House Of Commons
Wednesday 2 November 1994
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers To Questions
Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs
Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty
1.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty recently signed in Washington.
I attended the signing of the treaty which took place on the Israel-Jordan border. It was a very moving occasion. The treaty is important and courageous and the British Government applaud it.
Although we all welcome the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, does the Minister share our sense of disappointment at Syria's recent failure to condemn terrorism and to enter into direct negotiations with Israel? What measures has the Minister taken to encourage Syria to cease its sponsorship of terrorism in that region and to enter into the talks?
Three weeks ago I had the opportunity of talking to President Assad of Syria on the importance of a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel. I stressed that it is an opportunity not to be missed. I believe that Syria is intent on peace and that Israel is as well. The problem is which will be the first to start the process. It is the unwillingness of the Syrians to embark on bilateral talks that I find most troubling.
In view of the treaty between Israel and Jordan and as it is many years since there was a state visit to Jordan, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is high time that there was an official state visit to Israel by Her Majesty the Queen?
That sounds a splendid idea.
In recognising that peace throughout the middle east is important, did the Minister meet with Mr. Nashashibi, the Palestinian Finance Minister? If so, and even if not, will he consider how Britain can help the Palestinians to re-establish themselves and their administration, police and education, because without that the entire process may collapse?
Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Nashashibi about three weeks ago when he called on me in London. We discussed what the Government could do to assist in the Gaza strip and in the territories. I said that we had already contributed or were intending to contribute £75 million over three years. I drew his attention in particular to the recent grant of £5 million, of which £3 million was for the Palestinian police force.
European Union
2.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about action being taken by the United Kingdom Government to encourage further enlargement of the European Union to include countries in central and eastern Europe.
We support the enlargement of the European Union to include the associated countries of central and eastern Europe. We are working closely with the German presidency to ensure that a substantial package of measures to help these countries prepare for full membership will be ready for agreement at the Essen European Council on 9-10 December.
When my right hon. Friend attends the summit in Essen next month, will he emphasise the benefits, especially to national and international security, of the enlargement of the Union to include eastern European countries? Will he urge examination—and, where necessary, reform—of the outdated institutions and structures within the Union, for example, the common agricultural policy?
It is hard to imagine the CAP in anything like its present form being extended to the new central and eastern European countries that we hope will join the EU. They simply could not afford it. The reforms that are already under way need to go a good deal further before we could envisage a common policy that would include those countries. The same is true of the structure plans.
In future enlargement discussions, will candidate countries be encouraged to join all the institutions, including associated institutions such as the Western European Union?
That is up to those countries. It is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister means when he talks about a flexible Europe. At the moment, Ireland is a full member of the EU, but not of the WEU—the defence organisation. I suspect that that will be true of Austria next year and probably of Finland. Those countries that join the EU can, if they wish, become members of the WEU, but they do not have to do so.
Does the Foreign Secretary find it interesting that, coming back to the framework of the EU policies, without a single exception, all the existing or future, potential or actual applicants for membership, accept the acquis communautaire in all its aspects, Maastricht, Maastricht stage 2 and the future policies probably developing out of the 1996 conference? Is not that encouraging and will the United Kingdom Government do the same thing?
We are not committed for the future and the applicant states were not in such a strong position as we have been as regards the social chapter.
Does the Foreign Secretary have any view on whether the change in portfolios of the Commission this week has strengthened or weakened the progress towards enlargement? Does he recall the Prime Minister describing Mr. Jacques Santer as a reconciler and a healer—the right man for the right job at the right time? As the British Conservative Commissioner is the only one dissatisfied with his new job, would the Foreign Secretary care to repeat that description today and can he carry Sir Leon Brittan with him in that view? Or did not the events of last weekend confirm that the Prime Minister at Corfu picked the wrong fight over the wrong job?
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his portfolio and on the brio with which he has embarked on his job. I look forward to many such exchanges in the future. Whether he will prove to be the right man in the right job, we will know as time passes. I am sorry to read that, like Sir Leon Brittan, he is a little disappointed at the way in which things have turned out, but I hope that he will reconcile himself to the position that he has.
I do not have any doubts about the views of Mr. Van Den Broek on these matters. I have known him for a long time and I do not have any doubt that the decisions that we have taken already on enlargement, on which we have touched already, will be continued. I do not have any worries about that. It is a pity that Leon Brittan, with his experience and achievements in this particular area, could not continue in it, but the essential thing so far as he and Britain are concerned is that he continues to hold the external trade portfolio."Partnership For Peace"
3.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the NATO "Partnership for Peace" proposals, including practical co-operation.
He is the only Minister with a clean pair of hands.
I wish that the hon. Member would stop being so polite. It is extremely worrying.
"Partnership for Peace" is developing well. Partners have established offices at NATO headquarters and SHAPE. The first military exercise under "Partnership for Peace", Co-operative Bridge, took place in Poland from 12 to 16 September, involving forces from 13 alliance and partner countries. Since then there have been two further exercises under "Partnership for Peace", Co-operative Venture, from 29 September to 7 October, and Co-operative Spirit, from 24 to 28 October. British forces took part in all three exercises.I thank my right hon. Friend for news of that encouraging process. I assure him that I do not treat this matter lightly.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the volatile nature of many of the eastern European countries is such that they need to be drawn swiftly into the military and political ambit of NATO? Can he give me some idea of the progress made towards common standards?We see "Partnership for Peace" as a good idea in itself and we are delighted that it has had such good take-up from our former adversaries in the Warsaw pact, including Russia. I hope that my original answer showed the progress made on that. It may lead forward in some cases to the expansion of NATO, but the timing of that remains to be considered. I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to do everything that we can to show those who were our adversaries to the east in the Warsaw pact that for them NATO is not a hostile organisation and "Partnership for Peace" shows the practical ways in which that can be proved.
But is not there an eloquent example of practical co-operation rather nearer to home in the proposal that the Royal Air Force and the French air force should now indulge in operational co-operation? Is not such practical co-operation essential to achieve an effective European defence, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly envisaged in his recent speech to the Franco-British Council?
I am certainly in favour of close military co-operation between ourselves and the French. We see that in action in Bosnia at the moment and it is extremely valuable. We have not yet concluded arrangements for the combined air forces group but may do so at the Anglo-French summit soon. It will simply be a joint planning capability, which could draw together the air assets from Britain and France for use in suitable operations on which we agree.
Is it not important that "Partnership for Peace" be not just a question of hanging around in antechambers but that it provides an opportunity for NATO applicant countries eventually to become full participants in the alliance? In that context, is it not vital that no obstacles be placed in their path, such as that for the right of collective security, and that they must make commensurate contributions, because smaller countries are the most vulnerable and needful of the alliance's collective security arrangements?
I believe that some nations currently involved in "Partnership for Peace" will become full members of NATO, as my hon. Friend wants. That will be up to them and to us. Certainly we are not closing that door.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that an orderly and verified reduction of the bloated armament industries of eastern Europe is essential to achieve the objectives of "Partnership for Peace"? Does he see NATO and also the European Union playing a role in that achievement?
The countries of eastern Europe and certainly Russia need to convert their industries, which are overbalanced on the military side, to civilian use. They find that difficult. We can help to some extent, but it is not so much a matter for NATO as for individual effort.
Although it is clear that any extension of NATO's nuclear guarantee can be done only with great care and circumspection, does my right hon. Friend agree that countries that were our allies during the second world war and which were cut off from their alliances only because they were occupied by the Red army—specifically Poland and the Czech and Slovak republics—should be put on a fast track for NATO membership, and that Hungary should be included among them?
It is likely that the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned, given the history that he described and their present policies, will want to become full members of NATO and will succeed. We and they must consider the timing—no dates have been fixed. Meanwhile, it is important that they all make full use of "Partnership for Peace", which offers experience of joint exercises such as those that I described, and joint training and planning.
European Parliament
4.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the future democratisation of the European Parliament.
All present Members of the European Parliament are already directly elected. MEPs who will represent acceding states will in the first instance be appointed by their national Parliaments, but they will be subject to direct election within two years of the accession of those states.
In view of the difficulties that surrounded the appointment of the President of the European Union earlier this year and, more recently, Sir Leon Brittan's responsibilities, where does the balance of the argument lie in terms of appointing a President of the European Parliament? Is there an argument for MEPs to be given the responsibility of electing their own President, and for that person then to appoint his own European Commissioners, as happens with every other directly elected Parliament?
The hon. Gentleman misses the importance of the role of sovereign states. The current arrangements are perfectly satisfactory.
Is my hon. Friend aware of Malta's strong desire to play its full part in the European Parliament following its successful application for European Union membership? What is the Government's policy on the Maltese application, and when is it likely that consideration will be given to applications from micro-states?
The Government of the United Kingdom take a positive view of the application of Malta, and, of course, after its subsequent accession, whenever it occurs, one will foresee a point at which it is properly represented in the European Parliament. The intergovernmental conference, at its meeting in Corfu, issued a statement on that. We stand entirely by it.
Subsidiarity
5.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to implement the principle of subsidiarity in the levels of decision-making within the European Union and the United Kingdom.
The Edinburgh European Council established clear guidelines for the operation of subsidiarity within the European Union, and the Government have pursued the application of that subsidiarity with great vigour in conjunction with other Governments and the Commission. The principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the internal arrangements within member states.
In his recent book entitled "The Europe We Need", Sir Leon Brittan describes subsidiarity as something that should
Does the Minister agree?"allow for the ebb and flow of responsibility between regional, national and European authorities."
That is a very thinly veiled expression of the hon. Gentleman's well-known views on the position of Wales within the United Kingdom. If I may, I will address that point directly, because it is predicated on three wrong precepts: first, legally, because it was made very clear at the meeting of the Heads of Government at Birmingham, and at other times, that subsidiarity does not apply within states, and that it is up to the states themselves to decide the distribution of power within the states. Secondly, there is a practical oddity. The hon. Gentleman likes to pretend that there is not a great deal of devolution of power within the United Kingdom. That is not true. In Wales, £3.6 billion of expenditure each year comes under the control of local government, so that is hardly a small issue. In political terms, the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that, when the Welsh people were asked what they thought of devolution, they voted four to one against it.
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is, perhaps, a minority opinion on the Conservative Benches, which might not be shared by him at the moment—that, as an English Tory, it is possible to welcome the principle of subsidiarity being applied within the United Kingdom as well as within Europe? One does not have to be a Welsh nationalist to see some force in those arguments.
With a name like mine, Welshness is not a monopoly of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. The fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom Government see subsidiarity as a very important component of stressing the importance of the nation state within Europe. We have put our efforts principally into ensuring that the European Union reflects and respects that status. We have seen one of the best outcomes of that—the reduction of proposed directives from the Commission from 185 a few years ago to 39 so far this year. That is a very good measure of what subsidiarity is really about.
Does not subsidiarity mean anything that anyone wants it to mean? It has no legal or constitutional significance. It is useless as far as the European Union is concerned, and therefore would be useless as far as the United Kingdom's provisions are concerned. We should have clear constitutional divisions and provisions, and democratic arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman condemns his own argument out of his own mouth, because subsidiarity is written down in the treaty and is specified very clearly. What is more, it has practical effects, which I have just described in terms of the reduction in the number of directives, and it will see continuing practical effects in future presidencies. I expect the French presidency coming up to treat it very seriously, too.
Inter-Parliamentary Union
6.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he will be taking of the resolutions passed by the 92nd Inter-Parliamentary Union conference held in Copenhagen during September as they affect his Department.
We were grateful for the report from the leader of the British delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Copenhagen in September and have taken particular note of the adoption of resolutions passed, including those on human rights and the Uruguay round.
My hon. Friend will know the welcome that the conference gave to the latest general agreement on tariffs and trade and how it can be used to help alleviate poverty throughout the world. Will he tell us, in respect of Her Majesty's Government, who have been at the forefront of the negotiations, how well her country has done with ratifying the treaty and whether we will meet the target of 1 January 1995?
My hon. Friend, who was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, is absolutely right. The GATT round, which follows the excellent work done by, among others, Sir Leon Brittan, is good news for Britain. The deal agreed last December is a big step towards freer and more open international trade: it will lead to major tariff reductions for trade in goods. The round will bring major benefits for United Kingdom industry and consumers alike, in the form of increased growth, more jobs, lower prices and wider choice. Every hon. Member should be pleased about that.
How do the Government react to the concern expressed at the conference about the potential military threat posed by Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave, the only route to which runs through Lithuania? Has the Minister had an opportunity in the past two days to discuss with the Prime Minister of Lithuania, Mr. Adolfas Slezevicius, the further moves that can be made to connect Lithuania and the Baltic states more deeply with the organisations for peace in the European family of nations?
I have not had such an opportunity, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—the Minister of State—has.
Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a direct relationship between the resolutions of the IPU conference that has just ended and the proposed United Nations social summit in Copenhagen next year? Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give all possible assistance in ensuring that parliamentarians can play a full part in UN activities, not only in Copenhagen but throughout the year of the UN's 50th anniversary?
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend, who has just completed his three-year presidency of the IPU. It was a very successful presidency, helping to establish a higher and well-deserved international profile for the IPU, for which thanks are owed to my hon. Friend.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend will chair an IPU working group arranging a special meeting in New York to coincide with the UN's 50th anniversary celebrations. We too are organising a major national commemorative ceremony in Westminster hall in June next year for the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN charter. We shall, of course, want to ensure that parliamentarians here can play a proper part in UN conferences, as they did at the recent very successful UN conference in Cairo on international population and development.Is the Minister aware that one of the most remarkable and welcome features of the conference was the return of a multi-party, multi-ethnic delegation from the new South Africa? Will he continue to give priority to democracy-building in South Africa, and assisting the IPU and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in their relations with the country? Will he also give a special welcome to the newly formed British South Africa group in the House, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)?
Yes. I hope that all hon. Members will read the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in South Africa, in which he made clear our support for the new South Africa and referred to the large amounts of aid that the United Kingdom will devote to supporting it.
European Union
7.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage inter-regional relationships within the European Union.
I welcome inter-regional and cross-border co-operation within the European Union. We have, for example, given full support to the Interreg II Community initiative, an important source of Community funding for such activities. The overall policy co-ordination for this is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.
I welcome the progress that has been made, particularly with Interreg II, and in the context of Wales and Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that that programme, and others like it, will deepen and develop the relationships between British regions and their European counterparts, and that real benefits are in sight?
Indeed, I do. The Interreg programme will certainly help communication and trade between Wales and Ireland and will, therefore, help to deepen and widen those links. The Government are looking at the allocation of the programme, but I expect the overall benefit to amount to about 99 million ecu for the United Kingdom.
Is the Minister aware of the tentative efforts taking place involving representatives from the Scottish highlands, Merseyside, Ireland and Northern Ireland over the collective anxiety that is being felt about the way in which objective 1 is proceeding in those areas, not least in regard to the smaller-sized private sector companies? As the Minister acknowledged, much of this comes under the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry, so if I send him the details, will he undertake to pass them on to the President of the Board of Trade so that the anxieties can be fully examined?
I shall of course do that. We secured objective 1 status for Merseyside and the highlands and islands in addition to Northern Ireland. The sum total was about £2 billion, so it is important that it is applied properly.
Rwanda
8.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is offering to Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.
Since 6 April, we have committed over £60 million in humanitarian assistance. The Overseas Development Administration and British non-governmental organisations have provided water and emergency supplies to 2 million Rwandan refugees. Within Rwanda we are financing rehabilitation projects, and human rights monitors. We have also provided 600 troops to the UN force. They have helped restore transport routes and have operated a field hospital which has treated over 106,000 people. This has been a substantial, timely and successful effort.
Given the continued and unmitigated disaster in Rwanda, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is up to him to argue with those in the Treasury to secure the budget for the next two or three years? It is my understanding—I am sure that he will agree with this—that there is a projected cut of £60 million in the ODA budget for Africa over the next three years. Therefore, I call on him to do something about it. If he does not, his Department will not have the necessary flexibility to deal with similar future emergencies.
I am discussing with the Treasury as part of the normal public expenditure round the ODA budget for the next three years. Comments such as that have been made from the Opposition Benches over and over again in past years. What we have done in Rwanda, and particularly what the ODA has done, has shown that we have been and remain capable, as much as any other country, of putting prompt, effective and substantial help in the field.
Is not one of the basic problems with Rwanda that the United Nations was slow to forecast and prevent that catastrophe? Will my right hon. Friend spell out what the British Government will be doing to try to get better forecasting of such situations?
My hon. Friend will accept that it is difficult for the UN or anybody else to plan in advance the extent to which they will intervene in the internal affairs of a member state. It is not easy. When I talked to the General Assembly in September I put forward some British ideas about how we could help Africans forestall such problems in the future. That is the way that we should help. I have discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the UN and we shall press on with those ideas.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that tomorrow the aid agencies will express their concern at growing intimidation in the refugee camps by militia of the former Government of Rwanda? Can he assure those agencies that Britain will support any UN measures to improve security in the camps to allow aid work to continue and to enable those refugees who want to return to Rwanda to do so free from intimidation by the very people who carried out the mass murders?
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on what I think is the most dangerous aspect of the problem at the moment. It is a real problem. It is not easy for the UN to decide how to deal with it without making it worse. I discussed it with Mr. Boutros Ghali when he was here last week and he knows that we will support any action that he thinks is justified.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is providing considerable support to the people of Rwanda, but that it is not the cash figure that is significant but the individual quality of the programmes concerned?
I entirely agree. It is speed and quality that count on such occasions, and we have been good at providing both.
Indonesia
11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Indonesia to discuss bilateral relations.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to do so. I visited Indonesia in April.
I am glad to hear of my right hon. Friend's visit in April. Does he agree that Indonesia continues to make rapid economic progress under a stable Government and that we should encourage contact and trade at all levels between our two countries? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the National Human Rights Commission there must be seen to be independent and a power unto itself if it is to deal effectively with the exaggerated statements of the overseas media and to settle grievances?
My hon. Friend is right—Indonesia is a country that, while it still has a low income, has enjoyed rapid development, adopted sound economic policies and made good use of aid, from the Asian Development bank, the World bank, the Japanese, the Germans, ourselves and others, to reduce poverty. The country is a major potential market for the United Kingdom and will come to assume greater economic weight in the region.
The National Human Rights Commission was set up only earlier this year, but Amnesty International has acknowledged its active and energetic approach. The commission has already surprised its critics with the strength of its public statements on domestic human rights issues. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about it.I find the right hon. Gentleman's attitude amazing and complacent in the teeth of a recent report by Amnesty International. Does he not know that the Government in Indonesia are suppressing freedom of speech and assembly, and that arbitrary killing and widespread torture continue? Does he not realise that the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and some of his hon. Friends have just been on a visit to Indonesia, paid for by the Indonesian Government? Does he not realise that, while our Government fawn over that evil regime, it continues to violate basic human rights, both in East Timor and in Indonesia? Why does he not condemn that?
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and hope that we shall enjoy further exchanges in future. On reflection, she will not consider it wrong for hon. Members to visit overseas countries—she has done so herself. Through such visits, hon. Members are able to speak with greater knowledge.
The Indonesians are well aware of the importance that we attach to their living up to their human rights obligations. We raise our concerns whenever appropriate, both bilaterally and with our European Union partners. I did so when I visited Indonesia in April. Our experience of the Indonesian Government shows that confidential dialogue is often more effective in bringing about changes in attitudes than public hectoring. Independent observers of Indonesia have said that there has been an improvement there. Amnesty International acknowledges in its report that Indonesia has taken a number of steps to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights, such as setting up the National Human Rights Commission and granting more freedom of access—for example, allowing human rights representatives from the United Nations. This year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented favourably on the greater access recently granted by the Indonesian authorities to human rights and humanitarian organisations. The commission agreed that Indonesia should invite Mr. Wali N'Diaye, the special rapporteur, to visit Indonesia. Indonesia has been elected as the chairman of the non-aligned movement and has recently been elected a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will be ashamed of what she has said from the Labour Front Bench.Indo-British Partnership Initiative
12.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress with the Indo-British partnership initiative.
Our partnership with India is going splendidly. Bilateral trade has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since the partnership was launched by the Prime Minister in January last year. New British investment increased fivefold last year and the momentum is continuing. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade will lead an 85-strong delegation to India next month.
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity—supported, I am sure, by the whole House— to pay tribute to the skill and bravery of the Indian police who effected such a dramatic rescue a couple of days ago? Does he agree that his reply shows how considerably Britain's relations with India have improved in recent years? Does he further agree that the increase in our investment there is partly a result of the significant economic reforms that India has introduced?
I agree with my hon. Friend on all points, especially on the first. We were delighted and relieved that the three Britons held hostage were released so soon and we are most grateful to the Indian police for their professional and effective operation. On behalf of the House, I should like to express our regret about the deaths of two Indian policemen in that operation, and our sympathy to their relatives.
Middle East
13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to move forward the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.
We strongly support the peace process. As I have already said, we regard the treaty between Israel and Jordan as a very important step. We now look to progress in the negotiations with Syria and Lebanon and to further negotiations with the Palestinians.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the decisions taken at the Arab-Israeli conference in Casablanca last week to end the Arab boycott and establish a regional economic community? Does he agree that that helps to underpin the peace process and that countries that trade with one another are the least likely to go to war with one another? Will the Government co-operate to the greatest possible extent in those economic developments?
I had the pleasure of going to Casablanca to participate in the conference. It was an important occasion, partly because it brought Israel and many of the Arab states together in discussion, which is greatly to be welcomed, and partly because it drew the attention of the wider world to the economic opportunities in the region. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that if nations trade together they are much less likely to fight.
The Government have identified the protection of human rights as a key confidence-building measure. Will the Minister assure us that when the temporary international presence for the calling of elections in Gaza and Jericho is established, pursuant to Security Council resolution 904, he and our European partners will insist that a viable human rights mandate is to be a central plank of that protection force? That would be in contrast to what has happened with the temporary international presence in Hebron, which is regarded as an absolute failure by the whole Palestinian community.
I would rather deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about elections, which are very important. I had the opportunity of talking to Yossi Beilin last week on that issue. I should like elections to be called, and called soon.
Kenyan Investors Conference
14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend the Kenyan investors conference in London on 17 November.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will not be attending the investors conference. However, he will be calling on President Moi during the President's stay in London. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will deliver the opening address to the conference.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, since last year's meeting of the Paris club of Kenya's creditors, the Kenyan Government have embarked on a truly remarkable programme of economic reform? Is not the outlook for British investors in Kenya better now than it has been for some time?
Yes. The United Kingdom is by far the largest overseas investor in Kenya, with assets valued in excess of £1 billion. I am glad to say that this year United Kingdom exports to Kenya have increased by 22 per cent. on a similar period last year. We very much welcome the action being taken to improve Kenya's economic performance and look forward to discussing those issues further with President Moi and his colleagues during their forthcoming visit.
When the Minister meets the President of Kenya, will he convey to him the concerns of many people about the fact that Kenya does not have a genuine multi-party democracy or genuine freedom of speech, and that far too many people have spent too long in Kenyan prisons for attempting to speak out against the current regime?
We shall have a constructive dialogue with President Moi when we meet him and, of course, whenever there are concerns relating to human rights or other issues, we raise them.
Rwanda
15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with United Nations counterparts with the aim of establishing an international judicial tribunal to rule on war crimes in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.
The preliminary report of the UN Commission of Experts has been received, and work is now being done within the Security Council on the question of a draft.
That is welcome news, but does the Minister accept that strong representations have been made by, among others, Amnesty International, to the effect that there must be a judicial review of what has happened in Rwanda? Does he accept that it is essential that war crimes are examined and war criminals tried and sentenced, especially when they have been guilty of genocide? Will the Government ensure that all initiatives undertaken by the Security Council are given the full moneys and the support of the House?
It is entirely right that those who have committed serious crimes should be brought to trial. It is equally important that when we set up, define and formulate a tribunal we try to ensure that the processes are as just as they can be made.
Is not it better to prevent war crimes? What do the Government intend to do to prevent future war crimes? We were promised in May that 5,500 troops would be deployed in Rwanda, but we have now been told by Baroness Chalker that the deployment of those troops will take another 10 weeks. Now, in November, we are still two battalions short because of the failure of the major powers to provide the logistical support to get the troops there. Is not that in great contrast with what happened recently in the Gulf? Is not it true that, to the Government, oil wells are more important than African lives?
War crimes will stop when human nature changes.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although Britain has made an outstanding contribution in Rwanda, as in many other countries, it really is pushing it when a party that has consistently called for defence cuts suggests that our overstretched armed forces should make even larger contributions to try to prevent incidents that, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says, are ultimately the result of the ugliness of human nature?
We have indeed made a contribution in Rwanda, and an even larger contribution in the former Yugoslavia. I do not think that the British Government can in any way be criticised for the steps that we have so far taken.
European Union
16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the accession of new states to the European Union; and if he will make a statement.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have had discussions on that matter with our opposite numbers in the European Union at several meetings, up to and including the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.
The Foreign Secretary said earlier that the Essen Council will propose a strategy for the accession. That will contain substantial measures—for example, trade liberalisation, political dialogue and integration with the single market. Meanwhile, we welcome the progress already made by the European Free Trade Association members.Now that Austria and Finland, as small European states, have voted to join the European Union, and we hope for further progress from Scandinavia, will the Minister tell the House why the nation of Scotland should settle for B-league status in Europe—as part of Britain, with Commissioners who are humiliated and a Government who are out of step with all other Europeans—instead of aspiring to an independent status and to equality of status with those other small European nations?
It seems to fall to me today to defend our nation state against its main aggressors.
The enemy within.
The hon. Gentleman describes himself as the enemy within. I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that United Kingdom brings benefits to all its members, in Scotland, in England and in other parts. I am proud of that fact, and so are most people in all parts of the United Kingdom. For that reason, the hon. Gentleman's question is not only hypothetical but implausible.
I have always advocated the widening of the European Union rather than its deepening. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the recent four new members of the European Union, the Scandinavian countries and Austria, are all net contributors to the European budget, but that the next four waiting to join—Poland, Hungary, the Czech lands and Slovakia—will all be big beneficiaries of the European budget, which will more than double its size? Therefore, is not further widening of the EU to be regarded as a long-term aim and not something to be rushed into quickly?
My hon. Friend raises an important point which relates to how we must prepare for the next accession and the next stage of the enlargement of the Union. The two principal components of the fund flow that he describes from the current Union to the accessionary states of the Visegrad four would be the structural funds and the common agricultural policy. If we took the route of enlargement with those policies as they currently stand, we would see a transfer of—probably—some 50 billion ecu. That tells me, and the whole Union, that we have to get those policies properly corrected and properly structured before the next accession and the next stage of enlargement.
Can the Minister clarify the Government's policy towards a defence role for the enlarged European Union? I ask this question given the different reports in the press last week. It was reported one day that the Foreign Secretary was keen to see a defence role for the enlarged European Union, but the next day that there was deep disquiet among Government Back Benchers about the matter.
I welcome the hon. Lady back to her old role and I am glad that she is still there. Security in the European Union and its enlargement, which is what this question is about, after all, is an extremely sensitive issue, and it is important that people understand public statements. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put the text of his speech in the Library of the House of Commons.
Could enlargement entail too many Commissioners? Has my hon. Friend noticed that both Sweden and Norway have nominated Commissioners although they have not yet had their referendums, the results of which are uncertain? Are not they pre-empting the results of their referendums?
Yes, they have put forward names for their Commissioners, but that is a matter of practicality. The European Parliament votes on the proposed Commissioners very quickly after the accession date. Yes, we think that there are too many Commissioners. Indeed, our policy is to reduce the number.
Does the Minister accept that the overwhelming majority of Scottish people believe that their interests are best served by being part of the United Kingdom? However, does the Minister also accept that the best interests of the United Kingdom in the European Union would be best served by the maximum subsidiarity in the United Kingdom through the maximum devolution of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and English regional assemblies?
I commend the hon. Gentleman. For a long time I have known him to be a bastion of the Union—indeed, he is built like a bastion of the Union—but this is a rather long stretch of the subject of enlargement.
Saudi Arabia
19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Saudi Arabia.
They are excellent.
What have the Saudis said to the British Government about the commercial activities of Mark Thatcher?
Nothing.
Gaza Strip
21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support to the Palestinian authorities in the Gaza strip.
We support the negotiations and are providing £75 million over three years.
Will the Minister recognise that, while that sum of money is very welcome, it does not go very far towards meeting the needs of the Palestinian authorities? Indeed, it is not as much as some other western countries are contributing. Will he kindly review the amount of money that we are giving? In addition, will he put pressure on Syria, following last week's Casablanca conference, to ensure that it contributes to the Palestinian authorities in Gaza and, in doing so, avoids the threat of militancy and extremism?
The most important and constructive thing that the Syrians could do is enter into discussions with Israel with a view to achieving a full peace treaty between Syria and Israel. That is the course of action that I commended to President Assad and it is something for which the British Government will continue to press.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that peace in the middle east is a very fragile flower and that the Palestinians are having much difficulty at the moment as a result of the terrorist actions of Hamas? Will my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department try to intervene with the principals of Hamas and, in particular, with the state of Iran to ensure that it will do everything in its power to encourage Palestinians to remain at peace with Israel?
It is important that Chairman Arafat should do all that he can to prevent Hamas operating as against Israel. However, it is also fair to point out to the Government of Israel that it is sometimes rather hard to expect of Chairman Arafat a result and outcome which Israel herself, with all her forces, could not achieve.
Does the Minister accept that, while we condemn the kind of terrorist attacks that took place in Tel Aviv on 19 October, collective punishment of the Palestinian people is neither acceptable nor lawful and that we really require more progress to an early relaxation of the border restrictions between Gaza, Israel and the west bank?
I would prefer not to address the two issues, as it were, in the same paragraph because that might suggest that there is some justification for terrorism and I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant.
With regard to a relaxation in the prohibitions on people from Gaza entering Israel, there needs to be an early relaxation. I am glad to say that on 1 November, the Israelis announced that they would grant 8,000 licences for people in the construction industry to go into Israel. I welcome that. We look to a further and early relaxation with a view to a very substantial increase in the number of people from Gaza able to work in Israel.European Union
22.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on United Kingdom policy towards the further enlargement of the European Union to encompass the countries of central and eastern Europe.
As I have already said, we support the eastward enlargement of the European Union. At the Essen Council, in conjunction with the Commission and the German presidency, we shall be looking for ways to help that process take place, including substantial measures, as I have said, in trade liberalisation, political dialogue and integration with the single market.
This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour on his new responsibilities. Will he confirm that the impetus for the enlargement process with regard to eastern Europe has so far come largely from the efforts of the United Kingdom? Will he give an assurance and an undertaking that that impetus, which so far has been stimulated by this country, will continue?
My hon. Friend is right in a sense. It is rather more generally a mark of the success of our view of the future of the European Union. That view has been taken up by many other countries and many others subscribe to it. However, it is not the only example. One could also say that we have been successful in pushing the causes of subsidiarity, of enlargement—which my hon. Friend mentioned—and of the single market, and our arguments on deregulation with respect to increasing employment in the EU are now also winning the day.
With regard to enlargement, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government will not make the accession of Cyprus to the European Union conditional on the prior resolution of the current situation in Cyprus?
Clearly, the division of the island of Cyprus is a problem for us, but we shall look at the matter in January.
What more can my hon. Friend and the Department do to encourage and promote cultural and trading links with the countries of central and eastern Europe, so that British influence in those areas can be sustained by direct contacts?
A great deal is already happening. As part of the PHARE programme, British companies are winning between 16 and 17 per cent. of technical advice contracts. That is already leading to enormous influence for British ideas in eastern Europe.
Exports (Far East)
23.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is given to British industry and commerce by United Kingdom embassies to develop the export of United Kingdom goods to far eastern countries; and if he will make a statement.
Commercial officers in our far eastern posts use their specialist market knowledge to give exporters practical help, advice and support. For instance, they provide exporters with targeted information about opportunities for their products and help exporters identify overseas representatives. They also give background information about local firms with which British companies plan to do business.
We attach high priority to expanding exports to the rapidly growing far eastern market. By using savings made elsewhere, manpower resources devoted to commercial work in Asia and the Pacific rim have risen by 23 per cent. since 1990. Last year, 28 new front-line commercial jobs were created in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. I am glad to say that exports to the region rose by 28.5 per cent. in 1993, to £13 billion.Given that, in recent years, the Government have tended to emphasise the exporting of arms and military equipment, may we be assured now that there will be a greater emphasis on more domestic products, and that assistance will be given to exporters, especially in west Yorkshire, so that we can develop the export trade to the far east?
I have visited Yorkshire and spoken to exporters, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will get all the help that we can give them.
Points Of Order
3.31 pm
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House some time ago and made a statement, based on the options set out in the White Paper, on the Post Office. It now seems that the options that were described to the House have been cast aside and that fresh proposals are being cobbled together in an ad hoc way and are being discussed at this very moment in an upstairs Room.
Can the House be given a statement on the options for the Post Office; and can it be communicated to the Secretary of State that the future of the Royal Mail and the Post Office is not a matter to be dealt with as a bartering process among Conservative Members?The hon. Member will have seen that there are appropriate Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I have not been told by any Minister that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter today.
I had anticipated that there would be a point of order for me today about the events that took place last night when the Committee of Privileges finished its meeting. As there is no point of order, however—[Interruption.] I can cope without one. It is a matter of great seriousness and great importance. What has taken place could have repercussions for the working of the whole of our system of Select Committees. Clearly, the matter has privilege aspects—[Interruption.] Order. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) have a point of order for me?I do not know what you are talking about, Madam Speaker.
Perhaps, once it is printed, the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of looking at the Hansard report.
As I was saying, the matter clearly has privilege aspects, and for that reason I could have insisted that it was first raised with me in writing. But because of its importance, and because this is the last full working day of the Session, I have decided, exceptionally, to make an interim ruling today. My ruling is that the Committee of Privileges must have an opportunity to make a report on this matter to the House before the House takes any action. Members will find described on page 136 of "Erskine May" the practice of the House wherebyThe purported written report from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was issued, so I understand, after the conclusion of yesterday's meeting of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has therefore not yet had the opportunity of making a report on it to the House of the kind to which I have just referred. I hope that, following its next meeting, the Committee will make such a report so that the House can have an early opportunity to consider this matter in an orderly manner and to take any action that it may think fit. For those reasons, I do not propose to take any points of order on this matter today. The House knows exactly where it stands if hon. Members have listened very carefully to all my words."A matter alleged to have arisen in committee but not reported by it may not generally be brought to the attention of the House on a complaint of breach of privilege."
Disabled Persons (Consultation)
3.35 pm
I beg to move,
The House will be aware that the Government have recently consulted on their proposals to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It will also be aware that that exercise was conducted in response to the overwhelming support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. No doubt that accounts for the attendance in the Chamber at this time. I am sure that support for the Bill, inside and outside the House, encouraged the Government to put forward their own proposals. I am also sure that their consultation document was published in response to the widespread disquiet at the manner in which the Government blocked that Bill temporarily. Nevertheless, I welcomed the consultation exercise, not least because, by issuing that consultation document, the Government made it quite clear that disabled people face systematic discrimination and that they believed that this must be tackled through legislation. Therefore, in common with other hon. Members, I eagerly await the Government's publication of the results of that consultation exercise and further debate on that issue. In the meantime, my Bill is a modest attempt to address and correct some of the serious limitations in that consultation exercise. The main issues that we must consider are the way in which consultation exercises are undertaken and the misuse of so-called compliance cost assessments. For example, it is said by many people, including the Prime Minister, that the price tag on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is £17 billion. As I shall demonstrate, that figure has no basis in fact. That a document claiming to be a compliance cost assessment could come up with that figure suggests that we should carefully review the rules for compliance cost assessments in order to ensure that truthful figures are produced, not figments of people's imagination. In relation to the consultation process, my Bill recognises that the Government may, of course, consult on whatever proposals they wish—there is no question about that. Disabled people, however, have felt and still feel that it was regrettable that, in the recent consultation exercise, the Government refused to consult on the one proposal for tackling discrimination against disabled people that disabled people wanted—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I recently received a communication from the Spastics Society—I am sure that hon. Members would like to join me in congratulating that society on the fact that, tomorrow, it will change its name to Scope—in which it pointed out that it regretted that the Government had excluded from their consultation exercise items that featured in the civil rights Bill. That regret has been repeated by other organisations of and for disabled people. My Bill contains some very modest proposals. It would require that, when the Government undertook a consultation exercise, they would include with their proposals for disabled people any proposals relating to similar matters that disabled people supported. That seems perfectly reasonable. Secondly, it would also be reasonable to state that any proposed Government consultation should include legislation that received an unopposed Second Reading in the Chamber. A Bill is not carried every day of the week by 231 votes to nil on Second Reading. That vote expresses the view of the House and should be the subject of consultation. Thirdly, my Bill would require that any legislation that had successfully completed its Committee stage should be a matter for proper consultation. Finally, any legislation that had completed either of those stages in the other place should also be the subject of consultation. I am sure that hon. Members are reasonable, although I do not want to over-egg it, and I am sure that they would agree that any legislation that has passed any one of those four tests, let alone all of them, is worthy of detailed consultation in the sort of exercise in which the Government have just engaged. The second issue dealt with in the Bill concerns compliance cost assessments for proposed legislation. Those sound very grand. Some people think that the assessment is based on a widely accepted technique for evaluating policy, whether by economists or anyone else. It is not and no self-respecting economist would touch many of the assessments with a bargepole. Indeed, the appalling errors in the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have led me to suggest these new rules. They are not controversial, but they are worth stating. First, when undertaking a compliance cost assessment, one should refrain from counting the same thing twice. Double counting, whether by accident or by design, obviously inflates estimates of costs. That may be welcome to someone who opposes the legislation, but it hardly brings such an exercise into good repute. For example, the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill included the cost of providing access to existing buildings in the environment section, but some of the costs were counted again in the sections on employment and education. That double counting accounts for £6 billion of the alleged £17 billion costs. Secondly, one should not assume a phasing-in period that is not contained in the proposed legislation. It was assumed that everything contained in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have to be done within five years. That does not feature in the Bill. If we allow for a proper phasing-in period for transport, we could reduce the costs by yet another £6 billion. I am running short of time, so suffice it to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."]—I appreciate why some opponents of the Bill might be happy about that. The £17 billion figure should never be used again. According to the Government's assumptions, if we avoid double counting and do not allow for time periods that are not in the Bill, we are down to £5 billion. Compliance cost assessments should also be required to take into account the benefits of legislation. It has been estimated that discrimination excludes disabled people from the labour market at a cost of between £3 billion and £5 billion a year. The cost of inaccessible transport is £1 billion. My Bill would ensure that much more meaningful consultation took place on legislation relating to disabled people and it would ensure more meaningful cost-benefit analyses. Today's Bill, like the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, has all-party support and I commend it to the House.That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. John Austin-Walker, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Congdon, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Don Dixon, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Alan Howarth, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.
Disabled Persons (Consultation)
Mr. Roger Berry accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
Privileges
3.45 pm
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of your wise and understandable statement, and as the Government knew perfectly well as far back as 10 May that a letter had been written on House of Commons notepaper, is not it rather odd that we should give preference above other business to a debate such as this at this time? We must remember how long the Government have known about the letter and surely your statement rather alters events, does it not?
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion on privilege is extremely narrowly drawn—as you reminded us when we considered a similar motion earlier this week. In view of last night's events, there will be a clear temptation in today's debate for hon. Members on both sides to discuss the proceedings of the Privileges Committee. That is something which you warned us against previously and which I am sure you will warn us against today.
Secondly, anyone voting for the motion today cannot have any idea whether, if carried, the complaint will be considered by the Committee in public or in private, or how the proceedings of the Committee will be arranged.Order. Could I have a point of order for me?
I believe that to consider the motion today would be premature. Could it be withdrawn to enable us to consider it when the proceedings of the Privileges Committee are themselves clear and made known to the House?
rose—
Order. I can deal with the two points of order now. I think that I have captured the mood of the House on this matter. There is certainly no conflict between the motion before us today and the statement that I made earlier. The motion is in perfect order and it is ready for debate. Quite frankly, the House has a responsibility, at this stage, to deal with the motion now.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, during the time that you have been in the Chair and prior to that, there have been countless instances every year of people, both inside and outside the House, using House of Commons notepaper when they should not have done so. Can you tell me on how many occasions such people have used the notepaper but not had it brought before the Privileges Committee?
Of course, I cannot give the hon. Member a figure for that at this stage, but I shall certainly have some research carried out and do my best to respond to his question. It is not a point of order for me, but I am always willing to give as much information as I can to individual hon. Members.
3.48 pm
I wish to call attention to the alleged action of The Guardian newspaper in representing that a letter sent by it to the Ritz hotel, Paris, was sent in the name of an honourable Member of this House.
I beg to move,There are occasions when I would give my eye teeth to address the House in prime time and on an important issue, but this is not one of them. This debate opens up all sorts of predictable criticism and offers us assorted traps into which we can all fall. I fully understand that in a debate such as this it would be very easy to sound pompous, sanctimonious and utterly party political, but when we seek to defend our collective reputations and, more importantly, the status and symbols of the House, there will always be a risk of allegations of hypocrisy, oversensitivity and being out of touch. While the debate is, of necessity, about a possible abuse of the House and contempt of Parliament, I hope that the whole House would be just as concerned if the victim of this alleged conspiracy, impersonation and forgery were the proverbial Joe Bloggs, whose letter heading did not have a portcullis or the words "House of Commons".That the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I would have much more sympathy with the case being made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) if the information about the use of a piece of notepaper purporting to come from the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had been brought to the attention of the House when the right hon. Gentleman himself knew about it. He knew about it on 10 May. The Cabinet Secretary knew about it on 18 May. Why was not the House so informed at that time if it is so important now?
I am happy for other hon. Members to make their case in their way, but I prefer to make my case in the way that I think is best.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a point for you. You have emphasised, understandably, that this is a matter of precedence over other business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says, the matter was known about in the public print on 10 May and the Cabinet Secretary wrote letters on 18 May. Why is it given precedence?
The hon. Member cannot disrupt our proceedings in this way with points of order that are really not points of order. It has been determined that this matter takes precedence today and it is the responsibility and duty of the House to debate it. It is about time that we faced up to some duties in the House.
rose—
In view of the points that have just been raised, does my hon. Friend accept that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary apparently considered referring the matter to the Press Complaints Commission, but as at that time Mr. Peter Preston was a member of the Commission, they felt that it was not worth doing so?
Again, those are interesting points, but I should like to press ahead.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we now assume that the rules involving raising matters at the earliest possible moment no longer apply?
As I have told the House and the hon. Member, the motion before us and the way in which we are proceeding are completely in order according to the business of the House and precedents that have stood us in good stead over many years.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. All that I can say is that as soon as I knew about the matter, I raised it with you on Monday morning.
I also want to make it clear at the outset that in saying what I say this afternoon I do not seek to criticise all journalists and all editors when I criticise one. I make no claims at all to be better than or different from anyone else. I know that I run the risk of setting myself up for abuse and criticism, but so be it. That is the lot of all politicians. All I know is that if I was caught forging faxes, however much I felt that I could justify it, I would expect to be pilloried by every newspaper in the land, and that is a fate that I would richly deserve. If, when I was found out, I indulged in self-righteous self-justification, I would rightly deserve the contempt of every fair-minded person. Again at the outset I want to say that I am anxious to try to avoid cheap party politics. [Interruption.] I guessed that that would get a hollow laugh. All I can say is, please hear me out and then judge at the end whether I am playing party politics. I am relieved that you, Madam Speaker, have made it clear that the debate must confine itself to narrow issues—in fact, the issues in my motion—because those are the issues that I wanted to raise when I wrote to you on Monday. Whatever an hon. Member may or may not have done is not part of the issue, although I can quite understand why there are people in the House who want to pursue that story. This issue is sufficiently important to require separate and immediate attention. What concerns us today are the methods employed by a respected national newspaper when investigating a Member of Parliament. At best, those methods were ethically flawed; at worst, they were downright criminal. Whichever they were, they were a flagrant abuse of the House and need to be investigated. I say that for three reasons. Those in a privileged position must be above reproach—at least, that is the message that newspapers have been trumpeting these past few weeks. I am perfectly happy to accept that Members of Parliament are in a privileged position, even if most of us do not have much power. I am, however, clear in my mind that newspaper editors are in an equally privileged position and wield substantial power.Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Mr. Peter Preston acted in the public interest in revealing the fact that Conservative Members failed to register pecuniary interests: yes or no?
If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself and hear me out, he will get his answer.
If editors maintain that Members of Parliament should be above reproach, it follows that they also should be beyond reproach. My second reason is that two of the most important duties of all Members of Parliament are to stand up for the rights of the individual and for the rule of law. Perhaps the greatest threat to both is the belief held by people in powerful positions that the ends justify the means. Down that route lurks the jackboot and the lynch mob. If I understand history correctly, this Parliament came into existence to protect the citizen from arbitrary abuse and victimisation. Throughout Parliament's history, we have had to square up to the over-mighty who seek to place themselves above the law. My third reason is the total lack of a proper apology by the editor of The Guardian. From time to time, we all allow our enthusiasm to run away with us and do things that we later regret. When I do that, I find people willing to accept a proper apology, while I want to hide in a dark corner for quite a while. But not so the editor of The Guardian. Over the past few days, and again in Mr. Preston's letter of resignation from the Press Complaints Commission last night, the nation has been treated to the mocking of decency and honesty, and to the attempted justification of deceit and deception.Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No. I will press on because I have been generous with interventions up to now.
My description of the details of the allegations is based on comments made by Mr. Preston, Mr. Al Fayed and reports in The Guardian. In the circumstances, I hope that the House will find all those sources reliable. Last autumn, Mr. Al Fayed told Mr. Preston about a Ritz hotel bill. Quite how or why an extremely busy international tycoon found time to interest himself in such a matter of detail is not reported, as far as I can discover. Mr. Preston wanted a copy of that bill, while Mr. Al Fayed wanted to protect his own reputation and that of his hotel. They concocted a plan to forge a fax.On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Are we debating whether the matter should be considered by the Committee of Privileges, or are we debating what should be discussed by the Committee at a later date?
That is a very good point of order. We are debating today whether the House should refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. I have just read the motion for the umpteenth time and it is very narrow. Although references may be made to certain matters, they should not be detailed and ought to be brief. The House should keep it in mind that it is considering only whether the matter should go before the Privileges Committee for detailed investigation there.
I shall certainly try to keep my reasons for wanting the matter referred as brief as I possibly can.
As I said, because Mr. Preston wanted a copy of the bill, a plan was concocted to forge a fax. I am no lawyer, but that sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me. As a result, Mr. Preston arranged for the top of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), on official House of Commons stationery, to be stuck to the top of a fax to make it appear that it came from a Member of Parliament. That sounds remarkably like forgery to me. Finally, Mr. Preston worded the fax to suggest that the sender was my right hon. Friend's private secretary. Lawyers to whom I have spoken tell me that that sounds remarkably like impersonation. Thus, it appears to me that Mr. Preston has admitted not only to an abuse of Parliament, but to criminal activity. That is why I have referred the matter to the police.Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No—I have detained the House long enough. I want to make a couple more points; then I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, could call the hon. Gentleman to speak, if he is on your list.
I can think of no better way to sum up my case than to quote something that I heard on Radio 4 on Monday morning:I agree with every word of that comment made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), Labour's shadow Leader of the House. Thus the hon. Lady and I stand united across the party political divide. That is why I want the matter referred to the Privileges Committee. That is why I want to hear its verdict and its views on possible punishment. That is also why I welcome the verdict of a jury and the punishment handed down by a judge."I think that anyone other than a Member of Parliament writing on parliamentary paper is unacceptable and I think that there does need to be some investigation into exactly what happened. I don't think it's right for others than Members of Parliament to take on that role, and I think there are some questions that need to be answered there."
rose—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House is Chairman of the Privileges Committee, which will deal with the matter. He used his casting vote on a previous occasion, and I have no doubt that if it meets again he will use it for this matter. I want to know why he can take part in the debate, leading on behalf of the Government, when he will be acting as judge and jury.
As I had indicated to you, Madam Speaker, I felt it appropriate to say a word, but really only two sentences. First, as Leader of the House, I hope that the House will accept my hon. Friend's motion. Secondly, as Chairman of the Privileges Committee, I think that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.
4.2 pm
I, too, will be brief as the matter before the House is relatively straightforward and the motion is very narrow.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I very much regret the extravagant and intemperate language that he used, which did not help his case. The basis of the complaint is that the editor—[Interruption.] If we are able to consider the matter carefully, it will do the House a great deal of good; it is an extremely important issue. The basis of the complaint that the hon. Gentleman made, in respect of allegations that the editor of The Guardian used House of Commons notepaper and forged the signature of a member of staff of a Member of the House, is very serious, and on Monday, you, Madam Speaker, instigated inquiries through the Serjeant at Arms. The motion proposes that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee. Clearly, there has been a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I repeat what I said on Monday morning, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne quoted. I made it clear, as soon as I heard the allegations against Mr. Preston, that for anyone other than a Member of Parliament to use official notepaper is completely unacceptable, as it clearly is for anyone to forge any signature. It is unacceptable behaviour for an editor of a newspaper or, indeed, for anyone else. Anyone who receives a letter on House of Commons writing paper must be able to believe that the letter is genuine, not least to protect our ability to serve our constituents. When we write to doctors, lawyers or, indeed, anyone else, those recipients must feel confident that the letters are genuine. The reference to the Privileges Committee is therefore inevitable and entirely appropriate. I do not seek to defend the actions of the editor of The Guardian, or to justify them. Mr. Preston has said that, in retrospect, he may have been wrong to do what he did. He was wrong; he was foolish; and it is right for the Committee to consider his actions. I hope that the Committee will also consider when hon. Members first knew of the fax, and of the forgery that forms the subject of this inquiry. It is important that the Committee finds out who knew about the forgery, when they knew about it and why, if Members of Parliament knew that there had been a flagrant breach of this kind, they did not report it earlier to you, Madam Speaker.Why does the hon. Lady think that the timing is relevant? The important point is that either this was done, or it was not. I gather from what the hon. Lady is saying that she thinks it was thoroughly wrong to do it. It was against the principles and rules of the House, and that is the end of the matter.
I think that any hon. Member who finds that there has been a flagrant breach of privilege has a responsibility to report it to the House. I think it entirely right for the Committee of Privileges to examine this matter as well as the other details that have been mentioned.
Statements have been made in today's press that Cabinet members—including the Prime Minister as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—knew all about the misuse of House of Commons paper several months ago. It is not for the House to consider that in detail this afternoon, but I believe that it is relevant to the inquiry, and I hope that the Committee will take that aspect on board. The fact that Mr. Preston was wrong should not be used as a reason for ignoring the issues that he was raising and, indeed, the evidence that has come to light. Mr. Preston might claim that he used a foolish device to verify essential evidence and to protect his source of information. It is interesting that no one has challenged the factual information that he presented, nor are those facts challenged by this debate.The hon. Lady, surely, is trying to change the facts completely. Surely what happened was a conspiracy by Mr. Preston to try to hide the fact that he was working with a blackmailer in an attempt to bring down the Government.
I am sure that the Privileges Committee will hear everything that is said. [Interruption.] As some of my hon. Friends are saying, it would be wise not to make allegations of that kind outside the House.
I do not disagree with a word that my hon. Friend has said. Does she acknowledge, however, that although paragraph 7 of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, which was generally approved by the Government, states that subterfuge should not be used, it also states that it is possible if it is in the public interest?
It is interesting to note that, when Opposition Members have attempted to increase the accountability of the press, they have generally been blocked by Conservative Members. We are considering one aspect of the means used to obtain information. The ends do not justify the means, but neither do the means invalidate the attempts to raise issues of genuine and important public concern. The methods adopted raise some big questions and we should not lose sight of the fact that journalists and others are trying to prise out information because we do not have a sufficiently transparent system of accountability in this country. If we had a better system of registering the interests of Members of Parliament and Ministers, this might not have happened.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told the House, rightly, that this is to be a narrow debate. The hon. Lady is attempting to make some party political points.
I am listening to the debate carefully; the hon. Gentleman can leave it in my hands. The hon. Lady is doing perfectly well at the moment. I believe that she is about to finish, if the hon. Gentleman will allow her to do so.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about to conclude. I have tried not to be partisan because these issues are in the interests of us all.
The Nolan committee will consider some of the wider issues, and it is important that the House does so too. Mr. Preston's action must be referred to the Privileges Committee, and I hope that its members will investigate all the issues that are raised by this reference.On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising from what was said by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who moved the motion. He said that he had reported this matter simultaneously to the police. For many years, the House, which has a jurisdiction of its own, has kept a wide boundary between its jurisdiction and that of the courts. If this is to be pursued in the courts with, presumably, a prosecution for forgery, while the Committee is handling the matter, we could be in difficulties.[Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen because this is a point of substance.
If the case is taken to court, it will be heard in open court, whereas in the Committee of Privileges it will be heard in secret.[Interruption.] Yes, that is the decision of the Committee. If Mr. Preston is referred to the Committee of Privileges and he asks for the right to print in his newspaper what happened in the Committee, he will be guilty of another breach of privilege for revealing the Committee's proceedings. I am drawing to your attention, Madam Speaker, an important question. We have stumbled into this without thinking it out. There are two jurisdictions and two regimes: an open regime in the court and a private regime in the Committee. If Mr. Preston were to be hauled up, he would be put in an impossible position.The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for me. It is a speech that he might wish to make during the debate, when he may have something of substance to say. It is not a point of order at this time.
rose—
Order. I have given my ruling.
rose—
Order. Sit down for a moment. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a point of order at this stage. It is a point that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to employ during the debate. It is not a point of order on which I can rule.
With great respect, I have no intention of speaking today because I spoke on Monday. By accepting a motion after we have been told that the issue is going to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the House is infringed. That is a matter for you, Madam Speaker; it is not a matter of judgment for the House. It is for you to protect the jurisdiction of the House and to order the hon. Member for Spelthorne, if we do proceed, not to take the matter to the courts, otherwise the rights of the House of Commons will be taken over by the courts.
I gave the matter careful consideration before it came before the House today. There is no sub judice involved—we are perfectly in order, as was the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in moving the motion. I spent a great deal of time taking legal advice on the subject, and the way in which we are proceeding is perfectly in order.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that one reason why Committees sit in secret is that they collect evidence? Police and other investigations are carried out in secret, and only when all the information has been looked into and collected—
Order. Hon. Members are attempting to conduct the debate through me. They must wait for me to call them. I hope that there will be no more points of order—we must proceed with the debate.
rose—
I call Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, who has not had a point of order yet.
I was rising to speak in the debate.
What a wise man. I shall call him after I have dealt with the points of order.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked a number of questions that other hon. Members had asked earlier. It was clear that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was either unable or unwilling to answer those questions, which related directly to the motion. The House requires clear information that the Leader of the House was unable to give—
Order. That is not a point of order, but a matter for debate. Hon. Members are raising matters for argument, not points of order. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. Hon. Members are raising matters for debate across the Floor of the House.
I have a point of order that is directly for you, Madam Speaker; it falls within your jurisdiction. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) what possible relevance there was in the timing of all this. Is there not an obligation on the Government at least to give an explanation? They may have a perfectly good explanation, but the debate cannot continue without their explaining why something that was known in May was not tackled until November. That is a fundamental point and the Leader of the House of Commons has an obligation to explain.
That is not a point of order for me; it is a debating matter. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to extract information, which is perfectly reasonable, but he cannot extract information from me; he must do it through other hon. Members.
rose—
Order. I shall take no more points of order.
4.17 pm
I wish to raise five matters that are relevant to the decision that we will be required to take later today. I shall confine those issues strictly within the bounds of the motion. I am well aware that some of what I have to say will not be palatable.
Before raising those issues, I want to ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) a question. She indicated that she intends to support the motion. In the light of her partisan statements and the partisan comments from Labour Back Benchers, I want to know whether the Opposition intend to support the referral of a breach of privilege to the Committee. Will the hon. Lady's Back-Bench colleagues support that referral?That is a matter for the House, and I hope that all hon. Members will exercise their judgment. I clearly said that I support the referral to the Select Committee on Privileges. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me about that.
It seems that Opposition Members are trying to have their cake and eat it by half-heartedly condemning the clear breach of privilege while trying to curry favour with the press.
The press have sought to give the impression to the public that we are discussing the misuse of House of Commons writing paper and, in so doing, have sought to trivialise the matter. They have given the impression that we are talking merely about a letter that was written on paper, which we now know was not stolen paper but just the clipped heading of a piece of House of Commons paper. They have given the impression that the matter involved a trivial misuse, and simply represented a mistake. That is not all that we are dealing with this afternoon. We are dealing first with the forgery of a letter purporting to come from a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Secondly, we are dealing with a very clear intent to deceive. Thirdly, we are dealing with the impersonation not only of a member of the Chief Secretary's staff but of someone who was at the time a senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, whose signature was copied. That is the first series of issues. They are not trivial matters but serious and possibly criminal offences. The use of writing paper was certainly a discourtesy to the House, but the matter goes much wider than that and we need to focus on it, however much others may seek to mislead the public.In the world of modern communications, whether one is dealing with a fax or another communication to a newspaper, are not the chances of a letter getting into general circulation—even with none of the explanations attached to it that the editor of The Guardian has sought to attach to it—such that they make such an action even more culpable and fraudulent?
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I hope and believe that those responsible for bringing criminal charges in this case will consider his point very seriously. I would expect a criminal action to follow, but that is not what we are here to consider today.
This matter does not relate only to The Guardian, although we are debating the referral of the actions of its editor to the Privileges Committee. The Guardian set itself up as the gamekeeper of political morality and all the other Fleet street newspapers clung to the gamekeeper's coat tails. The gamekeeper's coat pockets have now been found to be full of stolen pheasants. The other newspapers that ran stories about my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, that ran pictures of his wife and children and that sought to drag him and his down, are left with sizeable egg on their faces. If I may mix my metaphors, the rats are now quickly leaving a ship that is holed and sinking.The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a journalist by profession. Is he even mildly curious about what the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement was doing in a hotel in Paris at the same time as three Saudi arms dealers?
I am sure that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will not pursue that, as to do so would stray wide of the motion.
I am entirely content to accept the explanations that have been offered to the House, as they should have been, by my right hon. Friend. If I may digress slightly in response to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—
Order. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman and the House. The hon. Gentleman knows full well how narrow the motion is. We are debating whether, if the House so wishes, to refer the matter to the Committee. We are not arguing the merits or demerits of any individual.
My right hon. Friend is answerable not to The Guardian or any other medium but to two sets of people: his constituents and hon. Members. His constituents have faith in his integrity and he has answered to the House.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of the debate, especially from the Opposition, is frightening? We have seen a casual disregard for the rule of law, which is a frightening portent of what would happen if the Labour party were to get into power.
Much has been made of the fact that knowledge of the forgery was in the hands of certain people—in particular, the Cabinet Secretary—some time ago. It is important that we consider that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has referred to it, as have other Opposition Members. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my understanding is that referral of the forgery to the Press Complaints Commission was considered carefully by the Cabinet Secretary, who concluded that, as the editor of The Guardian was at that time a member of the commission, there was little point in asking the turkey to vote for Christmas.
rose—
rose—
No, with respect to the hon. Gentlemen, I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to intervene in the debate. It is better if I conclude my remarks and let other Members make their own speeches.
Last night the editor ofThe Guardian resigned from the Press Complaints Commission, not as a matter of personal honour but as a result of pressure from inside the House. We must consider another salient point. Throughout the affair, the Press Complaints Commission has maintained a stunning silence: not one word of condemnation has been heard. [Interruption.] It is another issue, but I suggest that the time has come for the House to create an independent press tribunal with statutory powers—Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. We are not discussing any press tribunal. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman; many people want to speak in the debate, and I now ask hon. Members to stay with the point and get on with debating the motion.
We have been discussing whether the editor of The Guardian, a former member of the Press Complaints Commission, should be referred to the Privileges Committee. I seek to give the House instances showing why I believe that that referral should and must take place. I believe that because of the forgery, the deceit and the impersonation that he has practised, using House of Commons notepaper, Mr. Preston's conduct as a member of the Press Complaints Commission is part and parcel of the matter that we are considering.
The press, especially the editor of The Guardian, have set themselves up as the guardians of the public interest, but that guardian angel has turned out to be the whore from hell. I believe that some good may yet come from the matter. If it is referred to the Privileges Committee and the Committee considers it correctly, as I believe it will, and the report is published and debated by the House in full, as it will be, the public may at last realise the depths to which that editor and others are prepared to sink to stand up a story at whatever cost to the truth. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked whether any hearing would be held in camera or in public. That is an interesting question, and I am sure that the press will take a keen interest in it. If the matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, as I believe it must be, I should prefer Mr. Preston to have the opportunity to give his evidence in private. I believe that the Committee may also wish to call Mr. Al Fayed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fayed."]—and to hear Mr. Fayed's evidence in private. That should not be turned into yet another media circus and yet another feeding frenzy. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that the Committee, if the matter is referred to it, will decide to hold the hearings in private, and then to publish in full.Will my hon. Friend give way?
No. I apologise to my hon. Friend, but as I refused to give way to Opposition Members I must refuse to give way to him too.
I have written to the chairman of Guardian Newspapers to ask whether the company believes that its editor has acted properly and whether he still has the confidence of the board. If former Ministers should be required to resign their offices to clear their names, the editor of The Guardian should be required to do the same.rose—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In deciding whether to support the motion, several of us will find ourselves in a dilemma because of the following question: did the editor of The Guardian and his newspaper, using House of Commons notepaper—using it wrongly; I do not try to justify its use—intend to serve a genuine public interest in trying to secure information that he believed could not be obtained in any other way? I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether in those circumstances we could have a little more information. As matters now stand, many of us will have some difficulty in approving the motion.
I feel that hon. Members are trying to debate the motion through the Speaker. I cannot answer questions such as that. Hon. Members have to attempt to extract that information from others. It is certainly not a point of order. Perhaps, if the debate were to proceed, we may get the information. If hon. Members were to speak briskly, I could call as many as possible and the information may come.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
This is about the fourth point of order that I have had from the hon. Gentleman.
It is relevant, Madam Speaker. As everyone so far has been unable or unwilling to answer the questions which a number of hon. Members have put, I assume that those questions were put by the Serjeant at Arms in the inquiries that you asked him to undertake. Therefore, assuming that his report has been completed, may I ask that it is made available to hon. Members before the vote takes place in the hope that the Serjeant at Arms' report reveals the information which a great many hon. Members require?
There is only one matter before the House today—the motion printed on the Order Paper. It is for the House to determine whether the subject is of such seriousness that we want it examined by our Privileges Committee. That is all. If we want to leave the matter as it is, the motion is defeated. If we want to go further into it, it is for the Privileges Committee to go into all those details, not the House at the present time. There is a simple motion before us.
4.30 pm
I suspect that some hon. Members would expect me to declare an interest in the present debate in the sense that I was the subject of what I considered a scurrilous piece of journalism by a sister paper of The Guardian fairly recently. Some may think that I rise, in some sense, to even the score, but I assure colleagues in the House that I shall be either abstaining or voting against the motion. I want to explain to the House and put into context the reason why I have come to that decision. As someone who co-authored a biography of Harold Laski, it is with some sense of irony that I speak today when we are looking at a problem involving the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Much of my time, when I was writing that biography, was involved with an illustrious or notorious predecessor of his in the famous Laski 1946 libel trial, which is interesting for the historical record.
It seems to me that there are two institutions in crisis at present in Britain. The first is our Parliament, where we seem to be in so many senses out of touch with what ordinary people think or believe or care about. This debate is very much about whether by its actions tonight, we will show that we are in touch with ordinary opinion or totally out of touch with it. The second institution that I believe is in crisis is the British media—the newspapers and the other media. One can analyse easily why our media are in crisis. It is a question of the new media of communication, increasing competition, new technology—Low standards?