House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jul 1995

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister ask Foreign Office officials to view the television programme "Coral Grief", which gives pictorial evidence of inter-reef fertilisation?

Mr. Davis: I shall make sure that we write to the hon. Gentleman, because I take his concerns seriously. I think that they are ill founded in this case, but I take them seriously.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about caesium 137 and strontium 90 in a debate in July 1973 about atmospheric testing. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, all the French tests will take place underground on this occasion, and there is no reason why such elements should be released from those tests. On that occasion in 1973, he received a response from the Attorney-General, which I think stands.

President Chirac has issued an invitation to experts to visit the area--we have had a call for an independent study--to check his assurance on the effect on the environment.

Column 1631

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davis: I ask the House to consider whether President Chirac would have been prepared to give such an assurance if he was not fully confident that it would be proved justified. I leave it to the House to draw its own conclusions, but the matter seems fairly clear to me.

President Chirac has explained that the limited programme of tests will be designed to enable France to take advantage of computer simulation techniques to ensure the safety and reliability of its nuclear deterrent, once a comprehensive test ban treaty comes into force. If the hon. Member for Bolsover reflects on this, he will see that the latter point is good news.

We wholeheartedly share the desire for the comprehensive test ban treaty to be concluded at the conference on disarmament. The French decision and their reiterated commitment to a CTBT are a constructive contribution towards achieving that goal. The French are saying that they want to work for a comprehensive test ban treaty, that they want to sign one and that they are prepared to work to put themselves in a position to do so in a--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Column 1632

Mr. Stephen Spayne

1.30 pm

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): I know that it is highly unusual to raise the case of an individual in the House of Commons, but there appears to be little alternative. I have already raised the case with the leader of Cleveland county council and it has become clear that an investigation must come from outside the council. I also raise this matter because people should be told what goes on in their local municipal buildings and how their money is being spent. No one at the county council seems to be interested in tackling the issue properly, although I understand that this morning, an extensive press statement has been issued which attempts to explain the position.

I shall run through the situation. This case relates to my constituent, Stephen Spayne, who works as a shift supervisor in the computer department at Cleveland county council; he has been working there for 21 years. In 1988, Mr. Spayne discovered a rather suspicious document purporting to be an invoice from KN Consultants to a man called Ted Stafford at Rank Xerox. For ease of reference, I have the document here. It is dated 16 May 1988 and it is for £350 for two days' consultancy, travel, subsistence and incidental expenses.

Mr. Spayne noticed that KN Consultants happened to have the same address as his immediate superior, Mr. Kevin Narey, in the computer department. Mr. Spayne recalled the wording of the code of conduct which bans private work except in very exceptional circumstances. He went to see the chief executive of Cleveland county council to report what was prima facie evidence of corruption.

Mr. Spayne also took with him two further letters, which he has given to me. The first is a letter from Mr. Narey to Rank Xerox which says:

"I am returning the cheque which eventually arrived last week in the hope that you can have it amended for me. As you will see, it is made out to KN Consultants. I need to have it in my own name and hope that this can be arranged. If it is any use to you, I enclose a second invoice in my name only. Sorry for the inconvenience." The second piece of paper is from Mr. Kevin Narey of the same address. It is in respect of

"two days' consultancy, travel and subsistence and other expenses."

Mr. Bruce Stevenson, the chief executive of the county council, who is also my constituent, assured Mr. Spayne that he would deal with the matter thoroughly and that he need not trouble him with it again. Mr. Spayne then received a visit from his union branch secretary. He was clearly told not to mention the matter outside the county council and specifically not to go to see me, his Member of Parliament. Following this action by Mr. Spayne, his working environment rapidly deteriorated. Mr. Narey came to see him, accused him of shopping him and started to harass him at work. His life became difficult. He was, for instance, booked on to a management training course while Mr. Narey was away and he received a start date. On Mr. Narey's return, the course was cancelled. There were complaints about every aspect of his work, even about the way in which he parked his car and about a range of other matters.

Mr. Narey, meanwhile, was promoted to head of the computer department and Mr. Spayne's life became even more unpleasant. Finally, in September 1993, the situation

Column 1633

culminated in Mr. Spayne being issued with a disciplinary notice for dereliction of duty. Understandably, Mr. Spayne appealed and refused to speak to the people who were harassing him without a union representative being present. A report was prepared for the appeal tribunal by an investigating officer who was appointed by Mr. Narey. The report did not, however, uphold the case for suspension and Mr. Narey sent it back for redrafting. Mr. Spayne's colleague at work was approached to give evidence against him and was asked, in effect, to lie about him. On 18 January 1994, Mr. Spayne was suspended from his post.

An independent inquiry was launched by a Mr. Dokes from the education department of the same county council. After a few weeks, my constituent was taken off suspension and put on leave of absence with pay. In May, he returned to work but was given menial tasks in another department, the printing department. From October last year, he went on sick leave as his new job was getting him down. Meanwhile, Mr. Dokes had rapidly concluded his investigation and had written a 23-page report substantially supporting Mr. Spayne and drawing on the long history of events, going back to the discovery of the invoices in 1988. It was submitted to the chief executive, Mr. Stevenson, who apparently ordered it to be suppressed and another one to be written. Mr. Dokes said to a Mr. Slater of Unison of his first report:

"If anyone requests this report I shall deny even writing it, because I have my own position to think about."

There were witnesses present who wrote those words down. A new report was written; it was heavily jargonised and it did not come out with clear conclusions.

Late last year, Mr. Spayne came to see me. I regard allegations of corrupt practices as extremely serious, especially when the chief executive is alleged to be covering them up. I went to see the leader of the Conservatives on the county council and she directed me to the leader of the council, Councillor Paul Harford. After going through the facts and discussing Mr. Stevenson's role in all this, Mr. Harford agreed with me that there should be an outside investigation. He asked the county secretary, David Ashton, to receive a report from Mr. Spayne and to set up the necessary action. Mr. Spayne saw Mr. Ashton in December. In January, Mr. Spayne was suddenly recalled to work. He had a two-minute meeting with Mr. Wright of Unison and Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Stevenson said that there was no reason why he should not return to work immediately in his old job. However, he refused to discuss why Mr. Spayne had been off work for nearly a year. My constituent then returned to work and wrote to the personnel department asking for written reasons why he had been away from work, but he was given none.

Following the meeting with Mr. Ashton, the county secretary wrote to Mr. Spayne and to me in April this year saying that the matters had been investigated. I am afraid that the explanations offered do not amount to very much. There is to be no outside investigation. First, Mr. Ashton appears to believe from what has been said by Mr. Wright of Unison that my constituent's grievances were being pursued through the normal channels when that was patently not the case. They have not been pursued by anyone, let alone Unison which seems, incidentally, to act as an arm of the county council.

Column 1634

After all, it was another union representative who informally offered Mr. Spayne £20,000 to leave the county's employment. Secondly, Mr. Ashton has taken advantage of Mr. Spayne's understandable reluctance to speak to superior officers in his own council about his allegation to discern that Mr. Spayne does not allege misconduct on the part of the chief executive. Yet the reason why I went to see the leader of the council and asked for a proper outside investigation was precisely because such an allegation had been made. I do not believe that it is in the interests of my constituent, Mr. Stevenson or the county council simply to brush the matter aside. If senior officers can accept outside payments from companies dealing directly with the county and can then have the matter hushed up, the council tax payers in my constituency should know about it.

The explanation of the events leading a senior officer of the council to invoice Rank Xerox has no substance at all. The matter was apparently referred to an internal auditor who sent a report to the chief executive who decided to take no action. Mr. Ashton--another servant of the council-- has apparently read the report and is happy with it, but he will not say what is in it. However, I understand that in the light of today's debate, a statement has been issued to the press which offers some explanation.

Mr. Ashton has said that the personnel director stated in 1974 that, from time to time, chief and senior officers were requested to give informal or formal talks on particular aspects of the work of council, and that expenses for travel and subsistence and a fee could be paid. So why was Mr. Narey not open and above board about it? What about the company called KN Consultants, which apparently disappeared overnight? Apparently, it was resolved by the council that permission could be given for such talks if the appropriate chief officer was consulted. But no suggestion has been made that anybody was consulted in this case.

Why was Mr. Narey so angry about being shopped? Why was Mr. Spayne hounded, nearly out of his job? Why was the report on Mr. Spayne's employment quashed and sent back for a redraft? If the matter was all in order and above board, why did not Mr. Stevenson just tell Mr. Spayne that? Why is Mr. Narey now telling my constituent that he has no chance of redeployment when the computer department moves over to the new unitary borough of Middlesbrough? Is Mr. Narey, along with other officers, free to accept payments from contractors and then harass his staff if they question his doing so?

I suppose that it is possible that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this, but justice has not yet been done, nor has it been seen to be done. There are, I suspect, only two alternatives. Either something very shady is going on in the county council and there has been a cover-up for some reason, or it is just a very badly managed institution which treats its staff poorly and has terrible internal communications. Either way, I am not confident that Cleveland county council is the efficient organisation it has pretended to be to stave off its own abolition.

I hope that the Minister will use what powers he has to have Mr. Spayne's case properly investigated by an outside authority. I would also like to see an independent report on Mr. Narey's activities with regard to the dummy

Column 1635

invoices, and a clear statement from Cleveland as to the circumstances in which officers' private arrangements with outside companies are deemed to be corrupt.

Since these events happened, Cleveland county council has revised its guidance on private work and general conduct for staff. Under the heading "General Conduct" in both the old and new versions, it says clearly:

"The Council must be in a position to rebut with confidence any allegation that the integrity of its administration is being impaired because of the leisure time activities of any of its staff. Implicit in this is the requirement that there must be no question of staff undertaking activities in circumstances which might lead to suspicion of undue or improper favour being granted, or undue or improper influence exercised, in relation to contracts or any kind of consent, permission, licence etc., which members of the public seek from the Council."

That is a clear statement which, in the circumstances, I do not think Cleveland council can live up to today.

Finally, it is beholden upon Cleveland county council to apologise to my constituent for the appalling way in which he has been treated, and to offer some token compensation. Once again, we see evidence of how the internal dealings of Labour-controlled councils leave a lot to be desired, and how difficult it is to bring such circumstances out into the light.

1.43 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr.Devlin) has classically presented his case with typical clarity. Those of us with an interest in these matters will wish to consider carefully what he has said and consider their response to his analysis of these issues. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on the specific case or the specific allegations. As my hon. Friend is aware, Ministers have no direct role in such cases, nor do they have powers to intervene. Nevertheless, the Government condemn all forms of impropriety and corruption in public life, wherever it occurs. We have done much in the last 16 years to promote good conduct in local government. I can offer my hon. Friend some general comments and some general guidance on how he might take this matter forward.

Historically, local government in this country has been characterised by a tradition of propriety and public service. However, there is always the potential for misconduct or fraud and we must not be complacent. Central Government's role is to ensure that there is a framework in place to provide a safeguard against such misconduct. In 1982, the Government established the Audit Commission to arrange for the audit of local authorities. The Audit Commission oversees the work of councils' external auditors, who have an important role in the fight against fraud.

In 1985, the Government set up the Widdicombe committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business. We responded to the committee's report with legislation providing for a number of measures to ensure the good conduct of local authority business. In particular, we introduced a head of paid service, responsible for making reports on--among other things--the proper appointment and management of staff and the introduction of the role of the monitoring officer to make reports on the contravention of the law or maladministration.

Column 1636

Other measures introduced by the Government since then have contributed to the improvement of the conduct of local government by encouraging authorities to root out waste and bureaucracy and to remove obstacles to the provision of efficient and effective services. I am thinking obviously of the disciplines imposed by the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to greater areas of local authority business and most recently the requirement to publish performance indicators.

However, the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud within their areas of operation rests with the local authorities themselves. As responsible employers, councils should uphold the highest standards of probity among their own employees. In the great majority of cases, they do. Where fraud is found, the authority should root it out. However, my hon. Friend is clearly dissatisfied with the response he has received from the council in this case. I would advise him that he, his constituent and others concerned about this case have two alternate avenues to explore.

In cases where there is a suspicion of criminal activity, the matter should be referred to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I am not aware that such allegations have been made in this case. Alternatively, matters relating to misconduct, fraud or the loss of public money can be referred to the council's external auditor. I am not in a position to say-- nor should I comment--on whether the allegations referred to by my hon. Friend have some substance, but the nature of the allegations suggests to me that they are of the type which would fall within the remit of the district auditor. My hon. Friend may wish to consider this course of action, if indeed it has not already been done.

District auditors are independent of the councils which they audit, and they have significant powers to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and take action. Their powers extend wider than those of a commercial auditor. They not only audit the council's accounts, but advise on matters relating to value for money and good financial management. They guard against fraud, misconduct and the loss of money, and if they find transgressions they can surcharge those responsible for the repayment of money.

District auditors are overseen by the Audit Commission. Its statutory duties include the preparation of a code which prescribes "what appears to the commission to be the best professional practice with respect to the standards, procedures and techniques to be adopted by auditors".

The code is subject to approval by Parliament and hon. Members with an interest in these matters will know that a Standing Committee of the House considered and approved the latest version of the code only last week.

Auditors have a duty to comply with the code in carrying out their functions, and therefore it plays an important part in the fight against fraud. The code makes it clear that it is the responsibility of auditors to review the adequacy of the measures taken by councils to combat fraud, to test compliance with these measures and to draw attention to significant weaknesses or omissions which they may identify. According to the code, any person may at any time give information to auditors which concerns the accounts of the relevant councils or is otherwise relevant to the auditors' functions, and auditors must--I emphasise that--consider such information. The relevant auditor in the matters referred to by my hon. Friend would be obliged to consider information passed to him.

Column 1637

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sympathise with my hon. Friend's frustration in this case, and I hope he will not be disappointed that I have to say--in all fairness, I think he already realised this--that I cannot pursue the matter on his behalf. However, I have explained the framework within which local authorities and their external auditors must operate, and I have offered him some guidance on the future action he must take. I can do no more than wish him the best of luck.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is an Adjournment debate, and the Minister has spoken.

As both the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office are present, we shall now move to the next debate.

Column 1638

Burma

1.49 pm

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important question of British Government policy on Burma. On Monday, I was able to welcome and congratulate the new Minister; let me do so again now. No doubt this is the first of many foreign affairs Adjournment debates that he will have to answer.

The Minister inherits one excellent policy: what has been described as the "good governance" policy of Her Majesty's Government over the past two or three years. We shall all miss the leadership shown by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) over the years, and I have always given my full support to Baroness Chalker when she has spoken on the subject. Indeed, I shall begin by quoting from her Chatham house lecture of a year ago. She said:

"The United Nations charter lays a duty on all of us to promote respect for human rights everywhere."

That encapsulates the theme of my speech.

In 1988, the National League for Democracy in Burma won the general election. Its victory was inconvenient for the military, which promptly staged a coup and established in its place the infamous SLORC--the State Law and Order Restoration Council. As with so many military coups around the world, the theory was that this would be a transitional phase prior to an orderly handing over of power to a democracy. That has not happened, however, and many of the Members of Parliament who had been elected were thrown into gaol. Since then, the legitimate Prime Minister of Burma, Dr. Sein Win, has been in exile. He is currently in Washington, and I had a long discussion with him there a few weeks ago.

The daughter of the Independence Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been the most noted figure of opposition to the military, and has been awarded the Nobel peace prize. We all rejoiced when she was released last week after six years of house detention. She became a symbol of resistance to oppression around the world, but life could have been so easy for her: the regime was perfectly willing to release her provided that she left the country to join her British husband and family in Oxford, but she realised that she would never be allowed back and volunteered to remain under house arrest. That is a tribute to her steadfastness and courage.

In her famous essay "Freedom from Fear", Aung San Suu Kyi wrote that courage could be described as grace under pressure--

"grace which is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure."

That definition could very well be applied to Aung San Suu Kyi herself. She has been a symbol of hope to the people of Burma, whether they are in the country or--as many are--in exile around the world. I was glad to hear today that she was able to attend the martyrs' memorial ceremony; we wait to see what other freedoms she will be allowed following her release.

We in the Liberal international movement decided to give Aung San Suu Kyi the 1995 prize for freedom. We award the prize annually to a figure who has made a contribution to world freedom, and I can think of no more appropriate recipient this year. Only a few weeks ago, the SLORC authorities refused me permission to travel to

Column 1639

Burma and present the prize. Given the new circumstances, I have asked permission again, and I hope that it will be granted in the near future.

I do not think that Aung San Suu Kyi would have been released but for the pressure exerted by many Governments around the world, including the strong words of our own Prime Minister in an answer to me at Question Time only three weeks ago and the pressure from the visiting Japanese Foreign Minister. All those factors have helped, but there is a danger that, because Aung San Suu Kyi has been such a symbol of the victimisation and oppression of the Government, the fact of her release may lead people to believe that things will be well in Burma from now on. I hope that they will, but the House should be aware that 16 elected Members of Parliament are still in gaol, and that there are an estimated 1,000 political prisoners in Burma--including nine students who were arrested only this year while attending the funeral of one of the Independence leaders. The regime has been universally condemned for its human rights abuses over the past few years. Successive annual resolutions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the third committee of the United Nations General Assembly have been increasingly critical of SLORC, and the sub- commission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities has also been extremely critical of its oppression of minority groups in the country--notably the Karen minority on the border with Thailand. No doubt the Minister is aware of a recent television documentary that produced some evidence that biological warfare had been used by the regime against the Karen people. That in itself deserves international condemnation. All the UN resolutions have consistently called for an end to summary executions, torture and forced labour. I have just been reading the International Labour Organisation's report on forced labour. It estimates that some 800,000 people have been used for that purpose under legislation that allows Burmese local authorities to requisition citizens for public works. It states that the Government are is using forced labour in a strategic and systematic way to develop holiday resorts for tourists. For example, workers have been conscripted to clean out with bare hands the Mandalay canal, 10 km long and more than 3 m deep. Houses bordering the canal have been demolished and local people forced by the military to work 24-hour shifts, and 2,000 prisoners in chains have been brought in to assist. The report goes on to claim that some 30,000 workers have not been paid for work at the new airport in Basang, and that hordes of men have been seen cleaning streets and historic buildings in Mandalay. The regime has responded that the allegations of forced labour are false and are being made by people who want to denigrate it. It argues that international critics do not understand the culture of the people; the voluntary contribution of labour to building shrines, temples and so forth is a tradition that goes back thousands of years.

That superficial argument has been rejected by, among others, the United States Government representative to the ILO, Julia Misner. She has pointed out that, while the United States Government respect the tradition of voluntary community service in Burma, there is clear evidence that people have been forcibly conscripted, taken

Column 1640

from their villages and farms and made to work--often without pay or food--under threat of heavy fines, and subjected to severe physical abuse. She said:

"Some of these workers had died as a result of mistreatment and some had been murdered. What was unacceptable and alarming was not only had the Government failed to suppress the use of forced labour, but apparently had even promoted the spread of this practice". When we speak of good governance, we are not talking only about obscure parliamentary traditions; we are talking about the way of life imposed on the people of Burma by the present regime. What should we, in the outside world, be doing about that? Of course we have no aid programme to Burma because of the human rights record, yet Burma is a very poor country. The per capita gross domestic product is only $235; that is half of India's per capita GDP and less than that of Bangladesh. Only 10 per cent. of homes have electricity. Obviously, therefore, Burma is a country which in normal times would be a very worthy recipient of international aid assistance.

Given that that aid has been denied to them and given their inflation rate and their levels of poverty, the Burmese authorities have been developing what I can only call "economic diplomacy". A Japanese trading company recently signed an agreement on major infrastructure joint ventures and it is widely believed that the Japanese Government are now considering the resumption of an aid programme. Britain held a trade promotion week last year, and the World bank is currently preparing a report on economic reforms. It is believed that Burma may announce other palliative measures following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. She herself has answered a direct question on her release. She was asked by Time magazine: "How should the international community react"

to your release? She replied:

"The authorities should be given credit for releasing me, but I think people should wait a bit to see what follows. There is no use rushing in and thinking everything is going to be hunky-dory from now on."

I think those are wise words.

I suggest to the Minister that our policies should be roughly as follows.

First, we must use our position in the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to ensure that major economic benefit lending is not resumed to Burma without a dramatic improvement in human rights. I believe it is essential that we use our influence in the international financial institutions in that constructive way. Secondly, I do not believe that any further trade or investment delegations should be sent to Burma until the UN resolutions have been complied with.

Thirdly, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support the UN machinery to establish a contact group which could encourage dialogue between SLORC and the National League for Democracy. It is interesting that members of the National League for Democracy--at any rate those that I have met--are not wild-eyed revolutionaries. They are making a reasonable suggestion that in Burma there might be, as an interim measure, a shared administration between the present regime and the NLD, pending the construction of a proper constitutional conference.

Column 1641

I believe that that is a sensible and moderate suggestion, which the UN is ready to encourage and which Her Majesty's Government should support.

We must make it clear to the regime that unilateral constitutional tinkering on its part will not be acceptable. The present so-called "constitutional convention" is already in draft and proposes, for example, a major continuing role in the democratic assemblies for the military. It proposes, for example, to disqualify from standing for presidential office anyone married to a foreigner; a more blatant piece of manipulation intended to exclude Aung San Suu Kyi is difficult to imagine.

Obviously, it is unacceptable that the existing regime should itself revise the constitution. There must be some process of dialogue, of constitution- building on a consensus basis. I suggest that the international pressure, especially the pressure from Her Majesty's Government, which was applied to the Banda regime in Malawi and produced exactly that type of constitutional dialogue leading to democratic elections, is what is required in Burma.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that not only shall we ourselves not resume an aid programme until there are changes of a more fundamental type in Burma, but that we shall talk firmly to our allies in the Japanese Government to try to ensure that they do not do so either.

I freely recognise that one of the problems facing the Government in promoting the good governance policy is that pressure through withdrawal of investment or trade is not effective if it is unilateral. It must be on a multilateral and co-operative basis. I argue that that co-operation should begin in the European Union. It may take us a long time to move to the so- called common foreign policy outlined in the Maastricht treaty, but whatever our opinions may be in the House on that subject there can be no denying that, on the issue of trade and investment pressure, a common policy is exactly what is needed. Otherwise, one country's sanctions become its neighbours' business opportunities. I hope very much that the policy of good governance will be pushed forward, especially in the European Union.

In the past few days, we have had the sad example of Nigeria. Strong statements were made about Nigeria by the Minister and by Lady Chalker, and the Nigerians have reacted against that and called in the heads of the British oil companies to warn them against what they regard as interference in their affairs. We are exposed as an individual country unless we work together with our allies to increase the pressure on those totalitarian regimes and persuade them to return to civilian Government.

I realise that I have not used up all the extra time that you have generously allowed us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a result of the shortness of the previous debate, but I have never believed in occupying space for that reason alone. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.

2.6 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale,Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) for initiating the debate. It is certainly very timely for the House to focus on Burma slightly more than a week after Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was released from the house detention to which the right hon.

Column 1642

Gentleman referred. She had indeed endured that house detention for almost six years, and it had long been a policy priority of this Government to secure her unconditional release. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members of the House will wish to join the right hon. Gentleman and myself, especially on such a significant day, in welcoming that courageous lady back to freedom.

July 19 is martyrs day in Burma, commemorating not only Daw Suu Kyi's father, but the other Burmese leaders who were assassinated just before Burma achieved its independence. Earlier today, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, Daw Suu Kyi joined the State Law and Order Restoration Council--the SLORC--in laying wreaths for her father. The ceremony passed peacefully, and I believe that we should take that as a good omen for a united future for Burma.

I wish to begin by expressing my heartfelt admiration for Daw Suu Kyi. The citation for her Nobel peace prize in 1991 described her contribution as one of the most remarkable examples of civilian courage in Asia in recent decades. I am pleased to hear of the additional honour to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Throughout her detention, Daw Suu Kyi remained untainted by bitterness, and was rightly regarded as a fitting symbol of the non-violent struggle against oppression. Since her release, that courage has been complemented by a remarkable magnanimity and self- restraint. She has indeed been an example to all democrats. In a moving statement that she made to the press on her first day of freedom, she spoke, not of triumph, but of forgiveness and reconciliation. Now she is free, and is turning her efforts towards working with the SLORC for the good of the Burmese people. As I say, I cannot praise her enough and I should also pay tribute to the fortitude shown by her family.

We must also welcome the decision of the ruling military regime in Burma, the SLORC, in finally agreeing to remove the restriction that it had placed on Daw Suu Kyi. A long detention without trial was against all the principles of justice. We appreciate the SLORC's acknowledgment of her right to liberty at long last. By agreeing to her unconditional release and expressing its desire to work with her for the peace and stability of Burma, it has acted in its country's best interests. We warmly welcome its action and hope that it represents the first step in an irreversible pursuit of progress towards a prosperous and a democratic Burma.

As no one appreciates more than Daw Suu Kyi, that will be no easy task. But now there is hope for change. Burma is one of south-east Asia's least developed countries, with vast unrealised natural and human resources. The SLORC has asked Daw Suu Kyi to participate in the creation of a peaceful and prosperous country, and has expressed its hope that national reconciliation will be achieved. We encourage the SLORC to recognise the rights of all Burmese people to participate fully in the political process, and to heed the call for dialogue.

Encouraging such dialogue and cooperation has been a key aim of our policy since the SLORC came to power, and it will continue to be so. As Daw Suu Kyi has already pointed out, the positive resolution of political problems throughout the world in recent years has been achieved primarily through dialogue.

Column 1643

We have been heartened by the SLORC's stated intention to achieve reconciliation, and by its recent release of many political prisoners. But, as the Secretary of State said in his message marking the release of Daw Suu Kyi, there are many more people still detained in Burma. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments in that regard and for confirming the magnitude of the existing problem. We hope that the process of formulating a new constitution will become a truly consultative process involving all ethnic and political groups and that all those still detained for voicing their hopes and aims for a free and democratic Burma will be released to take part in that process.

Of course, civil liberties are not the only important rights. The welfare of the Burmese people continues to concern us. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the human rights situation in Burma is distressing by any standards. We are aware of reports of forced labour and military porterage, and of the displacement of entire communities. The plight of the Karen people on Burma's border with Thailand must not be overlooked. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been graphic evidence of that in recent television programmes.

Freedom of speech and association are still denied in Burma. We have condemned such human rights abuses and will continue to do so, both bilaterally and in international forums. We support the activities of the United Nations in promoting democracy in Burma and we would consider carefully any proposal for a contact group. But there is hope for change. The SLORC has at last realised that the removal of constraints from Daw Suu Kyi can help it to achieve a prosperous and a peaceful Burma. We must work with others to persuade it to realise that the same benefits will come from respecting the human rights of all the Burmese people, including the ethnic minorities.

We are committed to helping Burma develop into a peaceful and prosperous nation with which we can enjoy productive relations. We endorse Daw Suu Kyi's call for the healing of divisions to stabilise Burma and we are encouraged by the SLORC's request that she work with it for the peace and stability of the country. Internal stability is a vital prerequisite of the political and economic development that is essential if Burma is to play a full international role. We recognise that Burma's neighbours have direct concerns which affect the formulation of their policy. But we urge them to consider carefully the implications of moving too quickly. Daw Suu Kyi and the right hon. Gentleman referred to the advantages of a quiet and careful approach. We should not rush into things, assuming that everything is, as Daw Suu Kyi said, "hunky-dory". We all want Burma to play its full part in international and regional groupings. But before Burma can fulfil wider roles satisfactorily, the SLORC needs to be encouraged to apply principles of good governance. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said in that regard. The principles of good governance require a Government to be legitimate, competent, accountable and to respect and promote human rights and the rule of law. We can all do much to encourage that.

All those Governments with an interest in the future of Burma are reviewing their policies following Daw Suu Kyi's release. But the watchword is caution. We shall all

Column 1644

be watching closely to see if the SLORC takes advantage of the situation that it has created. Burma stands to benefit greatly if it does.

Aid is an important aspect of our policy, as the right hon. Gentleman highlighted. We shall be considering carefully the direction that our aid policy should take over the coming months. Aid is a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma, and we must be careful that it is used to support reform rather than undermine it. We shall discuss the way ahead with our European partners. We are already in agreement that we should reward reform in Burma by providing aid.

We consider it vital that the SLORC should cooperate with the UN bodies and other aid and humanitarian agencies working in Burma, whose efforts we strongly support. It is only in that way that the Burmese people will be able to benefit from the help that we all wish to provide.

Burma is in desperate need of economic development, as the SLORC has recognised. We should be doing the Burmese people a grave disservice if we were to ignore that. Daw Suu Kyi has also expressed her support for measured economic development country wide. But we must proceed with caution. As part of our critical dialogue, we should let the SLORC know that progress with economic assistance will be conditional on both economic and political reforms. They must be radical. In particular, Burma needs a stable fiscal framework and a new currency policy. She should address urgently the problem of her foreign debt.

We shall also be reviewing the means by which we assist British companies to prospect the Burmese market. It is a market that could develop quickly should real reform come. We need to ensure that British companies will not be at a disadvantage when competing in those conditions. The competition will be intense. Through trade, we can help to reinforce rather than undermine our policy in other areas. Through increased commercial contacts with democratic nations such as Britain, the Burmese people will gain experience of democratic principles. So I do not share the view of the isolationists who contend that trading with repressive regimes only brings them succour.

I shall refer to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the trade fair. British week proved extremely successful. It was a small scale affair, but one which aimed to give British firms a chance to assess for themselves market opportunities in Burma. It was not just a trade event; it included cultural and information elements that aimed to correct the distorted image of the United Kingdom in Burma. We do not have any plans for future events, but I believe that the trade fair achieved all of its aims.

Overall, we aim to provide the strong and sympathetic support that Daw Suu Kyi asked for from the international community, working bilaterally with our European partners, Burma's neighbours and other nations. The continued interest shown by the House reflects the genuine wish of people in Britain to help to achieve the aims that she has represented for so long. We must impress upon the SLORC our interest and potential to contribute, but we must emphasise our continued insistence on the removal of the many abuses and restrictions that remain. It is truly critical to maintain our dialogue.

I can summarise our current attitude as cautiously optimistic. We are looking at our policy options but will not rush ahead. We must allow the dust to settle and the dialogue between Daw Suu Kyi, her followers and the

Next Section

Home Page