House of Commons
Tuesday 1 December 1998
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair1]
WAYS AND MEANS
Sessional Returns
Ordered,
That there be laid before the House Returns for Session 1997-98 of information and statistics relating to--
(1) Business of the House;
(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);
(3) Sittings of the House;
(4) Private Bills and Private Business;
(5) Public Bills;
(6) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Orders;
(7) European Legislation, etc;
(8) Grand Committees;
(9) Chairman's Panel; and
(10) Select Committees.--[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Oral Answers to Questions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked--
New Zealand
1. Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): What representations he has received from the New Zealand Government on matters relating to trade between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. [61419]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): There have been no formal recent representations from the New Zealand Government on trade-related matters, but the New Zealand and United Kingdom Governments regularly co-operate on various matters, including trade.
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that answer and glad to understand that the New Zealand Government have not become over-enthusiastic about the difficulties with trade in sheep that arise from our domestic problems in the sheep sector. Will the Minister keep the New Zealand Government abreast of developments in that sector, so that they understand the difficulties under which farmers
have been labouring in the United Kingdom? Hopefully, within a year or so, we may be able to withstand the full rigours of trade once again.
Mr. Fatchett: I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that commitment. We continue to discuss a range of trading issues with the New Zealand Government, including the trade in lamb, and we will certainly take up the points to which he referred.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Will the Minister confirm that there is no prospect of this country trading its successful first-past-the-post electoral system for the disastrous proportional representation system, which has done so much to undermine parliamentary democracy in New Zealand?
Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a very wise question. From my own perspective, I would say that we had a great deal to learn from New Zealand on that issue.
Middle East Peace Process
2. Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): When he next expects to meet President Arafat to discuss the implementation of the Wye agreement; and if he will make a statement. [61420]
4. Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): If he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the middle east peace process. [61382]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We will be doing everything we can to build on the breakthrough in the middle east peace process secured at Wye Plantation. Yesterday, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who has responsibility for middle eastern affairs, attended the donors' conference in Washington, and he has flown through the night to be with us today. He announced a package of assistance to the Palestinian authority and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the near east totalling more than £100 million, both bilateral and European Union.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Arafat in London immediately before the Wye talks and we both met Mr. Netanyahu last week. We have congratulated both President Arafat and Mr. Netanyahu on their statesmanship in achieving the Wye agreement and on their courage on the start to implementing it.
Mr. Quinn:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Does he agree that both the Prime Minister of Israel and President Arafat have shown considerable courage in concluding the Wye agreement? Will he tell us how the Government, with their European partners, will ensure that both sides show the same resolve after this period of negotiation to move to a final and lasting peace in the middle east?
Mr. Cook:
I very much share the sentiments behind my hon. Friend's question. As I announced, Britain is
Mr. Gerrard:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, important though the Wye agreement may be, the fundamental foundation for lasting peace must be the Oslo accords and UN resolutions, some of which have still not been implemented, and which recognise the illegality of the occupation of the west bank and of the continued expansion of settlements there? Will he do what he can to emphasise to both sides, but in particular to the Government of Israel, that lasting peace and real security can be achieved only through honouring the promises made at Oslo?
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, although the Wye Plantation agreement is an important step, we have a long way to go. The significance of that agreement is that it is a step in the right direction, and it gives us an opportunity to build momentum to take us towards the final stages talks that were envisaged at Oslo. On the settlements, I said last week when Mr. Netanyahu was here, and have said on many occasions, that we would not want either side to take any provocative unilateral action that made it difficult to make progress on peace negotiations.
3. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
What recent representations his Department has made on the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [61421]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
We have expressed our concern to the Zimbabwe Government about their decision to issue 841 acquisition orders. In our view, the Zimbabwe Government's actions represent a major step back from the position agreed by all sides at the land conference in September. We will continue to press the Zimbabwe Government to follow the due process of law, including the right of appeal against acquisition and for fair compensation.
Mr. Brady:
I am grateful to the Minister for making clear the Government's opposition to the policy of the Zimbabwe Government in seeking to confiscate land, which is illegal, as he said, as well as racist. Will he make it clear that that condemnation extends to ceasing British Government aid to Zimbabwe should confiscation proceed?
Mr. Lloyd:
No, because British aid to Zimbabwe is not programme aid. It is not Government-to-Government aid, but aid tied to projects that are designed to help the poorest people in Zimbabwe. It would be irresponsible to
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok):
Although I have criticisms of the way in which the Zimbabwean Government have proceeded, does the Minister accept that inequality of land ownership and control must be addressed? Will he undertake that the British Government will do all that they can to ensure that the severe difficulties faced by many ordinary Zimbabwean citizens are addressed?
Mr. Lloyd:
Yes, consistent with what I have already told the House, the British Government have always made it clear that we would support a process of land acquisition that had certain features. The process must be transparent; at the moment, we do not have that certainty. It must be fair, which means that there must be an adequate compensation package and an adequate challenge regime. In particular, the land transfer must favour the very poorest people in Zimbabwe, not those who seek to better their own already well-funded personal circumstances. Within that, we will help the Zimbabweans, but not on the basis of their present proposals.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
Does not the project aid of which the Minister spoke enable the Government of Zimbabwe to spend huge sums on prosecuting a war in the Congo? Is there not a case for reconsidering that aid in the light of that expenditure and of their land expropriation proposals?
Mr. Lloyd:
No. That is not the effect of our assistance, which, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes it or not, goes to the poorest people in Zimbabwe. If he believes that the Zimbabwean Government would replace British project aid with Zimbabwean Government assistance, he is wrong. It is in those circumstances that we will continue our policies for poverty eradication in Zimbabwe. We call upon not only the Zimbabweans, but all parties to the war in the Congo, to operate an effective ceasefire, get round the conference table and end the conflict.
5. Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire):
When he next intends to visit Cuba to discuss the state of its economy. [61383]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Cuba. However, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary made the first ministerial visit to Cuba under this Government in October, followed in November by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. Both discussed with their Cuban interlocutors, among other things, the prospects for the Cuban economy.
Mr. Pickthall:
Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that, last month, the United States stepped up its trade
Mr. Lloyd:
My hon. Friend knows that it has been the policy of successive Governments that constructive engagement with Cuba will be more helpful in bringing it to acceptance of basic democratic standards and human rights than the process pursued by the United States. He is right to point out that we already have many exchanges, in terms of both trade and science. A team from Imperial college will shortly make a third visit to Cuba to conduct a further assay and to follow up clinical tests in connection with the meningitis vaccine pioneered in Cuba. That vaccine is significant, and I met the research team who developed it some time ago. It may become the world's first and only effective vaccine against meningitis B. If the Imperial college team concludes accordingly, it will be put to the Medicines Control Agency for approval for licensing within the United Kingdom. That will be a great step forward, not only in the fight against meningitis, but for Cuban medical research.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Is the Minister aware that Latin America will perceive Her Majesty's Government's policy toward Cuba as selective and partial, in that no fewer than six of Her Majesty's Ministers have visited that tiny island, whereas a comparable number have not visited other Latin American countries? The economy of Cuba is, to be candid, a basket case. Is the Minister aware that our exports to Cuba went down last year, from £24 million to a mere £19 million; that our exports to Chile, which has a population similar to that of Cuba, went up to £210 million--a rise of £44 million; and that our imports from Chile went up by £220 million, whereas imports from Cuba fell by £4 million? Is that a good investment on the part of Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Lloyd:
I am genuinely astonished if the Opposition believe that we should denigrate Cuba in particular and the Caribbean in general. If that is the import of the hon. Gentleman's comments, he is seriously wrong. We want to have strong relations, not only with Cuba and the Caribbean as a whole, but, beyond that, with Latin America. Our relations with Latin America have improved enormously in recent years and are continuing to improve. There has been, and will continue to be, a steady flow of ministerial visits, not only to Cuba, but to other parts of Latin America. That is good for Britain and good for Latin America. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not share that view.
6. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
When he expects the UN to be able to conduct a referendum on the future of the western Sahara. [61385]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett):
The UN has proposed to Morocco and the Polisario that a referendum should take place in December 1999. We hope that that deadline can be met.
Mr. Corbyn:
Does the Minister share my disappointment that the Secretary-General of the United Nations should have proposed yet another delay, for a further year, to the referendum? Is not the real reason for that delay Morocco's obstruction of the process of registering refugees living in the camps and other people living in the region? Is not the UN being seriously obstructed in its desire to hold the referendum, which should have been held many years ago?
Is there anything my hon. Friend can do to ensure that MINURSO--the United Nations mission for the referendum in Western Sahara--carries on and is fully funded, and that the refugee camps are fully supported and funded? Above all, will he do what he can to ensure that the date of the referendum--currently December 1999--is significantly brought forward? If it is not, the UN will be brought into disrepute. I fear that Morocco will try to delay the referendum beyond that date and that the people of the western Sahara will be denied the opportunity to decide their own future.
Mr. Fatchett:
It is important that the referendum should take place and that it should take place as early as possible. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the further delay. He is right to say that the referendum must be fair and be seen to be fair, and that it must have the confidence of all the parties. He is also right to conclude that the best way forward for the western Sahara is for the referendum to take place, because that is the only way in which we shall be able to determine the feelings and aspirations of the local people.
7. Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
If he will state his objectives for the Austrian EU presidency in respect of EU enlargement. [61386]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook):
The screening process for the first six candidate countries has now been completed for half of all the chapters of European law. Substantive negotiations have now begun on a quarter of them. At the Vienna European Council, we shall review the recent report of the Commission on all the dozen candidate countries, which concluded that most candidates were making good progress with their preparations for membership.
We must not underestimate the real problems in achieving the biggest-ever enlargement in the history of the European Union. Nevertheless, the Government firmly believe that the problems of enlargement are much less important than the benefits from strengthened prosperity, stability and democracy in central and eastern Europe.
Mr. Jenkin:
It is now nine years since the Berlin wall came down; since then, some 20 to 30 former Soviet bloc states have been crying out for full inclusion in the institutions of western democracy. Has the EU not failed those countries, which are struggling to emerge from
Mr. Cook:
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that I can take ministerial responsibility only for the last 18 months of those nine years. He might like to address his remarks to those who served on the previous Conservative Government's Front Bench. If he wishes to draw a parallel, he should look at what occurred during the last enlargement involving Austria, Finland and Sweden. It took three years to negotiate enlargement for only three countries, all of which were wealthy and were net contributors to the European budget. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to complain that we have not completed enlargement in nine months for 12 countries, all of which are poor and will be net recipients from the European budget.
Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government have demonstrated a far more positive commitment to Europe in the past 18 months than the previous Government demonstrated in 18 years? As a result, this Government have far more credibility in arguing for progress on European enlargement than the previous Government who, for 18 years, adopted a narrow, isolationist approach to everything European.
Mr. Cook:
The proof of my hon. Friend's point is borne out precisely by the fact that this Government have managed to start beef exports to Europe while the previous Government started a beef war with Europe.
However, there is room for further improvement. I can report to the House that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), is convening a new ministerial group to co-ordinate our policies on Europe. It will tomorrow hold its first meeting, which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend, and is an excellent advertisement for joined-up government.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to state to candidates for membership of Europe and to existing members that the Government have no intention of proceeding down the road of tax harmonisation and that there is everything to be gained, and nothing to be lost, from concerted European-wide action against tax evasion?
Mr. Cook:
The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that a Treasury Minister is leading the work within ECOFIN to take action on unfair tax breaks, which attract industry and investment from our country as well as from others in the European Union, in areas where we have a clear national interest in ensuring that there is a level playing field.
There are no proposals to harmonise either the zero rate on value added tax or income tax, for that matter. I do not believe that any such proposals could muster majority, never mind unanimous, support. We should all try to deal with the reality of Europe rather than with the fantasies that some people are trying to sell.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform must precede
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the onus for preparing for enlargement does not rest entirely with the candidate countries. The European Union must also do its work. A particularly important part of that work is reform of the CAP, which the European Union is committed to completing by next March. We believe that the 30 per cent. cut in intervention prices on beef, the 20 per cent. cut on cereals and the 15 per cent. reduction in milk quotas will have a major impact on the CAP and will save British consumers £1 billion a year. That is a prize well worth fighting for in the interests of Britain and of enlargement.
8. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
If he will make a statement on the extension of qualified majority voting as a result of the treaty of Amsterdam. [61387]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin):
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the parliamentary ratification of the Amsterdam treaty, qualified majority voting was extended in several areas, including the fight against fraud and promoting transparency. The Government believe that those extensions are very much in Britain's interests.
Mr. Bercow:
Now that the Foreign Secretary's German counterpart, Joschka Fischer, has admitted that the creation of a single European state is the decisive task of our time, how can the right hon. Lady guarantee that qualified majority voting will never be used to introduce measures that would force this country to be a mere province of a single European state?
Ms Quin:
It is clear from what was agreed at Amsterdam and in previous treaties that unanimity remains the rule in important areas, including institutional and treaty changes, and we are in favour of that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that significant extensions of qualified majority voting took place under the Maastricht treaty and probably the most significant extension was introduced by the Single European Act passed by Lady Thatcher's Government.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to make the European Union more democratic and functionally efficient, any EU enlargement will necessitate an extension of some forms of qualified majority voting? It is palpably absurd for the Conservative party, on the one hand, to call for enlargement seemingly without restrictions and, on the other hand, to oppose any extension of qualified majority voting.
Ms Quin:
We are keen to make enlargement a success. As was made clear at Amsterdam, we shall have to consider the institutional arrangements foreseen in that
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new, co-ordinating responsibilities, which the Foreign Secretary announced a few moments ago. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his astonishing admission that, for the past 18 months, the Government's European policies have not been properly co-ordinated.
In view of the apparent importance now attached by the Government to the veto, does the right hon. Lady now accept that the extension of majority voting at Amsterdam was a mistake? Is it not undeniable that she and her colleagues will now be utterly helpless in the face of measures that they claim to oppose, such as the extension of works councils?
Ms Quin:
It is difficult to take seriously the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about co-ordination because he was a member of a Government who were disunited on European issues. The purpose of the co-ordinating committee, which I shall chair, is simply to build on the success achieved by the Government during the British presidency, when Departments worked together effectively.
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman insists on repeating completely unjustified scare stories which have been substantially aired during the past few days. The measures agreed under the Amsterdam treaty were very much in Britain's interests and do not affect the policy areas to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
9. Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston):
What discussions he has had with countries bordering the Former Republic of Yugoslavia about Kosovo. [61388]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook):
I visited Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania in late October and Slovenia last week. Kosovo was one of the key elements of my discussions in all four countries. In Macedonia, I met Professor Agani, the leader of the Kosovar negotiating team, who expressed the thanks of the Kosovar people for Britain's efforts to secure an end to the conflict.
All four countries are developing closer ties with the European Union. So long as President Milosevic pursues policies of ethnic confrontation, he will condemn Serbia to be left further behind in the modern Europe.
Ms Stuart:
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to do everything to support those in Kosovo who seek a peaceful, negotiated solution to the problem? More specifically, what are the Government doing to support the development of independent media in the area?
Mr. Cook:
I assure my hon. Friend that we are very much in the lead on the ground in Kosovo, making a reality of the Holbrooke package. As from this week,
Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor):
In the light of recent discussions on Kosovo, have the Government decided to send extra troops to Macedonia to join the NATO extraction force--troops, one supposes, which may be called on to operate in Kosovo? There was a report to that effect in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, and one on the BBC today, although I understand that no announcement has been made. Surely in this matter of potentially far-reaching consequences, the House is entitled to know what is going on.
Mr. Cook:
There have been repeated statements on Kosovo; I made one only a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, preparations with regard to Macedonia, about which there have been questions, have been no secret. We have repeatedly said that we are willing to support the quadripartite unit in Macedonia; it flows from our discussions with Germany. We will be the second largest contingent in that force. Of course, we fully intend to hold President Milosevic to his assurance that the verification mission will not in any way be intimidated or hampered by the Serbian security forces, although it is important for reassurance that our capability is near at hand.
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West):
How will Her Majesty's Government ensure that the plight of refugees and displaced people is improved as winter approaches, so that we do not see again horrific scenes of them in the mountains or under inadequate shelter?
Mr. Cook:
I am pleased to say that we have achieved substantial progress in removing refugees from the open hillside and that, over the past two months since the Holbrooke package, the numbers have fallen from 50,000 to a few hundred. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is quite right to express concern about the continuing position of refugees. Although they have returned to their former villages, many of their homes have been shelled. It is, therefore, essential that we continue the humanitarian effort to ensure that they are sheltered, fed and, with proper health support, are able to survive throughout the winter. Britain is very much in the lead in supporting that effort, and will continue to do so.
10. Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
What recent representations he has made to the Government of Myanmar concerning treatment of the Karen population. [61389]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett):
We regularly make representations to the Burmese authorities on the treatment of ethnic minorities, including the Karen--most recently on 25 November.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
I welcome the Minister's response. Does he agree that the State Peace and Development Council has perpetrated one of the most tragic scenarios of ethnic cleansing and genocide? What can be done internationally to stop such events, prevent further atrocities and aid victims, bearing in mind that hundreds of thousands of Karen and others have been so eliminated?
Mr. Fatchett:
What has happened to the ethnic minorities in Burma is a true but sad reflection of the regime's nature. That is why we constantly argue for the international community to be vigilant, to maintain the pressure and to work for a restoration of democracy and a respect for human rights. We have provided £250,000 of humanitarian aid in the 1997-98 financial year. I also discussed the issue in Thailand earlier this year in order to ensure some co-ordination in providing support for ethnic minorities.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Given the uniquely abhorrent nature of the regime in Myanmar and the quite uncalled-for action against the Karen, Karenni and other peoples, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the Government and the European Union will do everything possible to put pressure on the Myanmar authorities? To that end, will he explain why Mr. Win Aung, Foreign Secretary designate of Myanmar, was admitted to this country last week?
Mr. Fatchett:
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, we shall continue to give that commitment.
The second question refers to the Burmese ambassador, who returned to the United Kingdom as ambassador, not as Foreign Secretary. When he becomes Foreign Secretary he will enjoy no right to enter the United Kingdom because of the European Union's common position. We shall certainly safeguard it; indeed, the United Kingdom strengthened that position at the most recent meeting of the General Affairs Council.
My position on Burma is now so strong that I have been told today that the Burmese authorities will not allow me to visit Burma. I see that as an accolade for the work that we have done and for our fight for human rights and democracy in Burma.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill):
One of the Government's first actions was to stop financing trade missions to Burma, and many human rights activists throughout the world were very pleased about that. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign must be stepped up--that the destruction of human rights in Burma is so severe that we need a campaign on the scale of that mounted against apartheid in South Africa? What action is being taken by European Union states to advance that cause?
Mr. Fatchett:
The European Union toughened its position in October 1998. We have strengthened our
I very much share my hon. Friend's views. This issue should unite the House in condemnation of a regime that is unique in the atrocities that it commits against its own people.
11. Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle):
If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations withIraq. [61390]
12. Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
If he will discuss with his American counterpart future policy towards Iraq. [61391]
13. Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
What recent representations he has made to the Government of Iraq concerning the status of United Nations Security Council resolutions. [61392]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook):
We have made it clear to Saddam Hussein that our forces remain in the Gulf and remain on alert. If he breaks his undertaking to allow UNSCOM to resume inspections, we are prepared to take military action without further negotiation.
There will be no let-up in our pressure on Saddam Hussein until we are satisfied that he no longer has weapons of mass destruction with which to inflict on neighbouring countries the terror tactics that he uses to oppress his own people.
Mr. Day:
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister that it should be a prime objective of British policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and the Prime Minister appeared to agree with that suggestion. In the light of BBC reports that imply that the Government do not agree that removing Saddam Hussein is their prime objective, will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House the exact position?
Mr. Cook:
I do not know which BBC programmes the hon. Gentleman has been watching, but I have repeatedly said on the BBC that the whole world, including the Government, would welcome the removal of Saddam Hussein. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Minister with responsibility for matters in the region, recently met representatives of all the opposition groups in Iraq and explored with them how we might help them. However, if they are to succeed, those groups must work together more closely.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
On the same question--my question having been asked earlier--is it not true that the American Administration has gone further? Following
Mr. Cook:
I am sorry to say that, as my hon. Friend's question has already been asked, it has already been answered. However, to respond to his last point, I do not think that it would be possible to find a country that has been more robust than the United States and the United Kingdom on the issue of Iraq. During the recent crisis, we gave authority for our pilots to take off unless Saddam backed down, which he did there and then.
We have shown great robustness on this issue and we shall certainly continue to do everything possible to assist those who wish to return Iraq to a more accountable system of government, and one that would engage with the international community. In the meantime, we shall continue our work to ensure, as best we can, that we provide the assistance that is required--humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq to spare them from the consequences of the way in which they have been oppressed by Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Fraser:
What part does the fate of Kuwaiti prisoners play in assessing Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions?
Mr. Cook:
The 600 people who were removed from Kuwait and are currently believed to be detained, or who were certainly detained for a time in Iraq, feature in United Nations Security Council resolutions. Therefore, if Iraq wishes fully to comply with those resolutions, which is a condition for the lifting of sanctions, it has either to produce those 600 people or to give a clear account both to Kuwait and to the international community of what has become of them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
What would be the objective of bombing Baghdad, a city of 4.5 million people with two ambulances, neither of which has oxygen, and a fire engine that possibly does not work--Dresden, perhaps?
Mr. Cook:
The House would not expect me to disclose specific targeting plans, but I can say--
Mr. Dalyell:
If my right hon. Friend talked to them properly, it would help.
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend is very free with his allegations, so perhaps he will allow me to respond to them.
The plans that have developed take very careful account of the need to minimise casualties as far as possible, and especially civilian casualties. There is therefore no question of a mass bombing of Baghdad on the scale that my hon. Friend suggests.
I am sorry to hear that Baghdad has only two ambulances. There is absolutely no sanction to prevent Iraq from importing all the ambulances that it requires. Thanks to a resolution pioneered by the United Kingdom, Saddam Hussein can export $10 billion-worth of oil to pay for the import of food, medicines and humanitarian goods. If he is so short of ambulances, we would be delighted to assist, through the Sanctions Committee, in ascertaining how many ambulances he needs--if he would choose to put them on the list that he submits in place of some of the other claims for humanitarian goods that he has made, such as glass ashtrays, cigarettes, alcohol and plastic surgery.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
How do the Government envisage Saddam Hussein will be removed?
Mr. Cook:
As I have said to the House, we have already met the Iraqi Opposition. We shall continue to work with them. We have no legal base for using force for the removal of Saddam Hussein, but we will use force to make sure that Security Council resolutions are implemented.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
Do the Government share the Pentagon's estimate that 10,000 people would be killed in any bombing of Iraq? If not, what is the Government's estimate? Do they think that, whatever the number, it is a price worth paying?
Mr. Cook:
First, I do not recognise that figure. We do not share that figure. Secondly, undoubtedly the price for Iraq's behaviour and Saddam Hussein's Government is being paid by the Iraqi people. I urge my hon. Friend to read the reports of the United Nations on human rights in Iraq, one of which was published only last month. He will see from them that, every year, thousands of people in Iraq pay with their lives for being ruled by Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
Will the Foreign Secretary publicly express his support for the campaign of INDICT set up by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)? Will he act as best he may in international circles to have Saddam Hussein and others arraigned before either an international tribunal or an international criminal court as soon as possible, and thereby give hope to the many millions of people in Iraq who are terrorised by Saddam Hussein and want to see the international community to take action against him and split him from the peoples of Iraq?
Mr. Cook:
I am pleased to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government fully support INDICT. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is sending a message to the press conference today expressing that support on behalf of the Government. We are ready to look at any means by which Saddam Hussein may be brought before any international tribunal, but the Government's immediate priority is to ensure that we succeed in the establishment of an international criminal court, which would be very relevant to Saddam Hussein and to any future Saddam Hussein.
14. Ms Helen Southworth (Warrington, South):
If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the international criminal tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. [61393]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
We strongly support the work of both tribunals and have given substantial assistance to both of them, in addition to our mandatory contributions.
Ms Southworth:
What steps will the Government will take to ensure that President Milosevic complies with the UN resolutions and provides support for the Yugoslav tribunal's investigations into alleged crimes? Will my hon. Friend undertake that the British Government will consistently take a lead in making it clear to those who commit crimes against humanity--such as torture, murder and the taking of hostages--that they will find no hiding place anywhere in the civilised world?
Mr. Lloyd:
We deplore the fact that President Milosevic has so far refused to co-operate with the international criminal tribunal on Yugoslavia, particularly with respect to Prosecutor Judge Arbour's desire to investigate recent events in Kosovo. There is no doubt that, under Security Council resolutions, he is as much liable to co-operate with the tribunal as he is to play a constructive role in, for example, political dialogue with the Kosovo Albanians or in humanitarian relief. That is not negotiable. The international community will continue to insist that the tribunal's work should not be interrupted by Milosevic or by any of those acting in his name.
On the more general issue, the clearest signal that we can give of the need for international justice in the modern world is the fact that yesterday the permanent representative of the United Kingdom at the United Nations signed the international criminal court's treaty, which means that Britain has committed itself to the long process of ratification of the treaty and to it becoming an effective instrument against the Milosevics, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of the future.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
Does the Minister think that, if crimes against humanity are to be dealt with, an international criminal tribunal is the way forward, whether for Yugoslavia or Rwanda? Would that not also be the correct way to view crimes against humanity in Chile? Should not the former President Pinochet be allowed to return to Chile so that the Chilean authorities can prosecute him, if that is their wish? Should there not be a properly constituted international court if such crimes are to be dealt with?
Mr. Lloyd:
I shall pass over the inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's comments. Of course we support the internationalisation of the process. That is why, as I told the House, Britain signed the documents relating to the international criminal court yesterday in New York. That is an important step forward in the internationalisation of justice and a strong signal to the Pinochets of the future that their actions will not be tolerated anywhere on this planet. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that, at present, responsibility for Mr. Pinochet lies with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will make his views known in the fulness of time.
15. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
What assessment he has made of the impact of the activities of private military companies operating wholly or in part from the United Kingdom on the implementation of UK foreign policy objectives. [61394]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
Our concerns relate principally to private military companies which are involved in the supply of military equipment or other controlled goods and services in breach of the UK's national commitments, or which supply, or offer to supply, mercenaries or related military services. The activities of such companies could have--and, in some cases, clearly would have--an adverse impact on the implementation of the Government's foreign policy objectives.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Is not one of the lessons of the Sandline affair that such private mercenary companies can cause acute embarrassment to the UK? Many people in this country find it repugnant that private military firms--mercenaries--can operate in the UK. Will my hon. Friend consider advancing within the United Nations a convention to control and monitor such outfits? Will he also consider bringing legislation before the House of Commons so that we can monitor, control and police those outfits? As we license the sale of arms, why do we not license and control those people who organise armies? It is time that we addressed ourselves to legislating to control them.
Mr. Lloyd:
There is no doubt that the Government deplore the action of mercenaries. In a few weeks, I shall meet the United Nations special rapporteur on mercenaries, Mr. Ballesteros, whose mandate is to examine the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of people's right to self-determination. That is the usual way in which mercenaries operate.
I must say to my hon. Friend that we have a problem. He referred obliquely to the UN convention on mercenaries, which we think is unworkable for legal reasons. The definition of mercenaries is not one that would get through a British court, and cases would simply fail. We are presently examining with other Departments the experience in South Africa, and in other countries that have looked at the legislative route, to find out what lessons that holds for Britain and whether it would offer a way forward to control those unacceptable activities.
16. Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan):
What discussions he has had with EU member states about Nigeria. [61395]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
We have frequent contact with our European Union partners about Nigeria, at all levels. In response to the improved political and economic
Mr. Smith:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. While I recognise the role that Britain has played, and is playing, in ensuring a return to democracy in Nigeria, can he assure the House that he, in conjunction with our European partners, will ensure that the Government do everything they can to make sure that next year's elections in Nigeria are successful?
Mr. Lloyd:
There is no doubt that the electoral process, which kicks off this weekend with the local elections, is a seminal moment in the modern history of Nigeria. All Nigeria's friends would recognise that. Britain has been as closely involved as any friendly country, and we have been entirely supportive of the practical steps taken by the Head of State, General Abubakar, in moving his country towards a properly democratically elected Government. We will continue to support that process. Clearly, the House would also expect us to be vigilant to make sure that those who would derail the process are deterred from that. We want a civilian president and a civilian Government.
17. Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
When he expects to meet other EU Foreign Ministers to discuss enlargement. [61396]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin):
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels next Monday, which will discuss enlargement.
Mr. Skinner:
Now that Germany is beginning to throw its weight around again, does it not worry my right hon. Friend the Minister, and other Ministers on the Treasury Bench, that some of the countries that are due to become applicants for the Common Market could be little more than satellites of Germany, based upon the fact that, geographically and in trading and economic terms, they are much nearer to Germany than to Britain?
There has been a position that has been long held--it was evinced by Mrs. Thatcher--that more countries joining the Common Market would result in its weakness. There is a possibility, now that the position is changing on the continent, that the opposite could be the case. The net result for our Chancellor of the Exchequer--whom we want to use his veto on any harmonisation of tax plans--could be that more qualified majority voting is the order of the day because of those satellite countries.
Ms Quin:
Having talked with many of my counterparts in the countries that are applying to join the EU, I am conscious that they are proud that they now have their independence and that they are in an era that is different from the domination that they had to endure during the
My hon. Friend mentioned trade, which is an important aspect. Germany is probably the country that does most trade with those countries, but I am keen for Britain to improve its trade--both exports and imports--with them. It is important for us to work closely with them in the years ahead leading up to the enlargement of the EU.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
Can the Minister say what effect enlargement will have on the work reported in this week's edition of The Week, which says that "valuable progress" has been made in regard to tax competition? It especially commends the work of the committee chaired by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which has been considering measures to bring about "tax levels significantly lower" than those applying in other countries.
Ms Quin:
I, too, pay tribute to the work of the committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, especially its efforts to tackle the tax evasion and competition that damage industry and chances of employment. I also applaud my hon. Friend's work in respect of the code of conduct, and on the way in which she has chaired the committee.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby):
Will next week's discussions include Cyprus's application to join the European Union? What has been the attitude of the Foreign Secretary's counterpart in the EU to that application, given that the Turkish Cypriots do not wish to take part in the negotiations?
Ms Quin:
The position on Cyprus is as outlined in a recent debate in the House. The Government feel strongly that the application should be supported and that it should be seen as an important catalyst in the efforts to bring about reunification of the island and a settlement of its problems. We believe that that view is shared throughout the European Union. We want to make progress with the application, while at the same time promoting efforts--including those of the United Nations--to bring about reunification in a way that will give both the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot communities a sense of security and financial and economic prosperity for the future.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
The Minister has emphasised the importance of trade with the applicant countries. Does she share my concern about rumours currently circulating in Brussels that the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles will unilaterally operate outside the Europe agreement, reject preferential rates of duty on exports of pigmeat from the European Union and apply the higher rate of duty within the World Trade Organisation? Will the Government take action in European circles to quash such moves?
Ms Quin:
I am always reluctant to respond to rumours, but there are many ways in which those issues can be discussed with the applicant countries. We meet them regularly, and when we do so we discuss a range of trading issues with the aim of achieving a fair balance between the interests of the European Union and the very real interests of the applicant countries.
19. Jane Griffiths (Reading, East):
If he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Indonesia. [61398]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett):
We have substantial bilateral ties with Indonesia. We look forward to continuing to work with the Government of Indonesia in their efforts to bring about peaceful democratic reform and economic recovery.
Jane Griffiths:
What steps are the Government taking to help Indonesia with political reform? What assistance will they offer the Indonesian Government in that regard and also to support the Indonesian economy?
Mr. Fatchett:
We have encouraged the process of democratic reform because we think that it is the only way in which to build a new, stable Indonesia and to bring about economic recovery. When I was in Indonesia last month, I told President Habibie that we would help it to introduce democratic reforms, either bilaterally or through the European Union, by working on the procedures for elections. President Habibie acknowledged the nature of the offer, and I think we can say that we can look forward to working with the Indonesian Government on those issues and on human rights. I recognise, as does President Habibie, that progress can be made only through democratic reform.
21. Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw):
What assessment he has made of the whereabouts of missing in action Israeli airman Ron Arad. [61400]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett):
There is no conclusive evidence of the fate of Ron Arad. We cannot be sure where he is, who is holding him or, indeed, whether he is still alive. I met the family of Ron Arad when I visited Israel in January. It is important that the missing service men are not forgotten.
Mr. Roy:
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Ron Arad was captured in the Lebanon in 1986--12 long years ago. While encouraging the more moderate elements of the Iranian Government, when my hon. Friend next speaks to that Government, will he ask them what they know about the whereabouts of the airman and the other Israeli service men who have been missing since the early 1980s? I am sure that he agrees that 12 years is a long time for families not to know the whereabouts of their loved ones.
Mr. Fatchett:
I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend. When I met members of Ron Arad's family earlier this year, I could see the suffering that they had undergone over all those years. We will take every opportunity to raise the issue with anyone who can provide information on the whereabouts of Ron Arad and other missing service men.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |