HL Deb 10 July 1995 vol 565 cc1376-8

3.3 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied that the £5.9 million EC aid package to the Chinese Government for the Pa Nam Integrated Rural Development Project in Tibet, as approved by the European Commission on 19th October 1994, is not contributing to the Chinese colonisation of Tibet, and what means exist for Her Majesty's Government to prevent such Commission aid projects in the event of their disapproval.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, the European Commission aid proposed is intended to benefit the indigenous Tibetans and not to promote Han Chinese migration into the region. Individual EU projects are approved by qualified majority voting. A blocking minority of the member states is therefore required to prevent a project going forward.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full Answer. But given that the European Union's position on aid is that aid to politically and environmentally sensitive areas should be channelled through non-governmental organisations, do the Government agree that, by any standards, Tibet is an environmentally and politically sensitive area and that aid should be channelled through those NGOs rather than through a bilateral deal between the European Commission and China?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, my noble friend will be well aware that I am extremely keen to use non-governmental organisations whenever it is relevant to do so. There is no laid-down European policy such as he describes. In this case, some nine months ago the United Kingdom was one of the first member states to express anxiety about the Pa Nam Project. We insisted that there should be a permanent monitoring unit which is now being set up for that project, although the final go-ahead for it has not yet been agreed. The Commission has recently been in close contact with European NGOs who have experience of Tibet, including the UK Tibet Support Group, Save the Children Fund and Médecins Sans Frontières. It has now asked two UK NGOs to advise on suitable consultants for a possible further appraisal mission. That further appraisal mission will give us information. On that basis, the working group will look again at the project before deciding whether or not to proceed.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give us some indication as to which way Her Majesty's Government voted on the proposals? Were they part of the blocking minority? May we have a little transparency on that? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that in the field of foreign affairs the United Kingdom has wider obligations to the preservation of international law and the fate of individual nations which arise not from the Community but from membership of the Security Council of the United Nations?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, first, there was absolutely no vote on this matter. I made it quite clear that the United Kingdom was one of the first member states to express anxiety when the project was first discussed. It was because of our anxiety that indigenous Tibetan people should benefit from the project that the matter was considered further. The point about the project is that the Chinese are funding some 65 per cent. of the total project cost, including the main irrigation works. The remaining 35 per cent. of the costs, if the project goes ahead with EC funding, will be for veterinary, agricultural and water engineering advice to make sure that it benefits indigenous Tibetans. That is as transparent as I can be about the situation. I should say further to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that he is right that foreign and security policy is part of the third pillar, and long may it stay there.

Lord Weatherill

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are grave doubts about the project and it is feared that it will benefit the Chinese more than the Tibetans. Would it not be better for the Tibetans to direct aid to education and grass-roots projects, which would enable them to compete on more equal terms with the economic and social changes which they face? Will the Government consult the Dalai Lama on such matters because, after all, he is the authentic voice of the Tibetan people?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, we well know that the Tibetan people are not opposed to overseas aid provided that it benefits Tibetans. The only reason that the European Community may be involved in this project is in order to ensure that other works that are going on benefit indigenous Tibetans. If the European Community does not contribute 35 per cent. of the total cost to the project, I am told that the Chinese will go ahead with it in any event. It seems to me that if we can have, as we have now been assured, the establishment of a proper permanent monitoring unit and provided that the work is done for the benefit of the indigenous Tibetans, we are likely, by being involved, to have more influence over what the Chinese are doing than by standing aside.