House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Jun 1992

Column 707

Canary Wharf

3.30 pm

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the future of the Canary Wharf project, and what decision, if any, has been made about the transfer of civil servants.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard) : The future of the Canary Wharf development is in the hands of the administrators who were appointed last week to resolve the financial problems of Olympia and York with their creditors. The Government have made it clear that they have no intention of intervening in the affairs of the company, and it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on that at this time. There has, however, been much speculation in the media about the possible move of civil servants to docklands. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the position.

As the House knows, my predecessor decided in February that my Department's headquarters at 2 Marsham street should be demolished. [ Hon. Members :- - "Hear, hear."] That decision was widely welcomed--and clearly still is. A timetable for moving staff by the end of 1993 was then identified. In the context of that decision, consideration is being given to the relocation of those of the Department's staff who need to remain in London, but not in Westminster. As my predecessor told the House, the Department was particularly asked to examine the opportunities and value for money of relocation to docklands. It is clear that exceptional value for money may now be secured in docklands. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. This is an important statement, which I want to hear. Let us carry on with it in good order.

Mr. Howard : The work that has been done by the Department's advisers has reached a stage that makes it possible for me to announce that some 2,000 civil servants in my Department will move to docklands, provided that we are able to secure fully commercial terms giving value for money to the taxpayer. Detailed negotiations are now under way in respect of three developments : Harbour Exchange, East India dock and Canary Wharf. Subject to successful negotiations, I hope soon to proceed to the stage at which it will be possible for me to sign heads of agreement in respect of one of those developments. A number of other Departments are also considering docklands as a location for their staff. The Department of Trade and Industry is working to a timetable similar to my own in respect of the Radio Communications Agency. That Department, with a number of other major Departments--including the Department of Transport--is reviewing its future accommodation needs, and is including docklands among the options for study. Decisions are likely later this year.

In all those decisions, I have been very much aware of the concerns of staff and of the need to put in place arrangements that will help to minimise the effect of any such moves on staff in the Departments concerned.

Mr. Gould : Is it not astonishing that the Government are still dithering about accepting their responsibility for a

Column 708

fiasco that is largely of their own creation? Do not Ministers accept that it was they who irresponsibly stoked up a property boom and who equally deliberately brought it crashing down, and that it was their blind faith in market forces which excluded the interests of local people and ensured that essential infrastructure simply did not get built? Canary Wharf is a monument to the Government's folly, as well as to the folly of the banks involved.

Is it not time to do what should have been done in the first place : make a proper assessment of where the public interest, and therefore the public responsibility, lies? That can be done only on the basis of full disclosure and total transparency. It cannot be done through a back-door deal to channel taxpayers' money to Olympia and York by way of rents for office space that cannot otherwise be let. Since that is so clearly what is in Ministers' minds, what consultation, if any, has there been with the civil servants who will have to move? What assessment has been made of the costs, administrative and financial, that will be involved? What guarantee is there that there will be no element of hidden subsidy in the move that is proposed? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the response of the House to his announcement will be reflected by the response of the people of this country? They will recognise not only that the Olympia and York investment is at stake but that Ministers' reputations are being protected. Is it not the case that the public interest cannot be properly protected unless we know to what extent it is already involved? When will Ministers tell us the truth about how much taxpayers' money has already found its way into this project by way of direct grant, tax breaks and rate relief, and when will the Government publish the agreements concluded between Olympia and York and Government Departments so that we can judge what is involved if the Jubilee line extension, which is surely essential to the project, is to be undertaken?

No one wants to see this project fail. We on this side of the House have no investment in failure--nor do the long-suffering people of east London--but we cannot judge the action needed until we know the facts. It is time for the Government to come clean and to face up, at last, to their responsibilities.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman is living in a fantasy world. There is no question whatever of back-door deals. There is no question of subsidy, hidden or otherwise. There has never been any subsidy for this development. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the grants which have been made to the London Docklands development corporation for the development of docklands as a whole are a matter of public record and are there for the House, the country and the world to see. The decisions on relocation will be taken in full consultation with the trade unions that represent the staff. The decision which I have just announced to narrow the options was taken on the basis of a value-for-money survey that was put in place, following my predecessor's much welcomed decision to vacate the Marsham street building so that it could be demolished.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : Did my right hon. and learned Friend note that the one group whom the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) failed to mention was the taxpayer, and that most normal people will regard the Secretary of State as doing nothing less than his duty in trying to ensure better value for money for the taxpayer?

Column 709

If I may ask my right hon. and learned Friend one specific question about the transport infrastructure, what principle lies behind the proposition that the taxpayer has funded £250 million for one and a half miles of road while the private sector is expected to fund part of the cost of the railway line?

Mr. Howard : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to identify the criterion that we have applied and pursued in considering this matter. He referred to the cost of the Jubilee line extension in the second part of his question. It is widely accepted that there is a role for mixed public and private sector funding in such a development. The owners of the Canary Wharf development, whoever they may be, will benefit from the fact that there will be a station at Canary Wharf on the Jubilee line extension. That is why Olympia and York thought it appropriate to offer a contribution of £400 million towards the cost of the line and why I have no doubt that any other owners of the development will think it right to make a similar contribution.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Does not the Secretary of State's announcement confirm that the rescue or salvation of Canary Wharf will not be achieved only by market forces, any more than was the development of docklands in the 1980s? Is it not true that, although the jobs of civil servants are important, the jobs of people in the docklands boroughs, with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, are far more important and far more a reason for ensuring that the project does not fail? If civil servants are to travel from Whitehall to docklands, is it not the most ridiculous proposition in the world that there should be no direct rail link? Do not the Government realise that the money for the Jubilee line extension must be secured by the end of this month, since otherwise the team of engineers and so on working on it will not be in place and the project will fall apart?

Mr. Howard : On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the team at London Transport will be kept in being while negotiations take place over the completion of the Jubilee line extension. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations about jobs in docklands. He did not mention the fact that the number of jobs in docklands has doubled since the development corporation was established, and there are now 60,000 people employed in docklands. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to give some credit for what has been achieved by the corporation during its existence. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be coming perilously close to suggesting that the Government should bale out this project. That is not our intention, and we shall not do so.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : My right hon. Friend is already aware of the widespread welcome for the imminent demise of Marsham street. However, if we are to make Westminster a more green and pleasant land, is it not illogical to add to the office surplus by putting even more offices in that location?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread acceptance that the Jubilee line extension must be built, but that this is a time to be looking not for less private sector contribution but for other means of bringing more private sector participation into that underground line and others as well?

Column 710

Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend's first point anticipates a decision that has not yet been made about what is to happen at Marsham street. I agree with him that the principle of mixed private and public sector funding for developments such as the Jubilee line extension has obtained increasing acceptance and will, I expect, play a continuing role in such developments in the future.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : You may be aware, Madam Speaker, that more than 1,000 of my constituents are taking legal action to seek redress for the disruption caused to their lives by the Canary Wharf development and the Limehouse link road. My constituents want to know whether they will obtain any benefits from the public money that has gone into the area. If Government Departments move to Canary Wharf, will the Government have a policy of employing local people in the civil service, or will there be only part-time cleaning jobs and other jobs of that ilk?

If 5,000 civil servants move into the area, will the Jubilee line extension be built or will my constituents have to suffer daily the nightmarish congestion that they suffered whenever there was an event at the arena? Will the Government stop the LDDC giving crazy planning permission for further superfluous office developments such as that granted to Olympia and York for Heron Quays only a few weeks ago? Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny the recent press statements that the LDDC is to give land to developers and allow deferred payment until they make a profit? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disputes my figures of nearly £3 billion of direct and indirect subsidy, when will he produce his own figures for the public money involved?

Mr. Howard : On the last point, I have already made it clear that the funds made available to the London Docklands development corporation are a matter of record and have been published more than once. I am surprised by the attitude that the hon. Lady adopts to the considerable number of jobs that have been created in docklands. I should have thought that she would welcome that.

As for the relocation of staff who work for the Department at the moment, wherever they live, we shall be assisting them when we move to docklands, as I expect we shall be able to do. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be as keen as anyone to encourage the private sector to contribute £400 million to the cost of the Jubilee line extension, which will secure that extension's future.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend be realistic and recognise that civil servants such as those in my constituency in north-west London, who are prepared to put up with a difficult journey to central London because they welcome the good schools and the pleasant residential area in which they live, will not be prepared to travel to the Isle of Dogs unless good, effective and reliable high- speed surface transport is in place? To that end, is it not vital that the Jubilee line be completed--if necessary, with public money--and that the crossrail link be finished, with a platform at Northwood in my constituency, which was promised and then taken away?

Mr. Howard : I very much hope, and indeed expect for the reasons that I have given, that the Jubilee line extension will be completed. That line, and the

Column 711

considerable improvements to the infrastructure of docklands, will make it quite feasible for civil servants to travel to docklands from my hon. Friend's constituency and from other parts of London and surrounding areas. As I said in my statement, we shall put in place arrangements to help to minimise the effects of any move on Departments' staff.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : Is the Secretary of State aware that he is dealing with the biggest failure of planning in post -war Britain? It is a perfect example of the folly of proceeding with a massive office development without making any sensible provision for public transport. Will he now answer, truthfully and directly, the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) : what is the cost, in terms of incentives paid for by the taxpayer, of the enterprise zone--in particular, the amount of money available by the suspension of the business rate for office development at Canary Wharf--and of the special facilities offered to assist construction by writing off initial allowances against expenditure? What is the cost to the taxpayer of those great concessions for Canary Wharf? Does he not accept that, if that vast amount of money is correct--we believe the figure to be correct--he has not given the House, or anyone in the east end, any prospect for the future? He is apparently prepared to write off completely his former investment.

Mr. Howard : The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are entirely misconceived. I was astonished by the form in which they were made, because, when he held my office, docklands was renowned for dereliction-- and for nothing else. Under the London Docklands development corporation, the position of docklands has been transformed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. I would be very much obliged if hon. Gentlemen would not bawl and shout from sedentary positions.

Mr. Howard : The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the total sums made available to all enterprise zones amount to £660 million and that there are no figures available for individual enterprise zones. The benefits made available to docklands are in no small part responsible for that. The number of jobs in docklands has doubled over the relevant period. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an interesting comparison between the new business centre development in docklands and La De fense in Paris? The development in Paris did not have an easy route, but in the end it has been highly successful. I am therefore optimistic that the docklands development will also be successful. However, there is one difference between Paris and here. The strategy of putting in a very effective public transport infrastructure was followed there, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give that a high priority here.

Mr. Howard : I have no doubt that the future of docklands will be as exciting as we originally contemplated it would be, and that it will realise its full development

Column 712

potential. We have, of course, done a great deal to improve the infrastructure in and towards docklands. We are building roads, and some roads have been completed.

I have referred to the £400 million contribution offered by Olympia and York to the Jubilee line extension, which we expect any other owner of Canary Wharf to contribute. The taxpayer is contributing £1.5 billion towards the cost of the Jubliee line extension. We want and expect to put in place in docklands a partnership between the private sector, which I hope we shall see not only in docklands, but elsewhere in our country in future.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does not the Secretary of State agree that the collapse of Canary Wharf exemplifies the collapse of Thatcherite economics? Is it not a fact that, in addition to the inducements in the enterprise zone outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), there was no inquiry into the strategic planning implications of Canary Wharf, that public funds met most of the cost of the Bank extension and that the Jubilee line extension would not have been built without the presence of Canary Wharf? Is it not now a fact that the frontiers of the state statutory have been rolled back, that enormous sums of public money have rolled in and that the powers of Ministers and central Government have greatly increased, which has given them arbitrary powers of patronage over companies that come in? Even with all that, there is no assurance of success.

Mr. Howard : There is no question of arbitrary behaviour and no question of patronage. It is not the case that there was an absence of planning in docklands. The London Docklands development corporation drew up a plan and consulted the local authorities on it. The difference is that, under the LDDC, action has been taken to deal with the dereliction which was the hallmark of docklands when the local authorities were responsible for planning and development decisions. We have seen great progress made since the corporation was put in place.

The hon. Gentleman began by referring to the collapse of Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf has not collapsed. The fact that the company that developed it has now appointed administrators is an entirely different matter. There is a clear distinction between the fate of one private sector company and the fate of docklands. Docklands will realise its development potential in the future, to the benefit of all those who live in it and of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the scale of dereliction and unemployment in docklands, one should pay tribute this afternoon to the corporation, of which Canary Wharf is only one part, and to the vision and courage of the Reichmann brothers, without whom the development would not have been possible? Although they failed, they failed in the teeth of the worst recession since the war. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as well as the Jubilee line, there is obviously a need to improve road communications? What is the up-to-date position on roads?

Mr. Howard : I can certainly help my hon. Friend with regard to the question of roads. Great progress is being made with the Limehouse link and the associated docklands highway. Those key road links will help greatly

Column 713

to assist movement into and out of docklands. The docklands light railway is now operating to 95 per cent reliability. The perception of its reliability that still undoubtedly persists is no longer consistent with its performance.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne) : Is the Secretary of State sure that all those 2,000 jobs need to remain in London? Is there not a case for considering the dispersal of at least some of them? Is he aware that London weighting will still be allowed in docklands, but it is not allowed in Manchester, the north-east, Scotland or Wales? It has been estimated that London weighting can add up to £10 per square foot to the rent of such premises in London.

Mr. Howard : A very large proportion of my Department's staff already work outside of London. The decision to relocate in docklands relates to staff who need to be in London because they need to have regular contacts with Ministers, but do not need to be in quite such close proximity as to justify the retention of accommodation in Westminster. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman was taken into account.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. We must now move on.

Column 714

Yugoslavia (Sanctions)

3.55 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : As hon. Members will know, the United Nations Security Council decided on 30 May to impose sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro. The resolution contains one of the most comprehensive series of measures ever adopted by the United Nations. They include a ban on air links, a trade and oil embargo, a freeze on assets, a ban on official sporting contacts and an agreement to reduce the level of staff at diplomatic missions of the self- proclaimed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The ban on arms sales adopted last year remains in force.

This and other elements of the embargo will be monitored by the Security Council committee established by one of the earlier resolutions on Yugoslavia. We shall play a full part in the work of that committee. We are also taking steps at home to implement the sanctions in the United Kingdom and dependent territories. Interim measures have been taken by the DTI and the Treasury, and Orders in Council will be put to the Privy Council on 4 June. The Yugoslav ambassador has been asked to leave.

The vote on this resolution reflects almost total unanimity among the international community. The world has been shocked by the persistent shellings and killings, and particularly recently by the carnage in Sarajevo. The resolution reflects condemnation of Serbia's brutal and expansionist policies under its present leadership. President Milosevic has refused to rein in the Serbs in Bosnia and has actively supported them through supplies of men and equipment. Under the pretext of withdrawal, he has transferred large parts of the federal army to local command in Bosnia.

Those warlords are using terror as a political weapon to create ethnically pure Serbian areas which will be attached to Serbia itself. There was never any justification for that policy. Before the fighting began, there was no threat to the welfare of the large Serbian community in Bosnia-Herzegovina from either Croats or Muslims. Croatia too has profited from the situation by infiltrating men and equipment into Croatian-inhabited areas of Herzegovina. We hope that the mandatory provisions of resolution 757 will convince the leadership in Belgrade that they must abandon their present policies. We do not wish to penalise the Serbian people or to destroy their economy, but we must bring home to Mr. Milosevic and his supporters that the international community cannot tolerate his present policy.

The immediate requirement is for a complete cessation of hostilities. Next we must establish conditions in which the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can pursue their humanitarian tasks. They have our full support : we have so far given a total of £9.68 million to their appeals. The Belgrade authorities must also take steps to immobilise and disarm the irregular units which have been responsible for so much of the mayhem. This should allow the displaced persons who have now fled to all the five remaining republics to return to their homes. This in turn should lead to a political solution on the lines already prepared by and in principle agreed through the

Column 715

good offices of Lord Carrington. I am in close touch with my European and United States colleagues as we work for those objectives.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. We give our full support to United Nations Security Council resolution 757, and we urge that the United Nations sanctions should be rigorously enforced. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, Opposition Front-Bench Members urged such comprehensive United Nations sanctions many months ago. It is possible that the situation might not have got so tragically out of hand if action had been taken sooner, but, now that action has been taken, we must hope and work for its success.

The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the use of force, and I welcome that. The situation is far too confused for forcible intervention from outside to do any positive good. It is certain that force would lead to further unnecessary bloodshed and increase the number of people at risk. I hope that the Government will stand out inflexibly against any suggestions of forcible intervention by the European Community.

It is my view that the excellent and admirable efforts of the European Community and its tireless representative, Lord Carrington, have been damaged, and perhaps to some extent even negated, by the unwise capitulation of European Community Foreign Ministers to the insistence of the German Government that every little self-declared republic in what was Yugoslavia should be given international recognition. That policy may have been a further incentive towards a disintegration that was always inherent.

The European Community should have no military role in this conflict or indeed in any other. The need is not to extend the conflict but to maintain it. The Foreign Secretary is right to assign principal responsibility to Mr. Milosevic and the Serbs. The acts of destruction of the Serbs toward Dubrovnik, although not the worst of their atrocities, are in their sheer wantonness symbolic of their lack of regard for a country which they say they want to safeguard. The Foreign Secretary is equally right to make it clear that the Serbs are not the only guilty party--that others share that guilt. No solution will be acceptable unless it is based on the restoration of stability, coupled with the safeguarding of all minorities, and that includes Serbian minorities. We hope that the United Nations actions will provide a possibility for such a solution, and it is on that basis that we give the United Nations our full support.

Mr. Hurd : I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). In view of his personal announcement today, may I say how much I shall miss him? [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] Other hon. Members will also miss him. The right hon. Gentleman has made for himself a reputation for a partisan ferocity which I can do nothing about and which I do not want to spoil this afternoon, as he has not displayed it. In my dealings with him from the Foreign Office and the Home Office, our exchanges have sometimes been pointed, but never excessively so. In the necessary dealings between us outside the House, I have found him to be invaluably straightforward and almost invariably helpful.

Column 716

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of interesting points. He suggested--he may be right--that earlier sanctions might have prevented some of the trouble. There would certainly have been no support for sanctions of that kind at an earlier stage, as I found when I suggested oil sanctions towards the end of last year. Recent events--in part, the persecution of Muslims in Bosnia--have changed the situation in the United Nations.

The right hon. Gentleman wisely referred to the use of force. I notice various operations now being sketched in the newspapers. It is much easier to conceive of such operations in theory than to launch them in practice. It is much easier to launch them than to see how they could successfully be brought to an end, so caution on the subject is necessary.

I do not wish to go into the argument about recognition all over again. As I told the House in the Queen's Speech debate, the best answer would have been Yugoslavia by consent, but in the end that was not attainable. Once we said goodbye to that hope, towards the end of last summer, we were left with a series of republics. The question of how one dealt with and recognised them became a matter of timing rather than principle.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the House at this stage that, if hon. Members ask precise questions on the Foreign Secretary's statement and we have short replies, it obviously follows that I shall be able to call far more Members.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : Of course there is agreement that international action was necessary to try to stop the fighting in Yugoslavia, but may I put it to my right hon. Friend that stopping the fighting should be the end purpose? Therefore, will he make it clear to those who advocate military action in Yugoslavia that it is much easier to get into a warlike situation there than to get out of it? Above all, we must avoid Yugoslavia becoming not just the Israel of the Balkans but the Vietnam of Europe.

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend knows a good deal about Yugoslavia, and his words of warning are wise. What we can do and are doing is to offer negotiation, a conference and ideas, monitor the ceasefire if it is achieved, and give trade and economic help to those who co-operate and take measures against those who do not. That is necessary, and that we will do.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : Will the Foreign Secretary accept that the majority of Members of this House applaud the action that has been taken by the United Nations to bring an end to the bloodshed in Yugoslavia? In future policy decisions within the European Community, will he take into account two possible dangers? First, we must be sufficiently outspoken about the human rights record in Croatia and especially the Croatians' attitude to the Serbian minority there. Secondly, while we would like to see the end of the Milosevic regime--I certainly would--there is a danger that the extremists who may control the guerrilla units in Bosnia will take a hand. Instead of better than Milosevic, we may have worse. Some worse people are around.

Mr. Hurd : On Croatia, the hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that the Croatian Government should carry

Column 717

through the legislation to protect the rights of its minorities to completion, as Lord Carrington has recommended. We are watching that carefully. I do not want to pick and choose between the different candidates for rulers or the Government of Serbia. That is not our job. Our job is to ensure that the Serbs and Montenegrans, with whom we have no basic quarrel, observe the rules of international life, as they have emerged.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the huge majority of people will support him in his hopes that the proposed sanctions will create a change of policy in Belgrade? But will he recall that, often before from that Dispatch Box, pious hopes have been expressed that sanctions will cause the collapse of a regime, whether Rhodesia or, more recently, Iraq? The truth is that sanctions rarely seem to cause collapse. Such hopes are often followed by further discussion about the use of force. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an undertaking that if, as may well happen, there is increasing talk about force in the future, he will go towards that option with only the greatest possible

circumspection?

Mr. Hurd : I agree with my right hon. Friend. There is no magic about sanctions. However, I remind him that, neither in the case of Iraq nor now in the case of Serbia and Montenegro, do sanctions aim to change a regime. That has never been their purpose in those cases. I agree exactly with the formulation of the second part of my right hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Now that sanctions appear to be flavour of the month for the Tory Government, what has changed in respect of the sanctions that they refused to apply to South Africa and those that were supposed to be implemented against nations in the Gulf? What is new?

Mr. Hurd : What is new is that there has been a good deal of progress in South Africa, which is therefore the vindication of the stand that we took and of the lifting of most of the sanctions by the international community, following our lead.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed, as will resolution 757. I think that the House shares the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), that it is sometimes extremely difficult to make sanctions work. We have certainly seen that elsewhere in the world. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration has been given to a blockade to make sanctions work, and especially to a naval blockade, because it runs short of using force?

Mr. Hurd : There are no plans for that at present. Under international law, there is an obligation on all members of the United Nations to comply with the resolution, and a monitoring committee has been set up in New York. We shall have to see what happens, especially with regard to oil supplies, which traditionally have come down the Danube through Romania, but it is premature to assume that people will not comply with their obligations.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, about eight months ago, some of us argued for sanctions to be taken against the

Column 718

then Yugoslavia, especially against the Serbs, and that we met with blank refusals? Will he tell the House what attempts will be made to monitor sanctions? He just mentioned oil and, as there are no natural oil resources within Serbia, if oil can be cut off clearly sanctions will work. What monitoring will take place?

Mr. Hurd : I have just answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He was too busy preparing it to listen to my answer. He is right about the importance of oil. As he knows, I suggested oil sanctions some time ago, but there was no support for them. I am glad that there is support now. There is some oil production in Serbia and Croatia, but most oil is imported. It is therefore important that the flow of oil should be monitored by the sanctions committee, which I described to the House when the hon. Gentleman was not listening.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : Will my right hon. Friend explain how the sad fighting in Yugoslavia affects British national interests? Or is it the case that we have now taken on the role of some sort of second-class world policeman, whenever we can find a similar policeman among what he grandly calls the international community?

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend is entitled to take that view, but I do not think that it is shared by many of his constituents. When, night after night, people see on television destruction and massacre in a European city, most of them do not expect us to send in troops, but they expect us to take some sensible action, if we can, to bring that suffering to an end. I am not in favour of exaggerating what we can do, or of pretending that we are or can be a policeman. I am not speaking on behalf of the Twelve, or of the United Nations : I am merely saying that, where we can help to bring such suffering to an end, I am sure that it is the wish of the House and the country that we should do so.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye) : Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that, welcome though the imposition of sanctions is, they are likely to bear down disproportionately on the Albanian community in Kosovo? As well as working with his colleagues at European Community and United Nations level to make sanctions effective, is he bearing in mind the need for continuing diplomatic pressure to ensure the proper restoration of autonomy to Kosovo?

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important matter. That is the next possible tragedy spot, if one may describe it that way. It is important for the Serbs to accept the need for full autonomy for Kosovo. I discussed with Lord Carrington this morning, as well as with the Portuguese Foreign Minister--who is President of the Council of Ministers-- how we can bring diplomatic pressure to bear in Tirana and Belgrade.

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : It is accepted that Serbia is not the only offending party in the region. Therefore, sanctions should surely be imposed on Croatia to force it to stop its violence.

Mr. Hurd : The arms embargo applies to all the former republics of Yugoslavia. I have mentioned Croatia, but I have tried to get the balance right, which is increasingly accepted in the House. The Croatians are not and have not been blameless, but the main responsibility for the

Column 719

mayhem, killing and suffering rests with Serbs, whether Bosnian Serbs, irregulars or those under the direct control of Belgrade.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : In relation to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does the Foreign Secretary recollect that some of us suported him most vocally, in and out of the House, on the imposition of oil sanctions at the beginning of the crisis?

Does the Foreign Secretary think that it is wise to insist that the Yugoslav ambassador withdraw? Did he hear the ambassador say last night on "The World Tonight" that perhaps this is the time when he is most needed? What is the purpose, other than for reasons of a diplomatic dance, of making the ambassador go? Finally, are we sure that arms and oil are not being supplied by Iraq to Serbia?

Mr. Hurd : On the ambassador, it was part of the Security Council resolution to reduce levels of diplomatic representation by the former federal republic of Yugoslavia. It will, of course, keep representatives here : we are not expelling the whole diplomatic mission. It was right, in line with what others are doing and right in the circumstances, that the ambassador should be asked, courteously but firmly, to go.

Supplies of oil to Serbia and Montenegro--

Mr. Dalyell : I voted for the oil embargo.

Mr. Hurd : Yes. However, it was not the hon. Gentleman's vote that was necessary on that occasion, but support in the United Nations, which has only recently been forthcoming. All possible breaches of the embargo, particularly in oil, need to be monitored carefully.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Although I agree with my right hon. Friend about the ambassador, what justification is there for allowing the building that he has been occupying to continue to enjoy the status of an embassy?

Mr. Hurd : We are in a bit of limbo on that, and my hon. Friend has put his finger on the illogical position. We have an embassy in Belgrade and it is important to keep contacts going. Therefore, we do not intend to close the Yugoslav mission here. Equally, Yugoslav representation at the United Nations is in a type of limbo. If the situation continues and sanctions do not do the job we hope, we shall clearly have to consider such questions again.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I welcome the condemnation of the expansionist policies of the Serbian leadership, which were clearly demonstrated years ago when it overthrew autonomy in Kosovo and Vojvodina. Its intention to create a greater Serbia was clearly signalled last year and it is a matter of regret that the international community did not respond quickly enough, because the tragedies might have been averted.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is still some unfinished business in greater Serbia, in the region of Macedonia? Would it be possible to take some proactive steps to prevent that region from being ignited, because there are countries other than Serbia that might fish in those troubled waters?

Column 720

Mr. Hurd : There certainly are : the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am glad that, in Skopje, a mission from the European Community is establishing a contact with the Macedonian authorities for the first time. I hope that we shall receive a report next week on Macedonia's needs. The hon. Gentleman, who follows this subject, will know that the attitude of the Greek Government presents a substantial difficulty to recognition of Macedonia, but that does not debar the type of mission that is in Macedonia now.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : May I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the constructive role he took in securing sanctions against Serbia by the United Nations? They are a valuable instrument of pressure to demonstrate to the Government in Belgrade and to the wider world that force should not be allowed to prevail against the democratic expression of self-determination. If that were allowed to prevail, a potentially explosive and damaging example would be given to central and eastern Europe. Is it not therefore necessary that physical measures underpin the sanctions--perhaps in the form of a naval blockade or the inspection of air cargoes at their point of departure?

Next Section

Home Page