| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): There are many things in the communique that we welcome: the commitment to enhancing world trade through the World Trade Organisation, the statement on Russia's debt repayment, the emphasis on sustainable development, and the promotion of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament.
We on the Opposition Benches particularly welcome the statement on international debt, which builds on the work of the Trinidad terms that were agreed under the previous Government. Like the Prime Minister, we want further progress. We pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that have worked so hard to propose solutions. We must all go on working with them.
I join the Prime Minister in praising the work of NATO in Kosovo over the past few days and in congratulating all involved. The House will particularly want to pay tribute to the roles played by General Mike Jackson and General John Reith and their troops.
I have four sets of questions on Kosovo. First, we welcome the Helsinki agreement and the assurance that Russian forces will not be concentrated in one particular sector. Have we been assured also that there will be no repeat of unilateral Russian activity, such as that at Pristina airport?
Secondly, on the KLA and Serb civilians in Kosovo, we witnessed on the television extraordinary scenes over the weekend of looting and burning of Serb homes. To what extent can NATO provide guarantees on the security of Serb residents in Kosovo? We welcome the agreement on the demilitarisation of the KLA. Will NATO ensure that that agreement is enforced uniformly on the ground?
Thirdly, does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to expect Kosovar Albanians not to take the law into their own hands, we must give them confidence in the international legal system, which means demonstrating that we are doing our utmost to bring to justice those who are responsible for massacres, rapes, torture chambers, concentration camps and other horrific crimes? Will the Prime Minister comment on reports that up to 3,000 political prisoners have been abducted across the Kosovo border?
Fourthly, on aid, what estimate have the Government made of the likely long-term cost of reconstruction? The Prime Minister has rightly ruled out reconstruction aid for Serbia while an indicted war criminal remains in charge there. Will he confirm that that is the view of the G8 as a whole? What implications does that have for Montenegro?
On wider issues discussed by G8 leaders, the summit agreed to set up two studies on genetically modified food--or "recent developments in biotechnology", as the Prime Minister preferred to call it. Why did it take France and Germany to suggest such studies? Why have not our Government been suggesting them? Does the Prime Minister agree with a House of Lords Select Committee that European Union member states must have the right to opt out of growing certain GM crops for domestic or environmental reasons? Is it not imperative that the Government announce an immediate moratorium on the commercial release of GM crops--at least until the
research in Britain and elsewhere has been evaluated? The Prime Minister does not need to travel to Cologne to take action on GM crops; he can just adopt the Bill introduced in another place last week by my noble Friend Baroness Miller.
The Prime Minister used a series of interviews at the summit to sow confusion about his own policy on the European single currency. Perhaps he can now clear up the confusion. Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have on numerous occasions set out their five economic tests for joining the single currency. Yesterday, at the Cologne summit, the Prime Minister appeared to add a sixth--he said that we had to
The Prime Minister also caused great confusion at Cologne when he said that it would be daft to rush for early entry to the euro. If it is daft--if he now really believes what he said yesterday about that, although admittedly it was a full 24 hours ago--does he agree that it is daft to go on asking taxpayers and businesses to spend millions of pounds on the national handover plan? And if it is daft to rush into a single currency, is it not the daftest thing of all for the Government to be committed to abolishing the pound in principle? So, will he now withdraw that commitment to join in principle? If he does not, all his weasel words simply show that he is still determined to abolish the pound, but does not have the courage to say so.
The Chancellor told the CBI annual dinner that the Government intended to
If the Prime Minister really wants to join the single currency, is it not time that he had the courage to say why, and that, in European Union affairs, he started to fight for what he actually believes in rather than believing in, and fighting for, nothing?
The Prime Minister:
I will deal with the G8 points first. In relation to NATO and the British troops, of course I agree that British troops have done tremendous work in Kosovo. It is also right to point out that they face continual dangers on the ground the entire time. They and all the NATO troops are embarked on a very dangerous business.
In respect of unilateral action by Russia, I believe that we are past that time now. I think that it was self-evident at the G8 summit that there was a great desire on both sides for a coming together and a putting of the difficulties of the past few weeks behind us. The warmth of President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Stephashin towards the other G8 members was very eloquent, and told its own story.
Secondly, in relation to Serb homes and what security we can provide, we should of course make it clear, as we have--General Jackson did so again today--that the security that we offer is to people regardless of ethnic
grouping. That is essential. It will be difficult. We are dealing with a highly explosive situation, where there will be very deep feelings on all sides. That is natural when thousands of people have been butchered in ethnic cleansing. However, I am pleased that, in the past few days, several leaders, including Church and political leaders, have made calls for Serbs to stay. I do not think that anyone who knows British troops could have any doubt that they will be even handed in their approach. Some evidence of that has already been given, and the KLA has given the undertaking on demilitarisation.
We will pursue the war criminals. We have heard reports of political prisoners being abducted, but I cannot confirm those reports.
In respect of the cost, it is simply too early to say. There is no way that we would agree to aid for reconstruction in Serbia while Milosevic remains. I am not in a position to speak for all members of the international community, but I would be very surprised if any or many disagreed with that position. Montenegro is a different proposition altogether. I pay tribute again to Montenegro and to President Djukanovic for the solid way in which it has stood for the true interests of the region.
I now come to the issues of biotechnology and food safety, on which the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, as were parts of the press. The suggestion that studies should be done came from, among other countries, Britain. What France was proposing was that we set up a separate international regulatory body. There may be merit in that, but that was not what the G8 finally agreed.
In respect of GM foods generally, those of us who know the ins and outs of the subject know the sheer and total hypocrisy--[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] No, I am not saying that the Leader of the Opposition does not know the ins and outs of it; he does, which makes his position all the worse, because those of us, including him, who know the ins and outs of this know that only four GM foods were ever licensed for sale in Britain, and every one by a Tory Government. All we have done with the regulatory system is tighten it, not weaken it. It is this Government who have broadened the base of scientific evidence. However, to end up banning altogether would not be sensible. We should proceed on the basis of science and evidence. That is the sensible thing to do, and it is what the previous Conservative Government did when they had the responsibility of office, as opposed to the irresponsibility of opposition.
With reference to Europe, I was wondering when we would get some passion. The Conservative party is the single-issue party, and Europe is its obsession. I said that two propositions were daft. Daft proposition No. 1 is to join the euro, regardless of the economic conditions. Daft proposition No. 2 is the one that the right hon. Gentleman espouses, which is to rule out joining for ever, or does he now rule it out for 10 years? [Interruption.] We are not quite sure, are we? That is equally daft. We should join, provided the economic conditions are met.
"have the right reform process under way in Europe".
Are there five tests, or six tests, or is the ability to hang on to his policy while pretending to retreat from it for him the only test?
"make a decision early in the next Parliament"
if they won the election. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor on joining early in the next Parliament? Does he believe in that, or something different, or both, or nothing?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |