.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : Will the Minister accept that it is absolutely essential that the Government maintain an even -handed approach to the Croats and the Serbs and that it is easy to be misled by some of the propaganda which seeks to tell us that somehow or other Croatia is a western democracy and Serbia is not? Tudjman and Milosevic--both of whom I met recently, as the Minister knows--appear to be feeding off one another. Both are there as a result of playing the extreme nationalist card--a growing danger in eastern Europe. It is vital that we are not rushed into a premature recognition of the independence of Croatia.

Mr. Hogg : I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I am conscious that he was in Yugoslavia during the summer recess. I am grateful to him for letting me know his experiences, which was valuable and helpful. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. There have been breaches of the ceasefire on both sides. I, too, have met Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Tudjman. In my view, they have both raised nationalistic aspirations which they should not have raised and which are difficult to satisfy. I take the point that we must be even handed, and we shall be.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : What is my hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the motivation of the federal forces and the federal Government of Yugoslivia in continuing this conflict?

Mr. Hogg : It is not easy for me to be sure about this. In any case, I would make a distinction between the federal Government and the federal army, the JNA. I do not think that the federal Government have very much authority. Most certainly, the federal Prime Minister, Mr. Markovic, does not.

I suppose that there are at least two explanations of what motivates the JNA . It is either to protect the Serbian enclaves in Croatia or to reassert and reimpose communist control over the entirety of Yugoslavia, or at least the entirety of Yugoslavia minus Slovenia. I had better leave it to hon. Members to decide which is the best explanation.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : As everyone says, it appears to be true that Yugoslavia is finished. The more that some of us look at it, the more of a bloody pity that seems to be. In all of the Government's dealings in the matter, will they bear it in mind that the issue is not only the fight between Serbia and Croatia or Slovenia but that there are many nationalities in Yugoslavia whose rights and interests must be protected? Will the Minister accept that we must guard against a carve- up of Bosnia by the Croatians and the Serbians

Column 45

together? Perhaps more importantly, will he bear in mind the potential for devastating violence implicit in the continued domination of the 2.5 million Albanians in the Kosovo by Serbia and the dangers of an international conflict arising out of that repression, which goes on almost unreported by the British media?

Mr. Hogg : I am always a little uneasy when I find myself lodged in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman says, but that does not alter the fact that on this occasion I am. I agree that, in the sense that we have known it until this year, Yugoslavia is finished. Whether there will be a new association of a much looser nature remains to be seen.

The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about the problems of minorities. I stressed that point in replying to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the position of the Albanians, particularly in the Kosovo. There are also many Albanians in Macedonia, for example. He is also right to emphasise the position of Bosnia. All those points underline the importance of not prematurely recognising Croatia and Slovenia. The recognition of those two republics should come in the framework of an overall agreement which addresses particular points such as those which the hon. Gentleman and I have just identified.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : I accept the broad thrust of what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said. I returned from Croatia less than 24 hours ago. Will he give the gravest consideration to Croatia's deep resentment that democracies of long standing have not been more vigorous in championing its bid to become an independent democracy and effectively to deter Serbian aggression? I also stress that Croatia expects the United Kingdom to take a lead in granting a recognition of independence, not least to atone in part for the United Kingdom's role in submitting Croatia to many years of slavery to Marxism.

Mr. Hogg : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been good enough already to tell me about his experiences in Croatia. I recognise that within Croatia there is a degree of disappointment that European Community countries in general and the United Kingdom in particular have not recognised its independence. However, I and many others urged the Croatians --Mr. Tudjman and many of his colleagues--not to adopt the policy of a unilateral declaration of independence. I am sorry that they did not take that advice because the arguments against premature recognition of their independence are powerful and persuasive.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Why hesitate over an oil embargo?

Mr. Hogg : There are problems with an oil embargo and perhaps I can explain them to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do not think that it would have an early effect because the JNA has substantial reserves of oil. Secondly, there already is an effective cutting of the oil supplies that come from within Croatia and that does not seem to have had a considerable effect on the Serbs for the moment. Moreover, and perhaps more difficult, the main source of supply is Greece, which has made it plain that she would have considerable difficulties with interfering with that oil supply, certainly without the authority of the United

Column 46

Nations. Therefore, there are substantial practical difficulties in the way of an early oil embargo, although we are looking at it extremely seriously.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I shall take two more Members from each side, but then we must move on.

Next Section

Home Page