House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Nov 1992

Column 89

nothing to stop it. I hope that, in a couple of years' time, the ex-Prime Minister and ex-Defence Ministers will not say, "It is nothing to do with me, guvnor. Don't blame me, because I didn't know anything about it. Nobody told me"--just as they are now saying about the arms deals with Iraq.

We have held the European Community presidency for the past six months and have been in a unique position to insist that sanctions be enforced and properly monitored. But, yet again, the Government have failed lamentably. If sanctions are not given a chance to work, the argument against military intervention is substantially weakened. The crux of the matter is that if we allow those war profiteers to make their pound of flesh out of innocent civilians now, pretty soon they will make a pound of flesh out of British troops, too. We want the mandatory sanctions against Serbia to be enforced rigorously by a more effective monitoring of the River Danube and other land access routes into Serbia.

However difficult it may be to enforce sanctions, it will be much easier than attempting to apply a military solution. Even a ring of steel would be a much cheaper option than the cost of placing an army in Bosnia, not only financially but in the saving of human life and misery.

The heart of the matter is the intended acquisition of land by force, the physical and ethnic cleansing of areas ahead of a peace settlement. The acquisition of land of recognised neighbouring sovereign states is against the prime underlying ethics of civilised relationships and international law. That is why we must continually make it clear that boundaries between states or new states created by ethnic cleansing will not be internationally recognised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said last August, a state based on such an obscene and uncivilised policy should be treated as an outlawed state and should be given no legitimacy in the world community.

8.19 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Most hon. Members would echo the concluding words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), although for reasons that I shall seek to explain some other parts of his speech were less easy to agree with. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who opened the debate performed a signal service for the House with an admirable speech. He and his colleagues are to be congratulated on choosing this horrific subject for their Supply day debate.

When we turn our attention, as we do all too rarely, to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, I feel an overwhelming sadness. All hon. Members have certain events seared into their memories. Some of my formative searing experiences were as a small boy seeing the Pathe news reels of Belsen and as a sixth former seeing the dreadful carnage in Budapest in 1956 and feeling at the time that everything possible must be done to ensure that such events never recur to deface the European continent. In the former Yugoslavia we are seeing a re-run of events as horrific as both of those.

No one could have been unmoved on reading the terrible accounts relayed by extraordinarily brave journalists from the former Yugoslavia. It is fitting for the House to pay tribute to those journalists, many of whom have lost their lives in bringing home to us what has been

Column 90

going on. The free world's response has been inadequate. I have felt that from the time before the Serbian forces started to shell Dubrovnik about a year ago. I felt then, and I feel now, that firm and concerted action might well have prevented the events in Bosnia. Some of us said that those events could and would take place but certain actions were ruled out.

The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke appositely about deterrence. A country with a weapon or a force that is viewed as a deterrent does not announce to the world that it will never use it. That was my party's consistent criticism of Labour's position on the nuclear deterrent. It was not that we were warmongers or that we viewed with anything other then abhorrence the possibility of using it, but we did not rule that out. Unfortunately, when Milosevic and his warlords in and outside Serbia got to work, the west--the free world, including the European Community--ruled out force.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) speaks with great knowledge and authority about Serbia, but I would say to him that if we had been prepared to bomb munition factories and take some tough, surgical action against Serbia about a year ago and had mounted a naval blockade of Dubrovnik, we might have avoided the subsequent carnage. I make no apology for saying that again. We cannot undo what has been done, but surely we can learn some lessons, one of which is to eschew ambivalence. It is

incomprehensible for any member of the Government to speak as if there can be neutrality between a fire brigade and a fire or between an aggressor and those who are being victimised. I do not suggest that no atrocities have been committed by Croatians or Bosnians because there is evidence of some, but the overwhelming evidence is that the massacres, the carnage and the destruction of a nation's heritage in Croatia and Bosnia have been the work of the Serbs. Last week I attended a concert in the Royal Festival hall in aid of Dubrovnik. More than 3,000 people came to show their dismay at the destruction of one of Europe's prime cultural sites. Who destroyed it? It was not the Croatians. Serbia has persistently been the aggressor. Again I make no apology for referring to the video that was sent to us about eight weeks ago. It came from a rather improbable source which I think was the Sunday Sport. That video made the most appalling viewing. It showed trays of young men's genitals, and a woman being disembowelled to find out whether she was pregnant with a boy or girl. It is horrible to speak about such things, but one must do so to bring home the enormity of such happenings.

We cannot and should not for a moment seek to suggest that there is any equality of culpability between the Serbs and the rest because there is not. I am sure that many people in Serbia are as appalled and disgusted as hon. Members at the events there. Many of them would like to replace their present regime with one approximating to the system that we enjoy. However, the Serbian regime is culpable. That is why I find it so difficult to understand why we are unable to guarantee an air exclusion zone.

The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked some extremely pertinent questions. While I have great regard and affection for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who responded, I

Column 91

do not think that his response was adequate. It was a case of ruling something out, and we should not do that. The UN peacekeeping force includes our young men.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : My hon. Friend may be confusing two different propositions. The proposition advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) dealt with the deployment of aircraft in support of the United Kingdom troops in Bosnia. My hon. Friend speaks about an air exclusion zone, which is a quite different proposition. I shall refer to it in my winding-up speech.

Mr. Cormack : I was happy to give way but my right hon. and learned Friend intervened a little too early. The point made several times in the debate is that British troops are on the ground in Bosnia as part of the UN force. A few weeks ago we were told that only 1,800 would be required, but that estimate has been increased by almost 1,000 to 2,658 according to the latest figures. If that force is subjected to unprovoked air aggression, it must be defended from the air and not left to defend itself from the ground.

Mr. Hogg : I think that that is a slightly different issue and I am sorry that there is confusion. Perhaps I am responsible for it. A breach of the United Nations resolution on a no-fly zone would raise different questions. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North- East raised that matter, but I shall deal with it in my winding-up speech. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was entirely right in what he said about United Kingdom forces and prospective air power. There is a different answer if the Serbs use air power in breach of the United Nations Security Council resolution.

Mr. Cormack : If there is a different answer to be given, I am mightily relieved. What I believe to be clear, and what seemed clear in what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, is that it is crucial that our forces are given every necessary protection. If my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that that is the case, I thank him for it, and I am delighted by it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his polite observations about me. I made two points about air power. First, as the United Nations has declared an air exclusion zone but has not yet willed the means to enforce it, I asked whether it makes any sense to have a zone that one is not willing to enforce. Secondly, I asked whether, if the lives of those in the British force were at risk, the senior commander would have the right to call down air forces to protect it.

Mr. Cormack : I concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman's two points. It seems that we now have at least a partial assurance on one of them from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. As he said, he will develop that point when he winds up, and I am sure that we shall all be listening with great interest to what he has to say.

Mr. Hogg : I should rather say it later.

Mr. Cormack : I should prefer that as well, having already given way three times in quick succession. The

Column 92

House would be at one in expecting that the United Nations, having willed the troops on the ground, would will the means to defend them. I think also that the House would be at one in expecting any British commander to have flexible options, and not be leading his troops with one arm tied behind his back.

Mr. Macdonald : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cormack : I shall give way once more, but interventions make for long speeches.

Mr. Macdonald : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because this is an important point. I understand that the Government are now saying that, whereas British forces on the ground would not be able to call in air support to defend themselves from attack on the ground, they would be able to call in air support to protect themselves from attack from the air, such attack being in breach of the United Nations exclusion zone. One wonders whether that principle could be extended to the civilian populations on the ground to protect them from attack from the air.

Mr. Cormack : The hon. Gentleman moves us on, and I am glad to be moved on. I hope that we shall have a clear, definitive answer, deployed with all the forensic skills for which my right hon. and learned Friend is renowned, when he winds up. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I would go on to say that there is still an overwhelming case for using strategic strikes against the aggressor, in the air or in Serbia. We should not rule that out.

I return to the deterrent point. We should not tell any potential enemies that we shall rule out anything. We should keep them guessing. We should continue to apply sanctions and try to make them as effective as possible as quickly as possible. We should try to deal with the Danube problem--a very real problem. After all, we did not rule out that option--indeed, we deployed it fairly quickly--when another sovereign state was overwhelmed in July 1990. Whether we like it or not, Bosnia was recognised as a sovereign state. There are those in the House--I pay proper tribute to them--who did not like that fact. Nevertheless, it has been so recognised, since the beginning of this year, by all the countries of the European Community and many beyond.

Therefore, we have an obligation to do something to ensure that this new nation, which we have recognised, is not completely dismembered. It is already pretty close to being dismembered. The figures are horrendous--2 million refugees, and people who are not given to exaggeration talk of perhaps 400,000 perishing in the ice and snow this year. If that happens, as it so easily could, it will be a damning indictment of us all.

My right hon. and learned Friend should not close his eyes, nationally, as part of the European Community or as part of the United Nations. I am not talking about massive involvement. I have never done so, and nor have people like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is nodding now. I am talking about the sort of action that Lord Owen was advocating until the very day that he became the United Nations mediator. I am talking about the sort of action advocated by Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, to whom my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was such an assiduous Parliamentary Private Secretary for so long.

I urge my right hon. and learned Friend not to rule out that option entirely. What is happening in Bosnia is utterly

Column 93

shameful. Both the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Government amendment refer to Kosovo and Macedonia. We all know that terrible things are happening in Kosovo, as they are in Macedonia, although what is happening in Kosovo has been more widely reported. People are being excluded from their schools and colleges, being harried from their homes and being ill treated. The cauldron is boiling and it might boil over. If it did, we could find ourselves facing a full-scale Balkan war, a war that could involve Albania, Bulgaria and two NATO countries--Greece and Turkey--on opposite sides. We must not rule out any option because, above all, that war is what we must deter. We cannot bring back the tens of thousands who have already been slaughtered or massacred. We cannot restore the tens of thousands maimed. We cannot, overnight, put together the families that have been shattered and dispersed. But we can do something to deter the warlords and others from plunging Macedonia and Kosovo into similar hardship and strife.

Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we should anticipate these conflicts and perhaps, if we had done so, they might not have escalated as they have in Bosnia. As I understand it, there are eight missions in Bosnia, including those from Norway and the United States. Would it not be appropriate--and perhaps the Minister can deal with this point--to put more missions and more monitoring in the area and perhaps to anticipate the problems that the hon. Gentleman is so graphically describing?

Mr. Cormack : That might well be the case. Firmness and resolution in dealing with the acute problem before us now will be the best deterrent to those who are tempted to tread this appalling path to devastation and destruction.

It is not just that. Those people, many of whom thought before the war broke out that they had been liberated from communism and totalitarianism, looked to the free world. They aspired to what they thought were the values that had been withheld from them. The problem is not just there. As we speak, all over the former Soviet Union there are cauldrons simmering--for example, terrible things are happening in Georgia, although we do not see them nightly on our television screens.

The firmness, resolve and effectiveness with which the European Community and the free world in general deal with the problem of the former Yugoslavia will have a significant effect on what does or does not happen elsewhere. The world is a far more dangerous place than it was before the wall and the iron curtain came down. I rejoice that they are down and that the cold war is ended.

But the new situation calls for great statesmanship, vision and resolution. Although I pay tribute to what Ministers have sought to do, we have not been effective enough and there is no point in pretending that we have. I hope that a stiffening of resolve will emerge from this debate.

It is also important to consider the position of the British infantry. I make no apology for raising this matter, which I touched upon in September. We are extremely fortunate in the way in which we are served by our armed forces. Their versatility, professionalism and cool courage is an example to us all, yet they are thin on the ground. Since "Options for Change" was published, many of us, some with a territorial interest--I do not apologise for my

Column 94

interest in the Staffordshire Regiment--have said time and again that we are stretching the infantry too far. That fear has been backed up by military men of immense experience and prestige, as was illustrated by the recent letter to The Times from Field Marshal Lord Bramall.

In September we were told that the number of men to be sent to Yugoslavia would be limited to 1,800 ; 2,658 troops are now there. I do not object to that. It might be necessary to increase that number to 3,000 and I would not object to that either. But we have Northern Ireland, and events in this capital city at the weekend have reminded us that that problem will not go away. There are other trouble spots in the world.

We will not lightly be forgiven if we deprive ourselves of the means of defence, but the infantry is being stretched to a dangerous degree. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will review this issue. He has already said that he will if circumstances change and, through my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I should like to tell him that those circumstances have changed, are changing, and will continue to do so. I make no apology for urging, once more, that reconsideration.

Apart from the expressions of total revulsion and absolute sympathy, I hope that what comes out of this debate will be a determination to do everything that we can to bring this conflict to a close. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that we cannot do that by massive intervention on the ground, and I have not advocated and will not advocate that, but we can do it by a demonstration of resolve and by a refusal to forgo weapons that we have every right to consider using. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend replies to the debate he will recognise that.

8.42 pm

Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : I agree with practically everything that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said. At the risk of upsetting some of my colleagues, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on using this opportunity to discuss this serious topic. Terrible events are taking place in the heart of Europe, and I was appalled not just at the banality of the Government's amendment, but by the speech of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. There was a note of complacency in it and an almost total acceptance not just of what has happened but of what is likely to happen in the coming months in Yugoslavia. We as politicians, not just of the House, but of the European Community and the world, must take collective blame for what has happened. We must accept that blame because we have stood by, as a nation, and watched nothing less than the extinction of another nation and its cultural identity, the nation of Bosnia.

More than one third of a million civilians are trapped in Sarajevo alone, without food, electricity or running water. We all know that they are dying daily, and we must recognise that, apart from fine words, fine intentions and some belated military help with humanitarian aid, they are dying because this country and the rest of the EC have refused to intervene. I do not believe that we have used our position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to support the initiatives aimed at confronting Serbian militarism.

Column 95

Consider the publicity that was devoted to the London peace conference in August and what was supposed to come out of it. At that conference the Prime Minister named Serbia as the chief instigator of atrocities and territorial aggression in the region. He claimed success in reaching specific agreements that guaranteed the integrity and security of Bosnia and its people. What has happened to those agreements? We were told that the sieges of towns and cities would be soon lifted, but that has not happened. We were told that there would be international supervision of the use of heavy weapons, but that has not happened. We were also told that there would be a ban on military flights, but no air exclusion zone has been observed. The promise to enforce sanctions on the Danube has not been fulfilled.

Mr. Douglas Hogg : On the question of the air exclusion zone, we have no evidence of any combat mission having been flown since 12 October. We believe that, at the moment at least, the no-flight regime has been observed for combat missions.

Ms. Hoey : The Minister may say that, but that is not exactly what has happened. I believe that the air exclusion zone has not been monitored and has not been observed.

The agreement on the creation of an international criminal court has not been realised. I accept that some civilians have been released from detention camps, but just as some have been released, some have been imprisoned. We heard many fine words at that peace conference, but we have seen little action. In some ways Britain has even obstructed the UN in carrying out initiatives aimed at enforcing the agreements reached in London.

A lot of the blame must rest with the Foreign Office, which has continued to portray this conflict as a civil war and promoted the myth that all sides are equally to blame. I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that anyone who has studied what has happened cannot fail to say that the blame must lie with the Serbians. There have been atrocities committed on all sides, but the systematic atrocities carried out by the Serbians must be recognised.

Civilians will get hurt in all wars, but all the evidence points to the fact that the Serbians have a deliberate and calculated policy of targeting civilians. Their policy is to kill them in sufficient numbers to make others run away. I do not believe that that is war ; it is terrorism on a scale unprecedented in Europe since the Nazis. It is equally clear that journalists have been targeted by the Serbians. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to pay tribute to the fine work done by television and newspaper journalists. Without their reports we would be unaware of some of the terrible atrocities that have occurred.

If we allow Bosnia-Herzegovina to be destroyed, I believe that all hope for the survival of democracy and decency in that part of the world will end. Britain has some responsibility and must take action ; there is still much to be done. I may be out of line with some of my Front-Bench colleagues, but I believe that Britain should act to lift the UN arms embargo on Bosnia. I do not believe that it is right that Bosnians are dying because they have no weapons to defend themselves. They are literally being killed because they have no opportunity to get the weapons that they need to defend themselves. There is no

Column 96

point in sending in the military to ensure that food aid gets through to the people of Sarajevo only for those people to be killed a few days later. We should get the United Nations to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia.

We should be pressing for selective air strikes against the artillery and other heavy weapons of the former Yugoslav army. I agree that we do not want a wholesale military presence in the area, but, as other hon. Members have said, if when we saw the pictures of what was happening in Dubrovnik selective action had been taken, that might have deterred the Serbians from doing what they then did in Sarajevo. If we do not learn a lesson from that, there will be an escalation in the conflict in that area. I am also worried about what is happening in Kosovo. If the Serbians knew that we were prepared to take action, it might deter them from going further.

The greatest priority is to save the citizens in Sarajevo. That is essential for the survival of Bosnia's physical and cultural identity. Last year, almost 30 per cent. of Bosnians married people from different religious groups. That is good evidence of the tolerance that has sustained Bosnia's character and identity for centuries. It must be protected from the nationalism and ethnic cleansing that threaten not only that region but the peace and security of Europe.

Will the Minister say how much more Serbian aggression the Government will allow before they are prepared to take action? I supported our actions in the Gulf war in support of Kuwait, so I cannot justify Britain doing nothing about what is happening in central Europe. I hope that the debate will bring to the forefront the need for action. We must not sit back and allow more people to die. If we do not take action, in a year's time the conflict will spread throughout Europe. We could stop that happening, but currently the Government are refusing to do so.

Will the Minister answer some of the questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) which were not answered by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces? I hope that the debate will bring us a little nearer to the end of a conflict that we cannot allow to continue.

8.52 pm

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : Although I agree with most of what has been said about the dreadful conflict in the former Yugoslavia, I want to concentrate my remarks on the refugees issue. I am concerned that we are thinking only about refugees in the former Yugoslavia and not taking the wider context into account. The problems in that area are repeated throughout the world, so it is wrong that the House should concentrate on the Yugoslav refugees. What about the Sikhs in the Punjab, where there is also ethnic cleansing and the worst sort of brutality? To follow on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), there is also murder, rape and pillage in the Punjab. Other than when I have raised the matter through Adjournment debates, I cannot remember the issue being raised on the Floor of the House, and certainly not by either of the two main Opposition parties. I remind the House that all that is happening in a former Commonwealth country which has a direct relationship with us. It is not a country in Europe which, if I may put it this way, has no direct connection with Britain.

Column 97

The worldwide problems are caused by civil wars. I understand that there are currently 44 conflicts throughout the world. The problems of refugees arise from the economic chaos that is rife the length and breadth of Africa. Many African countries are former Commonwealth countries, but no one is as concerned about them as about Yugoslavia.

Many people are moving around the world in search of safer and better lives, but that is not the reason for our refugee legislation. There are problems in Romania, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Zaire, Uganda and Sri Lanka--and of course, the whole of the Soviet Union is breaking up. Countries are worried about refugees. France is worried about Algeria and Spain about north Africa and the border that allows refugees directly to enter Spain. Portugal is worried about the refugee problem in Macau, where people can apply for a full European passport. Germany has a problem because 250,000 refugees arrived there last year and a further 500,000 are expected this year from eastern Europe, Turkey, Afghanistan, Africa and, now, the former Yugoslavia. The anger of Germans has nothing to do with Nazi thugs everyone is opposed to them.

Sir Russell Johnston : Surely there is a difference between economic refugees, of which the hon. Gentleman rightly says there are many, and people who have been burnt out of their homes.

Mr. Dicks : I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but as I said earlier, people are suffering those same conditions in the Punjab, yet there is apparently no concern in the House about that. The Government show no concern about it in their relationship with India. It has been happening since long before the events in the former Yugoslavia, but no one cares. People are concerned about the former Yugoslavia--it is the in thing. I have almost 10,000 Sikhs in my constituency who ask, "Why the concern? We know what is happening in Yugoslavia and we do not want it to continue, but where is the concern about what has happened to our relatives in our country?" If the refugees going to Germany are granted asylum status, they can move wherever they wish around the EEC. They could come to Britain if they so wanted--and many of those seeking that status in Europe might want to do that. We must consider the position facing Britain before we think of taking hundreds, thousands or even millions of refugees.

It takes up to three years to determine a claim. Between 1984 and 1990, 2,700 people from India applied for asylum. None was granted it because apparently none qualified, but 47 per cent.--more than 1, 200--were allowed to stay because it took so long to process their applications. That can only encourage people to apply for asylum and to make bogus applications.

There are already some 4,200 people from Somalia in this country of whom 665 are seeking asylum status. Those 4,200 people came here as visitors or students. I am sure that the House is aware of the fact that, whatever the circumstances, they will not be sent back. I find that rather surprising. There were 50,000 applications for asylum in Britain last year and there could be even more this year. During the past two years 106 unaccompanied children arrived at Heathrow in my borough of Hillingdon, which

Column 98

has had to find them accommodation and educate and feed them. So far, it has cost my local authority £1 million, but there has been no help from the Government.

On the specific matter of the former Yugoslavia, a parliamentary answer shows that in the year ending August 1992, 50,800 people from that area were given leave to enter Britain, mainly as visitors or students--but with the implicit understanding that they would not be sent back. A further 500 have applied for asylum. That makes nearly 52,000 refugees already from the former Yugoslavia who have nipped in rather quietly knowing that, whatever happens, they will not have to return.

I appeared on a television programme with a 19-year-old refugee who said, "I don't want to go back home. I get £30 a week and my accommodation paid for. I will not return, even if the situation changes." Who can blame him? He was allowed entry for a course that he has now given up, and he just wants to stay.

I hate to use the word "do-gooders" in this context, but one must question the actions of those who believe that it is a good idea to take empty coaches to a border and to return to Britain with refugees. I thought that a refugee was someone who sought refuge--and that the first place to do that was immediately outside the troubled area. However, some people are bussing refugees through two or three countries, which causes problems for others. One newspaper report states :

"Dover, perhaps unusually, has never had a major refugee problem. But three weeks ago 250 people arrived in a convoy of coaches from Bosnia, brought by a voluntary group based in Leeds."

Two days before they arrived, the authorities were told that they were going to apply for political asylum, and that entitled them to the full range of benefits--housing, social security, health and legal aid. A council spokesman said :

"It is all very laudable for these people to bring people in, but they haven't thought out who will foot the bill."

The Sikhs in my constituency might well say, "This seems to be the game to play now. We will charter a plane to India and bring out a few thousand Sikhs over a period of time." Another interested group might say, "The real issue is Somalia, so we will take a plane there and bring out some refugees." Another group could say, "We will take a few coaches to eastern Europe and bring refugees back to Dover." If such people arrive at a port, existing law on asylum allows them entry. The individuals who bussed refugees in from Bosnia have been in touch with the Home Office, and it is sending extra staff to the ports to cope with the situation. Laudable though such actions by do-gooders and members of the chattering classes may be, they have not thought through the consequences if every group having an interest abroad starts to do the same.

With the exception of one child who is likely to be adopted by an eminent ITN reporter, refugees will not be sent to Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or Hampshire. Instead, they will stay near their port of entry and move to inner-city areas that already have problems. Local authorities will have to cope and local residents--through direct taxes and the council tax--will have to pay the bill. Most right hon. and hon. Members have problems with housing waiting lists in their constituencies. I certainly do. When refugees arrive, my constituents say, "Hang on, Mr. Dicks--we have been waiting for years for a transfer or for accommodation. We feel sorry for refugees, but they should be helped nearer their own countries and not be brought to Britain to occupy accommodation meant for

Column 99

us." It may be wonderful to drop refugees off at Dover or Leeds and let someone else take responsibility for them, but all right hon. and hon. Members have an obligation to their constituents. They must always come first and last. I would not mind so much if there were any spare facilities.

As to the churches and vicars who encourage such action, how many of them are using their church halls to accommodate refugees, and how many archbishops have handed over their palaces for that purpose? I shall be surprised and delighted if one of them is accommodating a refugee family. I make this challenge to the Church--before it starts saying all those wonderful words, it should open its doors first and feed and clothe the refugees, and then it will not be denying a citizen of this country his or her right to housing.

We should seriously consider redrafting the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, because it was never designed to cope with the present situation or with economic refugees from Vietnam and Africa. Neither was it meant to cope with thousands of refugees from the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. That convention was never meant to put pressure on the developed world. Its wording and the responsibilities that it imparts are out of date. I want the Government to persuade the United Nations to rewrite that convention, to control not just the arrival of refugees but their departure. Those who, in their unworldly way, encourage refugees to come to this country should also be prohibited by legislation from encouraging people to seek refuge here after travelling through two or three other countries, when there may be safe refuge just outside their own borders. People must be told that they cannot continue to exercise their conscience and make themselves feel good when sitting by the fire at night- -not taking anyone in themselves, but expecting everyone else to do so.

We should certainly provide help and support in the countries concerned and just outside their borders. The safe haven concept is best, and we must do all that we can to encourage it. If neighbouring countries want to take in thousands of refugees that is their business, not ours.

The people of Britain have had enough : they have done their share. They are saying, "Hang on--are we going to be a soft touch again?" Everyone else wants to shout about it ; as I have said, the chattering classes want to do something. But the working-class chap in the street, who pays his taxes, wonders what the hell is going on in this country. It seems to him that every time there is a problem somewhere and people want to move from that area--for whatever reason--good old Britain is the place for them to go.

My young daughter, her husband and their three children must be pushed down the waiting list because of the stupid Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, and the fact that having to cope with refugees means that newcomers are placed at the top of the list. Old-age pensioners in my constituency could do with a bigger pension, but have had to accept increases in line with inflation ; meanwhile people come here from nowhere, and are literally given everything that they require to live a good life. I am not saying that there is not a reason for that, but let it not happen in this part of the world again.

Column 100

Let us be realistic : we have done our share. We are not a soft touch. We are not the dustbin of the world, to which people should come when everything else has gone wrong.

If the Government and the House continue to take the same view, we are likely to see the same dreadful developments that have been seen in Germany. Thank God we have no Le Pen in this country now. Many people are saying that they are sick and tired of being taken for a ride, and, if we continue to allow refugees to enter this country--as I have said, they go to the tough working-class areas around the ports and in the inner cities-- we shall experience the civil strife that has taken place in Germany, France and Italy. I do not want that, but the only way to stop it is to control what is happening, rather than saying, "Wonderful Britain must open all the doors and let everyone in."

9.5 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and his colleagues on arranging this evening's debate. I am sorry that more debates have not taken place on the issue.

As time is now short, I shall concentrate on the key points. According to the motion, the record of the European Community and the Foreign Office on Yugoslavia has consistently been

"too little and too late".

That is putting it mildly. In my view, the actions of the Foreign Office and the Community in the earlier stages of the crisis contributed significantly to the outbreak of fighting, to its continuation and to the form that it took. People could see what would happen in Bosnia from the moment that trouble started in Knin and around Krajina : it was obvious and predictable. Rather than preventing it, however, we took action that, if anything, encouraged it.

We see the same picture of people sitting back and waiting for the next conflict to erupt when we look at reports of pressure on Muslims in Sandzak, troubles in Kosovo and continuing problems throughout Macedonia. The tinder is there ; but, rather than defusing the situation, we seem to be sitting back. I am particularly concerned about Macedonia, which is currently in limbo. We seem to have put it on ice, as it were, so that it can sit and wait until its neighbours are ready to carve it up.

Before war broke out in Bosnia, Milosevic clearly signalled his desire to do a deal with his neighbours to carve up Bosnia. Now he is signalling his desire to do the same with Macedonia. What will we do about that? At present, the Macedonian administration satisfied the normal criteria for recognition, and it is clear that Macedonia would be recognised but for the problems caused by the Greeks. The Greeks had some legitimate concerns, which have been met. What concerns us now is Greek ambition, together with Serb and, perhaps, Bulgarian ambition. We should seriously consider recognising Macedonia ; if we are not prepared to do that, we should make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate any forcible intervention by other parties in Macedonia. We should make our feelings very clear to the Greeks. We have intervened in Bosnia rather belatedly, and I am concerned about the manner of our intervention. The present intervention strikes me as incoherent. United Nations troops could have been sent in in the normal way to supervise agreed ceasefire lines. At the other end of the

Column 101

scale, we could have intervened to impose our will on the situation by compelling the combatants to move back to the lines that we considered appropriate. We are told, however, that that is not what is happening. It seems that we are intervening somewhere in the middle, but the position is not entirely clear. We are deceiving ourselves if we imagine that our current intervention is, or can be, limited to so- called humanitarian work.

Sieges are taking place everywhere. To supply food to besieged people is intervention on behalf of the besieged persons and will be perceived by the besiegers as the provision of military aid. In some circumstances, food is a weapon. Our intervention, therefore, is effectively on one side. We pretend to ourselves that we are not intervening. That is foolish and is likely to end in greater trouble.

We cannot, however, walk away from the problem. We cannot allow the war to continue, sit back and let the people fight it out among themselves. That might have been okay in 1912 or 1913, but it is not okay in a world where there is the United Nations, and it is not okay in a Europe where there are the various agreements about the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I suppose that in some way we are trying to vindicate the CSCE.

The debate has concentrated so far on the means of exerting pressure, whether it be diplomatic, economic or limited military involvement. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about not forswearing certain action and making sure that there is a credible military capability available to be used, if only to keep people guessing.

We have to think hard about our objective. I said earlier that the intervention was incoherent. It does not seem to me to have any clear objective in mind. We must start to think about what our objective is and then work back from that to see what are the appropriate means of achieving it. Having a clear objective in this case means having a view about the desired outcome. Through this whole debate, the British Government and the other European Governments seem to have been incredibly coy about the desired outcome. That must be spelt out. We must be clear about it, and then we can look at the ways and means.

9.11 pm

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : I welcome the fact that the debate is taking place. I welcome also the way in which it has been conducted--soberly and with considerable reflection. The debate has been distinguished by no rancour having been shown on either side of the House. That is important.

This is an emotional issue. I must declare right away that I support the Government amendment, but the motion reflects the tension and anger that we feel about the slaughter and atrocities in that region. It reflects our awareness of the impending horror of the forthcoming winter and the feeling of total revulsion about the continuation of ethnic cleansing.

At times, however, the House tries to blame the wrong party. It is easy to blame the Government, because they are there. Nevertheless, we bear in mind that the Government have agonised long and hard about how to perform our role in the Balkans. We are very much aware of the Prime Minister's anguish. He was anxious to make his

contribution--hence the London peace conference. He made a firm stand by condemning Serbia for the atrocities.

Next Section

Home Page