Home Page

Column 113

House of Commons

Friday 19 November 1993

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PETITION

Nursery Education

9.34 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : I beg leave to present a petition on national nursery education. The petition was initiated by three Newham parents--Sylvia Pack, Terence Burns and Alan Clark--and has been supported by 106,676 citizens of the United Kingdom, 16,000 of whom come from Scotland. It is supported by prominent Members of all three major parties on both sides of the House, by the national campaign for nursery education, the campaign for state education, the national child care campaign and the Fawcett Society. The petition reads :

Whereas there is a widespread acceptance of the value of early learning for all children under five, particularly through proven methods of Nursery Education, as a means of improving social and educational standards ; that nevertheless there is a widespread national concern at the shortage of resources available for this public provision, consequent upon recent changes in the funding of national education, which is now reducing the quality range and effect of this vital service ;

That there is now urgent necessity for a statutory duty to be laid upon all Local Education Authorities to provide sufficient places to meet the demand for nursery education, which by using resources at the most critical and cost-effective time can further the objective of Her Majesty's Government to provide all the nation's children with a firm basis for later educational success and social responsibility ;

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all necessary resources are made available to education authorities to enable the Government and your Honourable House to discharge their responsibilities to both parents and children of today, and to the citizens of tomorrow.

To lie upon the Table .

BILL PRESENTED

Sunday Trading

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Hunt and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to reform the law of England and Wales relating to Sunday trading ; to make provision as to the rights of shop workers under the law of England and Wales in relation to Sunday working ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 1.]

Column 114

Orders of the Day

Debate on the Address

[Second Day]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows :-- Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament-- [Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.]

Question again proposed .

Foreign Affairs and Defence

9.37 am

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : I apologise to the House because I have to leave before the debate concludes as I have commitments in the north that would be hard to break.

In following the international news, all right hon. and hon. Members face the difficulty that the kaleidoscope shifts week by week and we are asked to make decisions and, in some cases, comment on each fresh turn of events in a disordered world. Governments in particular are asked daily to condemn actions or promise remedies and are themselves condemned if they hold back for a day or two. Compared to other countries, because of our parliamentary system, British Ministers must declare their hands almost daily and are thus almost more exposed than most. Words come back to haunt us if we cannot live up to the promise that they contain. We must be able to deliver what we undertake and not to undertake what we cannot deliver. On the Conservative Benches, we have tried to follow that principle. It produces some modest and hard-fought advances and it means that we try to avoid posturing and rhetoric. It means that we are cautious in setting our hand to any enterprise, but, when we do so, we seek to carry it forward with full energy with our friends and allies. I shall give a range of examples across the world. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would chide me for leaving out important issues, although he would probably chide me anyway. I shall do my best to cover matters that are of interest to the House.

I turn first to the middle east. We have worked quietly for many years for dialogue in the middle east, especially between Israel and her neighbours. The Americans have worked strenuously in recent times. When, earlier this year, the Israelis and the Palestinians achieved their breakthrough in negotiations, it was certainly a blow against pessimism everywhere. That breakthrough must now be followed through.

There is progress in the discussions between Israel and Jordan. However, the peace will not be complete and will not last without a successful outcome to all the strands of negotiation, including those with Syria and with Lebanon.

Column 115

I believe that the parties want to reach a settlement. It is clear that delay is damaging, and I hope that the opportunities will be seized before they drain away.

In recent years, Britain's role has deliberately been patient and supportive. We stood back once we were convinced that the Americans were serious about the peace process. Now that the deadlock has been broken, our involvement can go into a rather different gear. We are talking more visibly now to those involved in the negotiations and we are encouraging them towards a comprehensive settlement.

As the House knows, I went to Syria last month. My talks with President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara'a were helpful. Next month, Mr. Arafat and the Prime Minister of Lebanon will come here. I hope to visit Israel, Jordan and the occupied territories in January. The European Community has pledged substantial financial help for the process--about £69 million this year and a further package of support over the next five years. The Government are looking at ways in which to help the Palestinians to set up the institutions of

self-government.

Elsewhere in the middle east, the going is harder. The House broadly supports our policy towards Iraq ; I need not go into it in detail. We will not relax the pressure on Iraq unless it complies fully with all the Security Council resolutions. The Security Council is reviewing sanctions again today and I believe that it will, once again, determine that the circumstances do not exist in which sanctions can be lifted. We are, for example, following carefully the United Nations investigations into the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi regime in the southern marshes.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Why is it taking so long for the west to establish whether chemical weapons have been used against the Shia Muslims in the marshes? What are our intelligence services doing? What are people in the United Nations doing if we are unable to verify, several weeks after the allegations were first made, whether Saddam Hussein has once again used horrendous weapons against his own people?

Mr. Hurd : I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point. As he has raised it, I will try to ensure that the examination is concluded as soon as possible. It must, of course, be thorough if it is to be persuasive. It is not a job which can be rushed simply because of a timetable. Whether the allegations are true or not, the situation in the marshes is especially horrifying. The Prince of Wales has pointed that out and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has been tireless in bringing the plight of the marsh Arabs to the world's attention.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that although I and my group have knowledge of two victims in the marshes, samples from the victims' bodies are required by the chemical weapons team. If we release information about where the victims are, they will be killed immediately.

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend points out some of the real difficulties. She may catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. She and others would like us to act in the south as we did in the north, by creating safe havens. I ask the

Column 116

House to accept that the situation is very different. In the north, there was a momentary vacuum as Saddam Hussein had withdrawn his troops. We were able to move in and to give some help to the Kurds. No such situation exists in the south, so the military and practical hazards of such an operation would be great.

What we can do we must do well. We shall continue to maintain the no-fly zone over southern Iraq which was set up in August 1992 to monitor Saddam Hussein's activities. We continue to help the organisations that work in the area. We shall continue, as the House is doing this morning, to keep up the pressure on this tragic subject.

Three British prisoners are being held in Baghdad. They have been given grotesque sentences for technical offences ; if there were offences, they were minor and technical. I have no doubt that they are being held for a political purpose and their plight, like that of the marsh Arabs, reminds us of the realities behind the somewhat softer words used by spokesmen of the Iraqi regime in New York. Another longer-standing dispute, which is of great interest to many hon. Members, is the dispute in Cyprus. The Commonwealth summit was held there this month and, while I was there, I gave lunch to the leaders of both communities, President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. The two leaders studied together and were part of the Cypriot legal fraternity under colonial rule. They belong to a generation for whom the division of the island is a personal as well as a political tragedy. Over that meal in the Ledra Palace hotel, I felt that the two men understood each other well. I found some cause for hope there, but not hope that will last indefinitely.

We have a particular interest and a particular role there, not just because of the sovereign base areas, although they are important, but because we are one of the guarantor powers in Cyprus. We must press ahead towards a solution while the present generation of Cypriot leaders remain in office. It gets harder each year to find people who have a history of working together, and that is true of both communities. We must do all that we can to secure the intercommunal dialogue when it starts again after the elections in northern Cyprus on 12 December.

A particular responsibility at this time rests on the Government of Turkey. They have accepted the Secretary-General's proposal for confidence-building measures, including the reopening of Varosha. However, the Turkish Cypriot authorities have so far refused. We are friends of Turkey. We have gone out of our way in the past year repeatedly to ensure that Turkey's importance is understood and that its views on international matters are heard and heeded. I hope that from that background, the Turkish Government will accept our sincerity and our good sense when we urge them now to use all their influence on the Turkish Cypriots to bring about agreement, first on confidence-building mesures, including Varosha, and then on an ultimate agreement in Cyprus.

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West) : The Foreign Secretary knows from our correspondence on the issue of the difficulties arising during the annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference which was held recently in Cyprus, and of the concern expressed over the comments made by the Minister for Overseas Development. He also knows of the concern shared by all political parties, including those that make up the coalition Government in Cyprus, about the role of British representatives in Cyprus.

Column 117

Will the Foreign Secretary clarify not only for the House, but for the large Cypriot community in this country, for the political parties in Cyprus and for the Cypriot people exactly what Britain is committed to? Is Britain committed to the Secretary-General's confidence -building measures and to the United Nations Security Council resolutions, or to something else?

Mr. Hurd : The record shows clearly that we support the Secretary- General's set of ideas, which we believe is the basis for an eventual full settlement, and, meanwhile, the confidence-building measures that he has proposed. That has been made abundantly clear many times by myself, by the Prime Minister and by others during the Commonwealth summit, during the Queen's visit before that and repeatedly afterwards. I do not think that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus are in any doubt about that. We believe in one country, one Cyprus, one Government, two communities.

I now turn to the situation in Russia. Our support for President Yeltsin is support for Yeltsin the reformer. He has asked us to send observers to the election in Russia on 15 December. We have agreed and a British team will travel there next month. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) for agreeing to chair the group and to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who will be deputy chair. Other hon. Members from both sides of the House will take part. We are supporting the preparations for the elections. Two senior BBC editors and producers, experienced in covering elections, have just come back from an advisory visit to Moscow. The Government have launched the £500,000 British Programme for Democracy under the know-how fund to support the institutions which will emerge after the elections, particularly the new Parliament.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Did the BBC and Government report about what is going on in Russia have anything to say about the overwhelming Government control of the media there, and the lack of access for Opposition parties to the television and printed media? Surely such access is a precursor to a fair and democratic election.

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman might be consistent on this matter, but the degree of liberality and openness of comment in publications in Russia is very great. It never ceases to amaze people who, only a few years ago, lived under a very different system. One can always produce examples of where it has not gone far enough, but the extent to which it has gone is remarkable.

I believe that the know-how fund is making a real difference to the process of reform, both in Russia and more widely. A few days ago, I met some of those in the private sector who are helping to make the fund work, in order to find out how they thought it was going. They were certainly enthusiastic about it. I take pride, for example, in the bread project. It sounds a simple thing, but, under the know-how fund, Sainsburys, Tesco and Marks and Spencer have helped the Russians to establish the necessary links that we take for granted--between the farmer who grows the grain, the person who transports it, the wholesaler, the baker and the retailer. That reflects the demands of the customers, and means that Moscow now has a better supply and greater choice of bread in the shops. One of the regional governors in Russia, commenting on the know-how fund, said :

Column 118

"Many people come here and talk a lot, but do little ; the know-how fund talks little but does a lot."

I am content with that as a verdict.

The European Union, using the common foreign security part of the Maastricht treaty, will be taking part in monitoring the elections in Russia. That makes sense, and is one example of the point that we often discussed during the debate on the Maastricht Bill. Where there is no need for a common policy, or where agreement cannot be reached among the 12, we will act independently. Where agreement can be reached, as in the business of helping the elections in Russia, it makes sense to act together and we will do so. We will seek to make our joint actions successful and effective.

The former Yugoslavia is an area where co-ordinated action is necessary. Since the situation in Bosnia was last debated in the House, the prospects for a peace settlement have receded. We have to continue the double effort of the peace process and the humanitarian task, and past disappointments do not excuse us from persevering. The responsibility for ending the fighting lies with those doing it. Outsiders can help bring the leaders together, and produce ideas for a settlement ; outsiders can help keep Bosnians alive, which is what we, the French and others are doing ; but only the Bosnian communities can end the war.

The Foreign Ministers of the European Union will meet again in Luxembourg on Monday, with David Owen and General Cot to consider ways of restarting the Bosnian political process. We are working to develop the ideas of David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg for discussion at that meeting, and we are in close touch with the Americans, but, without a political settlement, there is a real risk of a humanitarian disaster this winter.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd : Let me get on a bit, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

We have helped to staunch the wounds. British troops have escorted more than 1,500 convoys and got 70,000 tonnes of aid through ; the RAF Hercules airlift to Sarajevo has brought in nearly 12,000 tonnes of aid ; and Britain has contributed over £150 million in aid, half bilaterally and half through the European Community.

We must try to keep open the roads that carry that aid. I have a detailed account, but I will spare the House the details. In particular, we want to open up the route between Metkovic and Split into central Bosnia, which is the area where our forces are operating. I will now give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jenkin : Can I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Belgian presidency conclusions? The European Council, after its meeting at the end of October, issued guidelines to the Council of Ministers. On implementation, those guidelines could form the first part of the legal process, under article J of the treaty on European Union, for moves towards qualified majority voting or majority voting. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no move towards majority voting on foreign policy issues with regard to Bosnia without a further vote in the House?

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend surprises me. We are talking about what is happening in Bosnia and what we can do to help. My hon. Friend is on a very arid point. There

Column 119

is no suggestion in the European Council conclusions of anything to do with qualified majority voting. There has been no suggestion in the Councils we have had since then that any of this should be dealt with by qualified majority voting ; it simply would not be appropriate or suitable, and we would not agree to it. The circumstances in which qualified majority voting can be used are set out in the treaty. There is no suggestion that it should be applied in this case.

Getting back to the question of Bosnia, we need a big push this winter if the present political vacuum and lack of co-operation persist. The parties cannot expect the humanitarian commitment that many of us undertake to continue indefinitely. It is unrealistic to expect that the convoys and the troops escorting them can go on for ever, when we are not receiving local co-operation and when there is no progress towards a political settlement.

Mr. David Faber (Westbury) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd : Let me get on a bit and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

The onus is now on the Serbs to make further territorial concessions to meet Muslim demands in the Geneva talks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) knows, Belgrade faces a bleak and sanctions-ridden winter. If a Bosnian settlement is agreed and is being implemented, those sanctions could and should be progressively lifted.

Mr. Faber : I am very heartened to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. When the EC Foreign Ministers meet next week, will my right hon. Friend again raise the issue of such sanctions against Croatia? Given that as many as 15,000 regular Croat army troops are currently in Bosnia, continuing to commit atrocities, apparently without punishment, under the very noses of British troops ; given that British troops in Bosnia acknowledge that they are at greatest risk from Croat soldiers ; and given the mindless acts of vandalism, such as the destruction of the bridge in Mostar, it seems incredible to some of us that the issue of sanctions against Croatia is still not on the negotiating table.

Mr. Hurd : I am not sure that introducing sanctions against Croatia would help remedy those matters. As my hon. Friend knows, the sanctions were originally introduced against Serbia and Montenegro because the Security Council believed, and we agreed, that the main responsibility for starting and sustaining the war at that time rested with the Serbs and Montenegrans. The Croats later joined in, but it does not necessarily follow that sanctions against Croatia--even if they were agreed--would bring these evils to an end. Sanctions cannot be ruled out, and President Tudjman is aware of that. Whether there could be agreement about the use of applying them at this time needs to be discussed, but a decision on that is not likely to be taken on Monday.

Turning briefly to the world economic scene, the next few weeks in the Uruguay round negotiations will be, I believe, the last few weeks. A breakthrough on market access was achieved at Tokyo in July, but it has not been translated into immediate results in Geneva. Progress has

Column 120

been painfully slow--partly because of the nature of the negotiations ; nobody wants to make concessions until the last moment.

Some of our major partners have special reasons to be cautious. The United States has waited until the voting on the North American Free Trade Agreement was completed in Congress. I congratulate the President on the success of that vote, and I hope that the United States can now give much- needed momentum to the Uruguay round and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

A successful outcome, however, will depend on more than that. It will require enormous efforts from the negotiators and brave decisions from the political leaders, including those in the European Community, between now and the deadline of 15 December. I believe, however, that the House accepts our view that we cannot afford not to reach agreement.

The best advertisement for the benefits of the free market and an open trading system is, of course, Hong Kong. It combines a clean and efficient administration with a system of values based on the rule of law : together, those factors have made Hong Kong special--in my view, unique--and successful over the years. If Hong Kong is to remain attractive to business men and investors, and to its citizens and their children, those assets must be preserved.

Our talks with China on constitutional changes in Hong Kong are not about whether there should be a growth in democracy--whether democratic arrangements should operate now and after 1997. That principle is agreed by both Governments. The argument is about whether the final round of elections to be held under British sovereignty--some will take place next year, and some in 1995--will be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

We have agreed with the Chinese that the content of the continuing talks should be confidential, but our approach has been persistent ; we have continued to look for an agreement. It has also been flexible, within the framework laid down by--among others--the Governor of Hong Kong, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me. I have discussed these matters with my Chinese colleague, the Chinese Foreign Minister, twice in the past four months. We are resolved to intensify our efforts in the talks, focusing first on the more easily soluble issues in a first-stage agreement. We will work strenuously for such an agreement--indeed, we are already doing so-- but not at any price. We have made major moves to meet Chinese concerns. Now they know, as we do, that time is running short ; we look to the Government in Peking to work with us in bridging the remaining gap.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the time for whittling away the limited democratic proposals advanced by the Governor a few months ago has come to an end? Is not there a serious danger of a complete capitulation to the Chinese position, which will undermine the morale of all who believe in progress towards greater democracy in Hong Kong--which has now been established in, for example, Taiwan? Is it not time that Parliament took a strong stand and said, "We believe in democracy worldwide, including in Hong Kong and, ultimately, China"?

Mr. Hurd : The arrangements for the elections in Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995 will be decided by the Legislative Council there. Before too long, the Governor will have to put proposals to the council, but it is the council which will

Column 121

decide. We should prefer the Governor to be in a position to put proposals that had been agreed with the Chinese. We do not yet know whether that is possible, but it is clearly desirable, as it would enable those elected in 1995 to know that they will be able to serve on the "through train" through 1997.

Some time is left in which to establish whether such an agreement can be reached. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who follows these matters carefully, will know the guidelines that we have set ourselves--the tests of fairness, openness and acceptability. We are following those guidelines, and the Governor keeps in close touch with the Executive Council and with opinion in Hong Kong. We are following the principled line which he has laid down, and which he constantly explains and defends. The Chinese know that as well. Within weeks, we shall know whether it is possible to reach an agreement, or whether we shall have to discharge our responsibilities for 1994 and 1995 without one.

Hong Kong sits in the middle of one of the most dynamic regions in the world. The expansion and prosperity of Asia have struck everyone's imagination over the past year ; that is why Asia needs to receive, and will receive, higher priority in the Government's efforts and policies. This is partly a commercial matter. Exports to Thailand so far this year are up 43 per cent. on last year's ; exports to Malaysia are up 35 per cent., and there are comparable increases in other countries in the region. It is not entirely commercial, however. The political weight of the area is growing, as this week's Seattle summit simply serves to illustrate. We in Britain--as politicians, business men and professional people--will need to pay more attention to the Asian countries in the next few years.

In India earlier this week, I saw vividly how this can work in practice. More than 100 British companies were represented in Bombay, marking the first anniversary of the Indo-British partnership initiative launched in January by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister. On Tuesday, on board the royal yacht Britannia, I watched contracts worth £500 million being signed. New business since the launch of the initiative is worth £1 billion. Two-way trade with India is already worth £2 billion a year, and has grown by 20 per cent. this year. British investment stands at £2 billion, but there is room for more.

I have cited those figures to demonstrate that there is no crisis in India- -just steady progress, and the steady building up of a British position in a country that we once ruled, but which, after a time, we may have tended rather to forget. British entrepreneurship and energy, helped and encouraged by the Government, are now moving back to rebuild a strong position. We should sometimes mention such processes, which are part of the business of fortifying our position in the world.

Such encouragement of trade and investment is just as much my Department's job as is working out resolutions in the Security Council, on which we are cross-examined in the House. It is part of the underlying effort to buttress our presence, not just in Asia but elsewhere.

In building our friendship with India, we must remember the continuing dispute--indeed, tragedy--in Kashmir. Preparations are in hand for discussion between India and the new Government in Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

Column 122

for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was in Pakistan while I was in India, and we both discussed the matter. The preparations for that dialogue are as complex as ever.

I sought to set out again the three factors that we in Britain--as friends of both countries, anxious about the present position--believe are needed. They are a genuine dialogue between India and Pakistan, as envisaged more than 20 years ago in the Simla agreement ; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir while the Indians look for credible Kashmiri interlocutors in the internal political process, which is clearly necessary ; and a clear end to external support for violet, as friends of both countries, we will do anything that we can to help.

The need for real democracy, and the importance of the rule of law, are of course abiding themes in South Africa. We warmly welcome the success of the multi-party negotiations there. The first fully democratic elections take place next April, and we hope that all political groups will participate. We plan to help with election monitoring and observation.

The difficulties are very real ; watching the news night after night, we sometimes feel that the whole process is pockmarked with setbacks and difficulties. However, the underlying current is dramatic, as has been illustrated by the joint award of the Nobel peace prize to Mr. Mandela and President de Klerk. We have given every support to the transition process. As the House will recall, we pressed constantly--as did the Opposition--for the crucial first steps : the release of political prisoners, "unbanning" the ANC and starting the process of negotiation. We have kept an open door here to all the main participants in the negotiations. For seven years, we have provided training and practical support for community leaders, and for many who will help to run the new South Africa. We initiated the sending of observers to help to curb the awful violence.

It is a direct British interest that South Africa should come through the sometimes dark tunnel of transition safely. Our dealings with the country are returning to a healthier normality : trade missions are in progress, investment is being encouraged and a British defence attache is now being sent back to our embassy in Pretoria. We want South Africa to become an area of prosperity and stability once more, after being a source of dissension and disturbance for too long.

It is all the more tragic that, in the same week that progress has been made in South Africa, there has been a significant step backwards in Nigeria. We deplore the decision of the Nigerian military to take back power and to dissolve all democratically elected institutions. There was a time when it seemed in a way understandable for the military to take over in countries with such problems as exist in Nigeria, Pakistan or elsewhere. However, experience has shown that that is not a way forward. It is a cul- de-sac, as Nigeria has found several times in the past. We have consistently supported a peaceful transition to a democratic civilian government. General Abacha, the soldier in charge of Nigeria, has appealed to the international community to suspend judgment on the military takeover. That is not reasonable. We have already shown patience towards Nigeria during the past 10 years and also in recent months. We must judge the new regime by its actions, but it is clear that military rule cannot be a viable solution. I urge those who are in charge to move

Column 123

rapidly back to an accountable, democratic, civilian Government. Measures aimed at the Nigerian military which have been in place will remain in force. We are consulting our international partners on the further steps that may be needed in response to that backward step. I know that hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak about our aid programme. In many of the areas to which I have referred, our efforts towards peace and stability are much more effective because they are buttressed by development aid. Last year, our aid programme was the sixth largest in the world. There are constraints on it, and not just the constraints from the public spending round that is now in course. Not the least of those is the amount of money that we are committed to contribute through the multilateral agencies. Over 20 per cent. of our aid goes through the EC and another slice goes through the United Nations and its agencies. Only 53 per cent. of our aid goes bilaterally. We are adapting to those realities.

I hope that the House will agree that British aid is now rarely spent on big infrastructure projects such as dams and power generation projects, which the international and multilateral aid organisations are often better equipped to cover. Our bilateral programme focuses increasingly on encouraging good governance and economic liberalism.

Of course, we will go on giving down-to-earth, quick, and effective help to the victims of poverty and disaster. We have just committed £10 million to help those who are in need in Angola. The third British flight in as many weeks has arrived in Luanda carrying food, tents, and blankets. Our team of 10 nurses in Angola has this week completed a programme of immunisation for children who are most at risk of disease.

I have touched only sketchily--although I have spoken for nearly 40 minutes --on some of the troubles of the world and I have set out what we are trying to achieve. We have to identify and use our assets ; the primacy of our language and our broadcasters, our respected aid programme, our financial skills, our diplomatic service, and our highly professional armed forces. We shall continue to deploy those assets and to make use of those in which we are strongest to protect and advance the interests of Britain and to strengthen the alliances and international institutions on which our wealth and safety depend.

10.14 am

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : I begin by reassuring the Foreign Secretary that, whatever else I may chide him about in the next 30 minutes, it will not be for his refusal to make a 30 or 40 minute speech of 40 one- sentence, one-line issues. The House will recognise that that would not have been a sensible way to proceed, although it would have been eminently possible given the major issues which affect the world.

We could, for example, have a whole day's debate on Hong Kong, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on that subject before the final and perhaps irrevocable steps are taken by the Governor in terms of presenting legislation in Hong Kong.

The Queen's Speech sets out the broad statement of the Government's foreign policy objectives at the beginning of the Session. It is interesting to compare and contrast

Column 124

yesterday's Gracious Speech with the one that was made on 6 May 1992. The speeches must have come from the same disk and the same word processor.

The single but important exception is the Government's announcement that they intend to introduce legislation to place the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government communications headquarters on a statutory basis. The first two pages of the speeches 18 months ago and yesterday are virtually identical. It is opportune for us to look ahead to what will present problems and challenges to Her Majesty's Government during the current Session. It is also reasonable for us to look back to the objectives that were set out by the right hon. Gentleman 18 months ago and to measure the Government's performance in that period against those objectives. I expect that hon. Members of all parties will welcome warmly the decision in respect of the SIS and GCHQ. The decision that they should be put on a statutory basis is long overdue. I also welcome the decision to make provision for the oversight and accountability of those organisations, as well as the Security Service, MI5. We welcome that in principle, but we will reserve judgment on the proposals for oversight and scrutiny until they have been published. We will want to examine the legislation in some detail.

I feel strongly that powers should exist in the House, perhaps under a special Committee, for such oversight and scrutiny. I want to emphasise also, although it is a slightly separate issue, that we feel strongly that the Government are long overdue in restoring the right to belong to democratic and free trade unions to the people who are employed at GCHQ.

The rest of the Queen's Speech is largely a repetition of what we heard 18 months ago. How has the Government's performance matched up to what the right hon. Gentleman said when he spoke in the similar debate on 8 May 1992? During that debate, he talked about Cyprus and Turkey, about Libya and Iraq, about the European Community, about Government policy on Hong Kong, and several other important issues. Effective foreign policy should be based on consistency and coherence, on trust in the international community,

on--inevitably--economic strength, on fairness, and on respect for countries' actions and decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged- -at least in part--it should also be based on an effective and generous overseas aid programme.

I wish to refer to Europe and the decisions made at the most recent meeting under the Belgian presidency in Brussels on 29 October this year. The right hon. Gentleman and the European Community have been involved in discussions on the situation in the former Yugoslavia for 18 months. In that time, what changes have occurred? Has progress been made? Have things improved? They have not improved in terms of the brutal conflict. I share the belief of the right hon. Gentleman in the culpability of the political leaders of all parties who have continued to fight when they have had endless opportunities to reach agreement. That view is common. The reality is that in terms of Her Majesty's Government acting on their own or together with their European partners, the situation has not improved.

The declaration on the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina was issued several weeks ago now--on 29 October. That declaration, in common with other declarations made by the European Union, as it now is, and with resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council, may

Column 125

change little : such declarations and resolutions are rarely, if ever, implemented. I do not believe that, in reality, the way in which we and our partners approach the tragedy in Bosnia is materially different now that that statement has been made. The airlift has not been stepped up. Aid has not been increased. No more troops have been made available to the United Nations force since the declaration was issued.

Today, Mr. Stoltenberg has again called for the deployment of more troops to assist the aid programme--and, as always, I commend without reservation the commitment and dedication of our own forces ; that view is common to us all. Similarly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has again drawn attention to the imminent tragedy in Bosnia and has called for $80 million more to finance essential winter aid. In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary made no response to either of those requests. He did not even mention them. It should be possible for an organisation as powerful and wealthy as the European Union to do much more than it is doing. The Foreign Secretary always accuses me of being a member of the "something must be done" club. He seems to be a member of the "something must be said" club : lots must be said, but nothing new must be done. I share the view expressed in an intervention by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who spoke of sanctions against Croatia. How much longer can we tolerate the aggression of Croatia without taking some action in response? I suspect that sanctions are not being imposed, not because the Foreign Secretary would not like that to be done but because he cannot persuade Chancellor Kohl that that is the appropriate action to take. Once again, therefore, we see the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany asserting his authority over policy in the Community, to the detriment of the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina and to the shame of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hurd : One could argue the point about sanctions against Croatia, but the right hon. Gentleman's earlier point was not right. I gave facts and figures not in relation to what we are saying but in relation to what we are doing to keep people alive. We are continuing that effort. I left out of my speech a rather technical passage about roads which are closed and which we hope to open. We want to open Tuzla airport. There is a great deal of practical activity, including an agreement concluded yesterday. We shall have to see whether it works, but I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we are doing nothing. We are doing a great deal. We are doing as much as any other country, and that is a lot.

Dr. Cunningham : I would give the Foreign Secretary credit and say that we are doing more than many other countries, but that is not my point. I am asking what has changed. What additional activity has flowed from the declaration made in Brussels some weeks ago? There is little point in placing a high profile on common foreign and security policy and on the need to act together coherently with our partners if, in reality, nothing new happens following such discussions. It is worth remembering the aims and objectives of a common foreign and security policy as set out in chapter 4 of the declaration : "to develop active policy in pursuit of interests of the Union ; unity and consistency in its external actions ; inclusion of all

Column 126

matters related to the security of the Union ; decisions of the Union committing member states ; unity in presentation of the Union's policy ; efficiency in the decision-making procedure."

Was there any discussion with the Foreign Secretary's counterpart in the Federal Republic of Germany before that country joined in intelligence discussions with the Iranians? Was that decision consistent with the aims and objectives of the common foreign and security policy of the Union? Was there any discussion about the enforcement of existing Union and United Nations decisions in the former Yugoslavia?

Can we expect an agreement on GATT to emerge as a result of the setting of those aims and objectives of the Union's common foreign and security policy? The President of the United States has seen off the protectionists in respect of the NAFTA decision. Will we be able to see off the protectionists in Europe--principally, I suspect, the French--or will Prime Minister Balladur win on that issue, too? Will one of our powerful European partners get its way once again, to the disadvantage of the rest of us--to say nothing of the other 100 or so countries around the world that are so very keen on a GATT agreement? Does the Foreign Secretary share the view of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who, in his disgraceful speech at the Conservative party conference, was so insulting about our European partners--about the Germans, the French and the Italians? Does the Foreign Secretary really think that such speeches advance the cause of co-operation and coherence in European policy?

As we all now know courtesy of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Social Security is a member of the well-know B team. As Shakespeare wrote in "King Lear",

"Now, gods, stand up for bastards!"

The Tory party conference stood up for each one of them in turn. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will stand up to them when he comes to write his party's manifesto for the European elections next year. Or perhaps that task is to be conceded to the Secretary of State for Wales, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Social Security. Who will hold the ring between them and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and the existing Conservative Members of the European Parliament? It will be an interesting few months as that process unfolds.

Next Section

  Home Page