House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Oct 1995

Column 999

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

1. 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. [36852]

6. Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the middle east peace process. [36857]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We warmly welcome the signing on 28 September of the interim agreement concluded between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We look forward to the Palestinian elections, which are due to take place in the next few months. I shall visit the region early next month, which will give me the opportunity to emphasise Britain's strong political and practical support for the peace process.

Mr. Ross: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I look forward to his contribution to the middle east peace process. I am sure that he would wish to join me in welcoming the start of the withdrawal of the Israeli defence forces from Jenin today, which is a sign of good will, but will he also join me in condemning the decision by the United States Congress to attempt to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which is in direct contravention of international law and the prohibition contained in United Nations Security Council resolution 242 on the acquisition of territory by force?

Will the Secretary of State also, however, welcome the decision by the President of the United States to delay the implementation of that in order to help the peace process--

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions are getting enormously long, especially for the first one. We ought to get off to a better start than that.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I also appreciate the beginning of the withdrawal by the Israeli forces from the west bank. As far as the position of the US Congress is concerned, we believe that that is an unhelpful development at this stage and we are pleased that the United States Administration has dissociated itself from it.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister agree that, having signed a peace treaty with Israel, in a country such as Jordan continued support for the peace process depends on ordinary people noticing clear benefits, including economic benefits, from peace? Does he accept that Jordan suffers from an exceptional burden of foreign debt, which inhibits attempts to develop the economy? What steps would the Government be prepared to take to help reduce that burden?

Mr. Rifkind: I do, indeed, recognise that problem. We have already forgiven all aid debt and we were also happy to help at the last Paris Club rescheduling of Jordan's

Column 1000

debt. We have a £4 million per annum bilateral aid programme focusing on education and telecommunications. I do recognise that there are important objectives in helping the Jordanian economy. The United Kingdom is playing a substantial part in that process.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right. hon. and learned Friend on his promotion and on his decision to go to the middle east in person. Does he agree that it is somewhat anomalous that Israel, which is the only democracy in the middle east, has yet to receive a royal visit? Can he give us an assurance that one may be quite imminent?

Mr. Rifkind: In the past year there has, of course, been a visit to Israel by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in a personal capacity. Naturally, royal visits are important issues and they are considered with regard to all the implications. I am sure that the continuing improvement in the overall climate in the middle east will make high-level visits to Israel continue to improve in the years to come.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that, at this stage in the peace process, the winding up of the Arab boycott office would be a sensible step forward? Will he make representations to that effect to Arab Governments?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that the boycott is already withering on the vine. It would highly beneficial if it were to be completely terminated, and that is increasingly the view of many Arab countries in the region as well.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: When the Secretary of State visits the middle east shortly, will he try to seek a meeting with President Assad of Syria? If he is able to secure such a meeting, will he press the Syrians to enter the peace process, as that could be the most significant thing to assist the process?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope to be in Damascus during my visit to the middle east, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be very beneficial if Syria were to approach the peace process in a constructive and forward- looking way. There have been some modest signs of progress on that front, although we appreciate the difficulties and sensitivities involved. But I believe that Syria is virtually the last of the building blocks to be put in place to help to achieve a comprehensive peace in the middle east. Therefore, the British Government would very much wish to encourage Syria's involvement.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend describe the nature of the assistance that the Government are providing to the Palestinian community?

Mr. Rifkind: We are giving substantial cash help towards the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere, and we have also indicated a willingness to assist in the elections which are to take place in Gaza and in the election of Palestinian representatives. An EU-led group of observers will go to the middle east, and the United Kingdom will play an important part in that process.

Mr. Fatchett: May I, from this side of the House, offer my congratulations to Chairman Arafat and to Prime Minister Rabin on continuing the peace progress in the

Column 1001

middle east and on this morning's developments? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the peace process is to be successful, both the Israelis and the Palestinians must experience real

advantages--security for the Israelis and self-determination and prosperity for the Palestinians? On the latter point, will the Foreign Secretary indicate what further international efforts are being made to spread and speed up the flow of development aid, both to Gaza and to the west bank?

Mr. Rifkind: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the assumption of his new shadow responsibilities? I very much agree with the view that there must be clear benefits to both Israel and the Palestinians from the peace process, and I suggest that that is already happening in various ways in the middle east. Israel is increasing its links with the Arab countries and is becoming a normal country in the region, while the Palestinians are beginning to realise many of their aspirations. The international community can help in that process, particularly in the economic field.

Intergovernmental Conference

2. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the objectives of his Department for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [36853]

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out our priorities for the intergovernmental conference, notably in this House on 1 March. We want a European Union which is open, flexible, free-trading, efficient and responsive to popular concerns.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do all that he can to promote our vision of an enlarged and outward-looking community of nation states? Will he utterly reject the proposals published by the Labour party earlier this month which would result in that party giving up the British right of veto and would remove our right to opt out permanently of European proposals such as the single currency and the social chapter?

Mr. Rifkind: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I thought it remarkable that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who speaks for the Opposition on foreign affairs, made no reference in his speech to the Labour party conference to what appeared in a document published by the Labour party on the same day, which said that there will be no permanent opt-outs with regard to any future Labour Government. The only question appears to be when Labour would surrender British interests, and not whether.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Following the remarkable speech by the Defence Secretary to the Conservative party conference, the Foreign Secretary told a group of Conservative Back-Benchers that he had "learnt the lessons". What lessons has he learnt?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not recall seeing the hon. Gentleman at that meeting. Therefore, I had better simply say to him that I do not recollect making any such remark.

Mr. Whitney: May I first, as chairman of that meeting, endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to the

Column 1002

previous question? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are a number of indications that the Government's hope for a sensible approach at the IGC is shared by our European partners? Does he agree that the best way of achieving agreement is for the Government to continue to approach the IGC in a constructive and positive spirit?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I do believe that that is right. We have specific proposals in a number of areas that the conference will consider. We have already published our proposals with regard to the Western European Union and defence matters, and the Government are currently considering a number of other matters also. I assure my hon. Friend that we will always approach such a sensitive and important issue constructively: seeking to identify areas where there is the prospect of agreement, but making clear those matters upon which the United Kingdom might not be able to support proposals from other quarters.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: What is the Government's objective at the IGC with regard to the extension of qualified majority voting? As the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have committed themselves to securing reform of the common agricultural policy--which all hon. Members support--how will the Foreign Secretary achieve it without extending QMV in that context?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, qualified majority voting exists already in many areas. We believe that those areas that currently require unanimity do so because of the profound importance of the matters covered. Therefore, we do not believe that it is appropriate to extend qualified majority voting beyond its present remit.

Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would make good sense for the Government to go to the IGC with some detailed, positive proposals that are likely to find favour with a number of our European Union partners? For example, I refer to the question of the number of commissioners, or the length of time and the interval that major countries may hold the presidency of the European Union, and those other areas where my right hon. and learned Friend will be carrying his thinking further forward.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that a range of practical improvements can be made with regard to the workings of various institutions. In addition to the areas referred to by my hon. Friend, we are also considering the European Court of Justice very carefully. We believe that we will be able to make a number of useful proposals in that sphere which would result in the improvement of the court and that might respond to certain recent concerns. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made a viable and constructive contribution on the reflections committee, which is helping to prepare the ground for the intergovernmental conference.

Ms Quin: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the statement passed at the Labour party conference, which was referred to by his hon. Friend? It says:

"a common approach on foreign and security policy needs to bind all member states and believes therefore that decisions must continue to be taken by unanimity".

Column 1003

If the Foreign Secretary agrees with that statement, why does he continue to misrepresent our policy?

Mr. Rifkind: I have no need to misrepresent the Labour party's policy. While the Labour party has indicated its views on common foreign and security policy, in the same document it says that it wishes to abandon Britain's right of veto in the:

"areas of social, industrial, regional and environmental policy". I could ask why the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends do not give the same publicity to that declaration as they give to other assurances that they make occasionally.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend then confirm that the Government will not give up the veto under any circumstances?

Mr. Rifkind: That is, indeed, right. We believe that one of the great strengths of the European Union will be the creation of a Europe with which the peoples of Europe are comfortable. That requires all the people of Europe--not just those in the United Kingdom--to believe that, when important national interests are at stake, changes that could have profound implications for their well being and quality of life will be made only on the basis of unanimity.

Lockerbie

3. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the role of Mr. Andrew Green of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie crime. [36854]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): From 1988 to early 1991, Mr. Green was head of thForeign and Commonwealth Office Department responsible for the international aspects of the Lockerbie affair.

Mr. Dalyell: He certainly was. What possible reasons did Mr. Green have for agreeing with the Americans in January 1989 that Lockerbie should be played low key?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not aware of any such agreement. I shall look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman, if I may.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the unsatisfactory, ignorant and evasive nature of that reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment for the seventh time.

Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy Taylor.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Could the Minister indicate--

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but, as the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the question is closed.

Bosnia

4. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met other Foreign Ministers to discuss Bosnia. [36855]

Mr. Rifkind: I last met European Union colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 2 October.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State realise that when they gave NATO the job of dealing with Bosnia and

Column 1004

bombing a number of the Serb strongholds in the name of the United Nations, it was a serious qualitative change in the method of approach and that there will be serious misgivings in future if it is repeated elsewhere?

On another issue, is the Minister aware that for the past two years a number of people in the House and elsewhere have been saying that the Muslims needed weapons and that the embargo should be lifted? How come, in the aftermath of the bombing, the Bosnian army was able to advance more than 100 miles, capturing 20 towns and villages, with all the weapons at hand? Where did they get them from?

Mr. Rifkind: I think that two explanations for what the hon. Gentleman inquires about are, first, that despite the embargo there has clearly been a supply of weapons from various countries and, secondly, Croatian regular troops were assisting the Bosnian army in western Bosnia. That clearly had significant implications for the military advances that were made at that time.

Sir John Cope: In seeking a settlement in that part of the world will my right hon. and learned Friend do his utmost to ensure that it is comprehensive? I have in mind particularly the position of Kosovo which is hard pressed by the Serbs. If the present leverage and momentum does not enable us to relieve that pressure in Kosovo it could be the next flashpoint and the next point of escalation.

Mr. Rifkind: It is highly desirable, for the reasons to which my right hon. Friend refers, that any political settlement should produce stability in the region. There are two issues which it would be highly desirable to settle alongside the matter within Bosnia. One is Kosovo, to which my right hon. Friend refers, and the other is the situation in eastern Slovenia where there is great tension between Croatia and the Government in Belgrade. Clearly, it would be highly preferable if those matters could be addressed and if progress could be made. Whether that will be achieved it is too early to say, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a very important objective.

Mrs. Mahon: Given the UN human rights monitors' reports that atrocities have been committed against Serbs in Krajina by the Croatian army, will the perpetrators, when caught, be charged with war crimes?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is certainly correct to say that, sadly, atrocities have been committed against members of all the various communities. Those in Krajina who have been expelled from their homes or who have fled from their homes because of fear for their lives are as much refugees and victims of this ghastly war as those of other communities. Prosecution is obviously a matter for the prosecuting authorities.

Mr. Wilkinson: Owing to the evident problems of command and control, can my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the participation of a Russian contingent in the peace enforcement force in Yugoslavia is not in any sense made a precondition for its deployment? Is it not important that the force be got into place when the powers on the ground believe that it should be and not when the Russians agree? They have never been a Balkan power.

Mr. Rifkind: It is, of course, very important that any implementation force should be ready to take over its

Column 1005

responsibilities as soon as a peace settlement is agreed which would then require implementation. The Russians have indicated an interest in serving as part of that force. It is desirable that they should participate. Discussions that are taking place at the moment have made some progress but they still have to resolve certain outstanding issues as to the likely nature of their involvement, the implications for the way in which the implementation force would operate and those particular functions which they could best contribute towards resolving. It is desirable that the implementation force should be broadly based and I think that the current discussions will help to achieve a satisfactory outcome which will not in any way damage the operational effectiveness and coherence of the implementation force. That is a crucial objective.

Treaty Ratification

5. Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to reform the procedures for the ratification of treaties. [36856]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): There are no plans to change our procedures

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to hear that because I am sure that the Minister does not wish to see a repetition of the fiasco that we saw in the House when the Maastricht treaty was being ratified and approved in parliamentary terms. Therefore does he agree that it is desirable to bring treaty-making wholly within parliamentary control so that all aspects of such treaties which can have such a massive effect on the constitution of this country can be properly considered and examined by the elected representatives of the people?

Mr. Hanley: I believe that ample opportunity is given for debating the provisions of a treaty, if Parliament so desires.

Western European Union

7. Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Western European Union counterparts to discuss the further development of a common foreign and security policy. [36858]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): The Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers last met in Lisbon in May this year; the outcome was published in a communique of the meeting, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. They will meet again in November.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for that short reply. How are the various and differing views in the reflections committee, especially regarding the future relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union, developing, and which, if any, countries are still pushing for the WEU to be a fourth pillar of the European Union?

Mr. Davis: Our stance has been laid out in a document on our views to the WEU that we have put around. The primary concerns in that document are not to erode our national sovereignty in terms of the command of our

Column 1006

forces to support the integrity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; not to duplicate NATO to maintain the important transatlantic dimension in the alliance, not to jeopardise that in any way, and to create a practical capacity to carry out Petersburg missions in particular. So far, there has been a wide variety of views in the reflections group on this matter, including the subordination of the WEU to the EU, which we have resisted.

Mr. Colvin: I take it from my hon. Friend the Minister's answer, therefore, that he is against a merger between the EU and the WEU. Will he also confirm that, with regard to WEU enlargement, Her Majesty's Government would resist an application by any state to become a WEU member unless it was already a full member of NATO--and by full member I mean part of the integrated military structure of NATO--so that it could fully meet any commitment under article 5 of the Washington treaty?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right that full WEU membership requires article 5 commitment and therefore membership of NATO, so that is correct.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister acknowledge that up to 250, 000 Europeans died during the three years that it took NATO to recognise the need to intervene powerfully in Bosnia, and does he therefore acknowledge that, notwithstanding anything that the Secretary of State for Defence may say, an urgent need exists for an effective European security structure?

Mr. Davis: I do not think that the two halves of the hon. Gentleman's question necessarily connect. It is not clear how an external body could necessarily prevent a civil war if the people of that country are determined to have one.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that a number of us who serve on the North Atlantic Assembly have found that certain members of the assembly do not always have the same agenda for the operation of WEU as we do and that they may want to use the WEU to weaken NATO and the NATO connection? Will he be aware of that and ensure that the British position keeps the relationship with American forces in NATO very much in mind?

Mr. Davis: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. Resisting that sort of idea, proposal and initiative is the front and centre of our policy in Europe and in the WEU.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware that one of the areas agreed by the Government for joint action under common foreign security policy is nuclear non-proliferation. Why then does he not use the next WEU meeting to speak up for the 80 per cent. of British people who want Britain to condemn the French nuclear tests? If he really believes that closer integration in Europe would cut Britain's ties around Europe, why does he not give some support to Australia and New Zealand, which find that Britain is the only Commonwealth country that supports France against them? Does he not recognise that tough talk in Blackpool and in Westminster on protecting Britain's security interests cannot conceal the shameful silence on this matter that has made this Government the willing accomplice of France?

Mr. Davis: It is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman's background coming back to haunt us. This is of course a

Column 1007

clear matter of the French national Government's interest in security. We take those matters seriously, unlike the Labour party. The French Government have clearly said that, like ourselves, they are committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty being successfully achieved in 1996 and the tests are a step towards that aim.

Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that rather than listening to the muddled and inconsistent thinking of the Opposition, he will underline the NATO transatlantic link and not allow the WEU to be folded into the European Union in the way that some Opposition Members have suggested?

Mr. Davis: I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. The NATO alliance has worked extraordinarily well in the past 40 years to preserve the peace of Europe. The transatlantic dimension is a key part of that alliance and we will preserve that as a major part of our policy.

Cyprus

8. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the current situation in Cyprus. [36859]

Mr. Rifkind: The present division of Cyprus is unacceptable. We are giving active support to the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices which we believe offers the best hope of a just and lasting solution.

Mrs. Roche: What does the Secretary of State have to say about the plight of the enclaved people who live in the occupied north of Cyprus and who are subjected daily to human rights violations and abuses? Does he not agree that it is about time that the British Government, who are a guarantor power in the area, exerted their influence on the illegal regime of Mr. Denktas and on Turkey itself?

Mr. Rifkind: When there is a division of a territory such as in Cyprus there are always personal tragedies and people caught up in it. That should give added impetus to the attempts to achieve reunification of the island on an acceptable basis. It is that which will offer the best prospect for the welfare of the people to whom the hon. Lady referred.

Mr. Nigel Evans: To what extent does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we may be able to use Cyprus's application to join the European Union and Turkey's desire to have closer trading links with the EU as leverage to try to bring both sides in the north and south together, living in a bi-communal settlement?

Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed the case that negotiations with Cyprus about possible EU membership are due to begin at the end of the intergovernmental conference. I have no doubt that the negotiations would have much better prospects of success if we could see political progress in Cyprus which could lead to the unification of the island. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that as a factor to which I hope that all those involved in the dispute will give proper attention.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Since the European Union decided to negotiate the accession of Cyprus into the Union, the Greek Cypriots have withdrawn their support

Column 1008

from the United Nations confidence-building measures. What reasons have the Greek Cypriots given for that reversal of policy?

Mr. Rifkind: A number of factors may have led to that. The important objective is to look to the future. The next step will be for the American presidential envoy to visit the island soon for talks with the various leaders. That should be encouraged and I hope that in future the confidentiality that is so crucial to any prospect of progress will be respected by communal leaders on both sides of the island.

Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no party to the problems in Cyprus should be allowed to exercise a veto on Cyprus's entry to the European Community? Does he agree that there needs to be good political will on both sides of the argument and that that is clearly lacking in the Turkish Cypriot community?

Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend said, there can be no veto. It goes without saying that progress that would lead towards reunification of the island would improve the prospects for success in the complex negotiations. All accession negotiations are difficult and when those negotiations involve an island which is currently divided like Cyprus there are difficulties which the Community has not had to address in the same way in the past.

Mr. Robin Cook: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's observation that there must be no veto on Cyprus's application. Is he aware that the Prime Minister has told the House that it would be extremely difficult for Cyprus to join the European Union unless the division of the island is resolved? Does he not realise that that is an open invitation to Turkey to rule out Cyprus's membership by making it difficult to resolve the division of the island? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now correct that error by giving unequivocal support to Cyprus in its application to join the European Union, thereby ruling out any Turkish veto?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course we look forward to a successful Cypriot negotiation for accession to the European Union. It is simple common sense to say, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, that an island that is divided and has not had political progress towards reunification will have much more difficult negotiations than would otherwise apply. The hon. Gentleman is being unrealistic if he does not recognise that fact, which is well understood in Cyprus by all the communities concerned.

Inward Investment

9. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical help his Department offers to potential investors in the United Kingdom. [36860]

Mr. Hanley: We give advice to potential investors about opportunities in Britain. We put them in touch with commercial contacts here and we set up fact-finding visits to the United Kingdom. We have had great success in doing so in recent years.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he encourage his officials who are providing

Next Section

Home Page