House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jul 1995

Previous Section

Home Page

Column 1739

Trend, Michael

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Yeo, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Column 1739

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the need for an examination of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee relating to consultancies (including multi-client consultancies) and disclosures in the Register of Members' Interests; and instructs the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life to conduct such an examination and to seek to bring forward proposals on these matters by the end of the current Session.

STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE

(GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS)

Resolved,

That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 637) relating to--

(1) the principal duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (paragraph 14);

(2) the method of removal from office of the Commissioner (paragraph 23);

(3) the preparation of amendments to Standing Orders relating to a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges (paragraph 40); (4) the preparation of a draft Code of Conduct (paragraph 47); (5) the preparation of guidance on registration and declaration of interests (paragraph 50);

(6) a review of the law relating to bribery of Members (paragraph 52); and

(7) updating, and improving the availability of, the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 66).--[ Mr. Newton. ]

Orders of the Day

Children (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 336 agreed [some with Special Entry] .

Column 1740

Bosnia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Foreign Secretary, I must remind the House that Back-Bench speeches are restricted to 10 minutes.

8.3 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The House will be familiar with the many tragic events that have led to the present crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Thousands of lives have been lost and countless families have been displaced. Night after night, we have witnessed harrowing scenes on our television sets. We are witnessing a bloody war, in part a civil war and in part a war of aggression. It is a characteristic of civil wars that civilised behaviour rapidly gives way to the basest of acts.

Like all civil wars, this one is extremely complex. It is not, simply, three distinct groups fighting it out. In some areas, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims are together opposed to Bosnian Serbs. In other areas, Bosnian Muslims have been fighting Bosnian Croats. In yet others, Bosnian Serbs have assisted Bosnian Muslims. In one way or another, all the parties have degraded themselves, and they have degraded humanity with the ferocity of their actions. No faction is blameless, but in the enclaves, the Serbs have behaved with a savagery that has appalled the world.

In the former Yugoslavia, we have seen European man at his absolute worst. All sides have been guilty of slaughter, rape and other atrocities. I said "European man", because this civil war is happening in Europe, and that is a fact that we cannot ignore. I wish to make it clear to the House that the Government believe that what happens in Europe touches on this country's vital national interests.

Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood): The right hon. Gentleman said that it is partly a war of aggression and partly a civil war. He then went on to talk as though all the parties are equally guilty. Surely that is profoundly wrong. The Serbs are the aggressors, and they have been responsible for ethnic cleansing, the mass use of rape and torture and so on. To talk as though there were two equal sides is to distort the analysis from the very beginning of the debate.

Mr. Portillo: I do not think that the hon. Lady does justice to what I said. I said that there have been atrocities on every side, and also drew attention to the particular savagery of the Serbs which we have witnessed in the enclaves. The record will bear out that that is the way I expressed myself.

Into all this chaos, the United Nations is trying to bring succour, relief and sanity. What the United Nations cannot do is end this war by military means. In practice, it can be ended only by a political solution.

The United Nations and the European Union have toiled to achieve peace through diplomacy. A history of broken promises and broken ceasefires now lies behind us, but those efforts must continue. We firmly support the efforts of Carl Bildt, the European Union's negotiator, to negotiate a recognition of Bosnia by Serbia and

Column 1741

Montenegro, and to reopen a dialogue on the contact group plan, which we urge all parties to accept as the starting point for negotiations.

The international community deployed forces to the former Yugoslavia for the best of all possible reasons. The world could not stand aside from the slaughter. Countries from around the globe have sent troops. Britain felt the call of duty particularly strongly. We are Europeans. We are members of the Security Council of the United Nations. We understand our obligation to defend our humanitarian values, and we are privileged to have superb armed forces. There has been from the start a serious risk that this conflict could degenerate into a regional war, setting light to the Balkans and bringing into play highly dangerous international forces. The west has a vital interest in containing the conflict.

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington): When I was studying history, it was always a maxim of British foreign policy that one did not get involved on the ground in a Balkan war. May I remind my right hon. Friend that Germany is not involved with troops on the ground? It is surely not in our interests to have our troops there. Many people in this country feel that we should bring them back forthwith.

Mr. Portillo: Germany is not a member of the Security Council of the United Nations; Britain is, and Britain feels her

responsibilities acutely. As I shall point out to my hon. Friend, we are not in Bosnia to fight a war; we are there to save lives. That is the essential difference that my hon. Friend will, I hope, recognise. We have always seen that the United Nations is there to be the peacekeeper. Our forces are equipped not to make war but to move among the local population bringing food and medicine and confidence and security wherever we are able to do so.

UN forces in Bosnia are not a combatant force. We obviously cannot stop all the horrors, but that does not mean that we can do nothing. Indeed, we have achieved a great deal.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): Since the United Nations, NATO and the international community have vividly demonstrated their unwillingness and inability to intervene militarily in a way which would bring this war to an end, and as the Bosnian Government naturally resist a political settlement resting on genocide and territorial gains made by external military aggression, will the Secretary of State, who does not come to this issue with any political baggage, make it clear that it is now time for the arms embargo to be lifted and the Bosnian Government to be given the means to defend their people and their territory against external Serbian aggression?

Mr. Portillo: I shall come later to the question of the arms embargo, but I must say that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman speaks realistically. To bring this war to an end militarily would require the commitment of hundreds of thousands of men, equipment and armaments, at enormous risk to those forces. I do not believe that it is possible to commit those forces to this theatre.

Even if we did, our chances of success would be remote. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the only way that this war can end is by political settlement. But

Column 1742

there is a two-pronged approach: a political approach to try to achieve a settlement, and military forces doing what they can to bring security as and when they can.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) rose --

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) rose --

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one thing that he cannot possibly do in this situationis respond to Bosnian Serb aggression against UN-designated safe areas with an ignominious retreat of our own forces? Does he agree that it is vital that we do nothing to undermine the credibility of NATO, the Western European Union, or, indeed, international law?

Mr. Portillo: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I shall of course come to those important matters, but I must do so as I make progress through my speech, and I must do so in a considered way, for reasons that will become clear.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Portillo: I want to make progress, but I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Livingstone: How will the Secretary of State explain to those outside this building, who see that the west mobilised hundreds of thousands of troops when its oil interests were threatened, that the Government are not prepared to take the same stand to stop the slaughter and mass rape of tens of thousands of ordinary people?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison which has often been made before, but which none the less I regard as fatuous. In the case of the Gulf, we intervened because there was an aggressive nation on the loose that had attacked Kuwait and threatened the entire region. In Yugoslavia, we have positioned our troops to do what we can to bring peace and save lives, and that is a noble ambition.

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, I am going to make some progress. I shall possibly give way later.

We have achieved a great deal, and the House should remember that. Croatia and Serbia have not been at war since 1991. The Bosnian Federation of Croats and Muslims has brought peace to central Bosnia, which has witnessed the rebuilding of civil government and the return to normal life, where before there were scenes of slaughter. Tens of thousands of lives have been saved. In 1992, the Bosnian war claimed 130,000 lives. In 1994, that was reduced to 2,500.

Today, the UN provides support for 2.7 million people; 153,000 tonnes of aid were airlifted into Sarajevo between July 1992 and April 1995. British Royal Engineers have built 42 km of road, and they keep open nearly 1,000 km of supply routes. British troops have rebuilt kindergartens, restored essential services, and taught children how to look out for mines that, for years to come, may threaten to blow them to pieces. Fourteen British soldiers have died playing their part in this operation to save others' lives.

Column 1743

For all our soldiers, peacekeeping brings not only danger but frustrations. We must operate with consent in a land of village apparatchiks, empire builders and local warlords. The peacekeeper must learn to negotiate without showing that frustration. But I flatly contradict those who claim that there is humiliation in what the British forces are doing. The saving of human life is noble and dignified, and I feel extraordinarily proud of the British men and women who have achieved so much.

Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme): I am sure that the whole House shares the pride expressed by my right hon. Friend in the wonderful work done by British forces in Bosnia. However, given the peculiar responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, who sponsored UN resolution 836 to establish Gorazde as a safe haven, could he say whether, when that was done in the spring of 1993, it was our intention to take steps to make those safe areas safe, or was it just intended as a form of words?

Mr. Portillo: I will come to that later, but I will say to my hon. Friend--

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): That is the third time he has said that.

Mr. Portillo: I am making a speech, and I have ordered my thoughts, as the hon. Gentleman should consider.

I shall come to the point that my hon. Friend raised, but I say to him now that the UN foresaw a need for 36,000 troops, and put out the request to the international community for them. In the event, 7,500 were forthcoming.

The deteriorating situation in Bosnia, especially after the taking of the hostages, showed that UN forces needed more protection. We sent artillery and armoured engineers immediately, and French forces and 24 Airmobile Brigade have followed.

I must make two points. First, there has been no change in the UN's mandate. The extra forces are not there to make war, any more than those who were there before them. Secondly, we remain bound by the need for consent for their arrival and deployments through Croatia and Bosnia- Herzegovina. They are sovereign nations, and we are peacekeepers, not invaders.

At no time has the UN authorised its troops to fight a war; nor are they equipped to do so. Indeed, the UN has been under-resourced to achieve even those objectives authorised by the Security Council in its resolutions. As I have just told my hon. Friend, 36,000 troops were envisaged for the enclaves. The Dutch, the Ukrainians and the British responded, but the UN's request resulted in just those 7,500 troops being committed. The safe areas, like so much else, have depended on consent.

Srebrenica has now fallen. Zepa is under attack. Once more, the civilised world has been appalled by the barbarism in the Balkans. Once again, the UN has responded. They have built tented accommodation and provided basic services for 6,300 people at Tuzla air base. They have also organised logistic support for supplies to arrive from Split.

Our own special interest lies with Gorazde. We have there nearly 200 men of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. An UNPROFOR convoy with supplies for our troops got into Gorazde this afternoon. Like others in these operations,

Column 1744

our soldiers are equipped with neither tanks nor artillery nor heavy arms. They are in Gorazde to play a humanitarian role.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): As a former member of a national service tank crew, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it would be wise in the new circumstances to provide the Welch Fusiliers with some armoured cover, because in all that we were taught, armoured cover is essential in any dangerous situation?

Mr. Portillo: Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates me; I am coming to that point in the immediate paragraphs that follow. [Interruption.] I repeat, I am coming to that point in the immediate paragraphs that follow.

Each of the options on Gorazde before the international community carries its own risks. To withdraw the troops would leave the Muslims in the enclaves at the mercy of the Bosnian Serbs, and would provoke resistance from the Muslims, who would claim a gross dereliction of duty. Reinforcing the troops poses significant practical problems. We do not have the men or the guns anywhere in former Yugoslavia to stave off a determined onslaught by many thousands of Bosnian Serbs. The road from Sarajevo to Gorazde passes through hostile territory, and has 26 bridges and eight tunnels. It poses a hazardous route for reinforcement. To reinforce by helicopter carries possibly greater risks. The aircraft are vulnerable to attack unless air defences are destroyed by a massive pre-emptive attack, with all the risks of military escalation.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Portillo: Not at the moment.

The United Nations could use NATO to deploy its air power to deter or repel an attack, again with the risk of escalation. The Royal Welch Fusiliers have adequate supplies of fuel, food and water, and they are in good order. In its history, the regiment has proudly stood in many a perilous situation, and has emerged with honour. The safety and dignity of those men is of paramount importance to this country. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that anyone who harms them will be held personally responsible by the Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Portillo: I will not give way.

None of the options on Gorazde that I have set out is appealing, but we must choose among them. The decision must be a joint one, involving the UN troop-contributing nations, NATO and the United States.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that the United Nations and NATO have at their command a decisive instrument, which is available and is within the theatre, yet not within the land mass of former Yugoslavia? I refer to their air power, which is off the coast and on Italian air bases. Cannot this be used if appropriate precautions are taken by the troops on the ground, both to deter future attacks on the safe havens and as a punitive reprisal to any barbaric acts of aggression by the Serbs? A civilised

Column 1745

community has a duty to influence events within the theatre, and not just to let things slide down a slippery slope towards humiliation and withdrawal.

Mr. Portillo: I listed the options to the House, and I included in those options the use of air power. Now I shall explain why I did not want to be drawn on these matters earlier.

I have to be responsible about what I say about these matters. There are those who would like to know which way our minds are turning and we have to be very careful about what we say about these matters. Therefore, I have set out in my speech precisely what I want to say on these options, and I am not prepared, even in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), to be drawn any further on those options for our defence.

This Friday's conference in London has been convened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to settle our common positions.

Mr. Faulds: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Portillo: I will not give way at the moment.

Next Section

Home Page