HL Deb 28 October 1997 vol 582 cc993-1003

4 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The Statement is as follows:

"Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Edinburgh from 24th October to 27th October, the first such meeting in Britain for 20 years. Labour was in power the last time the meeting was held in this country, and I am delighted that a Labour Government were able to welcome Commonwealth Heads back to Britain. Fifty-one member states attended the meeting, 43 represented by Heads of State or Prime Ministers—the largest ever gathering of Commonwealth Heads. We also welcomed Fiji back to the Commonwealth.

"I would like to thank the people of Scotland, and Edinburgh in particular, for the warm welcome they gave my fellow Heads of Government and their delegations and for their hospitality. I believe they helped to show a new face of Britain to the world.

"Her Majesty the Queen was able to address a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting for the first time. The warmth of the welcome she was given was a tribute to the regard in which she is held by Commonwealth Governments all over the world.

"Also for the first time, a Commonwealth Business Forum was held immediately before the Heads of Government Meeting. It reflected the clear focus of the meeting on economic issues, in particular trade, investment and development. After an excellent debate we were able to agree the Edinburgh Commonwealth Economic Declaration on "Promoting Shared Prosperity". This demonstrates the unique role the Commonwealth can play in bringing together developed and developing countries in this area. This declaration, the first of its kind, sets out economic principles shared by the Commonwealth, to match the political principles on good government and human rights set out in the Harare Declaration of 1991.

"The declaration marks real progress in four areas: first, agreement that the Commonwealth should be a force for freer trade in the world. In particular, we supported the expansion of duty-free market access for exports from the least developed countries, the need for adequate successor arrangements for ACP banana exporters and a study of steps to increase trade between Commonwealth countries.

"Secondly, we recognised the important role the private sector has to play. We strongly supported the conclusions of the Business Forum, and in particular the decision to establish a business council to facilitate contact between businesses across the Commonwealth. We also agreed on the benefits international investment can bring and decided to finalise a code of good practice for Commonwealth Governments to encourage private investment.

"I attended the launch of a new South Asia Regional Fund in the margins of the meeting. The fund should provide some 200 million US dollars from the Commonwealth Development Corporation, countries of the region and others to promote investment in south Asia. I particularly welcome this example of regional co-operation. The Government also intend that the CDC itself should develop a new relationship with the private sector. This will give it increased funds for investment; and the proceeds from the sale of shares in CDC will be ploughed straight back into the development programme.

"Thirdly, we endorsed the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 and emphasised the importance of substantial and swift debt relief in achieving this. This built on the valuable work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Mauritius Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting and the target of ensuring that every highly indebted poor country is launched on the process of debt reduction by the year 2000. The UK is willing to cancel aid debts of lower income Commonwealth countries totalling £132 million provided they follow sensible economic policies. We have already made formal offers to seven countries with debts of £18 million. Discussions have started with others.

"Fourthly, the meeting sent a strong message to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference in December that all countries, both developed and developing, will need to play a role in achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, I was able to announce that the Government will provide an additional £3 million for the Commonwealth's Iwokrama rainforest project in Guyana.

"On the political side, Commonwealth Heads reaffirmed their commitment to the Harare Principles on good governance and human rights and agreed that any future Commonwealth members must meet the Harare criteria. We agreed that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group set up at Millbrook in 1995 should continue to deal with serious and persistent violations of the Harare Principles.

"The meeting spent some time discussing our approach to the Nigerian regime. We unanimously agreed to continue the suspension of Nigeria. This excludes Nigeria from all Commonwealth activity.

"The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group now has delegated power to invoke a number of specified measures, if the group decides these would further the process of transition and respect for human rights in Nigeria. These include visa restrictions, withdrawal of military attaches, the cessation of military training, an embargo on the export of arms and the downgrading of diplomatic missions and cultural links.

"In addition, after 1st October 1998, the action group will assess whether Nigeria has satisfactorily completed its transition programme. If this assessment is negative, Heads of Government will consider Nigeria's expulsion from the Commonwealth and the introduction of further measures, such as a mandatory oil embargo.

"I believe these measures, taken together, send a clear and strong message to the Nigerian Government from all the members of the Commonwealth: if they do not improve substantially their respect for human rights and move back to democracy, they face severe sanctions.

"Heads of Government strongly condemned the military coup in Sierra Leone and decided to continue the suspension of the military regime from Commonwealth meetings. We also called for the immediate reinstatement of President Kabbah, the legitimate Head of State, whom I welcomed to the meeting as my special guest.

"A final communiqué reflecting our discussions was issued at the end of our meeting yesterday morning. Copies of this and the economic declaration are available in the Library of the House.

"In conclusion, I am pleased to report to the House that there was a remarkable degree of agreement at Edinburgh on both economic and political questions. Many Heads said that it was the most harmonious CHOGM for many years. I believe that the Commonwealth is needed now more than ever. It bridges the gap between developed and developing and provides a forum for co-operation and joint endeavour; and it provides a strong moral lead in a world where basic human rights are too often under threat.

"I also believe that this CHOGM was a success. The Commonwealth has a new focus on economic issues. It is showing the rest of the world the way on environmental problems such as climate change. It is setting an example in the field of human rights—our action on Nigeria makes clear that the Commonwealth will not tolerate undemocratic behaviour and human rights abuses among its ranks.

"At Edinburgh, my fellow Heads of Government and I began a process of change to prepare the Commonwealth to face the challenges of the 21st century. A renewed Commonwealth will be a force for good in the world. I look forward to this process being taken further before our next meeting in South Africa in 1999."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.9 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement with his usual clarity and deliberation. There is very much in the Statement that noble Lords on this side of the House welcome, not least the apparent emphasis on the respect in which the Queen is held by the Commonwealth. We also welcome unreservedly the return of Fiji to Commonwealth ranks. We are particularly pleased that the Statement underlines the importance of economic issues and free trade. All of us know in our heart of hearts that trade rather than aid is usually more effective. Equally, we understand that if that is to work the rich countries, perhaps more than others, must sign up to the principles of access to their own markets by countries of the third world. We also welcome the South Asia Regional Fund and the Commonwealth Development Corporation's new relationship with the private sector. Equally, we are pleased to see what the Statement says about the message to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference. We also welcome the reaffirmation of the Harare principles.

The Commonwealth has always been held to be important in the rhetoric of governments of both parties. I do not emphatically make a partisan point when I say that sometimes it is perhaps more undervalued than the rhetoric suggests, as evidenced by the priorities in policy. I believe that the matters I have mentioned are a constructive move on the part of the Government, and we welcome them.

However, the Lord Privy Seal might regard my response as uncharacteristic if I did not carp a little. There is not a great deal that is new in what the Lord Privy Seal has reported to the House. That is very different from the Prime Minister's rhetoric. It is clear from the speech of the Prime Minister that the word "new" was an integral part of his rhetoric in Edinburgh as it has been since well before the general election. He has said: There is a new British identity: modern, enterprising, outward, open and compassionate … the new Britain is a meritocracy where we break down the barriers of class, race and religion", etc., etc. One can compare this with the wording of the Labour manifesto: New Labour. Because Britain deserves better … I believe Britain can and must be better … We will modernise Britain … Under the Conservatives Britain's influence has waned … The tragedy of the Conservative years has been a squandering of Britain's assets and the loss of Britain's influence", etc., etc. I admit to the Lord Privy Seal that that is entirely consistent. However, I ask the Lord Privy Seal to speculate and tell us what has happened in the past six months since 1st May when this remarkable transformation from a weakened and declining influence to a modern and enterprising power has taken place. If the Lord Privy Seal says that it is due entirely to the rhetoric of the Government I shall beg to differ from that diagnosis. I hope that he will be able to give a more convincing explanation than the one that I have just suggested.

I should like to put a number of questions to the Lord Privy Seal. First, is he disappointed that in spite of the recognition of the benefits of free trade that I have clearly welcomed this afternoon there is no explicit endorsement of a new round of trade negotiations? Can he elaborate upon that? Can one look forward to something more concrete than that which is contained in the Statement? Secondly, in that context will the Government ensure that any transitional measures that may flow from these initiatives will not transmogrify themselves into protectionist measures, their transitional element somehow becoming lost in the protectionist instincts which all too lightly come out in initiatives of this kind? Thirdly, can the Lord Privy Seal inform the House how far the criteria to be used to judge Nigeria's return to the fold will apply also to other Commonwealth countries? Are we on the way to the achievement of a common standard for all countries? If the answer to that question is yes, how will that standard be applied?

The final part of the Statement expressly says that the conference was a huge success. I do not believe that it can be judged to be a signal success in every respect—perhaps not nearly as much as the Statement implies. Before it began one heard many fine words about the Government's good intentions. Unfortunately, that is becoming a depressingly familiar pattern. Yet again, words have not been matched by the application of appropriate deeds that are consistent with the rhetoric. I say "appropriate" because regrettably the conference was marred by a certain high-handedness on the part of the British Government, perhaps building on the no doubt invigorating experience of the Foreign Secretary in India. I do not wish to teach my grandmother to suck eggs. However, it must be obvious to the Lord Privy Seal that government-to-government meetings should be approached with due humility and a readiness to listen. Clearly, what happened in Edinburgh was something very different. It began with the Prime Minister's somewhat curious boast that he would create a new Commonwealth for the 21st century and the unedifying spectacle of the leaders of so many countries being treated to what was, frankly, a rather tawdry promotional video for Britain and New Labour. Would it not have been more tactful to remember that it was a Commonwealth Conference and not a Labour Party promotional campaign?

The conference ended with the Prime Minister being forced into another humiliating apology for the behaviour of his spin doctors who had, we are told, offended Commonwealth leaders by giving more attention to British domestic affairs than those of the Commonwealth in their press briefings and disclosing the contents of confidential bilateral talks between heads of government. It was depressing to hear representatives of some of this country's oldest and firmest friends in the Commonwealth complaining about the patronising and arrogant attitude of Britain. It does not altogether surprise us in our diagnosis of the shortcomings of this Government. Unfortunately, we have had to endure it since 1st May. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to admit that the Government got it wrong. I hope that in future he will pay greater attention to ensuring that the important details are got right and that less time is spent polishing the new Labour image.

The word "family" is most usually used in conjunction with "Commonwealth". Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that at successful family gatherings individual members of the family promote their own domestic agendas with the greatest restraint? This sad episode is yet another example of much good emerging from the Commonwealth Conference being in the end marred by the Government's incompetence born of inexperience.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in thanking the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement in another place. I do not wholly join with him in his remarks about the character of the conference. I noted that the Prime Minister reported that other heads of government had declared the conference to be one of the most harmonious Commonwealth Conferences for many years. I freely concede that as someone who 20 years ago played a reasonably active part in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference held in the United Kingdom at that time. It was certainly a great deal more harmonious than the one I helped to plan.

Having said that, I express a sense of deep disappointment from these Benches that there was not a more decisive view taken on Nigeria by the Commonwealth heads of government.

I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us something about what the heads of government did about human rights in other parts of the Commonwealth? I think, for example, of Kenya and the Cameroon. My other question on that front is to ask what was done and what rules were laid down about the applicants who are rather encouragingly queuing up to become members of the Commonwealth, but whose membership would present certain problems to us.

We welcome the fact that the Commonwealth Action Group is to be turned into what might be called a standing committee. I could call it a kind of Nolan Committee on human rights in the Commonwealth. It will be important for the British Government to give that action group the maximum support, because, in our view, the Commonwealth is nothing if it is not these days about human rights.

We support the thrust of the communiqué on world trade. I agree fully with what the Leader of the Opposition said on that matter. We welcome also the Government's initiatives on the relief of debt for the poorest of the Commonwealth countries. I hope that there will be, as mentioned in the communiqué, an effective special dispensation within the world trade pattern for the Commonwealth banana producers, and other similar groups, affected by the changes in the pattern of world trade.

I make two final points. The first relates to a matter that was raised on the margins of the conference; that is, the Lockerbie air disaster. From these Benches we support fully the Foreign Secretary's persistence in the view that those alleged in Libya to have had complicity in that disaster should face their trial in Scotland, where the Scottish judicial tradition could assure the rest of the world that there would be an absolutely fair trial. I hope that we shall stand firm on that position.

Finally, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in his tribute to Her Majesty the Queen who, in my view—I speak as Britain's last separate Commonwealth Secretary of State—over the many years of her reign has done so much to keep the Commonwealth meaningful in a modern world—a multi-racial community of nations, promoting human rights and seeking to erode human poverty.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am obliged to the Leader of the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for the partial welcome they gave to the Statement. I listened with great interest to the noble Viscount, as indeed I always do. I started by taking somewhat copious notes of what he had to say. Then predictably he said, "I must carp a little". If your Lordships will forgive me, at that stage I stopped taking such detailed notes of what he was saying, because, I am afraid, it was woefully predictable.

The fact is—the noble Viscount may not wish to recognise it—that not only do we think that this was a highly successful heads of government meeting, but all the other heads of government who were at Edinburgh thought that it was a highly successful heads of government meeting. The picture that the Leader of the Opposition painted of an arrogant British Government going around upsetting the rest of the Commonwealth, is frankly unrecognisable from what took place.

Viscount Cranborne

Did he apologise?

Lord Richard

My Lords, some solid achievements came out of Edinburgh. I am glad that in part of what he had to say the noble Viscount recognised that. I was asked three questions by him. The first was about further negotiations with the WTO. Surely the important fact is that the economic communiqué clearly endorsed moves towards freer trade. I am not here to disclose the details of the negotiations that led up to the communiqué. It would be foolish were I to do so. The noble Viscount saw fit to lecture us on how to conduct international conferences. I will say one thing to him: the way not to conduct international conferences is to disclose what goes on in the negotiations when conferences are concluded. There is a clear commitment in the communiqué towards freer trade. The noble Viscount asked that transitional measures should not be protectionist. I concur.

I was asked about Nigeria both by him and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Perhaps I should read what was said in the communiqué about Nigeria. I was asked also about the terms of reference and operation of the CMAG. I shall deal with that first. The communiqué states: Heads of Government reviewed the composition, terms of reference and operation of CMAG. They decided that CMAG should continue its work as a standing ministerial mechanism to address serious and persistent violations of the principles of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. They agreed that CMAG should, in the two-year period after the Edinburgh CHOGM, consist of the following countries". It is interesting to note the membership of that group: Barbados, Botswana, Britain, Canada, Ghana, Malaysia, New Zealand and Zimbabwe. They further agreed"— and this, I think, is the answer to the noble Viscount's point— that in future CMAG's remit should extend to member countries deemed to be in serious or persistent violation of the Harare principles, on the basis of established guidelines. They decided that the Commonwealth Secretary-General, acting on his/her own or at the request of a member government, should bring the situation in question to the attention of the CMAG membership. which would then include it or otherwise in its work programme in the light of its guiding principles". That is new. With the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, it is important. It means that the Commonwealth Secretary-General is being given, so to speak, an interventionist role which he did not have before to the CMAG which consists of that large and diverse number of countries.

I shall deal with Nigeria itself. What is it that we want to see so far as concerns Nigeria? I believe that it is clear. As a minimum, as my right honourable friend said in another place, we want to see the release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, General Obasanjo and the others. We want to see the early resolution of the case of the 20 Ogonis facing the same charges as Mr. Saro-Wiwa and others. Most importantly, we want to see a free and fair transition to civilian democratic rule in a way that allows all those who wish to do so to participate. We will work closely with the CMAG and our EU partners to keep pressure on the Nigerian regime to reform. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that we had not done enough. Perhaps he will forgive me if I describe what powers the CMAG now has in relation to Nigeria. The communiqué states: Heads of Government also empowered CMAG to invoke, in the period before 1 October 1998, Commonwealth-wide implementation of any or all of the measures recommended by CMAG if, in CMAG's view, these would serve to encourage greater integrity of the process of transition and respect for human rights in Nigeria. These included: visa restrictions on members of the Nigerian regime and their families; the withdrawal of military attaches: the cessation of military training; an embargo on the export of arms; the denial of educational facilities to members of the Nigerian regime and their families; a visa-based ban on all sporting contacts; a downgrading of cultural links; and the downgrading of diplomatic missions". In other words, that is what can be done between now and 1st October 1998. The communiqué continues; Heads of Government agreed that, following I October 1998, CMAG should assess whether Nigeria had satisfactorily completed a credible programme for the restoration of democracy and civilian government. They further agreed that if, in that assessment, Nigeria had completed a credible transition to democratic government … then the suspension will be lifted and if not and it remained in serious violation of the Harare principles, Heads of Government would consider Nigeria's expulsion from the association and the introduction of further measures in consultation with other members of the international community… Such measures would include a mandatory oil embargo, a ban on air-links with Nigeria and the freezing of the financial assets and bank accounts in foreign countries of members of the regime and their families.". With great respect, I believe that that is a sensible way to proceed. Certain sanctions can be applied between now and next October if, in the opinion of the ministerial action group, that would assist the transition to democratic rule. The heads of government have accepted that no such transition could well result in Nigeria's expulsion from the Commonwealth and the introduction of further sanctions.

I was asked a specific question about criteria for membership of the Commonwealth. It remains the same. There must have been a constitutional association between the country applying and one of the other members. In addition, there must be compliance with the Harare principles. As regards Palestine, if in accordance with the Oslo settlement it moves to independent sovereignty and there is such a thing as a sovereign Palestinian entity, an application to the Commonwealth from such an entity would be considered in accordance with the basic principles, just as any other applicant country would be considered.

4.31 p.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, does the Lord Privy Seal agree—and I am sure that he does—that the Commonwealth Conference, with its emphasis on investment flows and market access, marks the continuation of the process which has evolved during the past two years of a steady upgrading in the Commonwealth of the priorities of British foreign policy? That is most welcome. Indeed, the process has evolved since a Select Committee in another place recommended that it should be the procedure and I am glad that that has been the response.

Does the noble Lord further agree that far from the Commonwealth being an outdated grouping it is quietly evolving as one of the most fascinatingly modern networks in modern world conditions? It provides a trans-regional set of connections and a common business culture which are not available from the United Nations or any particular trade bloc. That, too, is welcome.

Given the new opportunities and the fact that we are seeing the Commonwealth as a resource and not as an old-fashioned reunion, and given that we want Commonwealth members to speak up for us in the world's new trade groupings—for example, APAC and ASEAN—what are we doing to speak up more effectively for the Commonwealth in the European Union, as we have in the past and as I believe we should?

Lord Richard

My Lords, I share the noble Lord's views. The Government are conscious of the responsibilities that they owe to their fellow Commonwealth members. As regards negotiations inside the European Union, we stated in the communiqu… that we shall do everything we can to ensure that, for example, the position of the Caribbean banana producers is assured in the light of the rulings of the World Trade Organisation.

As regards the way in which the Commonwealth should now be approached, it is not often a chairman can say with conviction, "I was right", as the noble Lord can. His committee was right and I hope that we are continuing the process successfully.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I welcome the Chancellor's debt initiative. However, is there a plan not only to help countries with their economic policy but, following the Harare Declaration, to have broader policies of democracy and good governance? One of the ways in which debts can be reincurred is through bad governance. Is there any such hope either through the Commonwealth Secretariat or through Her Majesty's Government?

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am not sure that I totally understood the question. If my noble friend is asking me whether there are any proposals for encouraging democracy in individual countries, the answer is only in the most general sense of the word and through the existing Commonwealth institutions. It would not be sensible for the Commonwealth to embark on a democratic education programme of all the member countries. On the other hand, severe sanctions are available to it if a country is in persistent and serious breach of the Harare Declaration. On that the Commonwealth was totally agreed.

Viscount Waverley

My Lords, I, too, unreservedly congratulate the meeting on its economic agenda, in particular the debt and development issues relating to small states. Will the Government follow through issues relating to banana quotas, which I trust will continue to feature in a successor Lom… agreement?

Lord Richard

My Lords, I have made it clear that we will continue our policy in relation to banana producers. I hope that it proves successful.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, was there any discussion on accession to the Commonwealth of countries which are in the queue to join? Is there any procedure for accepting and acknowledging the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and what functions are or might be implicit in such a procedure?

Lord Richard

My Lords, in order for a country to become a member of the Commonwealth three things must be in place. First, it must have had a constitutional association with another member of the Commonwealth. Secondly, it must have a regime which is consonant with the Harare principles, as set out in the declaration. Thirdly—and I omitted to mention it earlier—it must recognise the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth. If those conditions are satisfied the application will be received and considered in the usual way.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, I am obliged for that answer. Is there a formula whereby a newly acceding country recognises the Queen as Head of State? Is there a set formula or occasion for that purpose?

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am not sufficiently "protocolaire" to know whether there is a precise sentence which the head of the incoming state Must utter. Certainly, the new state must accept the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, how does Mozambique fulfil the condition that there must have been a constitutional association with an existing member of the Commonwealth? Secondly, in the light of the interest which Members of this House recently showed in the remaining British dependencies, is there any prospect of them being collectively represented in future Commonwealth gatherings?

Lord Richard

My Lords, I know of no proposed mechanism whereby the dependent territories should be "coalesced" into one set of representatives at the Commonwealth Conference. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.

As regards Mozambique, perhaps the Commonwealth heads of government decided to admit it in the light of the conditions which were then prevalent and had been prevalent in southern Africa and the fact that there were a large number of Commonwealth countries in southern Africa. It was a practical and pragmatic decision which this Government would not wish to reverse.