House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 May 1995

Column 305

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Overseas Investment

1. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to encourage further investment by British companies overseas. [20411]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): How best to succeed overseas is a matter for themanagement of British companies. The Government's Overseas Trade Services supply information and advice to help companies enter new markets.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Given that, historically, diplomats could not tell the difference between a gadget and a widget, how is the Foreign Office gearing up to offer expert help to companies that wish to extend their exports?

Mr. Goodlad: The promotion of trade and inward investment from overseas now uses more resources than any other front-line Foreign and Commonwealth Office activity. Some 30 per cent. of front-line staff overseas now do commercial work. We are creating more than 100 new commercial jobs abroad and opening 14 new posts, some in newly emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. British industry wants and is willing to pay for these services, which the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry jointly offer, and 90 per cent. of those who have used our services say that they would use them again. Export orders and inward investment are often won partly because of those services.

EU-US Relations

2. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the European Union and the United States of America. [20413]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The United States is the European Union's most important international partner. With annual trade between the two sides at more than $200 billion and a total of some $450 billion invested in each other's markets, it is also Europe's most important trading partner. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Clinton agreed in Washington that Europe and north America should work together on new ways of reducing barriers to open trade and strengthening the world trading system. We shall pursue those ideas with our north American and European partners.

Mr. Waterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is very much in this country's interests to develop a more open trading relationship between Britain and the European Union on the one hand and the USA on the other? What are the prospects for developing that more open relationship within the next few years?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly hope that those prospects will become a reality. The new World Trade Organisation

Column 306

rules require that any such free trade areas should be genuinely free and cover substantially all trade, which would need to include such sensitive sectors as agriculture and textiles, so it will not be entirely easy. We see a useful role for Europe and north America acting as pathfinders, working together on ways of removing non- tariff barriers to trade and extending liberalisation, for example, in financial services.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in this troubled and dangerous world, the finest way to help security would be to develop a free trade area embracing Europe and the north American free trade area? Would that not do more to stabilise conditions than almost anything else?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), various steps can be taken and we hope to act as pathfinders in that direction.

Land Mines

3. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had in the EC about strengthening the UN protocol on the use of land mines. [20414]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We have taken a number of initiatives both on our own and with others since July 1994. With our strong support, on 10 April the Foreign Affairs Council agreed a proposal for European Union joint action on land mines. That includes an agreement on common objectives to strengthen protocol 2 of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention at its review conference in Vienna in September 1995. In particular, the European Union will work to promote universal adherence, to extend the scope to cover non- international armed conflict, to strengthen restrictions and prohibitions on the use of anti-personnel land mines, to agree an effective verification mechanism, and to include provisions on mine clearance and technical assistance.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern about this issue throughout the country, and especially within the church organisations in our nation. What are Britain's objectives at the convention and what does my hon. Friend expect to achieve at that convention when it meets?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right about the concern expressed about the issue, which the Government are to a large extent reflecting in our decisions. Obviously, we support everything that I have outlined in terms of the European Union's objectives. In addition, Britain wants to see strengthened technical criteria which ensure that anti-personnel land mines are detectable--the most dangerous land mines for civilians are those that are

non-detectable--and that self-destruct mechanisms are reliable. We also want to see improved provision for the marking and recording of mined areas. All those policy objectives are aimed at creating a workable and effective policy that will protect civilians from hazard.

Mr. Alton: Has the Minister had a chance to reflect on the reply given to me last night by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that the answers that have been

Column 307

given in the House during the past decade have been inaccurate because the definition used by NATO of what constitutes an anti-personnel land mine is not that which has been used by his Department or by the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? In the light of that, how many mines manufactured from 1986 onwards did not meet those criteria? What objections do the Government now have to publishing the criteria for what precisely constitutes an anti-personnel land mine?

Mr. Davis: I am afraid that I have not seen the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement last night. For a number of years, we have not exported any land mines under the NATO definition. I shall look at the matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes. As he knows, I take the matter extremely seriously and I will write to him to try to clarify the points that he raises.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister saying that the Government would countenance the export of land mines if they were fitted with a self- destruct capacity? If so, does he accept claims that the failure level of self-destruct mechanisms as high as 10 per cent? If the hon. Gentleman is to allow similar types of exports, what research has his Department commissioned which would give any credibility to the suggestion that these types of anti-personnel devices--horrific in their consequences--should be exported by this or any other nation?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor on the Opposition Front Bench had attended the debate in the Chamber some while ago--initiated, I believe, by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)--they would have heard me comment on precisely that. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor got the figure wrong when she wrote to me after the event.

The technology for self-destructing or self-neutralising land mines is not very advanced or difficult. Our aim, which I outlined earlier, in the UN weaponry convention, is to ensure that we lay down the standard for a failure level of no more than one in 1,000. Others think that much more is achievable. The technology is not difficult to understand, so it does not require massive amounts of research. Once standards are laid down, the Ministry of Defence, in obtaining land mines to replace the dumb land mines that we have now, will undertake studies to ensure that they meet the standards required.

Middle East Peace Process

4. Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [20415]

Mr. Hurd: The pace of progress has been disappointing, but those involved with the Palestinian track are still edging forward. There is a prospect of agreement on holding elections and the accompanying Israeli withdrawal from west bank towns by the end of June. Mr. Yasser Arafat's moves to clamp down on terrorism have clearly had some positive effect.

Mr. Ross: Will the Foreign Secretary join me in expressing regret at the death in Shin Beth custody of Abd a-Samed Harizat, a Palestinian from Hebron who, although he had links with Hamas, was entitled to protection under Israeli law while in custody? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that while we are unanimously

Column 308

opposed to suicide bombing or terrorist activities as a way of moving the peace proposals forward, the best way to resolve the suicide bombers' terrorist campaign is to press ahead with the Palestinian elections as quickly and expeditiously as possible so that there can be a genuine democratically elected Government to represent the Palestinian authorities in the peace negotiations?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the whole House would condemn all recent violence in these disputes, from whatever quarter. One good thing has shone through: despite all the difficulties and tragedies, both sides have committed themselves to press on with negotiations and not to abandon the peace process. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the next step is to complete talks on elections and the redeployment of Israeli forces by 1 July. I hope that that will happen.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Hamas murderers who seek to kill innocent civilians, derail the peace process and undermine the efforts of Mr. Arafat to secure peace in the region?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I would. They are among those who are seeking to sabotage the peace process. They should therefore be opposed and support should be withheld from them by everyone.

Mr. Watson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it was especially reprehensible that the Israeli authorities announced that 133 acres of Palestinian land in east Jerusalem were to be expropriated for building exclusively Jewish housing projects on the very day when it was announced that the Israeli army were to withdraw from the six Palestinian towns on the west bank? In the past, the Foreign Secretary has condemned Israeli building in the occupied territories. Will he now take firm action to ensure that that point is forcefully made to the Israeli Government, and that serious attempts are made to stop that project going ahead?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he was there, that all settlement building should be stopped because it is illegal and an obstacle to peace. We are concerned about the decision to expropriate land in Jerusalem. It is contrary to United Nations Security Council resolutions and to the spirit of the declaration principles. We and our European partners have already pointed that out.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will recall that, at the time of the agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, many Arab states made substantial promises of aid. Does he agree that that aid, and the economic prosperity that it can buy for the Palestinians, is the best defence against extremism? What assessment has he made of how much hard cash has come from the Arab states in fulfilment of those promises?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly believe that the flow of help for Mr. Arafat, now that he has administrative responsibilities, from his Arab brothers has been disappointing. They still have disagreements with him--as, indeed, do we because of his stance in the Gulf war--but it is important that he should be sustained in his efforts to run the Gaza strip, Jericho and eventually the rest of

Column 309

the west bank in a reasonable and business- like way. We have given him support and help in that, and the Arab world should do likewise.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the economic and financial aid package given in Paris last week to Gaza and to Jericho must be used for specific projects which will produce specific jobs and, therefore, improve the quality of life of people living in that region?

Mr. Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I entirely agree with him. The total European package--which is in addition to the British package, to which we have added from time to time--totals 500 million ecu over five years. It is for specific projects--education, housing, technical assistance, the rehabilitation of those who have been detained, and support for private enterprise in the territories.

Iraq

5. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether UN sanctions against Iraq should remain in force. [20417]

Mr. Hurd: The United Nations Security Council can modify sanctions against Iraq only when it is satisfied that Iraq has complied with the relevant United Nations resolutions. The Iraqi Government know what they have to do. We look to them for early action. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people. Working closely with the United States and Argentina, and in response to concern expressed in several quarters in the House, we have secured the unanimous adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution No. 986. That would allow Iraq to export substantial quantities of oil in return for aid. We look to the Iraqi Government to accept the resolution and thereby to help to alleviate the suffering of their own people, for which they are so clearly responsible.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq's failure fully to comply with United Nations resolution No. 687 on co- operation in relation to weapons of mass destruction and on peaceful intent, together with human rights violations and the failure to agree on small sales of oil to give humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq, mean that the Government should do their utmost to persuade the international community to retain sanctions?

Mr. Hurd: That is the position at the moment. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the outstanding points. With regard to weapons of mass destruction, I draw particular attention to biological weapons, on which much remains to be done, and to possible nuclear research programmes.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Turkey does not appear to have responded to the suggestion by many informed observers that there has been some sort of understanding or agreement between Turkey and Iraq over the recent incursion by Turkey into northern Iraq, which is said to be aimed not only against terrorism but at the oil facilities there? Does not the absence of an explanation by Turkey or Iraq suggest that more care should be taken before there is any relief of the present sanctions? What information does the Foreign Office have about that?

Column 310

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has been ingenious in bringing that subject into the scope of the question. We have spoken to the Turks expressing our concern about their incursion into Iraq. Turkey has explained the reasons, which have nothing to do with sanctions against Iraq or oil facilities but are concerned with its struggle against the PKK in south-eastern Turkey. Turkey has begun to withdraw and I hope that that withdrawal will be completed as soon as possible.

Sir David Steel: I accept the Foreign Secretary's description of current events in Iraq, but will he bear in mind what the UN Secretary- General wrote in his position paper presented to the Security Council in early January? He said that the object of sanctions was

"not to punish or . . . exact retribution",

and that they raised the difficult question whether they were "a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders whose behaviour is unlikely to be affected by the plight of their subjects."

Surely that is the dilemma that the Government face.

Mr. Hurd: That is indeed the dilemma, which is why we have acted to find a sensible way through it and to show again, more comprehensively-- more generously, one could say--that the Security Council is willing to allow Iraq to sell oil even under its present Government, provided that the proceeds are used partly for compensation and partly to feed the Iraqi people and to supply them with drugs and medicine, and not for other purposes. That seems a perfectly sensible way through.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no question of lifting the sanctions on Iraq until it has complied with all United Nations resolutions? I refer in particular to the resolution relating to the 625 Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons still held in Iraqi prisons after all these years. What progress is being made in that regard?

Mr. Hurd: Not enough. My hon. Friend has taken a keen personal interest in the problem for many years, and she is right that any relaxation of the import embargo will depend on the Iraqi Government's complying with all the resolutions, including those concerning the Kuwaiti detainees still unaccounted for.

Kashmir

6. Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support efforts by the European Union to encourage Pakistan and India to hold direct talks on Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [20418]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have taken a leading rolin encouraging India and Pakistan to resolve their problems over Kashmir by bilateral dialogue, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement. Our line is closely reflected in the position taken by the European Union.

Mr. Cox: I note and welcome that reply, but what discussions have the Minister and our European partners had with the Indian Government in an effort to stop the continuing abuses of human rights by Indian security forces in occupied Kashmir? If the Indian Government should attempt to hold elections in that area this year,

Column 311

what criteria would the Minister expect to be observed to ensure that the elections were really free and fair and that the result represented the views of the people of Kashmir?

Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have repeatedly made it clear that human rights abuses in Kashmir have to stop, as does any support for armed incursions into Kashmir, and those responsible know to whom we are speaking. We have consistently encouraged India and Pakistan to resolve their differences through talks together. I am glad that yesterday India and Pakistan agreed to resume talks on Kashmir, which is good news. The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India met and agreed that outstanding problems had to be resolved through peaceful means and that there was no insurmountable barrier to resuming talks, which is very good news.

Mr. Jessel: Before any such talks can make sensible progress, is it not essential that military terrorism should cease? As we used to say of Northern Ireland, one cannot successfully negotiate under the shadow of the bomb and the bullet. Should not Pakistan be discouraged from training and sending so many young men to a useless death?

Mr. Baldry: As I have made clear on many occasions, for there to be progress on Kashmir there has to be an improvement in human rights in Kashmir, a genuine political process in Kashmir and the clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. Above all, there must be a dialogue between India and Pakistan. It is good news that that dialogue at last seems to be starting.

Mr. Rooker: Notwithstanding the announcement that the Minister made about the discussions yesterday, may I ask him to redouble the British Government's efforts on the issue? It is not a problem of two faraway countries: it affects the very heart of communities in this country. When people from that divided part of the world hear about the constant repression of their families and more distant relatives, it makes for bad community relations in this country. It puts pressure on people, who take a more militant approach because of the diplomats' failure to solve the problem by peaceful means. There is a continuing danger that the matter will continue to fester within our communities in this country unless we redouble our efforts to bring about a peaceful solution.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be reassured to know that Ministers spare no opportunity to encourage both sides to resolve their differences through bilateral negotiations. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes--that many people in this country have an interest in what happens in Kashmir--is well understood. That is why we wish to see progress made on Kashmir. The only way in which long-standing progress can be made on Kashmir is if the people of India and Pakistan talk and resolve the matter together.

Nuclear Weapons

7. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his overseas colleagues to discuss treaty obligations regarding nuclear non-proliferation; and if he will make a statement. [20419]

Column 312

Mr. Hurd: I spoke to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference on 18 April. For 25 years the treaty has been the cornerstone of our efforts to prevent proliferation and it has succeeded in limiting the number of states with a nuclear weapons capability. We therefore want to make the treaty permanent by agreeing in New York its indefinite extension. That is supported by all states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Europe and north America, and by a growing number of the non-aligned states. To help ensure a successful outcome, we have made a number of moves on security assurances and on ceasing the production of fissile material for explosive purposes.

In the negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty, we have dropped our requirement for nuclear tests in exceptional circumstances--the so- called safety tests. The moves that we have made underline our strong commitment to achieving progress on disarmament and maintaining the non- proliferation treaty as an essential guarantor of international security.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his full and comprehensive answer. Is not the world a far less safe place now than it was 10 years ago? Is it not irresponsible for certain Members of the House of Commons to say, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) did only yesterday, that now is the time for this country to disarm unilaterally? Does that not make my right hon. Friend's job more difficult when it comes to negotiating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and do not such comments

demonstrate--following the debate in Westminster hall on Saturday--that the Labour party is just a rabble without a clause?

Mr. Hurd: I will not seek to emulate my hon. Friend. I noticed the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the House yesterday, when he said that nuclear weapons were "expensive, immoral and unjustifiable". That used to be the view of all his party. It is only fairly recently that the Labour party has come to support the Trident programme, as we do.

The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has made some cloudy remarks in the past few weeks which suggest that he is moving back towards his traditional position in line with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the hon. Member for Islington, North. Perhaps in our exchanges here the hon. Member for Livingston will be able to show how far and how fast he is moving backwards.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be far better if the non-proliferation treaty were renewed only for a limited period, to allow the nuclear weapons states the opportunity to decommission and get rid of their nuclear weapons as a contribution towards world peace? Does he honestly think that Britain equipping four Trident nuclear submarines with a total of 376 warheads is anything but a belligerent act in a world that is desperately looking for peace? Would we not be better served by saying that we will abandon the cost and use of nuclear weapons as our contribution to world peace?

Mr. Hurd: We have had an argument on this matter in this country-- and rightly so--year after year. I do not say that there is a consensus because the hon. Gentleman is not part of one, but there is an overwhelming feeling that we need to maintain a minimum--and it is a minimum--

Column 313

national nuclear deterrent, as envisaged in the treaty, so there is no pressure on us from abroad from to follow the course that the hon. Member recommends and I would not advise it to the House. The hon. Member suggests a partial or temporary renewal of the treaty, but a temporary renewal means an uncertain renewal. It means that the risks of proliferation would begin to overshadow the world even more starkly than at present. That is not a good idea.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: What success did my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have in their talks with senior Israeli politicians about nuclear non-proliferation? Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was Israel which first secretly introduced nuclear weapons into the middle east, supported by apartheid South Africa, and it will be very hard to have successful disarmament talks in the middle east until Israel is prepared to admit that it has nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hurd: I hope that it may be possible before too long for the Israeli Government to make some move on this. I put it in those terms because I understand the difficulties that the Government of Israel face, just as I understand the criticisms made, for example, by the Egyptian Government of that stance. I am therefore not pressing--and the British Government are not pressing--for the impossible or the unrealistic. However, given the changed circumstances, we think that it would be wise for Israel to indicate a move on this subject.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the principal problem in getting agreement to indefinite extension of this important treaty is that the countries without nuclear weapons do not believe that the countries with them have done enough to fulfil their commitment to negotiate disarmament, which was a commitment given by this Government--and not a clouded commitment, but one perfectly clear in article 6? Why have the British Government then opposed the modest proposal for a standing committee to keep progress towards disarmament under review? If the right hon. Gentleman is so satisfied that he can defend the Government's strong commitment to disarmament, why is he trying to avoid something as modest as a standing committee to monitor progress towards disarmament?

Mr. Hurd: There will inevitably be continued reviewing and monitoring of progress, as there always has been. I do not think that that is the real obstacle. The real obstacle is not anything that Britain or France do or do not do. It is the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) referred to regarding the middle east--there is a slightly similar, though larger, obstacle as regards India, Pakistan and China--and regional suspicions across the world. That is the real obstacle to the indefinite success of the treaty. We are trying to wear down those arguments and we have made our own moves in order to meet criticism.

I believe--I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will find occasions in the future to make this clear on behalf of the Labour party--that the Trident programme which we have in this country is a minimum. If we are to have a national nuclear deterrent at all--and, as I said, there is something near a consensus that we should--we believe that in the present circumstances what we propose, with the limitations that we have announced in the way of the Trident programme, is the minimum that we can have.

Column 314

Brazil

8. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to promote the United Kingdom's diplomatic and trade relations with Brazil; and if he will make a statement. [20421]

Mr. David Davis: We are actively promoting our already excellent relations with Brazil. We look forward to President Cardoso's visit this weekend for the commemoration of VE day.

UK-Brazilian two-way trade grew to £1.4 billion in 1994, when the Anglo-Brazilian joint business council was founded. This year, we have strengthened our commercial representation in Brazil, with the new trade offices which I announced in Porto Alegre and Curitiba. Brazil is also a prime focus of the joint DTI-Foreign Office campaign, called Link into Latin America, which was launched at the Confederation of British Industry by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 17 January, during the conference in London of British ambassadors in Latin America.

Mr. Arnold: Is not the rapid redevelopment of trade between this country and Brazil, which is one of the largest economies in the world, a matter of great satisfaction? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should stress repeatedly that the reason why President Cardoso is coming here for the VE day celebrations, and will be taking quite a prominent place, is that we remember that nearly 30,000 Brazilian troops fought alongside our troops in Italy during the second world war, that Brazil was the only Latin American country to provide troops, and that its contribution to the allied war effort is very much appreciated?

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to Brazil's contribution to the defence of freedom in the last war, especially in this most appropriate of weeks. The last time that my hon. Friend asked me about business and trade with Latin America, my closing words were to the effect that a 21 per cent. growth was not enough. I can tell him that our trade with, and exports to, Brazil went up by some 60 per cent. last year. Having said that, I hope that British business will continue to focus its efforts in Brazil which is our biggest and, I think, fastest-growing market in south America.

Mr. Redmond: As the Minister is so full of praise for our trade links with Brazil, will he tell that country's president that this country does not condone the rape of the rainforests or the killing of street children? Will he point out that trade links will be severely affected if the President and the Brazilian Government do not take steps to solve those two problems?

Mr. Davis: We do not support trade sanctions and boycotts, but we have been in regular contact with the Brazilian Government for some time and I have raised the matter of street children. We have supported international action on that front, especially with the United Nations. Similarly, we share the concern about mahogany exploitation, which should not be at the expense of indigenous peoples. Those points have been made to the Brazilian Government more than once already.

Column 315

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

9. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with (a) the United States of America and (b) EU member states on the role of NATO. [20423]

Mr. Hurd: I often discuss with allies the role of NATO, because the alliance remains the bedrock of European security. Our proposals to enhance European defence arrangements, launched by the Prime Minister on 1 March, are based firmly on this. They also reflect the desire, shared by many of our European allies, that European defence arrangements should remain intergovernmental. The US Government have welcomed our initiative and the desire of European allies to take on a greater share of the burden of providing for Europe's defence.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does he agree that people in Britain will not thank us for mucking about with NATO and risking upsetting our long-term allies in the United States and Canada in favour of some new-fangled defence arrangement under which we may find ourselves relying on countries such as Belgium, which would not help us in the Gulf war, France, which will not let its troops serve under anyone but a French officer, and even Spain, with which, as we know, it is very difficult to co-operate on anything?

Mr. Hurd: I think that General Rupert Smith, who commands French troops in UNPROFOR, might be a little baffled by my hon. Friend's remarks, but I agree with her general point. We have no desire to replace or duplicate NATO. That is why the proposals which the Prime Minister sketched on 1 March are designed to provide a meeting place between the continuance of NATO--enlarged, as we hope, to the east in coming years--and the desire of Europeans to do more alongside NATO, using NATO assets in the humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks which we might want to undertake as Europeans.

Mr. MacShane: Will the Foreign Secretary tell his colleagues in NATO that the queue of serious, democratic countries in central and eastern Europe that wish to become NATO members should not be left hanging around outside the door of NATO for ever? If NATO is to succeed and if it is to have a 21st century role, the countries that want to become part of that club should be admitted, with a clear timetable, instead of being put off for years to come.

Mr. Hurd: There is a deliberate exercise in hand. This year, NATO is considering the how and the why--the rationale and the method--of enlargement. After that, we shall discuss the results with all those who are interested and then we shall discuss the who and the when--who will join and the timetable. It takes time. This is not a matter of signing a piece of paper and clinking champagne glasses. This is a matter of extending considerably further to the east the security guarantees that we undertake to all our NATO allies. The process needs a bit of time and a bit of thought, but it will happen.

Column 316

EU Foreign and Security Policy

10. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with his French and German counterparts concerning the EU's common foreign and security policy. [20425]

Mr. Hurd: I have regular discussions with my French and German colleagues about the European Union's common foreign and security policy. Close co-operation between the United Kingdom, France and Germany, of the three largest countries in the Union, is a key element in ensuring its effectiveness.

Mr. Jenkin: At this time, when we are commemorating the end of the second world war, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to stress to his French and German counterparts that our unwillingness to have qualified majority voting in foreign policy in the European Union does not reflect antipathy towards those two countries or a reluctance to co-operate where possible? Will he particularly invite France--perhaps in early discussions with the new French President who will be elected next week--to participate fully in the defence of Europe by joining the military operations and the military wing of NATO? If France does not, there is a danger of over-emphasis on French co-operation for our defence undermining the NATO alliance.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point; there is no antipathy. I stood behind the Prince of Wales this morning in the big square in Hamburg where he made a most eloquent speech, mostly in German, on the theme of future co-operation, to a big crowd of Hamburgers, exactly 50 years after the British Army accepted the surrender of the city. Anyone who was there would not doubt that the co-operation we are talking about is a reality.

I do not believe in qualified majority voting on foreign policy matters. I do not think that it would improve effectiveness. The French attitude towards NATO has moved, as my hon. Friend knows, in the right direction-- slowly, from our point of view--over recent years. We shall see what the next French President makes of this. The closer the co-operation between France and NATO, the stronger the alliance of the west.

Mr. Soley: Article B of the Maastricht treaty calls for, as an objective,

"a common foreign and security policy".

The Government may have forgotten that they signed that treaty. Does the Foreign Secretary share the European Union's objective of "a common foreign and security policy"--

yes or no? The Government signed the treaty.

Next Section

Home Page