| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robin Cook: The whole House will be encouraged by the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be approaching his last page. I hope that, before he concludes, he will answer the questions that I put to him: where would he reverse the increased spending in the Foreign Office budget and where would he cut back on our representation? If he cannot answer those questions, will he admit that the budget that we inherited from the Conservatives was wholly irresponsible?
Mr. Howard: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has found it even more difficult than most of his colleagues
to remember that he is in government and not in opposition, but he should know that those are decisions for Government: they are his responsibility.
Time and again, the Government's desire to curry favour with left-wing Governments on the continent has overridden the national interest. Britain's only goal as we approach the millennium is not to be left out. What signal does that send out about our leadership abilities? How will that pusillanimous attitude earn the respect either of our partners in Europe or of the rest of the world?
The reason for the Government's failure in foreign affairs is clear. It goes right to the heart of new Labour's approach. To secure election, Labour was forced to jettison every principle in which it had believed. The Government are hardly going to defend across the negotiating tables of Europe principles in which they never really believed.
The result of new Labour's penchant for fudge over principle is a trail of broken promises. The Government promised in their mission statement to base Britain's security on NATO. Today, they are putting the very future of NATO at risk with their proposals for the first steps towards a European army. They have tabled the proposals not because they believe they will improve Britain's security but as a sop to compensate for Britain's absence from the first wave of monetary union. The Government are so devoid of principle that they are prepared to treat Britain's future security as a bargaining chip to prove their Euro-credentials.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we put the future of NATO at risk by the first steps towards a European army. Would he care to comment on the response of the US Administration, which shares a certain interest in NATO, to the Prime Minister's proposals?
Mr. Howard:
My hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary will deal with those matters in greater detail later. When we consider how the Prime Minister and other Ministers have taken the matter further and further beyond their original statements, there are very few causes for comfort. We in the House have a responsibility to make up our own minds about what has been said.
In January, the Government promised a
Now we are on the road to tax harmonisation. Last weekend, the Finance Minister of the next country to have the presidency said:
The latest self-inflicted crisis to hit this increasingly crisis-prone Government is the case of General Pinochet. There are some aspects of the case on which we can all agree: abuses of human rights should be condemned whenever and wherever they occur; but often the emergence of a country from a period when such abuses
were widespread involves a very delicate internal balance that can easily be disrupted and put at risk by action from outside.
Those considerations were entirely lost on the Government in their search for a quick headline. From the start, the focus of ministerial effort was directed at coverage in the British media. After the arrest, as a result of the usual off-the-record briefings, the press was full of references to ethical foreign policy. The appearance of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on television, during which he criticised claims of diplomatic immunity for the "brutal dictator" as "pretty gut-wrenching" was par for the course.
Mr. Corbyn:
On the subject of ethical foreign policy, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to reflect on the close relationship that the previous Government had with the regime headed by General Pinochet, and their willingness, nay enthusiasm, to sell arms to it, knowing full well of the torture chambers, repression, murders and disappearances that were going on?
Mr. Howard:
For much of the period, there was a Labour Government in charge in this country, and all the hon. Gentleman's observations could equally have been levelled at them. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order.The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) keeps speaking all the time, and he should not do it. That is not what Parliamentary Private Secretaries are for.
Mr. Howard:
In the light of the events to which I referred, it is hardly surprising that the Foreign Office saw the need to warn potential British travellers of a "volatile" situation in Chile and that
While democracy in Chile was put at risk, the Foreign Secretary was said by one of his allies to be smiling like the cat that got the cream. Nothing could illustrate more starkly the grotesque parody of ethics that constitutes the Government's supposedly ethical foreign policy. They care far more about the effect of their policies on their own party than the effect on the overseas country concerned.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Chilean Foreign Minister, who is currently in the United Kingdom, was himself exiled from Chile by General Pinochet but is now suing the Government for Senator Pinochet's release?
Mr. Howard:
I was indeed aware of that. It is a most pertinent point.
Mr. Gapes:
Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's great knowledge of the courts and the dealings that he had with them as Home Secretary, does
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman's intervention merely confirms his ignorance of the processes that are under way. It is not a judicial process. The Home Secretary, it may astonish the hon. Gentleman to learn, is not a judge. It is for the Home Secretary to decide how to exercise his discretion. It is a wide discretion and he can take many matters into account.
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park):
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that General Pinochet should be dealt with by the people of Chile. Does he agree that an international criminal court should be set up? Does he also agree that people who are guilty of grossly abusing human rights should be tried by the international community, not their own country?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. No one has so far infringed the sub judice rules, but we are getting close. My clear ruling is that we may talk about relations between this country and Chile, as has been done, and we may talk about the possible effect on those relations of the decision whether Pinochet should be extradited. However, we cannot talk about any criminal charges, because they are sub judice and should not be discussed on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Howard:
I believe that I can reply to the hon. Lady without trespassing beyond the lines that you have rightly laid down, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that an international criminal court should be set up, but it does not yet exist and cannot therefore have any application to the case of General Pinochet. In the circumstances, my view is as I have expressed it.
As we look back on the past 18 months, we can all agree that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues have succeeded in attracting an unprecedented array of eye-catching headlines, including "Dissident attacks two-faced Cook", "Absentee Cook broke own rules on EU meetings", "Cook stirs up trouble for Queen in India" and "Cook admits latest EU blunder".
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Even though the right hon. and learned Gentleman is reading quotations, he should not consistently refer to a right hon. Gentleman by his surname. He must find a way to use the name of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Howard:
I have only one more quote and, as it happens, it includes the right hon. Gentleman's first name rather than his surname. It reads, "You can stop digging now Robin--the hole is big enough". For the right hon. Gentleman I fear that the hole is never big enough. His stewardship of his office has been disastrous and the entire country is the loser.
"12-month sustained drive to cut European red tape and produce simpler, better regulation".
Eleven months have elapsed, and British business is to be lumbered with working time regulations, works councils and the parental leave directive.
"It is necessary to harmonise tax policy. The unified currency area needs a fair and equal tax framework."
When the crunch comes, there can be little doubt about the outcome: the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will go with the flow.
" feeling against Britain and British nationals is running high."
The democratic process in Chile has involved a delicate balance between supporters and opponents of Pinochet. Its development is best left to the people of Chile themselves, free from the interference of a blundering overseas Government in pursuit of a much-needed boost to their ethical foreign policy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |