| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Middle East Peace Process
2. Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east following the Palestinian elections. [12344]
6. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the middle east peace process. [12348]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The elections which were held on 20 January were a very welcome development. We look forward to the final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians, which are due to begin in May; and hope for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the middle east.
Mr. Burden: I join the Minister in welcoming the January elections. Will he join me in congratulating President Arafat on his victory, and in looking forward to the final status negotiations? Will he also join me in urging all parties to show flexibility on all the issues that must be the subject of the negotiations, including the question of Jerusalem?
Mr. Hanley: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to those who carried out the recent elections. The very high turnout rebuffed those who rejected both the elections and the peace process. There was a clear and strong desire for democracy among the Palestinian people. While paying tribute to them and to President Arafat's role in the elections, I pay tribute also to Members of all parties in this House and another place who, with great dedication, helped to monitor the elections and reported back to me yesterday on their success.
Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Palestine Liberation Organisation failed to deliver the promises that it made in respect of the Palestinian national covenant, that would rightly be perceived as a breach of faith that could destabilise the peace process?
Mr. Hanley: I certainly recognise the difficulties that the Palestinians will face in trying to achieve those commitments, but Chairman Arafat has said that he strongly believes that there is a need to amend the
covenant. My right hon. and learned Friend and I know full well from our recent direct discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister that altering the covenant would probably represent the highest confidence-boosting measure that could be achieved.
Last week, Prime Minister Peres said that he would do all that he could to enable the Palestine National Council to meet. That will probably involve great security risks, and courage will have to be shown by the people of Israel to achieve what I think will be one of the greatest steps towards engendering more confidence in the peace process.
Mr. Janner:
The Minister met Prime Minister Shimon Peres last week. Will he now express the view--I am sure that it is shared by us all--that Mr. Peres is a man of great wisdom, courage and persistence who is to be congratulated on all that he has done? Did the Prime Minister tell him that it is his view, as well as that of all parties in Israel, that there can be no question of Jerusalem being anything other than the capital of the state of Israel? In those circumstances, why have the Government decided, apparently to save money, to close the British Council library in Jerusalem? That appears to me a stupid act, particularly at this time.
Mr. Hanley:
I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, about the courage and wisdom of Prime Minister Peres. I was most impressed on meeting him--his sincerity shines through.
Our position on Jerusalem has not changed: it is a matter to be determined in the final status talks. It is in the interests of all parties that neither side should do anything to pre-empt their outcome; there the hon. and learned Gentleman and I may part company.
Mr. Batiste:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the peace process should now be bolstered by encouraging economical development in the region? In that context, will he build on the success that the British Government have had in encouraging trade agreements between the European Union and Israel, by taking action to ensure that the Arab trade boycott of Israel withers on the vine as fast as can possibly be managed?
Mr. Hanley:
My hon. Friend has it right. The boycott is withering on the vine; I hope that it will be lifted completely. After all, Britain is Israel's third biggest trading partner. I am assured by the Israeli Trade Minister that British business men are no longer put off trading with Israel by the Arab boycott. The guidance given by the Department of Trade and Industry accurately reflects the facts, and we are actively encouraging business men to ignore the boycott.
Mr. Fatchett:
May I associate the Labour party with all the comments that have been made about the nature of the Palestinian elections, and the competence and honesty with which they were conducted? We look forward to the continuing development of the peace process through the final-status discussions.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the key to a comprehensive peace agreement in the middle east is an Israeli-Syrian peace accord. What steps are the Government taking--either individually, or collectively
with other European Union countries--to ensure that the peace negotiations continue and there is a prospect of real peace between the two countries in the next few months?
Mr. Hanley:
The hon. Gentleman is right: unless the Syrian track starts again, there can be no lasting peace in the middle east. I was very pleased when, despite the tragedy of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity to visit Damascus immediately after the funeral, and to encourage the restarting of the Syrian track. It seems that progress is now being made. We welcome the resumption of talks, and will encourage our European Union partners to provide economic underpinning for the peace process.
3. Mr. Sheerman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which organisations he will invite representations in advance of the publication of Her Majesty's Government's White Paper on Europe. [12345]
Mr. Rifkind:
We welcome representations on the inter governmental conference from any organisation with an interest in it.
Mr. Sheerman:
Will the Foreign Secretary listen to more views than those of the Euro-sceptic right wing? Does he realise that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are broadly pro-Europe, although we see many faults that must be rectified and many improvements that must be made to the European Union? We are all sick of the increasingly vulgar and dangerous nationalism that emanates from members of the Foreign Secretary's party, both inside and outside Government.
Mr. Rifkind:
That would have been more convincing if it had not come from a member of a party that fought several general elections on the basis that it was trying to take us out of the European Union.
Mr. David Howell:
The proposal to publish a White Paper is welcome and robust. I fully understand that my right hon. and learned Friend will not wish to give details about the negotiating position, but may I ask him not to hesitate in setting out a strong anti-centralist, anti-collectivist approach to the European Union in the IGC? In particular, will he focus critically and practically--I am sure that he will--on such nebulous concepts as a common foreign and security policy for Europe, and other ideas that those who are less critical of Brussels are all too ready to accept?
Mr. Rifkind:
I agree that, on matters such as a common foreign and security policy, it is crucial for Europe--if it wishes to speak in the name of Europe-- to do so because of a genuine identity of view, rather than, through artificial means, seeking to impose a consensus against the vital interests of individual member states. If there is genuine agreement on important issues, we can advance British interests by allowing the European Union to speak for the proposals involved; but, when British interests--or the interests of other countries--are at
Mr. Robin Cook:
Will the Foreign Secretary consider inviting representations for the White Paper from GKN, which has just implemented the social chapter for its British work force by setting up a works council? Is he aware that its current newsletter describes that as a positive approach? If the Government cannot carry with them even such a generous supporter of Tory funds as GKN, why do they not drop their lonely opposition to the social chapter? Will they never recognise that it is impossible to build up competitiveness by keeping the work force in the dark, and that British citizens are entitled to the same right to know about the future of their companies as citizens of the continent?
Mr. Rifkind:
There is an important difference between my position and that of the hon. Gentleman. In my view, the question is not whether it is desirable for GKN to introduce a works council; the question is whether that decision should be made by employers and employees in the company, or imposed by the Government or the European Union. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that wishes to ignore the views of employers and employees in British companies, and seeks to impose a rigid structure throughout Europe, regardless of the damage that that would do to British jobs and prosperity. He cannot escape responsibility for that view.
Mr. Forman:
As well as welcoming representations on those important matters, is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to look again at the need for fuller public information on such questions? These are complicated issues and many of us on the Conservative Benches feel that there is a need for the British Government to take more of a lead in that respect.
Mr. Rifkind:
Yes, and that is one reason why we were happy to respond to the views of three Select Committees, both of this House and of another place, and have agreed to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference, which I believe will respond to the reasonable point raised by my hon. Friend.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |