House of Commons
Tuesday 11 April 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords] (By Order)
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 April.
Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 April.
Oral Answers to Questions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked--
Ethical Foreign Policy
1. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): If he will make a statement on the implementation of the ethical dimension of his foreign policy since May 1997. [117165]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We have a proud record of pressing for torture to be banned world wide, the death penalty to be abolished, anti-personnel land mines to be banned and extreme forms of child labour to be ended. We helped to achieve an International Criminal Court. We have been lifting the stranglehold of debt off poor countries, hugely increasing our overseas aid and banning arms exports that could be used for either external aggression or internal oppression. Never before have a Government given such a priority to promoting human rights in British foreign policy.
Mr. Amess: Given the Government's extraordinary double standards--for instance, in their dealings with China and Zimbabwe--how can the Foreign Secretary consider a visit to Iran, whose regime carries out the gouging of eyes and the amputation of its citizens' limbs? Will he defend that as an ethical act? Will he reconsider his visit? Will he at least condemn such brutal acts against the citizens of Iran?
Mr. Hain: Of course everybody in the House, led by the Foreign Secretary, will condemn actions such as the gouging out of eyes, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that my right hon. Friend should not go to Tehran when
he has the opportunity to support the reform programme carried out by President Khatami, which has improved human rights there and made Iran freer than it has been for a long time? Should we stop trying to make the world better because we cannot make it perfect? The Government try to make it better at every opportunity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): The Minister rightly mentioned the banning of land mines with pride. Could that be extended to cluster bombs?
Mr. Hain: I will happily look at that proposal. Cluster bombs are in a different position from anti-personnel land mines. Through the Ottawa convention--we led that process--we achieved a worldwide ban on anti-personnel land mines. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): The Minister will remember that the Foreign Secretary's statement laid particular emphasis on human rights. After the treatment that has been meted out to Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Council of Europe's decision to begin proceedings that may lead to Russia's suspension, do the Government feel no discomfort at the notion of welcoming Mr. Putin to London next weekend? This is the man who became president after presiding over the indiscriminate and disproportionate shelling of civilians in Chechnya. Should not the visit be postponed until Russian actions match Russian words?
Mr. Hain: We very much welcomed Mary Robinson's visit to Chechnya. It was important that she went and Britain supported her in that task. We use every opportunity to take up human rights matters with the Russians, as the Prime Minister did with President-elect Putin and as will occur when he visits Britain shortly, on the basis that our involvement is without illusions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps asking us to boycott any contact with the Russians to leave us with clean hands, but that does not improve people's rights in Russia, which is the objective for which we have been consistently working.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): Does my hon. Friend agree that there is both an ethical and a moral imperative for the United Kingdom to do everything possible to help the people of Ethiopia, whom we see dead and dying on our television screens every night? Is he aware that the European Union has sent only half the food aid that it promised last year? Will he do everything in his power to speed up the process of getting that food to the people? If not, it will be too late.
Mr. Hain: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the crisis in Ethiopia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is leading the way in providing more food aid than any other country, apart from the United States. We are very aware that 8 million people face starvation in Ethiopia and the situation is dire. Britain has a proud record of providing food aid and of making sure that the other international institutions address the serious crisis there.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): In this week's New Statesman, the Minister reveals to us all that
he is seen by the Foreign Secretary as his soul mate. As they are so close, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Foreign Secretary supports the Minister's view, expressed in the same article, that the ethical dimension of foreign policy was "the hook" on which this Labour Government found themselves, was oversold to begin with, and has now been abandoned and
- consigned to the memory hole.
Mr. Hain: I realise that the hon. Lady has used all her considerable creative energies to try to read into the New Statesman interview numerous things that were not there. Let me say, however, that I am proud to work alongside my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose soul mate I have been for many years. That is true on my side, anyway.
My right hon. Friend has presided over a foreign policy that has given Britain a leading role in the world in the defence of human rights, with a strong ethical dimension of which we can be proud. That is recognised by countries throughout the world.
Let me add that it is a bit rich to be lectured about ethics by the party that was happy to arm the Indonesian dictator Suharto, happy to support the repression of the East Timor people, and happy for its Ministers to mislead Parliament over the supply of arms to Iraq, as exposed in the Scott report. We take no lessons from that party about ethical foreign policy.
Lisbon Summit
2. Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): If he will make a statement on the follow-up plans to implement the decisions of the Lisbon EU summit on economic reform. [117166]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Lisbon summit arose from a British-Spanish initiative. Its agenda reflected Britain's commitment to economic reform within Europe. The summit committed the European Union to removing barriers to e-commerce, and to ensuring that access to the internet in Europe is as competitive as any in the world.
At Lisbon, the European Union agreed that the goal of full employment was back on the agenda. It was the first time for a decade that it has done so. We will now work with the Commission to follow up its conclusions. The commitment to hold annual summits in the spring to review progress will ensure that the Lisbon agenda remains a high priority for the European Union.
Jane Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend share my delight that that goal of full employment is now seriously and explicitly back on the agenda in Europe? Does he agree that what Britain must do is engage in Europe, and not seek to let down the people of this country as the Conservative party seeks to do by opting out?
Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree. I note that the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs put out a press
statement on the day of the Lisbon summit referring to the "job-destroying" working time directive and social chapter. Since the Government came to office and introduced both those measures, we have created 800,000 more jobs than were created at the time the Conservative Government were resisting them.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): How does this country's continued support for Turkey's accession to the European Union square with an ethical foreign policy, given Turkey's awful human rights record?
Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about economic reform.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): Did the Foreign Secretary read the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last week which claimed that Britain was shaping the agenda within the European Union, and bemoaned the fact that Germany was no longer undertaking that role? Is that not a powerful statement that we can and do secure the best for Britain from Europe, and is it not the most powerful response possible to the xenophobic isolationism of the Conservative party, which ill serves the British national interest and would put 3 million British jobs at risk?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The agenda of the European Union is dominated by two initiatives taken by the British Government, to promote European security and to promote economic reform within Europe. The people of Britain are seeing real benefits from the decision to provide a legal base for our border controls for the first time during our membership of the European Union, and from the decision to give us one of the best deals in regard to structural funds among all European Union countries. That is the gain of positive engagement in Europe, all of which Conservative Members would put at risk.
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Prime Minister himself who last year, speaking to the CBI, criticised the working time directive for being over-regulatory? That being the case, why did he not demand its reform at Lisbon? Surely what businesses actually want, instead of all the talk of an inclusive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy, is less red tape, less bureaucracy and less interference, not pointless prime ministerial techno- babble.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the conclusions of the Lisbon summit. If he had done so, he would have seen that it was not techno-babble of any kind, European or British. It provides specific deadlines by which specific action must be taken: this year, a legal framework for e-commerce; next year, a fully liberalised telecommunications market; by 2001, a Community-wide patent; by 2003, electronic access to all public services. Those measures are sought and wanted by business. Thanks to the Government, they have been secured within Europe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |