Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Middle East Peace Process

3. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Syria on the middle east peace process. [125206]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the peace process with Dr. Bashar al-Assad in the margins of President Assad's funeral in Damascus last week. I myself discussed it with the Syrian Government during a visit to Damascus last month, and remain hopeful about the prospects for peace.

Mr. Cunningham: Given that Israel has now withdrawn from Lebanon, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Syrians could be persuaded to withdraw wholly or partially from the area it would achieve two things? First, it would achieve the unity of Lebanon and, secondly, it would give a shot in the arm to the peace process in the middle east.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong case and there should, of course, be no foreign armies in any country. That was the problem with the Israeli occupation over so many years. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic as a result of my discussions with Dr. Bashar al-Assad and with the Foreign Minister in Damascus last month. If negotiations can be resumed, there is a real prospect of a peace settlement with Israel that would no doubt include the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. The major priority is to get the negotiations over the Golan going as soon as possible.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Would not one contribution towards the building of trust between Syria and Israel be for the new Syrian regime to clear up the mystery of its long-term sheltering of the architect of

20 Jun 2000 : Column 140

the holocaust in wartime France, Alois Brunner, in Damascus? Will the Government make representations to the Syrian regime that would indicate to it that it cannot expect to be taken seriously in the search for peace as long as a war criminal of that magnitude is sheltered in Damascus?

Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look into that matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. The Government have a clear record on the issue of the holocaust and that is why we declared a national holocaust day, the first one of which will be next year.

Mr. Ivan Lewis (Bury, South): Now that Israel has left southern Lebanon and we have a new generation of leadership in Syria, will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to make it clear to the Lebanese and Syrian Governments that they should prevent Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations from launching terrorist attacks on the northern towns and cities of Israel?

Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed, and I raised precisely those points with Foreign Minister Shara when I was in Damascus last month. It is also important, now that the UN has declared the international boundary a clear boundary and has said that Israel has withdrawn back across that border, that everybody respects the peace process and that the Lebanese Government also engage constructively with the United Nations to make sure that that peace settlement sticks as a result of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): Given the clearly expressed desire of Bashar al-Assad to bring new technologies to his country, and given the new leadership that is now in place in Syria, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will seek to be at the forefront of any help in liberalising Syria's currently command- focused economy?

Mr. Hain: Yes. This is proving to be a consensual Question Time so far, although I do not hold out too much hope for the remainder of it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my discussions with Dr. Bashar al-Assad revealed a Syrian leader--although his father was still alive and still President then--with a lot of vision and a modern outlook. He knows Britain well and he knows the global culture well. He is well placed to lead Syria forward, not just in respect of information technology and deregulation and liberalisation of the economy, but, indeed, the modernisation of the economy that is so desperately needed, and to take an active part in the peace process and allow Syria to come into the international family of nations as a respected partner, rather than display a hostility to that international family, as it has in the past.

EU Enlargement

4. Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East): What recent discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in EU member states and applicant countries concerning the enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [125207]

20 Jun 2000 : Column 141

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed enlargement of the EU with his opposite numbers from the EU member states at the Feira European Council yesterday and today. They agreed that enlargement is essential if we are to spread peace, stability and shared values throughout the European Union. Britain is a strong advocate of a swift and successful enlargement of the EU. Both I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also frequently discuss enlargement with our counterparts from applicant countries. Since taking up my appointment, I have met most of the Foreign Ministers and chief negotiators from the applicant countries.

Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Specifically, has Turkey made any real progress towards the Copenhagen political criteria? How realistic are the prospects of Turkey ever becoming a full member of the European Union?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Not very good, after last night.

Mr. Vaz: As my hon. Friend will know, we are keen to have Turkey in the European Union, no matter what its football team does. We feel it is important, as we confirmed at Helsinki, that it should be a member of the European Union, but, of course, the process of membership is, as my hon. Friend has suggested, very tough. Turkey will have to take part in the various accession agreements, prepare itself, meet the Copenhagen criteria and go through all the necessary negotiations and discussions that will be expected. I shall not put a date on Turkey's membership of the European Union. That is a matter for Turkey and the negotiations that are going on at this very moment.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely no need to give Brussels new powers of taxation as a prelude to enlargement? Will he take this opportunity to say that Her Majesty's Government would regard any continuing attempt by the Commission and other member states to include these very wide-ranging powers that they are seeking in the treaty as an obstacle to enlargement and a cause of delay? Will he rule out the need for any new powers of taxation for Brussels in the new treaty? Does he understand that it is no use the Prime Minister returning to the House saying that he has a settlement on the withholding tax if he grants Brussels more powers in the treaty of Nice which would allow it to introduce it by the back door?

Mr. Vaz: What a sad person the right hon. Gentleman is! I am sure that he would like to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that he has done at Feira. He will know that the tax package has now been agreed. Six months ago, the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members criticised the Government for being isolated on the withholding tax. I am pleased to tell the House that agreement has now been reached because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Therefore, the proposal to impose the withholding tax on the City has been defeated. All the other EU countries supported the line taken by my right

20 Jun 2000 : Column 142

hon. Friends the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, which is that there should be an exchange of information.

The Government's position on tax and the treaty is clear. We will not give up our veto on tax. We will make it clear that we will act on taxation policies in the way we have always acted--that is, that we will take a hard-headed look at what is in Britain's national interest. Tax remains one of the core issues that we will not give up on.

Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): Has my hon. Friend met any Foreign Minister from anywhere in Europe who believes that it is possible to enlarge the European Union without changes in the decision-making process and in the size of the Commission? If no such view exists, why does he believe that the Leader of the Opposition is calling for a referendum on matters such as the reweighting of votes in favour of larger nations such as Britain, which manifestly is in this country's interests?

Mr. Vaz: Of course, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary can only dream about going to European Council meetings, whereas my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are there at this moment. They support enlargement because it is in Britain's interests. We will have a single market of 500 million people. I am sorry that the official Opposition's policy is that they would have vetoed the intergovernmental conference and the treaty of Nice. I should have thought that they would have supported enlargement and the entry of Poland, Hungary and the other applicant countries into the European Union.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): With reference to enlargement, do the Minister's contacts, especially those with the Governments of eastern European countries, persuade him that those countries are making enormous efforts to meet the target dates proposed by the European Union? Is the Minister confident that all other European Union member countries are as enthusiastic as Britain is about being able to reciprocate? Is he adhering to target dates of entry?

Mr. Vaz: The negotiations are going extremely well. One of the reports received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at yesterday's Council meeting was on the enlargement process. We believe that it is for the applicant countries to set their timetables in relation to the negotiations. For the Luxembourg Six countries, for example, only two chapters of the acquis remain to be opened, so progress is on-going.

It would be wrong for us to set an artificial timetable and deadline that we know would not be met, although we in the European Union must be ready with our timetable. That has been set by the IGC, and I am very pleased at the progress made yesterday and today. We are on target to complete the discussions and negotiations during the French presidency. We are confident that we can complete them by 31 December this year, and that as a result we will be ready to receive new members at the end of 2002. It will then be up to other countries to decide the target date for entry that is suitable for them.

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): Does the Minister sense, as others have sensed and as the right hon. Member

20 Jun 2000 : Column 143

for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) just suggested, a cooling of enthusiasm for early enlargement among current EU member states? Would it not be a scandal if the European Union failed in its high duty to embrace the whole family of European nations? Given that the single biggest roadblock to successful enlargement negotiations is a common agricultural policy that is morally, socially, economically, financially and environmentally indefensible, why did the Government not spend their time at the Feira summit seeking changes to give more control to member states, instead of trailing sadly behind the Commission's plans to create a single European super-state?

Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. When he was Minister at the Foreign Office, he gladly went along with the common agricultural policy, but now that he is in opposition he wants to change it. We have made our position on the CAP clear, which is that it needs to be reformed. If he read the Foreign Office website, he would know that the Luxembourg Six opened their discussions on the agriculture chapter last Wednesday. Those discussions will be the subject of tough negotiations, and we will follow their progress. The truth is that the Conservative party changes its policy every week. Last week at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party would veto the IGC and therefore stop enlargement. Is that still the case?


Next Section

IndexHome Page