| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
"Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
3. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take following the publication of the Scott report to ensure that guidance in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is not breached. [17259]
Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February.
Mr. Cunningham: If, as Scott has found, Ministers should have told Parliament the truth, have not the Government been treating the matter in a light-hearted manner and should not the Secretary of State apologise on behalf of his colleagues?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what happened. I do not think that I can usefully add to the matters that were very fully debated in the House not very long ago.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but does he think that, in the light of the decision taken in principle by the Public Service Committee to look at "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and the civil service code, following the Scott report's recommendations, his Department should wait on the Committee's recommendations?
Mr. Rifkind: We await with interest any recommendations of the Public Service Committee. It is worth remembering on behalf of those concerned with open government that the last Labour Government never thought of publishing "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The Government published, and can therefore claim credit for it.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" places an obligation on Ministers to tell the truth? Will he further confirm that Sir Richard Scott details not one, but seven occasions when his ministerial
colleagues breached that duty? Will he condemn those colleagues, or do those constitutional guidelines also have a flexible application?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that Ministers complied with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and I do not believe that untruths were told. The hon. Gentleman has no foundation for making such a suggestion.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scott report teaches us that it is always dangerous for the Government to impose greater restrictions on British industry than are imposed by other Governments? Do not those restrictions make it more difficult for people to determine whether to allow a licence? In the light of the Scott report, will the Government bring this country into line with the rest of the world on the issue of restricting the sale of arms and non-lethal military equipment to other Governments, thereby allowing British companies to sell goods and services that they are currently prevented from selling--despite the fact that the goods can be bought from other western nations?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the Government showed more self-restraint on the sale of equipment to Iraq than almost any other western Government, but we have received little credit for that act of self-denial. Nevertheless, we will take policy decisions based on what we assess to be the right course of action. Although that may often coincide with what other Governments are doing, we will not feel bound to change our policy simply because other Governments have reached different conclusions.
Chechnya
4. Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Russian Foreign Minister to discuss the situation in Chechnya. [17260]
Mr. Rifkind: I last saw Mr. Primakov on 27 February. On that occasion, Chechnya was not discussed.
Mr. Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since Sunday, Russian troops have been bombarding and strafing a village 30 miles from Grozny called Sernovodsk? Is he further aware that a corridor has had to be created to allow refugees to leave, and that the pall of smoke can be seen for many kilometres? What representations are the Government making before the Russian presidential elections to help find a peaceful and humanitarian solution? Does he agree that the people of the world will not tolerate the present situation for much longer?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that a political solution in Chechnya is likely to bring lasting peace and stability to that part of the Russian Federation. We hope that the Russian Government have now realised that a purely military approach is simply not working and that it is necessary for them to consider alternative means of ensuring the peaceful integration of Chechnya into the Russian Federation, to bring the violence to an end.
Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to study the report by the Quaker representative in Moscow on the assault by Russian troops and mercenaries on the village of Sernovodsk? Is he aware that that report suggests that there are more than 7,000 refugees from that village, and that the Russian troops and mercenaries involved have waged a sustained campaign--involving the use of artillery and helicopter gunships--that is continuing as we speak? Does he agree that it is time the civilised world said to the Russian Government, "Enough is enough. We will no longer turn a blind eye to the continuing barbarity in the northern Caucasus"?
Mr. Rifkind: I have not seen the Quaker report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I agree that the kind of military action that we have seen recently is to be deplored and condemned, and will damage Russia's reputation in the international community.
Export Promotion
5. Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Foreign Office and its posts overseas in promoting British exports. [17261]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Promoting British commercial interests is our largest single activity overseas, occupying 35 per cent. of the time of front- line staff. Our network of 218 commercial posts in 140 markets provides vital help to British firms developing their export business.
Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer probably explains why--in contrast to a few years ago, when it was difficult to find a company with a good word to say about the role of our posts overseas--there has been an increase in the number of large, medium and small companies that are happy to pay tribute to the work done by those posts, both in trade promotion and in encouraging inward investment? In this respect--as in so many others--does not that show that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget represents excellent value for money?
Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for that last remark. There is little doubt that the four Ministers on the Front Bench were shouting, "Hear, hear!" My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chairman of Rolls-Royce said recently that many of his company's overseas contracts had been won with the help of Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts. British Petroleum says that the British embassy in Baku and the FCO have made a tremendous contribution to the development of its business in Azerbaijan since 1992. The British high commission in Islamabad has helped National Grid to win a contract of more than $700 million.
My hon. Friend is right: small companies need help too--and they get it. The director of a small Sussex company, Wylam Hill, says that, without the help of posts overseas, about 80 per cent. of his exports would not have happened.
Mr. Eastham:
What assurances can the Minister give that, when hon. Members write to the Foreign Secretary--as I did in 1988 about some of the exports to Iraq--they will get an honest answer? I received cock-and-bull stories denouncing and denying the facts that I laid before him. Does the Minister think that we are entitled to some honesty in this House?
Mr. Hanley:
Everything I just said is the truth and I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to celebrate the success of our exports and inward investments in recent years.
Mr. Batiste:
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the best way in which the Foreign Office can help British exports to Israel is by bringing the peace process back on the rails? Can he confirm that he is giving all help to Israel in supplying the information needed to deal with the threat from the Hamas terrorists? Is he encouraging the United States to do the same?
Mr. Hanley:
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that stability and growth in Israel and in the economies of both Israel and the Palestinians are vital in helping to underpin the peace process. Indeed, we are increasing our exports to Israel in a remarkably successful way and I pay tribute to all of those who have increased their efforts in recent years. The answer to the other point my hon. Friend raised is yes, we will of course supply such information as comes to us.
Mr. Fatchett:
While every hon. Member applauds the efforts to increase British exports, will the Minister give us some sign of the priority that his Department attaches to the human rights record of a potential trading partner? For example, is he aware that the House was told that the Government's policy was to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma--a country with an appalling human rights record? How does he square that with the fact that, only last week, the Government sponsored a trade mission to Burma, regardless of that country's human rights record? Is not he embarrassed by the statements by the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, that the Government are more concerned with making money than with encouraging democracy and human rights in Burma? Is not it time that the Government stood for democracy and human rights, not just in Burma but throughout the world, and put it at the top of the list of priorities?
Mr. Hanley:
Our absolute priority is to support democratic reform in Burma. We continue to make it clear to the State Law and Order Restoration Council--SLORC--that the resumption of normal relations is conditional on progress in key areas, including human rights and political and economic reforms. We work very hard indeed leading the international community to help bring about change in Burma, and we will continue our efforts--including at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It is entirely wrong to suggest that our support for reform in Burma is weakening just for commercial reasons. It is not.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes:
Does my right hon. Friend endorse the great importance of having defence attaches with a combination of adequate rank and sufficient
Mr. Hanley:
I agree with my hon. Friend. Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff overseas devote more than 42 staff years each year to promoting inward investment to all parts of the United Kingdom and securing jobs through exports. Eleven overseas posts have dedicated inward investment teams as well. He is right that the number of jobs that are secured in Britain by our efforts abroad is remarkable and has increased dramatically in recent years. In addition, he has put his finger on the point that our diplomats abroad are now often specially trained in trade matters. Many of our ambassadors and high commissioners have acted as specialist trade diplomats beforehand and they now regard trade as part of their diplomatic work and not just as a chore that they have to add to their diplomatic efforts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |