| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bosnia-Herzegovina
9. Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the prospects for stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina following the withdrawal of the implementation force. [17265]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The key to lasting stability remains in the parties' hands. They have to support the peace agreement, implement it fully and maintain it after IFOR leaves. However, we shall be working with our allies and partners throughout the year to help maximise the prospects for stability after IFOR's withdrawal.
Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister face up to the fact that the timetable for the withdrawal of IFOR is unrealistic and dangerous? Even with the best will in the world--there is not much of that in Bosnia just now-- it is almost certain that there will be a return to ethnic conflict if there is a withdrawal of international forces without proper safeguards, and a visible and credible international presence in 1997. It has taken four bloody years to get to where we are in Bosnia. Is it worth putting that peace in jeopardy just to keep to an artificial timetable that has been set to meet the American electoral cycle?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The best hope for peace in Bosnia is that we keep firmly to the timetable to which the hon. Gentleman referred--we have to keep the focus on peace firmly in place for the rest of this year. Recently, I visited Serbia and I spoke to President Milosevic. I believe that the pressure from Serbia and Croatia on the Bosnians to maintain peace will be very strong. I hope that we can withdraw IFOR at the end of this year as planned, and that we will then be able to take it forward with the civilian implementation that we look forward to helping them achieve.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that we shall be better able to assist political stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the withdrawal of the implementation force if the European Union has a co-ordinated foreign policy towards the country? Would not the Foreign Secretary's welcome and entirely sensible suggestion last night for a foreign policy co-ordinator for the European Union be a valuable contribution towards that objective?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal for a co-ordinator responsible to the Council of Ministers for the decisions made collectively by those Ministers. I hope that it will be of great assistance in achieving a lasting peace in Bosnia when IFOR withdraws at the end of the year.
Ms Quin: The Foreign Secretary, in his statement to the House on 22 November, talked about ending the arms embargo on Bosnia in two phases--the second of which will include artillery, heavy weapons, mines, and so on. In view of the horrific injuries that are inflicted on civilians in Bosnia because of land mines, will the Minister give a firm commitment that Britain, even after the ending of the arms embargo, will not export land mines to Bosnia? Will the Minister also give a commitment that he will play an active role within the European Union to ensure that European Union countries do not export land mines?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United Kingdom resists any supply of such weapons in areas where they are likely to cause danger to civilian life, and that will continue. I cannot give an absolute assurance for the long term, but I give an assurance that so long as IFOR troops are there the United Kingdom will neither re-arm nor supply such weapons to any party in Bosnia.
Arms Exports
10. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines on the export of arms to individual countries are currently applied by his Department. [17267]
Mr. David Davis: It is our policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We consider applications for licences to export defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria, including the international guidelines and obligations to which we are committed.
Mr. Cohen: Paragraph D4.30 of the Scott report says that the former Prime Minister was inaccurate and misleading in parliamentary answers to me on the guidelines, and paragraphs D4.5, D4.6, D4.11 and D4.12, among others, refer to the untruthfulness of the then Foreign Minister. Therefore, how are Parliament and the public to know that the current guidelines are interpreted properly and have not been secretly changed, revised or flexibly interpreted? Until trust can be restored, would it not be best to have an open register, perhaps in the Library of the House of Commons, listing all the exports of weaponry or weapon-making equipment to countries that are in the guidelines?
Mr. Davis: I might surprise the hon. Gentleman. The DTI policy guidelines in such matters are under review. It will take a little time to conclude that review, but when it is concluded, I shall put a copy in the Library of the House of Commons.
Intergovernmental Conference
11. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department are currently working on matters related to the IGC. [17268]
Mr. Rifkind: We set up an intergovernmental conference unit last January. It has a staff of nine, including support staff. A number of other FCO officials in London and at European Union posts spend part of their time on intergovernmental conference issues.
Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Are any of those civil servants considering whether there should be a commitment in the IGC White Paper to a referendum on a single currency? If so, does he agree that such a commitment should be made and does he, therefore, support the rabid right of his party in demanding the sacking of the Chancellor?
Mr. Rifkind: The intergovernmental conference is concerned only with proposals to amend the treaty; therefore, questions relating to European monetary union will not arise.
Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is growing anger in Britain about the judgments and powers of the European Court of Justice? Will he make it a priority area for the IGC and will he introduce proposals urgently for the House of Commons and House of Lords to assert their rights against the ECJ, bearing it in mind that the German constitutional court limits ECJ judgments in Germany?
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the terms expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday, it is clearly important to respond to the very unwelcome judgment that was made in the Factortame case. We have a number of ideas for improving the working of the European Court of Justice that we will submit to the intergovernmental conference. We are also willing to consider other ideas whereby both Houses of Parliament can have additional influence in seeking to ensure that the fundamental traditions and requirements of our country are taken into account.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Foreign Secretary made a number of interesting points in his speech in Paris yesterday. They included the idea that there should be a European Union figure to represent foreign policy. As he supports that view, is it the Government's view and will it be proposed at the IGC?
Mr. Rifkind: I said in my speech, and am happy to repeat, that on issues where British foreign policy coincides with that of other countries--for example, in the middle east, Hong Kong and other parts of the world-- it is sensible to use the added weight of the European Union in furthering our interests. When 15 countries have committed themselves to a single foreign policy objective, it is necessary to co-ordinate that policy on a day-to-day basis. That is why we believe that the appointment of a civil servant or official to assist Foreign Ministers would be a useful innovation.
Mr. Dykes: As senior Ministers have promised yet again to become more enthusiastic about our membership of the European Union, instead of leaving it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or occasionally the Deputy Prime Minister, is it not important that my right hon. and learned Friend puts the record straight on the European Court of Justice, bearing it in mind that in the latest dispute on fishing matters, in order to dampen down the temperature of some of our colleagues, we should remind the public that many Spanish fishing boats are owned by British companies?
Mr. Rifkind: That is as may be, but there is a widespread belief which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House that the purpose of national quotas was to benefit national fishermen. In so far as that has not been the case, as a result of the decisions of the European Court of Justice, it is right and proper that the Government should give priority to seeking to rectify the position and ensuring that national quotas operate in the way that was clearly intended by the Council of Ministers when the policy was first introduced.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I commend to the Foreign Secretary the excellent leaflet by the Chemicals Industries Association entitled "Why Europe matters to you"? It warns that, if we are to keep chemical factories and jobs in Britain, we must take a positive role in Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary endorse that conclusion? If so, will he recommend another reading of the pamphlet to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who ripped up his copy when it was presented to him? On the verge of the IGC, will the Foreign Secretary take this last opportunity to advise some Conservative Members that it would be better if they rip up their prejudices before they break up Britain's business links with Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: I have not had the pleasure of reading that leaflet, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not tear it up before reading it. I will withhold judgment on what to do with it until I have read it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |