---

Mr. Lloyd: While I recognise the importance of the contract for those companies involved, I must again repeat the clear, unambiguous advice offered by the Foreign Office--that British citizens should not operate in that area. In the end, as a Government of a free society, we have no power to compel our citizens, beyond offering such advice. Clearly, I have taken the opportunity, and will take the opportunity, to repeat to all concerned that Chechnya is a dangerous place; British citizens simply should not be there. However, I would also tell the House that it was not simply a matter of the exchange of notes. Granger Telecom did meet Foreign Office officials, who gave that advice in those very clear terms. There is no ambiguity in all this. I believe that I have now said that a significant number of times, and I hope that the House will accept that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our relations with the Chechen authorities. No, we did not offer any military support. We had no easy way on the ground of knowing where the four hostages were. The flow of information was almost non-existent; in those circumstances, our advice would have availed but little.

Obviously, in any situation, we shall always consider the best way of releasing our citizens, and different circumstances may well offer different possibilities. However, in this specific case, a British military intervention would have been extremely dangerous, and would have placed further British lives at risk. Moreover, I do not believe that I could have guaranteed that the result would have been what those advocating that course sought.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): This is a dreadful crime. It puts one in mind of the hostage-taking that took place in the middle east a decade or so ago. Does the Minister agree--he has said so, really--that hostage-taking is encouraged by the payment of ransoms? Will he therefore accept our very strong support for his statement that no ransoms should be paid; and will he accept that the British Government will never be party to the payment of ransoms? Will he do his utmost to encourage Governments of other countries to adopt the same policy, and will he do his best to discourage all parties from even considering the payment of ransoms?

Mr. Lloyd: I am genuinely grateful for that intervention because it raises a matter of the utmost importance, which is that there is no advantage in a system where hostages are taken and ransom is systematically paid. That simply encourages the taking of hostages. All experience throughout the world demonstrates the proof of that. The continuation of a policy that makes it clear to all the parties that, as a Government, we will not pay or sanction the payment of

9 Dec 1998 : Column 327

ransoms is important, and it is important that it be clear and understood. Yes, of course, we seek, and will continue to seek, the co-operation of other Governments in pursuing exactly that same policy.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister for the sensitive and sombre way in which he has been answering questions. Would he join me in urging right hon. and hon. Members to have some sympathy for the position in which the leadership in Chechnya finds itself? It is under threat from Chechen bandits, Muslim fundamentalists and the Russians, whose terrible bombardment of their country led to the chaos that is there. Will the Minister agree with me that it is understandable that the leadership in Chechnya is desperate to have help from the west to rebuild the country, and that we should pay tribute to those men who were brave enough to try to help it?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comments about the difficulties facing the ordinary citizen of Chechnya and the Chechen Government have much merit. The situation of the Chechen Government is indeed far from normal governance.

We would draw strongly to the attention of the Chechen authorities the fact that, if they want assistance in the reconstruction of their country, it is vital that such horrific murders be brought to a conclusion by the successful arrest and prosecution of those concerned. Without that, countries like Britain, and Britain itself, will not be confident that the situation in Chechnya will ever be one where we are able practically to assist.

9 Dec 1998 : Column 328

Point of Order

3.57 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for bothering you, but may I seek your advice on the position of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Members which arises from an interesting memorandum submitted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, entitled "Procedural Consequences of Devolution"? Paragraph 5 states:

"To assist the House to become more familiar with matters which will no longer be the responsibility of the relevant Secretaries of State, it is proposed that from the start of the 1998-99 Session Ministers will, where practical, indicate in their answers to questions and in debate when they are dealing with subjects they will not be responsible for after devolution."

I make no complaint, but I understand that this advice was not followed in Scottish questions yesterday or in Welsh questions today. I wondered whether, through you, Madam Speaker, we might find a way forward. I think that many Members who will be affected by these issues would like the recommendation to be acted on. I wondered whether, through you, I might find a means of encouraging Ministers to follow my right hon. Friend's recommendation.

Madam Speaker: I think that the point of order will be noted by those on the Treasury Bench, which will perhaps go some way to helping the hon. Gentleman with his query. I am sure he knows that it is entirely a matter for Ministers how they answer questions. Responses to questions have nothing to do with me. He might consider tabling a question to the President of the Council on this matter. At least that would draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House and the whole House, so that Members can read the document for themselves.

9 Dec 1998 : Column 329

Opposition Day

[1st Allotted Day]

Decommissioning and Prisoner Releases

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.59 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): I beg to move,

That this House supports the Belfast Agreement and reasserts that the Agreement has to be implemented in all its parts; believes that several things must happen in parallel in order to build confidence, whether it be decommissioning or the release of prisoners; notes that the only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good and that decommissioning is part of that; notes that since July over 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early while decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives has yet to begin; and believes that there should be no further early releases of prisoners, and no place in the Northern Ireland Executive for their representatives in the Assembly, until there has been substantial and verifiable decommissioning.

It is worth saying that, seven months after the signing of the historic Belfast agreement on Good Friday, it is right and proper that the House of Commons should review the progress of the agreement. This is an excellent opportunity to do so. It is clear that there is grave concern in our constituencies and in the Province about the lack of decommissioning of illegally held weapons and the fact that so many terrorist prisoners have been released early. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Opposition, on the first Supply day of the new Session, have tabled this motion.

To pre-empt any intervention by Government Back Benchers, I wish to say that we fully recognise the huge advantages gained from a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland wherever possible. By and large, we benefited from that bipartisan policy when we were in government, but noted that, on occasions--especially each year when we sought to renew the emergency provisions legislation--we failed to gain the support of the Opposition.

Wherever possible, we support the Government in the bipartisan policy, but I have always maintained clearly to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that I cannot give them a blank cheque, and nor should I. It is our constitutional duty as the Opposition to speak out when we believe that the Government are doing something wrong, and to question further when answers are not satisfactory. That we have done, will do again this afternoon, and will continue to do.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): I rise to intervene with some diffidence, given the right hon. Gentleman's comments about interventions by Government Back Benchers. Does he agree with the assessment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force are maintaining a complete ceasefire, or does he hold a different view?

9 Dec 1998 : Column 330

Mr. MacKay: I will answer that point directly. The Secretary of State has the benefit of the best security advice available, and it is that those organisations are maintaining a ceasefire. I accept that, but later in my remarks I shall make the point that renunciation of violence must include--as the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have said continually--the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives.

The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these affairs, and I am sure that he agrees that, although large-scale violence is not taking place, intimidation and so-called punishment beatings are still occurring in the Province. That is very serious, and the Secretary of State has said that, if any evidence could be passed to her, the security services and especially the Royal Ulster Constabulary would pursue it. The hon. Gentleman cannot comfortably accept that there is a total ceasefire in all forms when such intimidation takes place on certain estates on both sides of the sectarian divide.

My party supports the Belfast agreement, because it is the extension of a process that was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and Lord Mayhew during the previous Administration. It has been continued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister, and has led to the signing of the agreement. Without repeating what I said at the time of the agreement, I believe that it represents the best chance and opportunity for lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

---