| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kashmir
5. Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British hostages in Kashmir. [30846]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We continue to work closely with the Indian and other Governments involved in our efforts to secure the release of the hostages. We very much hope that recent reports that they are no longer alive are untrue.
Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister agree it was quite irresponsible of the press to have run stories recently announcing the death of the hostages when there have been a series of unconfirmed sightings since their death was supposed to have taken place? Will he give an assurance to the friends, colleagues and fellow students of Paul Wells in my constituency that there have a number of confirmed sightings of the hostages still alive? Will he give the House an assurance that the British Government are actively pursuing the safe negotiated release of the British hostages?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I entirely agree with him that the reports of the possible death of the hostages are profoundly unhelpful. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires: the British Government are making every effort to find the hostages in the hope that they are still alive. We shall continue to work on that basis until we have a more concrete reason to believe that that is not true. I sincerely hope that we never reach that stage and that we can find the hostages and secure their release.
Hong Kong
6. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure that Hong Kong has a smooth transition to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. [30847]
Mr. Hanley: We are committed to doing everything in our power to secure a successful transition for Hong Kong based on the provisions of the joint declaration. We continue to discuss detailed arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty with the Chinese Government at all levels.
Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister agree that the interests of the people of Hong Kong are paramount, and that the transfer of sovereignty demands a spirit of co-operation and friendliness between the Chinese and British Governments? If he does agree, can he tell us how the gratuitously offensive comments made by him and by the Foreign Secretary about the Chinese Government will help to ensure that the transition takes place in a co-operative and friendly manner?
Mr. Hanley: I just turned to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and found that, like me,
he is mystified by the hon. Gentleman's reference to gratuitously insulting comments. We have the friendliest relations with China; our relations have improved dramatically over the past 12 months alone. The meetings that we have had at all levels have been constructive and friendly. I believe that those relations have helped to settle a number of issues that were outstanding in regard to Hong Kong and the transfer of sovereignty, and to improve the position.My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met Qian Qichen, and my right hon. and learned Friend has met a wide range of leaders in Peking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Premier Li Peng in Bangkok only last March, and in April my right hon. and learned Friend and I met Qian Qichen in The Hague. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted a very successful trade mission, accompanied by nearly 280 business people. That was a tremendous occasion, which greatly enhanced our relationship with China. All those meetings were in the interests of Hong Kong and her people.
Malawi
7. Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held, and with whom, in respect of the present political situation in Malawi. [30849]
Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development keeps in close touch with developments in Malawi, and had discussions with President Muluzi at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 1995.
Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the economic, social and, most of all, political stability of Malawi is essential to the wider stability of the southern region of Africa? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to promote that, and what aid is being given in all respects to ensure that it remains?
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for concentrating on a country that receives little notice in the House--which is a shame, because we consider that the principles of good government have improved there. There is press freedom and freedom of speech, there is a genuine debate in Parliament, and the International Committee of the Red Cross now has unrestricted access. Moreover, an anti-corruption bureau has recently been established. That is why we continue to be the largest bilateral donor to Malawi. In 1995, we spent about £40 million, of which £12 million was balance of payments support; to that we can add our share of multilateral aid, which is approximately £3 million.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister guarantee not only that the United Kingdom will continue to provide such support but that we will understand that the enormous economic problems that Malawi faces will put great stresses and strains on the democratic procedure? I hope that the Foreign Office has no intention of either lowering the current representation in Malawi or undermining our important relationship in any way.
Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out that our presence may be giving some help to the reform
process in Malawi, and for confirming that the economy there is shaky. We must do what we can to help, and we shall certainly try to ensure that our representation and our aid are maintained. These matters are all part of wider economic issues, but the hon. Lady's comments will be taken into account.European Union
8. Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will conduct a study into the consequences of a British withdrawal from the European Union. [30850]
Mr. Rifkind: We have no such intention. We need to promote and protect our interests from within the EU, not from outside.
Mr. Macdonald: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that withdrawal from the European Union would be a disaster for Britain? Does he further agree with the chairman of the European committee of the Confederation of British Industry that the growing support for such a policy among Tory Back Benchers is causing serious damage to British business interests in Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: It would be profoundly against the interests of the United Kingdom ever to contemplate withdrawal from the EU. There are members of all parties who have long held the view that withdrawal is an option that they would favour, but that is for them to explain to their respective parties.
Sir Richard Body: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an educational charity has been searching for a long time for an economist of some standing--from either the business or the academic world--to produce a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Community leading to a favourable conclusion? So far, the charity has failed to find such an expert. Can my right hon. and learned Friend help that charity, or the rest of us, by naming someone willing to carry out that task?
Mr. Rifkind: In his characteristically objective pursuit of the truth, my hon. Friend will wish to be fully informed about the benefits and any possible disadvantages of the European Union. I am sure that the European Commission would be happy to help him, but many others are able to provide a positive endorsement.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: What are the consequences of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer--one of the prime movers in the Maastricht agreement--producing a paper in which he examines the mechanics and practicalities of withdrawal? Is that not extremely damaging?
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has not seen it or read it.
Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames may not have read the treaty, but neither did the then Home Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is not on strong ground there. Is it not
extremely damaging to the international reputation of this country that the former Chancellor is now taking that view? Is it not time that the Government showed some leadership against the malcontents on their Back Benches, who are damaging not only the Government--that is their problem--but the rest of us in the process?
Mr. Rifkind: I see that matter as no more significant than the fact that the Leader of the Opposition campaigned for Britain to withdraw from the EU and now wishes to support our membership. These are characteristics that occasionally appear in the House.
Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a date when British Ministers will start saying that our membership of the EU is a good thing, as the only one who does so at present is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Rifkind: As I said that some 30 seconds ago, my hon. Friend has been overtaken by events.
Mr. Salmond: When the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for Scotland, would he have encouraged his parliamentary private secretary to attend meetings to discuss the mechanics of withdrawal from the EU, as the current Secretary of State has done?
Mr. Rifkind: I see no objection to private discussions taking place. The idea that the Government--or, indeed, the hon. Gentleman--should dictate to colleagues which meetings they attend for the purposes of intellectual discussions seems to be an extraordinary display of totalitarian tendencies which I am surprised to see from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it serves no purpose that, every time someone criticises the way in which European institutions work or suggests an alternative way in which they might be reformed, a group of Europhiles immediately accuse him of wanting to leave the EU? Would not the CBI do a greater service to British business if it explained the issues and invited contributions from all shades of opinion on Europe, instead of campaigning manically for one particular view?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly believe--as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend--that the real issue is not whether the United Kingdom should or should not be in the European Union, but what kind of European Union we wish to see develop. That is a legitimate debate not only within the United Kingdom but throughout all the member states.
Mr. Robin Cook: If the Foreign Secretary's robust statement of commitment to the European Union represents Government policy, can he explain why half the Conservative Members not on the payroll vote voted with the Euro-sceptics yesterday? Will he take this opportunity to tell them that they should listen to the chorus of dismay from business leaders? Will he tell the most vocal of them to give back the funds that he has taken from Sir James Goldsmith, who made his financial mark by buying up companies and is making his political mark by buying up the Conservative party? If he will not do those things, or cannot convince his Back Benchers,
will it not be all too plain that the only referendum that will give Britain a fresh start in Europe is a general election that will enable the people to get rid of this divided and incompetent Government?
Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman wished to draw attention to the fact that Sir James Goldsmith and the Referendum party appear to have certain links with certain of my hon. Friends. Curious links between different political parties do not affect only my party. I noticed recently that Mr. Zyuganov, the Russian communist candidate, said that he was looking forward to meeting the Leader of the Opposition because he believed that the Russian Communist party and new Labour had so much in common. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to encourage an investigation to expose those extraordinary and sinister links.
Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the consequences of leaving the European Union would be that it would be much more difficult to improve relations between Spain and Gibraltar? Will he ensure that efforts are made to relieve the present border hold-ups there? It is good for Gibraltar and for Spain that they should get on well, but it is also good for the European Union.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is indeed correct. Our common membership of the European Union makes entirely indefensible what would, in any event, be very unattractive: restrictions on movement between Gibraltar and Spain. I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister in Madrid last week and I am pleased to say that, over the past few days, the restrictions seem to have diminished considerably. I hope that that represents a new and permanent arrangement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |