House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 May 1995

Column 298

causing them ill health. Those residents, and people living adjacent to the air base, have lost much of the value of their properties.

Not only must the residents put up with all that; lorries now drive over their front gardens. I am quite sure that those houses will suffer structural damage in the years to come. Local residents who live in properties adjacent to the air base have had what was an enjoyable, tranquil and rural life style completely changed, and their lives have been turned into misery. They have suffered a severe loss of residential amenity as a direct result of the uncaring and insensitive actions of the Government.

The activities on the base are just as bad. Local residents who live all around the base must contend with HGVs revving their engines on the site, the constant gear-crunching which goes with the manoeuvres of the vehicles, the reverse sirens wailing, the air brakes hissing and trailers being dumped to the ground. The diesel exhaust fumes from all the vehicles are building up a public health problem in the area for years to come. Warrington has an above average incidence of asthma, and the fumes will make that problem worse.

A further problem is that the base is a real fire hazard. It is a powder keg waiting to blow--an accident waiting to happen. The chief fire officer of Cheshire fire brigade wrote to me to say that in the event of a serious fire at the base, local residents would be in danger of airborne pollutants outside acceptable levels. He was unable to give me a categorical assurance that the fire measures in place give the most appropriate protection against a likely fire hazard associated with the current use of the premises.

I have been told now that smoke detectors on the site warehouses in Header house have been switched off because the fumes from the HGVs and fork-lift trucks set off the fire alarms. The building does not have a sprinkler system, nor does it have any fire walls within it. Some 30,000 litres of diesel are stored on the site, and liquid propane gas is stored there inappropriately. With the smoke alarms turned off and the current storage of dry consumable goods, the potential for a serious fire is very high. The consequences for local residents of such a fire do not bear thinking about.

Confirmation of the problem has come from two independent sources. First, the north west traffic commissioner adjudicated on an application by TDG to run an operating licence from Burtonwood air base. Commenting on the evidence from local people, the commissioner stated that they all gave evidence of daily disturbance from noise, vibration and fumes--particularly at night.

The commissioner quoted evidence from Mr. P. Woods, the environmental protection officer for Warrington borough council, whose detailed report confirmed that the noise from TDG's night operations exceeded statutory limits. Even TDG's noise experts agreed that there was a problem. It is not surprising that J. H. Levin, on behalf of the deputy licensing authority, concluded that he was "satisfied that the operations at present carried out under the interim authority are causing such adverse environmental problems that the application for a full licence should be refused." He said that Warrington council was of the opinion that the activities on the air base were in contravention of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Column 299

To make matters worse, the matter has been brought to a head by the Government's intransigence and their refusal to act to protect the interests of local residents, taxpayers and voters. Until now, the Government have refused to engage in a joint planning exercise to determine an acceptable future use for Burtonwood air base. They failed to consult local Members of Parliament, Warrington borough council or the local residents before turning Burtonwood air base into a commercial lorry and trailer park, with the attendant problems that I have described.

On 28 March 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I met the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Henley, to bring attention to the severe loss of residential amenity suffered by neighbours of Burtonwood air base. I followed that meeting with a letter to seek action from the Government to put a stop to the totally unacceptable use of the air base. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence refused. Likewise, my request for a weekend and night-time curfew on lorry movement to and from the base was refused.

Even the request from Warrington borough council for a copy of the report on noise prevention measures compiled by the land agents for the Ministry of Defence was refused. I might add that noise attenuation measures on the base will not solve the problem, nor will moving the problem around the base by using other entrances and exits. All that that would do would be to spread the problem to other areas in my constituency, which would suffer if alternative arrangements for traffic on the site were made.

The only solution is to stop the traffic altogether. The excuse given by the Ministry of Defence for the refusals is that it is in dispute with Warrington council as to whether the current commercial activities at the base are covered by the existing planning permission. The Ministry of Defence believes that it has existing permission to allow the current commercial use at the base. The problem is not the planning permission itself, but it is a clear sign that the MOD is using the planning issue to resolve the dispute in its favour.

If that is the case and the MOD is deemed to have planning permission, it will continue the present use of the base and will sell it on the open market to the highest bidder as a storage facility. That will ensure that the purgatory that has been experienced by my constituents becomes permanent. That is simply not acceptable.

We would like to hear today from the Ministry of Defence that it recognises that it was the Government who brought people to live in this area, and that the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation and the Commission for the New Towns also encouraged people to live there. The Government are directly responsible for the creation of the residential development which now surrounds Burtonwood air base, and are also responsible for changing the nature of that high-quality residential neighbourhood.

The Government have a moral responsibility to ensure that the people who now live in that modern village setting do not suffer a loss of residential amenity as a result of the Government's actions. Clearly, the Ministry of Defence can now ensure that the use of the air base is determined in such a way that local residents can continue to enjoy the quality of life that they have enjoyed since

Column 300

they first moved into the area. To do anything else would represent a severe breach of faith on the Government's part.

It is worth remembering that we celebrate VE day this week. Burtonwood air base played a major part in bringing peace to Europe. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will now play a major part in bringing peace to my constituents.

2.16 pm

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate, as half the base is in my constituency. I also thank the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for being here to listen and to reply.

I hope that the Minister will not hide behind the question whether the Ministry of Defence has planning permission. We realise that Burtonwood was once the largest ordnance depot for the United States army in Europe, but at that time--as my hon. Friend explained--many of the movements were made by rail. Local residents are now experiencing unacceptable lorry movements on the site.

I hope that the Minister takes that fact on board, as the Under-Secretary of State did not do so when my hon. Friend and I met him recently. The Minister should go for an integrated plan with Warrington borough council and the Commission for the New Towns which involves the residents. Life for local people has become intolerable, as we are talking about 5,000 vehicle movements on a road that--by any stretch of the imagination--is not suitable. How much worse will it get if the Ministry of Defence carries on with what appears to be its present plan, and sells the site on the open market as a storage depot? Will the 5,000 movements become 10,000 or 20,000?

Already, life is intolerable for people who, following an agreement with the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation, bought houses in what was a residential area. I never have sympathy for those who buy houses next to a site and then start to complain about what is going on at the site. The area has been completely altered, and I ask the Minister to approach the matter in a spirit of co-operation, and not confrontation.

2.18 pm

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on his success in debating this motion today. Clearly, it is a matter of great importance to his constituents and to those of his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle).

I recall visiting RAF Burtonwood when I was Under-Secretary of State responsible for the armed forces between 1986 and 1988--I cannot recall which year. The impression that I received was of an enormous facility in a leafy area of Warrington. Peace and quiet prevailed because, frankly, it was used for storing items in preparation for conflict, which fortunately never occurred. Clearly, a solution to the problem has to be found and it has to involve Warrington borough council--that is as plain as a pikestaff.

Following the withdrawal of the United States army in 1993, and in the usual way, we considered whether the site could be used for alternative defence purposes. The

Column 301

hon. Member for Warrington, South referred to the apparent delay between the withdrawal of the American army and where we are today. Use of the site as a base for the long-term storage of army vehicles was one of a number of potential uses. After much careful consideration, however, it was concluded that the site could not sensibly be used for defence purposes and was surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements.

I recognise that the Department took some time to reach that conclusion, but that was due to the need to reflect the changing assumptions of the "Front Line First" study at the time and the considerable care that we took to identify alternative defence uses. That is the first step when disposing of defence sites, as the hon. Member for Warrington, South will recognise. We want to find out whether there could be, first, another defence use and, secondly, another public sector use. Finally, we consider disposal, but with the co-operation and involvement of the local authority.

My noble Friend Lord Henley wrote to the hon. Member for Warrington, South on 21 March to advise him of our conclusions and that we intended to dispose of the site on the open market. I must stress that an empty site such as RAF Burtonwood is a substantial burden on our resources. The costs incurred in maintaining and securing empty sites are significant. The early disposal of surplus property is, therefore, a real priority. In the meantime, ways of alleviating the running costs, which now fall to the MOD, but certainly did not previously do so in their entirety, must be considered. In other words, there is another element in this difficult equation--the taxpayers' interests, as they have to pay, through the Ministry of Defence and RAF Strike Command, which is the top-level budget holder responsible for the site.

My Department believes that, under town and country planning legislation, the current permitted use of RAF Burtonwood is for storage and distribution, which in planning terms is referred to as B8 use. On that basis, pending a final decision on the future of the site, and to defray the cost of maintaining and policing the establishment which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is about £400,000 a year, the defence land agent negotiated a number of short-term lettings. I believe that he was right to do so because, as a Minister accountable to this House, with my noble Friend Lord Henley in another place, I have responsibility for accounting for, mitigating and reducing the taxpayer's expenditure. So, the defence land agent was perfectly correct in what he did.

Although we regard the exact income that we are generating from present activities at RAF Burtonwood as commercially confidential, I can advise the hon. Member for Warrington, South that it is in excess of the running costs of the site. I am sure that he will appreciate that that not only removes a not insignificant burden on the defence budget but is of benefit to the taxpayer.

Indeed, our intended disposal strategy was to build up the commercial usage of the site by completing new tenancies of three and five years and to sell the site as a going concern with the benefit of good short-term income, allowing a purchaser time to plan in the longer term for its redevelopment. That strategy presented the opportunity to dispose of the site quickly because of the generated cash flow, while meeting our obligation to maximise the return to the taxpayer. I must stress, however, that we never

Column 302

considered that the site would be used for storage and distribution in the long term. On the contrary, we envisage it becoming part of the sustainable redevelopment that is taking place within the Great Sankey area.

As the hon. Member for Warrington, South said, the problem is the short- term use, as we do not envisage such a long-term use given the road system, which is inadequate by any standards--as I recall, the site is not exactly served directly by dual carriageway or motorway-standard roads. Residential development has been taking place in the vicinity of RAF Burtonwood in recent years, however, and the present level of commercial usage-- especially the increase in HGV movement--has given rise to complaints from local residents concerning nuisance and noise, especially at night.

The hon. Member for Warrington, North was frank and correct in saying that, if one buys a house close to a railway station, railway line, road or former RAF-owned but American-operated storage depot, one cannot assume that the usage that existed when one bought it will continue for ever. Although that is a correct and absolute statement, one has to use common sense to ensure that its conversion, certainly within the public sector, is carried out as sensitively as possible. My Department acknowledges that our commercial tenants have created greater HGV movement than that generated by use by the United States army, which primarily involved the long-term storage of war reserves and hence generated relatively few vehicle movements and little on-site activity. I fully understand the concern of local residents. We have taken positive steps to minimise the disturbance caused by present activities and the local defence land agent has appointed a firm of environmental consultants to advise on possible short-term and long-term solutions to the noise and traffic problems. The suggested short- term solutions have been passed to Warrington borough council and, although the hon. Member for Warrington, South was somewhat dismissive, include driver training, the introduction of stringent site rules, night patrolling and direction of traffic flow. The longer-term proposals will be available shortly and are expected to include such measures as the provision of sound -absorbing fencing, bunds and landscaping and also the introduction of new access arrangements. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that merely re- routing the same volume of noisy traffic does not necessarily solve the problem, but it is important to consider new access arrangements to find out whether the problems can be alleviated. We are very willing to put our suggested long-term solutions to Warrington borough council, but as yet we have had no response to our short-term proposals.

I hope, therefore, that the next step will be a joint meeting between my officials and Warrington borough council. I am sure that the hon. Member for Warrington, South, as a former leader of the council, and the hon. Member for Warrington, North would be welcome at such a meeting so that their views can be included.

We had intended to enter into discussions with Warrington borough council on the future use of RAF Burtonwood and to try to resolve the present dispute about the existing planning use of the site. Wherever possible, it is our policy to work closely with local authorities and my noble Friend Lord Henley has stressed our

Column 303

preparedness to enter into substantive discussions with Warrington borough council at his recent meeting with the hon. Gentlemen. Warrington borough council recently sought the consent of the Crown to the issue of enforcement notices against the occupiers of the site. The council believes that the current use represents a breach of planning control, on the basis that there is no legal right to use the site for storage and distribution. As the hon. Gentlemen may be aware, when the Crown has an interest in land, enforcement notices cannot be served without the consent of the Secretary of State. We very much hope that, until the long-term future is established, agreement about use of the site can be reached through discussions among affected parties.

As I said, the Department believes that the established and current use of RAF Burtonwood is for storage and distribution. Nevertheless, in view of Warrington borough council's request that the Secretary of State should give his consent to the issue of enforcement notices against the present occupiers, we felt it appropriate to seek the advice of leading counsel, which we have just received. I can advise the hon. Gentlemen that counsel supports our view that the current established use of the site is for storage and distribution and that that use may be continued by occupants other than the Ministry of Defence.

At this stage, we would not wish to comment further on enforcement notices. I hope that it does not come to that because, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North rightly said, the issue should be solved sensibly, after negotiation and certainly after meetings, and we should

Column 304

not be involved simply in a legal dispute over planning. Rather, we propose to enter into substantive discussions with Warrington borough council on the future use of the site with a view to finding a solution with which all parties are content. In the first instance, I asked my officials to contact Warrington borough council to arrange an early meeting, and a meeting has now been set for 18 May. In the meantime, and in view of the current level of local concern, we shall ensure that there is no intensification of the current activities at RAF Burtonwood. In addition, we are taking measures to terminate the occupation of those users who have proved to be unsuitable. As the hon. Members for Warrington, North and for Warrington, South know, one of the major occupiers is currently seeking alternative accommodation. Notwithstanding that, we shall also undertake a stringent review to ensure that all tenants comply with the terms of their lease.

I hope that that and other measures, which I shall ask the defence land agent to propose in his meeting with Warrington borough council, will go at least some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentlemen's concerns.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to order [19 December].

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill

[Lords] . Read a Second time and committed.

Column 303

Bosnia

3.30 pm

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) ( by private notice ): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will a statement on the breakdown of the ceasefire in Bosnia and its impact on the UN.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The cessation of hostilities agreement which, as thehon. Gentleman said, provided for a ceasefire in Bosnia, ended without extension on 1 May. There had been a steady increase in fighting and skirmishing between Bosnian Government troops and Bosnian Serbs since 20 March at a number of flashpoints along the confrontation line.

The end of the cessation of hostilities agreement in Bosnia on 1 May has not so far been marked by any new heavy fighting on the ground. The situation has not yet returned to levels of violence or difficulty experienced last autumn. It is true that the gradual deterioration and the restrictions on freedom of movement have made it more difficult for the United Nations Protection Force to carry out its tasks in areas near the confrontation line. There is no fighting in most of central Bosnia, where, the House knows, most of the British troops in UNPROFOR are deployed.

I shall add a word about the situation in Croatia, which has taken a sharp turn for the worse. Croat forces moved into western Slavonia on 1 May, and in two days' fighting have taken control of the central highway and expelled forces of the Krajina, or Croatian, Serbs, who retaliated by launching five or six missiles into Zagreb. The Croatian Government announced on 2 May that they had completed their operations, but the situation remains tense. There were further explosions in Zagreb this morning, and I have just had reports of continued hostilities in Litija in the western sector and at the town of Karlovac, south of Zagreb.

Early on 2 May, the Security Council adopted a statement that expressed deep concern at the resumption of hostilities, demanded that the Croatian Government end their military offensive, and offered full support to the Secretary-General's special representative, Mr. Akashi, in his negotiations to secure a ceasefire, to ensure the safety of the highway and of UN personnel, and generally to bring the situation back to normal. His efforts continue.

What is happening in both Bosnia and Croatia shows again the urgency of the political process. A negotiated settlement remains the only way to a lasting peace, whether in Bosnia or Croatia. No party will win a decisive military victory, and that is as true now as it has ever been.

The Contact Group is continuing its efforts to secure a settlement in Bosnia based on its plan and mutual recognition among former Yugoslav republics. The immediate priority in Bosnia is to secure a further ceasefire, or cessation of hostilities agreement. The Bosnian Government in Sarajevo have indicated that they could agree to that if President Milosevic recognises Bosnia. So, in its meetings this week, the Contact Group is focusing on that aspect.

The House will realise at once that recognition of Bosnia would be an important step, and would signify an end to Serb dreams of a greater Serbia, but it is one element only in a general and overall package that must include recognition of the other republics, settlement on

Column 326

territory and agreement on a constitution of Bosnia that preserves the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia- Herzegovina.

Mr. Cook: The House will share the Foreign Secretary's grave concern about the danger of a deepening war and the simultaneous breakdown of the ceasefire in Bosnia and the renewed conflict in Croatia, and will be determined that troops must not be exposed to unacceptable risk.

May I join the Foreign Secretary in condemning the unprincipled rocket attacks on Zagreb? The deliberate use of anti-personnel bombs against women and children is not a courageous act of war, but a cowardly act of terrorism. There can be no justification, however, for the Croatian Government's military conquest of a UN-protected area. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the easy success of that action may renew doubts about the UN's resolve to defend protected areas in Croatia and its safe areas in Bosnia?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, last month, the UN representative in Bosnia stated that the UN would use air power if civilians in safe areas were attacked? Is he aware that the only use of air power in Bosnia since then was the bombing last week of civilians in Bihac, as the ceasefire deteriorated? Why was there no response to that breach of the no-fly zone, and is there not a danger that, in the absence of any response, the Serbs will conclude that we were bluffing once again?

On the conflict in Croatia, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that President Tudjman of Croatia is due to arrive here on Saturday to represent his country at the Victory in Europe celebrations? Do the Government still think it appropriate that the celebration of peace in Europe should be attended by a Government who have just broken the peace? If so, will our Government take the opportunity to impress on President Tudjman that there must be no further military assaults on UN-protected areas?

Finally, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the European Union is in discussions with Croatia about granting it associated status on trade? Is it not a condition of those discussions that Croatia accepts that UN troops should remain in place in the protected areas, and does not its invasion of one of those areas make a mockery of that undertaking?

Does the Foreign Secretary see any prospect of peace for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia unless the UN can command respect from their political leaders? Does he really believe that we can build that respect for the UN if we give favoured trade status to a Government who are openly challenging the UN's authority?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman got the balance of comment right between the rocket attacks on Zagreb and the Croatian invasion of sector west. On the use of air power, I think that he was suggesting using NATO air power not against the Croats in sector west--that could not sensibly be considered--but in the Bihac pocket. Clearly, the use of air power by NATO has proved its good sense, and there have been occasions when it has worked. That is why, from time to time, we have said, "Yes, it is available."

Whether it is sensible to call down air power in particular circumstances or at a particular time must depend on the judgment of the commanders on the ground as well as that of the NATO authorities--that is the dual key-- but particularly on the judgment of the former.

Column 327

The hon. Member is correct about the invitation to President Tudjman, who was invited here some time ago for VE day. He accepted the invitation. We are keeping it under review in light of what is happening, but the hon. Gentleman's second comment may well be right, and it might be a useful opportunity to ram home to President Tudjman the Government's views and those of this House about the risks he is taking and the dangers, he is incurring, for his people as well as for his neighbours.

The same applies to the hon. Gentleman's point about the desire of the Croatian Government for closer relations with the European Union. We support that, but the pace and the way in which it goes ahead must depend on the Croatian attitude to the peace process, as he said. Clearly, that has been put at risk--indeed, it has taken a downward spin--during the past few days.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford): Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is now no peace to keep, in either Bosnia or Slovenia, and that therefore the position of our troops doing their gallant humanitarian work must be kept under daily and even hourly review to ensure that they are not exposed to a vastly increased range of risks? Given that the combatants, certainly in Bosnia, will not stop killing each other until they are deterred by each other's strengths, is he still convinced that an uneven supply of weapons to the two sides is the best stance to support at this stage?

Mr. Hurd: There is peace in central Bosnia, where our troops are, albeit a ragged peace, which has been increasingly infringed since March. In Gorajde, there are difficulties of supply but no daily fighting. As my right hon. Friend said, we must ask ourselves what would happen if we pulled our troops out. The judgment of those who have visited the area recently is that, if we and UNPROFOR as a whole pulled our troops out, the present ragged peace might deteriorate rapidly into total war. Obviously, we want to avoid that. But as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has said, there comes a time when the risks taken by our troops outweigh the benefits they bring. In Croatia, there is not a general war. Fighting has flared up because of the Croatian attack on sector west. It could develop into a general war. We do not have British troops in Croatia, although a number of British staff are employed there in different ways.

On the prospects for peace, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, and have often said in the House, that peace will come to Bosnia not because outside forces impose it but because those doing the fighting decide that they will not gain their way by fighting. An arms embargo is currently applied to all sides. Obviously, it has been breached to a certain extent, probably by all sides.

My right hon. Friend asks whether peace will be enhanced by removing the arms embargo. We think not. Removing the arms embargo would mean the certain withdrawal of UNPROFOR. That is now accepted by most people, and the combination of allowing or facilitating a flow of arms to all sides without inhibition and withdrawing the UN forces would probably be disastrous for all those in the area.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): The Secretary of State referred to the Contact Group. Will he give the House an assessment of the extent to which the

Column 328

Contact Group is still unified, and all members of that group are doing their best to put diplomatic pressure on those parts of former Yugoslavia with which they may have had traditional affiliation? In particular, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that Croatia obtained early recognition at the instigation of Germany? What efforts are being made to persuade Chancellor Kohl to exercise influence on President Tudjman to show some self-restraint?

Mr. Hurd: The Germans are doing that. Indeed, they did that yesterday. In the past few hours, I personally impressed on the Germans the importance of Germany, like all of us, playing our part in the control of the border between the Serbs and Bosnian Serbs. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there is now a breach between President Milosevic and the Bosnian Serbs. It is important that we should make the best use of that breach, and do our best to satisfy ourselves that there is proper control and that armaments do not pass between Serbs and Bosnian Serbs. If the Germans, Americans, British and French can build up that control force, it could be very useful.

The Contact Group is in one piece, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is meeting in London today, and, as I said in my statement, is pursuing the idea that, if President Milosevic and the Serbs recognise Bosnia and then, of course, Croatia, that could be a powerful help to bring about a new cessation of hostilities in Bosnia.

Sir Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the prime responsibility for our remaining on the brink of an all-out Balkan war rests with Serbia and its repeated violations of the United Nations charter and resolutions, including the violations which led to the seizure of Croatian territory? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on a number of occasions in the House, I have pressed him and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for a meeting at the highest level of Heads of Government and Heads of State on the Yugoslavian conflict? Does he not now accept that the time has come for the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and the President of France, when elected, to sit down together and seek, as permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, to try to bring about a settlement?

Mr. Hurd: The historical responsibility for the events of 1991 and 1992 rests most heavily on Serbia. The present position is different. President Milosevic has accepted the Contact Group plan--that is to say, he has accepted the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The people who have consistently obstructed that are the Bosnian Serbs, with whom President Milosevic is now in dispute--Mr. Karadzic and the so-called assembly in Pale. Now the situation is complicated by the Croatian attack on sector west in Croatia.

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. He has urged a summit meeting, and so indeed have others--the Russians and the French, from time to time. It may well be that that could, at the right time, bring things to a head. But a summit meeting for its own sake is not magic. The essential is to find a means--the ideas and the pressures--to bring together those who are responsible for ordering and encouraging the fighting, and show them ways in which they can consult their own interests and their own advantage best by a peaceful negotiation. A summit meeting may at the end be part of that.

Column 329

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the problem can be resolved only through discussion. Will he pass on the thanks of the House to Mr. Akashi for the work that he has already done, and will he take up with the Secretary-General the possibility of intensifying the role of the United Nations in mediation?

Mr. Hurd: I am not always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am on this occasion. The role of the peacemaker is always easy to mock. Peacemakers, diplomats, get into aeroplanes and hurry about. They are not dramatic or heroic. Drama and heroism have their day, and, by heaven, they have had their day in Bosnia. If the torment of these peoples is to be brought to an end, it will be because of the patience of the peacemakers.

Sir Peter Fry (Wellingborough): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Croats do not accept the present situation, that the Bosnians do not accept the present situation, and that there are very few Serbs who have any intention of giving up any of the ground that they have occupied? In those circumstances, is it not clear that UN diplomacy has failed so far, and we must admit it? Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am perturbed by the talk that there has been of further concessions to the Serbian Government which, apparently, have done nothing more than bring about the end of the ceasefire? I hope that there will be no more talk of further concessions until we make real progress towards peace.

Mr. Hurd: Certainly the peacemakers have failed up to now, and so have the warmakers. It is the failure of the warmakers that brings this suffering upon the Croats, the Bosnian Government, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Serbs, and has cut off all those peoples from the future of Europe.

All the peoples of the former Yugoslavia except Slovenia are living in a time warp: they are living in the Europe of the first decade of this century and the last decades of the previous century. They are not part of what is happening now in the way of reconciliation, reconstruction and the making of a new Europe. That is what the warmakers have imposed upon their peoples. So the UN has to go on trying. My hon. Friend is right to say that it has failed so far. No, there is no question of further rewards being given to the Serbs in return for nothing. There has been a temporary suspension of certain sanctions against President Milosevic and his Government, because he accepted the Contact Group plan and because he has gone a long way to sealing his border with the Bosnian Serbs. But if there are to be further concessions, that has to be because of further progress, and I have suggested the lines that we think that that should take.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Accepting that the breach between Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs is an important potential step forward and can be used to make a peace more certain, is it not a pity that, at this stage of the game, the Foreign Secretary and others should be putting forward a proposal to President Milosevic that he should now recognise the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is the Foreign Secretary making a distinction between recognition of the Government of Bosnia- Herzegovina and recognition of its frontiers?

Column 330

Mr. Hurd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me too far down a diplomatic path that is strewn with terminological difficulties. If--I shall not try to elaborate the phrase--President Milosevic in Belgrade clearly recognises Bosnia- Herzegovina, that puts to rest a lot of fears. It could lay the foundation for a new cessation of hostilities, and then for discussion about territory within Bosnia-Herzegovina and constitutional arrangements--the sort of links that could exist between the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in Serbia, just as they could exist between the Bosnian Croats, the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does not all the discussion of the details of this horrible civil war and all this grand but ineffectual lecturing give the impression that we are responsible for these horrible events? Is it not now time that the Government recognised that a British national interest never existed in the battle in the Balkans, that the British people are not prepared to risk either their treasure or their troops in the Balkans fight, and that the sooner we disengage the better?

Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend will acknowledge, I have made it clear over the years not only that we are not responsible, either as Britain or as a part of the European Union, for this tragedy, but that we cannot solve it from outside. I have repeated that again today, although my hon. Friend does not always seem to listen. He belongs, and has always belonged, to the school of "let them fight it out", which is opposed to the school of "something must be done". Over the years, I have had a bit of impatience with both those powerful bodies of opinion.

There are certain things that we cannot do, and should not pretend to do. One of them is to impose a just peace--or an unjust peace--on a particular part of the Balkans. But there are things that we can do, where we can save lives and get aid through, which is what we are doing.

The British have carried more than 20 per cent. of the entire United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' airlift to Sarajevo. Our Overseas Development Administration lorries constitute 25 per cent. of the convoy fleet. Our engineers have provided shelter for 20,000 refugees. There are 350 gas, water and electricity projects. Our engineers have built the bridge connecting east and west Mostar after the devastation there. They could not have done it without the presence of troops to help. To say that Britain should not do the things that it can do must be wrong.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Does the Foreign Secretary recall the sense of outrage felt by people in this country,--as well as, obviously, by people in many other countries--when the capital of Bosnia and other towns were subjected to continuous shelling by the Serbs? Is it not a fact that, to some extent at least, those areas were designated as safe areas by the Security Council because of the feeling of outrage in Europe?

Will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House whether it is the intention to make it perfectly clear to the Serbians that those safe areas are safe areas, and that military means will be used? Otherwise, the Serbs will take the point that they have always taken: if no action is taken against them, they will continue their aggression. I have never been a believer in appeasement.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not been following recent events very carefully. What has happened, both in

Column 331

Croatia and in Bosnia, in the past few weeks is that there have been attacks on the Serbs--first in Bosnia by Bosnian Government troops since the end of March, and more recently by the Croatians against the Serbs in Croatia. The Serbs have retaliated, disproportionately and brutally, as they have done in the past. That is the situation with which the Security Council and Mr. Akashi have to wrestle.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): One supports all the diplomatic work being undertaken, and of course the humanitarian work done by the British forces, but is the Foreign Secretary aware that, if that appalling and tragic mess escalates, there can be no justification for putting even one British service man's life at risk? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give a positive assurance that, if the situation should escalate, British troops will be withdrawn without delay?

Mr. Hurd: That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday. We are not there yet, but obviously there could be circumstances in which the risks to our troops and to other United Nations troops--I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect us to withdraw

unilaterally--would become such that they had to withdraw. As my hon. Friend knows, there is NATO planning for that eventuality. Those concerned with ordering the fighting should not take for granted the presence of our troops or of the other United Nations troops.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): In view of the invitation to President Tudjman to come to this country to commemorate the victory over fascism, will the Foreign Secretary study an article in a Croatian magazine, called Magazine , by Dinko Sakic, who was the commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp, where 10,000 Serbs died, from 1941 to 1945? That man describes Tudjman's Government as a flowering of Croatian freedom parallel to the Pavelic dictatorship, which was the ally of the Nazis.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the parallel between that Croatian regime and President Tudjman's Government is an exact one.

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South): Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's comments about unilateral withdrawal, will he make it clear that the overriding priority is the safety and security of British troops, and that if he comes to the conclusion that that safety and security is in jeopardy, notwithstanding other countries' attitudes, he will bring our troops back home?

Mr. Hurd: Except in circumstances that it is hard to foresee, I do not think that the House is likely to support a unilateral British withdrawal, especially as our troops sit astride the main communications line from Split into Bosnia. However, the position is as the Prime Minister stated it yesterday, and a similar position has been taken by the French and Canadian Governments and others. We keep the situation under review all the time, but we believe that our troops and the rest of the United Nations force are playing an essential part in preventing the present fighting from escalating, dominating the whole country and plunging Bosnia back into the kind of war that existed before United Nations arrived. That situation might change. As my hon. Friend says, the risks to our forces could increase until they became unacceptable. In that case, they would have to withdraw, and planning for that possibility is in hand.

Column 332

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Does the Foreign Secretary realise that it is not good enough to attack those whose views are different from his as being in favour of a fight to the finish? Does he recall that, about two years ago, when Germany wanted to recognise Croatia straight away, in the initial stages he stood at the Dispatch Box and took a different view, but that then he suddenly changed his mind? Why was there a change?

Some pundits, including Lord Carrington, say that the British Government changed their mind and decided to recognise Croatia, thereby emboldening the people there to take affairs into their own hands, because of a deal on two Maastricht opt-outs. The Government are partly to blame for the mess that we are now in.

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that Lord Carrington made that accusation, he is entirely wrong.

Mr. Skinner: I saw him on the telly.

Next Section

Home Page