123
[Mr. Hurd]
Foreign Affairs and Defence
19 NOVEMBER 1993
which have been in place will remain in force. We are consulting our international partners on the further steps that may be needed in response to that backward step.
I know that hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak about our aid programme. In many of the areas to which I have referred, our efforts towards peace and stability are much more effective because they are buttressed by development aid. Last year, our aid programme was the sixth largest in the world. There are constraints on it, and not just the constraints from the public spending round that is now in course. Not the least of those is the amount of money that we are committed to contribute through the multilateral agencies. Over 20 per cent. of our aid goes through the EC and another slice goes through the United Nations and its agencies. Only 53 per cent. of our aid goes bilaterally. We are adapting to those realities.
I hope that the House will agree that British aid is now rarely spent on big infrastructure projects such as dams and power generation projects, which the international and multilateral aid organisations are often better equipped to cover. Our bilateral programme focuses increasingly on encouraging good governance and economic liberalism.
Of course, we will go on giving down-to-earth, quick, and effective help to the victims of poverty and disaster. We have just committed £10 million to help those who are in need in Angola. The third British flight in as many weeks has arrived in Luanda carrying food, tents, and blankets. Our team of 10 nurses in Angola has this week completed a programme of immunisation for children who are most at risk of disease.
I have touched only sketchily-although I have spoken for nearly 40 minutes-on some of the troubles of the world and I have set out what we are trying to achieve. We have to identify and use our assets; the primacy of our language and our broadcasters, our respected aid programme, our financial skills, our diplomatic service, and our highly professional armed forces. We shall continue to deploy those assets and to make use of those in which we are strongest to protect and advance the interests of Britain and to strengthen the alliances and international institutions on which our wealth and safety depend.
10.14 am
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland): I will begin by reassuring the Foreign Secretary that, whatever else I may chide him about in the next 30 minutes, it will not be for his refusal to make a 30 or 40 minute speech of 40 one-sentence, one-line issues. The House will recognise that that would not have been a sensible way to proceed, although it would have been eminently possible given the major issues which affect the world.
We could, for example, have a whole day's debate on Hong Kong, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with the Leader of the House whether we could have debate on that subject before the final and perhaps irrevocable steps are taken by the governor in terms of presenting legislation in Hong Kong.
The Queen's Speech sets out the broad statement of the Government's foreign policy objectives at the beginning of the Session. It is interesting to compare and contrast yesterday's Gracious Speech with the one that was made on 6 May 1992. The speeches must have come from the same disk and the same word processor.
Foreign Affairs and Defence
124
The single but important exceptione Covernment's announcement that they intend to introduce legislation to place the secret intelligence service and the Government communications headquarters on a statutory basis. The first two pages of the speeches 18 months ago and yesterday are virtually identical. It is opportune for us to look ahead to what will present problems and challenges to Her Majesty's Government during the current Session. It is also reasonable for us to look back to the objectives which were set out by the right hon. Gentleman 18 months ago and to measure the Government's performance in that period against those objectives.
I expect that hon. Members of all parties will welcome warmly the decision in respect of the SIS and GCHQ. The decision that they should be put on a statutory basis is long overdue. I also welcome the decision to make provision for the oversight and accountability of those organisations, as well as the security service, MI5. We welcome that in principle, but we will reserve judgment on the proposals for oversight and scrutiny until they have been published. We will want to examine the legislation in some detail.
I feel strongly that powers should exist in the House, perhaps under a special Committee, for such oversight and scrutiny. I want to emphasise also, although it is a slightly separate issue, that we feel strongly that the Government are long overdue in restoring the right to belong to democratic and free trade unions to the people who are employed at GCHQ.
The rest of the Queen's Speech is largely a repetition of what we heard 18 months ago. How has the Government's performance matched up to what the right hon. Gentleman said when he spoke in the similar debate on 8 May 1992? During that debate, he talked about Cyprus and Turkey, about Libya and Iraq, about the European Community, about Government policy on Hong Kong, and several other important issues.
Effective foreign policy should be based on consistency and coherence, on trust in the international community, on -inevitably-economic strength, on fairness, and on respect for countries' actions and decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged-at least in part-it should also be based on an effective and generous overseas aid programme.
I wish to refer to Europe and the decisions made at the most recent meeting under the Belgian presidency in Brussels on 29 October this year. The right hon. Gentleman and the European Community have been involved in discussions on the situation in the former Yugoslavia for 18 months. In that time, what changes have occurred? Has progress been made? Have things improved? They have not improved in terms of the brutal conflict. I share the belief of the right hon. Gentleman in the culpability of the political leaders of all parties who have continued to fight when they have had endless opportunities to reach agreement. That view is common. The reality is that in terms of Her Majesty's Government acting on their own or together with their European partners, the situation has not improved.
The declaration on the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina was issued several weeks ago now-on 29 October. That declaration, in common with other declarations made by the European Union, as it now is, and with resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council, may change little: such declarations and resolutions are rarely, if ever, implemented. I do not believe that, in reality, the way in which we and our partners approach the tragedy in
84 CD54/6 Job 2-6