| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nigeria
11. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on present relations with the Nigerian rulers. [862]
Mr. Hanley: As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, Nigeria is currently suspended from the Commonwealth. We are acting in conjunction with other Commonwealth countries and our EU and other partners.
Mr. Winnick: Is it not perfectly clear that the response of the Nigerian rulers to the country's suspension from the Commonwealth has been one of total indifference? Just a few minutes ago, the Minister justified the sanctions against the murderous regime in Iraq, and I understand and appreciate why. Why are we adopting a different attitude towards the murderous regime in Nigeria?
Mr. Hanley: The two countries are different, their histories are different and the reaction to both has been different. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the sanctions imposed on Iraq are UN sanctions, and he will be aware also that we are still working on an effective reaction to what Nigeria has carried out recently. We have a unique arrangement in the Commonwealth to impress on Nigeria the seriousness of its actions, and we will work to do more until Nigeria wakes up to the realities and reforms itself.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in taking action against Nigeria, we must be careful not to take action against the Royal Dutch Shell Company which might result in the Nigerian rulers not having to pay Shell its share of the oil revenues? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we must not allow the rulers of Nigeria simply to sell the oil on the open market and gain more funds for their terrible regime?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. We must leave to Shell the actions that Shell should take. I had extensive discussions with the chairman of Shell very recently, as did my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. There is little doubt that the project which Shell has now set up will help relieve the abject poverty in Nigeria. All of our projects in Nigeria have a long lead time, and revenues from the gas sales are unlikely to flow until early next century, but to cancel the project now would be to impoverish Nigeria for many years to come.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister confirm, in the light of an earlier response from the Foreign Secretary, that we have not been making direct representations to the Nigerian Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the belief of many people in the United Kingdom that we ought to be making representations for the sake of the Nigerians who live among us and because of our concern at the way in which people are being treated in that country?
Mr. Hanley: I can say to the hon. Gentleman only what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier. We have noted the calls for the severing of trade links and for an oil embargo, and we are considering a wide range of options with our European Union and other partners. We have not ruled out anything at this stage. An oil embargo could be policed effectively only by a naval blockade of Nigeria, and we are looking to the international community to adopt the measures which we and others have already taken. All of that will maximise the pressure on the Nigerian regime.
Middle East
12. Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards achieving peace in the middle east. [864]
Mr. Rifkind: Despite Yitzhak Rabin's tragic death, the peace process is continuing. Shimon Peres' commitment
to peace is clear--Israeli troops were redeployed from Jenin on 13 November, six days early. We are also hopeful that there will be progress on the Syrian track.
Mr. Carrington: In the light of the tragic death of Prime Minister Rabin, will my right hon. and learned Friend impress on the Israeli Government that they need not give concessions to the hardliners in Israel? In particular, will he impress on the Israeli Government the urgent need to stop Jewish settlements being built in Arab Jerusalem?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the Israeli Government themselves are disinclined to make concessions of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The new Israeli Prime Minister has emphasised that the pursuit of peace is his single most important priority. He appears to have been developing a good relationship with the Arab Heads of Government around Israel, and he is also thinking positively about trying to get the Syrian-Israeli negotiations moving again.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: How much of the international aid pledged to the Palestine National Authority has so far been released? Can the Secretary of State explain what effect the cut in the overseas aid budget that was announced yesterday will have on Britain's ability to keep her promises in that regard?
Mr. Rifkind: We have committed ourselves to about £83 million-worth of bilateral and multilateral aid to the Palestinians. A lot of that has already been provided. When I was in Gaza recently, I indicated an extra £3 million-worth of aid and do not anticipate any change in those proposals as a result of the announcement yesterday.
European Intergovernmental Conference
14. Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made by the reflections group in preparing the agenda for next year's intergovernmental conference. [867]
Mr. David Davis: I expect the study group to present its final report to the Madrid European Council in December.
Mr. Hain: Is not one of the greatest threats to Europe and its competitiveness the huge burden of mass unemployment? Should not one of our major objectives be to get Europe back to work? At next year's intergovernmental conference, will the Government therefore support a proposal to amend the treaty on European union to include in its objectives a commitment to full employment?
Mr. Davis: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman moved from the Whips Bench before he asked his question, and now I can see why. The greatest threat to employment in Europe is Europe's inability to compete. The leader of the Labour party knows that, which is why he made his disingenuous speech to the Confederation of British Industry a little while ago. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to represent Labour policy as the ability to pick and choose between which parts of the social chapter it would take. He ignored the fact that most of the social chapter is decided by qualified majority voting, so he would not have a choice, and that the part that is not decided by such
voting would be given over to it by Labour policy. He was trying to put a disingenuous fig leaf in front of the greatest threat to Britain's ability to compete--Labour policy.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the single greatest deficiency in the process of European construction the fact that, for the British people, it does not have popular support? To win back that support, can my hon. Friend say whether the Government will press for restitution of the superiority of British law over European law at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and, in particular, for the need to do something about the European Court's ability to impose retrospective judgments?
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is certainly right in respect of the need to rebuild popular support for the union. Prior to the intergovernmental conference, we presented to the reflections group of the European Union a paper that tackles that very issue--unpredictable and highly expensive judgments that have major retrospective consequences on Governments who try to carry out European law in good faith, as the British Government always do.
Mr. Skinner: Just to make sure that everyone understands what has happened since 1971, can we get it on the record that on 28 October of that year the Tory Government took us into the Common Market? In the next decade, Lady Thatcher passed the Single European Act. She forced it through on a guillotine and gagged Tory Members of Parliament who wanted to oppose it--every Labour Member opposed it. Then, in the 1990s, another Tory Government decided to sign the Maastricht treaty. Once again, we opposed it. Let us get it on the record that it is the Tory Government who have got this European issue round the necks of the British people.
Mr. Davis: The people who have most to worry about as a result of what the hon. Gentleman says are those on the Labour Front Bench. He just condemned them out of his own mouth. Let us get on the record the fact that enlargement of the European Union, the social opt-out, the single market, competitiveness and deregulation and our record on inward investment are all things of which we are proud in our policy on the European Union.
Mr. Gill: Is it not a fact that the Labour party not only wants to make us uncompetitive by adopting the social chapter, but wants to make us doubly uncompetitive by returning to fixed exchange rates?
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things which Labour tried to cover up at its party conference was the part of its conference document which said that it would not stand for any permanent opt-outs. That means that, whatever it said about European monetary union, it has decided now that at some point it will join.
Ms Quin: If, as the Minister claims, European social policies are economically damaging, how is it that several European countries, such as Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Italy, which accept the social chapter, are not only higher up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development world prosperity league than us but have improved their position since 1979, whereas we have dropped from 13th to 18th?
Mr. Davis: I am very surprised at the hon. Lady. I should have thought that the Labour party would
concern itself first and foremost with employment. When it comes to employment, we are top of the major country league in Europe--above Germany, above France, above Italy and above Spain.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |