| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.26 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding(Mr. Davies) on raising this subject. My congratulations are tempered only by the thought that we simply do not have enough time on this occasion to air the subject to
the extent that it deserves, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend--and perhaps the Government--will find another opportunity to look at the matter. It is undoubtedly true that, if democracy is to flourish, there must be a balance between the rights of individuals to go about their lawful procedures and the right of the press to hound them to try to find out not only what they have done, but--as my hon. Friend mentioned in the dreadful case of Selina Scott--what they have not done.
With regard to the Selina Scott case, my hon. Friend did not mention something that struck me most forcibly. Not only was a false story printed against her, and not only was no proper checking done to ensure that the story was accurate, but when her complaint was upheld--as I understand it--she was told that, as she had not lost any money as a result of the story, nothing further could be done. It is as if Shakespeare had never written:
That was many hundreds of years ago, yet it still applies today.
An individual was defamed, although the allegations could have been looked at thoroughly. The man's character could have been shown by the fact that the letter purporting to be a love letter from Selina Scott was actually congratulating him on his engagement. One gasps that anyone should do such things and that there should be no remedy. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should examine such matters seriously. Such practices corrupt and degrade democracy and degrade individuals. It gives the press too much power if journalists believe that they can indulge in such practices and get away with it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will return to the subject and that we have a proper opportunity to debate the rights and wrongs of it. The press should be protected in doing what it ought to do, but it should not be allowed to get away with stories such as the ones about Selina Scott or about my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay(Mr. Allason), who has been subject in successive days to front-page attacks by the Daily Mirror, which followed him about in exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding said that the secret police did to him when he was in Moscow.
It is no defence to say that because it was done not for the secret police, but for a newspaper, such subterfuge, deceit and following of individuals can be justified.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday 12 July.
Remaining Private Members' Bills
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Ms Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell the House whether a request has been received to make a statement on the need to introduce a criminal offence of stalking? Now that the Government have objected to my Bill, the victims of stalking will have to wait at least another year to be put out of their misery.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
I am not aware that any request has been made to make a statement.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 June.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 April].
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Not moved.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Not moved.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [19 April].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 12 July.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [22 March].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Not moved.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.
Read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House--[Mr. Colvin]--put and negatived.
Mr. Deputy Speaker thereupon declared that the Bill stood committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House--[Mr. Cyril D. Townsend]--put and negatived.
Mr. Deputy Speaker thereupon declared that the Bill stood committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Bates.]
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath):
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of Britain and the United Nations. This debate follows that which I was lucky enough to have the chance to initiate on 4 December 1992 on the UN, and several Adjournment debates on the then obscure subject of UN peacekeeping. I am chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group. I have always been proud of the United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the UN from its birth, and of our special place on the UN Security Council.
The United Kingdom is in a special and privileged position in the UN. It therefore behoves us from time to time to give a lead to that body. My theme this afternoon is that this is just such a time. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be replying to the debate, and the House will be looking for some pragmatic, well-considered Government proposals to tackle the many, various and well-known problems on which I shall briefly touch.
To be blunt, the United Nations is facing the greatest crisis in its 50-year history. I shall let Sir David Hannay, an outstanding former permanent ambassador to the UN, set the scene. He wrote recently:
I agree with those pertinent remarks, and I draw attention to the fact that it was the Government that set up the special Security Council meeting to consider for the first time at summit level how the UN should best proceed. The truth is that, at the end of this troubled and turbulent century, we need the UN, based on its widely praised charter, more than ever before.
At present, some 17 peacekeeping operations are under the auspices of the UN. National Governments blithely assume that the UN will be around to pick up the pieces after other attempts have failed. When NATO leaves Bosnia, or non-governmental organisations get kicked out of other countries, when chaos, anarchy, despair and degradation stalk the land, the cry will continue to go up for the UN to move in, take over and supply the instant solutions.
I should like the UN to be able to assume a greater importance in world affairs, to be given greater authority to prevent conflicts in places such as Burundi and Macedonia, to strengthen further human rights, in particular those of refugees, and to be better placed to struggle against suffocating poverty and the environmental destruction all around the globe.
I hope that the Minister will join me in celebrating the UN's many and often largely taken for granted successes. I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the success of the 50th anniversary celebrations--an event so well
organised by the United Nations Association in this country that I do not believe any other country did better--and recognise the Government's role in mobilising public support for an enhanced UN as we move into the 21st century.
Only through a thorough and sustained process of reform can the recent decline of UN standing be reversed. Following "An Agenda for Peace"--yes, I know it is the Minister's bedside reading--the Secretary-General has carried out a considerable measure of reform. There have been new appointments, and, as requested by the United States, there is now an office of internal oversight.
Every hon. Member will welcome the slimming down of the UN bureaucracy, while agreeing that there is more to be done. My hunch is that there are still too many committees and too much international bureaucracy and waste. When it comes to promotions, I should like greater emphasis to be placed on merit and less on nationality. The UN bureaucracy has improved, but it is still not up to the required standard. There may be scope for removing one UN agency altogether, but it would be foolish to talk of closing down several.
My attention has been drawn to a reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in the house. He said:
His predecessor was got at by Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to hold his own under any such pressures in the future.
Before the Secretary-General was first elected, he said that would carry on for only one term. He would be wise to keep to that, and he would set a good precedent. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister care to comment on that? Has he any ideas as to future candidates whom the British Government might want to back? Have we started discussing the matter with the European Union and within the Commonwealth?
The idea of a deputy has also been suggested. While the Secretary-General would continue to handle international crises--the high-wire act--and run the peacekeeping operations throughout the world, his deputy would be shaking up and slimming down the bureaucracy and working out the new priorities. In naval parlance, it is called running a tight ship. Does that idea have my right hon. Friend's support? It appears to have the Prime Minister's, if he wants any guidance on the matter.
At the heart of my remarks must be the serious financial crisis facing the UN. There have been a number of such crises before--I feel that I have been around that course more than once--but this time the situation seems extremely serious. There have been loud and clear warnings for many months, yet no proper action commensurate with the great size of the problem has been taken by the United Nations' 185 member states.
I cannot believe that the UN will be allowed to close its doors--if it did so, a new and similar international organisation would at once have to be constructed--yet it is now a fact that the UN could be completely out of cash by the end of this year.
The present financial crisis is crippling the United Nations and preventing it from carrying out essential tasks. Already, diplomatic initiatives for peace cannot
proceed, human rights monitors cannot be deployed, and vital emergency humanitarian efforts are being held up. This is tragic. What a way to run our world.
To keep the lights on, the UN's senior figures are putting aside important matters as they desperately try to raise funds. They are hindered by two basic problems: the UN has only puny financial reserves at the best of times, and it has not been permitted to borrow, even for a few weeks.
The Secretary-General has been forced to use money in the UN's peacekeeping budget to pay for its day-to-day running costs. What will happen if a large peacekeeping force is required urgently and totally unexpectedly? There must be the possibility of a small regional problem flaring up out of control because no peacekeeping force is dispatched at the crucial early stages.
Hon. Members know that the world's richest country--which, in my view, is wrongly and undeservedly the host to the UN headquarters--is pushing the UN to the brink of disaster. The United States of America gains massive benefits from the location of the UN in New York, but it owes the UN approximately $1.6 billion, and it is about to cut its contribution to peacekeeping from 31.5 per cent. to 25 per cent of the cost. That is disgraceful behaviour by a permanent member of the Security Council, which has more influence over the work of the UN than any other country.
According to the Global Policy Forum, an organisation located in New York, the current United States share of the regular UN budget--£321 million--is only one fiftieth of 1 per cent. of federal spending, and less than 1 per cent. of New York city's annual outlays. Important countries such as Russia and Ukraine have not paid their full dues because of their internal financial difficulties--but at least they are trying to catch up.
I turn to the European Union to take the initiative. The Minister is not as enthusiastic as I would like him to be for joint EU action in foreign policy. However, the EU countries--which contain two permanent members of the Security Council--should push forward their proposals for solving the crisis. Together, the EU countries pay more than half the funds received by the UN, and last year they strongly and correctly criticised America during the appropriate debate in the General Assembly. It is right that member countries that do not pay their contribution should not have a vote at the UN, as the Foreign Secretary has most effectively pointed out.
The European Union should appeal to all member states that have not yet fully paid their assessments to do so without delay. They should appeal to those countries that enjoy strong economies to make emergency payments to help existing UN debts. They should call for an emergency meeting of the General Assembly, and highlight the very real dangers to world peace and security if the UN is forced dramatically to curtail its activities.
I believe that 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. How will the Government celebrate the anniversary and help build on the declarations's achievements? Perhaps a committee along the lines of the 50th anniversary committee is called for, under a chairman with a legal background. What funding will be made available by the Foreign Office? Perhaps the Minister could write to me with his considered views on this topic in due course.
Conflict prevention is a key subject, and I have already made a passing reference to it. How can we give a higher priority to it in the future? There have been important advances that have saved lives, time and trouble later. I welcome the start that the international community has made in relation to war crimes. Over the long term, more alleged war criminals must be brought to justice, and clear standards of international behaviour must be established.
I have taken up much of the time of the House in Adjournment debates on the obvious need for Britain to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The Government have behaved badly, and there is widespread support in the House for our return to UNESCO. Our friends in the Commonwealth do not understand why we do not come back in and stand up for British interests and for their interests.
When we were a member, in any one year we earned more money for UNESCO than we put into it. We are letting down many British scientific, educational and cultural organisations. If we wish to remain on the Security Council, the universality rule is fundamental. Surely my right hon. Friend will accept that.
Qana is worthy of a special debate. I welcome the report on it, and congratulate the Secretary-General on its speedy production. In this country, we know that how long reports and inquiries can take. I find it appalling that the United States and Israel have been trying to keep that crucial report under wraps. UNIFIL is supported by the United Kingdom from our sovereign bases in Cyprus, and I hope that the Government will continue to take a robust line in support of that UN peacekeeping force.
On peacekeeping, we need better procedures to deal with the new world in which we will find ourselves in the next century, when I fear that there will be more civil wars. We will need to hold back before committing peacekeeping forces, and not spread the UN effort too thin.
"Who steals my purse, steals trash."
BILL [LORDS]
That--
(1) at the sitting on Tuesday 14th May Standing OrdersNos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to Education; and
(2) at any one sitting of the House the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the civil service not later than three hours after their commencement or Seven o'clock, whichever is the later.--[Mr. Bates.]
2.35 pm
"The UN of 1997 will be in less good shape than it was at the beginning of the current five-year mandate in 1992. Gone the confidence and optimism exuded by the statement adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the members of the Security Council at their first ever summit-level meeting a month after Boutros-Ghali took office. Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda have taken the shine off the successes in Namibia, the Gulf, Cambodia and elsewhere. Tales of waste, duplication and incompetence in the Secretariat and UN agencies have undermined public support for the organisation."
"By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose."--[Official Report, 30 January 1996; Vol. 270,c. 772.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |