| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Cuba
12.30 pm
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead): I hope that today's debate will be unusual in several ways. First, I come not to berate the Government, as I normally do, but to some extent to praise them, certainly in the enlightened form of the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate. Secondly, I have not come to make the kind of speech--which is sometimes made in the House--that generates more heat than light. I genuinely wish to elicit some answers and some direction from the Government of the kind that was apparent in the remarkable debate in the House of Lords on 13 March, which I am sure the Minister has read.
Peers as varied as Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Lord Rees, Baroness Young, Baroness Hooper, Baroness Miller and Lord Wright of Richmond--I could go on--demonstrated absolutely remarkable unanimity. Towards the end of the debate, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein remarked:
the Government's policy towards Cuba--
I hope that today's debate can be something like that.
I praise the current state of relations between Britain and Cuba. There have been two ministerial visits by the lucky Minister for Science and Technology. Baroness Young, an absolutely formidable campaigner for improved British-Cuban relations, has also visited Cuba. There have been trade delegations from this country to Cuba and there have been three inward missions in the past year or so, including a visit just the other week by the Cuban Minister of Justice.
Those visits reflect the reality of Cuba's position as an increasingly popular place for the international community, as a destination for tourists, as a site for investment and as a partner in trade. The Minister will know that tourism is multiplying in Cuba. There were 19,000 British visitors last year and 25,000 visitors are expected this year. There is a weekly flight from Stansted and a second weekly flight is expected from May.
There has been a fantastic upsurge in foreign investment and trading opportunities in Cuba. Some 200 foreign companies now operate in Cuba, ranging from Benetton to the Wellcome Foundation. One can only hope that Cuba is spared Benetton's advertising campaigns. Those companies are increasingly important for Cuba's economy.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Galloway:
I am not sure that the project of seeking light rather than heat will be served by giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will seek to be constructive.
Mr. Arnold:
I find the interest that the hon. Gentleman shows in trade and investment in Latin America
Mr. Galloway:
If I had a commercial or pecuniary interest in Cuba, you can be sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would have declared it. As I do not, I did not.It was, as I suspected, a mistake to give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Perhaps, one day, I shall learn.
The European Union is an increasingly important economic partner for Cuba. It is the island's main import source, accounting for 37 per cent. of all imports, and its main export market, taking 27 per cent. of all exports.It is the most important aid donor and the most important source of foreign investment. Ninety of the 212 joint ventures in Cuba operate with European capital. That is especially important for us as a country that is part of that development.
It is no surprise that, having gone through some very difficult years recently, the Cuban economy is definitely on the way up and on the move. Gross domestic product grew last year by 2.5 per cent. and that growth rate is expected to be bettered this year. In most sectors, from nickel to the lovely Havana tobacco, the economy is on the up. Cuba has an extremely well educated, healthy population. It has important raw materials, relatively developed industry, a relatively large population and, therefore, a relatively large market, and its people have shown great creativity, productivity and ingenuity in coping with recent difficulties. Cuba is also a country--I commend it to the Minister--of great physical beauty. Indeed, I invite him to walk with me along the Malacon, where he will see exactly what I mean.
Lest the idyllic picture that I paint mislead, I must say that there is a storm brewing, and that is what I shall concentrate on. That storm is the Helms-Burton Act, which is the child of the Toricelli Act, against which the Government have set their face for many years. The Act is a series of measures taken in 1992, in the heat of the presidential election campaign and under pressure from the well-organised Cuban American lobby, in the hope of swinging the crucial New Jersey electorate and the even more crucial Florida electorate the way of the winning candidate. Helms-Burton is now law, we are again in a presidential election year, and the Cuban American lobby is determined to use to maximum advantage the remaining months of the pre-election period.
The Helms-Burton Act is an especially pernicious piece of legislation. Those are not only my words, but the words of virtually every Government in the world. The Act makes it possible for the former owners of propertyin Cuba to sue companies, through the US courts,for damages if those companies use what is claimed to be the former owners' assets in Cuba. It denies US visas to the directors of those companies and their families and limits US aid to countries that trade with Cuba. That is especially important for the countries of the former Soviet Union. The Act is also designed to stop organisations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, lending money to countries that trade with Cuba. Again, that provision is particularly aimed at Cuba's former Soviet trading partners.
This draconian set of measures has led to the production by the Cuban American National Foundation of "Cuba's Hall of Shame", which is a black list of
companies, many of them British, many of them household names and many of them important. The Cuban American National Foundation very definitely intends to have those companies in the United States courts before long.
It is a sign of the times that some of those companies have lobbied me and that all of them have asked me not to mention their names in this debate. That is the fear that the measures, which are extraordinary in their extra-territorial nature, have placed in the heart of even the boldest British corporations. I know, and the Minister knows, that there are British companies that have invested millions of pounds in both Cuba and the United States. They stand to lose millions of pounds if the legal cases planned by Cuban emigre organisations go ahead.
This week, I was visited by directors of an up-and-coming British company that is achieving significant economic results in Cuba and the United States. The directors are in a state of fear and alarm as a result of what is likely to happen. Ten European companies, including three in the United Kingdom, are likely to be among the first legal victims.
The Helms-Burton Act has aroused opposition throughout the world. Baroness Young wrote to the President of the Board of Trade:
the measures already taken by the Government
Those are not the words of a member of the Cuban solidarity campaign, or of a left-wing socialist like me; they are the words of Baroness Young, who has Britain's economic interests, as well as Cuba's, at heart.
In that light, I shall run through several of the aspects that I hope the Minister will mention. I apologise to him that not every one of them has been communicated to his office; if he finds it impossible to answer directly today, I shall be more than happy to receive a letter from him, laying out the Government's position.
The questions are as follows. What further and continuing action will the British Government take to protect companies and individuals who are the subject of litigation in US courts? What representations have the Government made to the US Administration to encourage the President to use his right to waive prosecutions in the national interest? Will the Government be prepared to join any British company operating in Cuba and in the US, and thus subject to US law, to defend any action that might be brought, as the Canadian Government have declared themselves willing and ready to do?
Are the Government prepared, separately or with other nations, to challenge in the US courts the constitutionality of the Helms-Burton Act? What is the position in respect of the European Union? Is a World Trade Organisation action likely to succeed, given that the US may invoke its national interest in defending itself against any complaint?
What discussions have taken place with the Canadians and Mexicans? What is Her Majesty's Government's view about a possible action against the US by the two other North American Free Trade Agreement partners, which is under active discussion and consideration by them?
Have the Government had any discussion with Governments in the Caribbean region about their concerns about the Act? Are there any existing or new legal powers
that might be invoked to protect British interests in that regard? Did the Prime Minister raise the issue when he met President Clinton in Egypt?
I shall conclude by mentioning some issues that I have raised with the Minister before. It is time for the Foreign Office to follow the Department of Trade and Industry in making an official visit to Cuba. I assure the Minister that he would receive a warm welcome. His colleague, the Minister for Science and Technology, spent a fascinating time with President Fidel Castro, and I know that a man of the Minister's generation--if not of the same political stripe as Castro--would find such a visit fascinating. That would do a great deal to show the United States that we, as a country, will stand up for our own interests and for constructive dialogue and reform.
I know that the Minister is worried about the United States' response. The United States, especially in an election year, is not shy about interfering in British domestic affairs. The President is not shy about interfering in the north of Ireland. He is not shy about making electioneering barnstorming visits to Britain and interposing his personal views about the future of Ireland. I happen largely to share those views, but if the Americans are not shy about interfering in British affairs, why should we be so terrified?
"My Lords, in the light of the unanimity of the remarks made this afternoon from all quarters of the House, will my noble Friend ensure that the UK makes the strongest possible representations on this subject"--
"in Washington?"--[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 845.]
"we are concerned that beyond"
"there will also be the need for the British Government to protect further the interests of its nationals and its commercial interests if they are to be subject to vexatious litigation or arbitrary denial of visas."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |