| Home Page |
Column 995
House of Commons
Wednesday 28 October 1992
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
Visitors (Information)
1. Mr. Etherington : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that visitors to the United Kingdom are properly informed by British consulates of possible apprehension when arriving in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : A guidance leaflet is available in British missions overseas explaining the requirements of the immigration rules, which all visitors must satisfy.
Mr. Etherington : Does not the Minister agree that when a citizen of Papua New Guinea is reassured about entry on no fewer than three occasions- -twice in the company of one of my constituents who probably speaks English better than I do--it is deplorable that she should be treated as if she were an illegal immigrant on her arrival in this country? Rather than talk about leaflets, pamphlets and guidance, should not the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ensure that consular staff are fully aware of the conditions for entering Britain, so that such a deplorable incident does not happen again?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The hon. Gentleman asked about the steps that we take to make known Britain's immigration policy, and we do that which I described. The hon. Gentleman refers to the case of Mrs. Mea, and I shall be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman in private all that I know about it. However, that case is subject to appeal and is therefore sub judice, so I cannot comment on it here.
Western European Union
2. Mr. Wilkinson : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on progress he has made in enhancing the role of Western European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : The WEU is likely shortly to be enlarged to include Greece aa full member ; Turkey, Norway and Iceland as associates with rights of full participation ; and Ireland as an observer. The WEU is
Column 996
rapidly developing a military operational role, complementing that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and drawing on a wide range of national and NATO forces.Mr. Wilkinson : I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about enlargement, which can only strengthen the European dimension of western alliance security. It is regrettable, however, that the Government appear to be so preoccupied with putting Britain at the heart of Europe that they acquiesced in the WEU council's move from London to Brussels, when county hall provided an ideal site for not only the council but the assembly. Locating the council in London ensured that the Government had a direct input into European security matters.
Mr. Hogg : I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the core of our defence relations and arrangements is NATO, and it is sensible that the WEU should be sited close to that organisation.
Mr. Hardy : Does not the Minister agree that if the council's move from Grosvenor place to Brussels and all the other changes that we are hearing about are not accompanied by consistency and sensible awareness throughout Europe, that transfer and those changes may prove highly disadvantageous?
Mr. Hogg : The hon. Member is right to say that there should be continuity and consistency. I welcome that part of the WEU declaration made at Maastricht and article J of the Maastricht treaty, which makes it plain that the WEU and its functions must be compatible with NATO and NATO obligations.
Mr. Jessel : As defence is an end in itself, in keeping our people free and safe--and that is surely the first duty of any Government--and as my right hon. and learned Friend said that NATO must be the main bastion of our defences, how will they be strengthened by making the WEU in any way answerable to the European Community or obliged to consult it?
Mr. Hogg : My hon. Friend knows well the provisions of article J.4 in particular, and will have read carefully the WEU declaration made at Maastricht. He will appreciate that NATO is the core of our defence arrangements and that anything done within the WEU must be compatible with existing NATO arrangements.
Mr. George Robertson : Is the Minister aware that one of the demands in the list of Danish proposals presented today is for an opt-out on the WEU and defence sections of the Maastricht treaty? Will he confirm that a definitive answer could not possibly be given before the Edinburgh summit, as the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said on BBC television's "One O'clock News"?
Mr. Hogg : As I have not been involved in the negotiations, I cannot give an answer to that effect.
Middle East Peace Talks
3. Mr. Carrington : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace talks between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
Column 997
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : The seventh round of bilateral negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbours started in Washington on 21 October. I understand that the atmosphere has improved considerably since the Israeli elections. Some progress was made in the last round, especially in the negotiations between Israel and both the Syrians and the Palestinians. We have urged all parties to show courage and flexibility in their efforts to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the dispute.
Mr. Carrington : Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the slow progress of the talks? Does he accept that time is running out for them to reach a successful conclusion? Will he put renewed pressure on all the parties concerned, to ensure that they recognise the importance of securing a just solution to the Palestinian problems before much longer?
Mr. Hurd : I agree with my hon. Friend, although I feel that the progress that has been made should not be understated. Currently, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing proposals for interim self-government in the occupied territories with an authority on interim self-government : that is what is happening on the Palestinian side. We believe that the proposals should be studied seriously, although without prejudice to the final status of the territories. Negotiations on that would start during the third year of the five-year interim period.
Sir David Steel : I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will acknowledge that I am normally very complimentary to Foreign Office Ministers, but where was the sense in the Minister of State's refusal to meet such a distinguished Palestinian representative as the mayor of Bethlehem, at a time when we should all be encouraging maximum dialogue?
Mr. Hurd : No difficulty is involved in my right hon. Friend the Minister's meeting the mayor of Bethlehem ; the problem concerns the level at which we should hold discussions with the PLO. We have talked about that problem before.
We hold discussions with the PLO : our ambassador in Tunis often has discussions with its members. The question is at what level, and with what purpose, such discussions should be raised to a ministerial level. There is a considerable background history to his, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why we take the stand that we are taking.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that heavy- handed bombing and shelling of Lebanese villages do nothing to help the cause of peace in the middle east? Does not the basic problem arise from the fact that Israel has continued to occupy a slice of Lebanese territory following her invasion, which has inevitably stirred up a hornets' nest of opposition among those who happen to live in the area?
Mr. Hurd : As my hon. Friend knows, we could start the argument at two different points. I think that the only sensible reaction for us is to deplore the renewed violence in both southern Lebanon and northern Israel, and to say that all concerned have a responsibility for restoring calm. Those with influence over Hezbollah should use that
Column 998
influence to prevent any further murderous attacks in northern Israel. Equally, we call on Israel not to retaliate further.Mr. Grocott : Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the American presidential election and its aftermath should not be used as a reason for any delay in the middle east peace process? Surely, far from delay, what is needed is acceleration of the peace process so that parties to it can show their supporters that there are some tangible benefits--and can also show anyone who is doubtful about the process that the only way towards lasting peace in the middle east is a meeting around the negotiating table.
Mr. Hurd : The hon. Member, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), is quite right. This process is precious and must be kept going, regardless of the coming and going of Governments. That is crucial. There has been progress between the Syrians and Israel and between the Palestinians and Israel and it is essential that the impetus is retained. We shall do anything that we can to help to support the process and to keep that impetus going.
Iraq
4. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had recently with Governments in the area concerning the problems faced by the Shia communities in Iraq : and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Douglas Hogg : We are in close contact with the Governments in the area. Most recently, in New York, in September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed with Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Iran and most other Gulf states humanitarian problems in Iraq, among other issues. We have always made it clear that repression of the Shia and other members of Iraq's civilian population is deplorable and must cease, as called for in United Nations Security Council resolution 688.
Mr. Rathbone : Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House about the efficacy of the exclusion zone over the territories in southern Iraq, where the Shia community are living and where they have suffered so horrendously? Will he comment on any contacts that the Government have had with the Iraq national congress, which is meeting all this week and which draws together for the first time all the parties that are in opposition to Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hogg : There have been various contacts with the congress. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the meeting that is taking place in north Iraq at the moment, to which we are willing to send a United Kingdom adviser. On the no-fly zone in south Iraq--there is a difference between a no-fly zone and an exclusion zone--there has been, as far as we can judge, a reduction in the Iraqi Government's repressive action against the people in south Iraq, but I am bound to say that the position is still disturbing.
Column 999
Human Rights Abuses (Children)
4. Mr. Tony Lloyd : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other Governments about human rights abuses involving children.
Mr. Douglas Hogg : We have discussed human rights abuses involving children with our European Community partners. We are planning to introduce a resolution on street children at the current session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Mr. Lloyd : I thank the Minister for that answer, which perhaps was positive in one respect. Where there is undeniable evidence, as there is, that Government agencies in countries such as Guatemala and Brazil are involved in the murder of children on the streets, the international community has a responsibility to make those nations understand their pariah status. On a more controversial note, is it acceptable to the Government that Britain should be importing coal from a country such as Colombia, which uses children to mine it?
Mr. Hogg : The substance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, of course, quite right. We have made representations to the Governments of Brazil and Guatemala on the matters to which he referred. As I said in my substantive answer, we shall introduce a resolution on street children in the currest session of the General Assembly. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my understanding is that no coal that has been produced by child labour has been imported into the United Kingdom.
Mr. Nigel Evans : I am delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's response on human rights, particularly as it affects children. Can he tell the House how successful Britain has been in leading our European Community colleagues on this matter? It is one of the areas where we can act better as 12 rather than acting alone.
Mr. Hogg : I think that that is correct, in the sense that we need to be active in every international forum that we can identify. Moreover, we can take action through our bilateral aid programmes to hold back developmental aid from countries where there are serious human rights abuses. Again, we must be realistic and must recognise that those countries where there are serious human rights abuses are often impervious to appeals to reason.
Mrs. Mahon : Surely the Minister has read that Dr. Arango, who is head of the coal industry in Colombia, has admitted that children mine coal there. What will the Minister do, therefore, to stop importing that coal, which is mined at the expense of children?
Mr. Hogg : The hon. Lady was not listening to what I said. I did not say that coal in Colombia was not, on occasion, produced by child labour ; I said clearly that my understanding was that we have not imported from Colombia any coal produced by child labour. The hon. Lady does herself no credit by failing to listen.
Column 1000
South Africa
6. Mr Pike : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding progress to a post-apartheid system of government.
Mr. Hurd : Despite a tragic drought, most countries of the region are going through what we believe is a hopeful period of political and economic change. Stability in South Africa is crucial for the region as a whole. Last month I went there with the troika of EC Foreign Ministers. We discussed with President de Klerk and other political leaders practical ways to help reduce violence and encourage an early resumption of the constitutional negotiations.
Mr. Pike : We all wish to see the negotiations back in session and proceeding rapidly, but we all realise that the time for those negotiations is being eroded. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that the only solution to the problem of ending apartheid that will be acceptable to a British Government is one that is acceptable to the majority of people living in South Africa--and that that means the majority of black people?
Mr. Hurd : Of course, any solution must be acceptable to those people, but it must be worked out in the constitutional discussions, which were interrupted because of the violence. That is why we in the Commonwealth and the European Community have taken steps by sending observers to underpin the peace accords. Fifteen EC observers will arrive this week--two of them are British. We already have a British police officer in South Africa, with the Goldstone commission. Those are practical steps which we in this country can take to help those on the spot to deal with the violence, and so bring forward the constitutional discussions which are the only possible way forward.
Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the South African rugby tour of this country should proceed, despite the sudden and unfortunate opposition of the African National Congress-- [Interruption.] Will he also ignore Opposition Members, Bishop Trevor Huddleston and Leeds city council, among others, all of whom seem happy to act as the ANC's toadies in the matter.
Mr. Hurd : I have good news for my hon. Friend. The ANC yesterday publicly confirmed that it had not withdrawn its support for the tour-- [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members are listening. The ANC called on anti-apartheid groups not to disrupt the Springbok tour.
Dr. John Cunningham : First, I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about sending more observers to South Africa. They have a crucial role to play in the progress towards free and fair elections in that country and, ultimately, towards the establishment of a truly democratic state. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to work, by means of his presidency of the EC Council of Ministers, to ensure that more observers are sent. The 15 are welcome, but that is certainly nowhere near enough to oversee the process throughout South Africa. With regard to the imminent South Africa rugby football union tour of Britain, will the right hon.
Column 1001
Gentleman make it clear that, although he has accurately reflected the ANC's position, which I too welcome, the ANC stressed the need for us in Britain and for people everywhere not to reduce the pressure on South Africa, especially on the South African rugby football union, which has made no significant progress towards multiracialism in that sport?Mr. Hurd : The 15 EC observers are only part of the total number, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is also a UN team and there is likely to be a Commonwealth team, too. There may also be an Organisation of African Unity team. The total number of observers underpinning the peace accords may fall short of 100 initially, but it will be far more than 15.
As regards the rugby tour, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirmed what I said about the ANC's attitude, and I hope that, before long, he will be able to confirm that Leeds city council is withdrawing its opposition to the match that is to be played there.
Mr. Hurd : The reason it should is that the ANC, whose lead it follows, has changed that lead and decided that the tour should go ahead.
Maastricht Treaty
7. Mr. Byers : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to renegotiate the Maastricht treaty.
9. Mr. Raynsford : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in respect of the Maastricht treaty.
11. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position on the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Hurd : In Birmingham on 16 October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues, including the Danish Prime Minister, reaffirmed the importance of concluding the ratification of the treaty as soon as possible, without reopening the present text. We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear again yesterday, that the treaty is good for Britain, and we intend to stand by it.
Mr. Byers : Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, whatever the merits of the Maastricht treaty may have been in December 1991, it is clearly not a treaty based on economic growth and job creation and will therefore not lift Europe out of recession? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the depth of public concern about the Maastricht treaty, and is he not aware that, unless the Government indicate a willingness to amend the treaty, they will face defeat in the House next week?
Mr. Hurd : That is something that will be judged by the House and not by the Government. I am well aware of public concern about the recession and unemployment, and that concern is shared in many countries of the Community which, in one way or another, have the same anxieties. What I do know is that, if the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in foreign or, indeed, British
Column 1002
investment in this country, he will not wish to support or vote for a concept of Europe that gives investors the idea that we are half way in and half way out.Mr. Raynsford : If the Foreign Secretary believes that there is a common interest between Britain and Europe in action to get out of recession, why have the British Government, according to today's Financial Times, given a cool reception to the proposals made by the Commission's President yesterday for a concerted European growth programme to get Europe out of recession with measures to tackle the investment shortage and to boost growth and confidence?
Mr. Hurd : I listened to the President of the Commission sketch that idea yesterday. It was not put forward by him or anyone else at the Birmingham summit. What the Birmingham summit did was to reaffirm the policies that the Heads of State or Government gathered there decided offered the best chance of sustainable growth. Those policies are being followed in country after country in the Community. They are based on tackling problems of public borrowing and laying the foundations for an economic recovery that will last. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and it is the policy set out in the Birmingham declaration.
Mr. Winnick : Is the Foreign Secretary fully aware that, in the past few months, opposition to the treaty has grown substantially in the country at large? Why should Tory Members be coerced into voting for the Government's motion next week simply because the Prime Minister wishes to boast at the summit meeting in December that some progress has been made on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? As the Prime Minister is no longer holding out the threat of an early election, which was always an empty threat--I only wish that there would be such an election--why should Tory Members be intimidated in any way into voting against their principles next Wednesday?
Mr. Hurd : I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends have any intention of being intimidated. They know the basis of the treaty. They know the background. They know the discussions and debates that have taken place in the House over the past year and they know the results of those debates and discussions. They know that my right hon. Friend will go to the summit in Edinburgh holding the presidency of the Community ; that 10 member states are clearly on the road to early ratification ; and that the Government of the eleventh, Denmark, have today produced a plan that would enable them to put again to their people the possibility of the recommendation for ratification.
The House will have to decide whether it wants my right hon. Friend to preside over that summit preserving and extending this country's influence over what happens in Europe or whether it does not, and particular responsibility in this matter rests on--among others--the Labour party leadership.
Mr. Dykes : I thank my right hon. Friend for once again re-affirming the Government's determination on a treaty which does not need renegotiating but merely needs supporting. Is that not in contrast to the pathetic loss of courage at the eleventh hour by the Labour Opposition?
Column 1003
Mr. Hurd : I do not know about loss of courage. None of this has so far been confirmed. I read about it in newspapers. The Labour leadership have a choice. Either they stick to the position that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced on television on 27 September and the assurances that they have given to like-minded parties on the continent, or they revert to the traditional Labour policy which the hon. Gentleman inherited--that is, negative, opportunistic, and changing their minds 180 degrees on Europe at regular intervals.
Sir Peter Tapsell : Would it be possible for the document on subsidiarity that the President of the Commission submitted to the Birmingham summit, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in encouraging terms in reply to a question from me last Tuesday, be made available to use, as it seems to be available to a number of parliamentarians in other EEC countries? It would be very helpful if it could be placed in the Library so that we could see what the proposal was and what conclusion is finally reached on this important subject.
Mr. Hurd : I will certainly look into that matter. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals that Mr. Delors put to the Commission for reorganising the way in which the Commission transacts its business so that it complies with subsidiarity from now on without waiting for the treaty to be ratified. As I understand it, that paper has not yet been published or, indeed, formally confirmed by the Commission, but I will look into its status and what is to be done.
Mr. Milligan : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the request put forward by the Danish Government last night can be accommodated by the Community without renegotiating the Maastricht treaty? As Opposition Front- Bench Members have been using a Danish figleaf to disguise the naked nature of party politics, now that the Danish position is clear and eight out of nine parties in the Danish Parliament support it, there is no reason why the Opposition should not support the Government in Wednesday's vote unless they are more interested in party politics than in the future of this country in Europe.
Mr. Hurd : Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the Danish move is strongly positive. Their Folketing Committee has to ratify it and the Danish Minister has to present it to us as the presidency and to other member states. We then have to carry it forward with the aim of reaching agreement on it among the partners in Edinburgh. There is still work to be done. What is clear now but was not clear before, and I hope that the Labour leadership will welcome it, is that the Danish Government, with the support of the great majority of Danish political parties, now have the clear intention, without reopening the text of the treaty--my hon. Friend's point--to seek clarifications which will enable them to put the matter again to the Danish people. That is a step forward.
Sir Russell Johnston : On that point, one of the main criticisms which particularly emanated from the Labour Front Bench was that the Government were unwilling to bring the Bill back into Committee until the Danish question had been "resolved", whatever that meant. However, so far as I remember, at the Council of Ministers on 4 June in Oslo--I believe that the Foreign Secretary was there--immediately after the referendum the other
Column 1004
Eleven agreed unanimously to proceed with ratification forthwith. How were the Government able to promise to delay and then promise not to delay?Mr. Hurd : At the meeting in Oslo, instead of saying that they could not ratify the treaty, the Danish Government asked for time--and they have used that time. We have also used that time. Next week the House will have an opportunity to express its views on how the Government and the House should proceed. I return to the point that I made earlier. I hope that in its deliberations, perhaps even this afternoon, the Labour leadership will take comfort from the courage of the Danish Government in announcing their plans.
Sir Michael Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is important that the suggestion in the original question asked by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) should be firmly rejected? I am sure that there is economic linkage between ratification of the Maastricht treaty and the present state of the economy. My right hon. Friend referred to inward investment. Surely current intentions to invest in British industry depend on removing uncertainty.
Mr. Hurd : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Maastricht treaty is a compromise treaty. The way in which it was negotiated at Maastricht by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister safeguarded this country from the two parts of it which might otherwise have caused us real difficulty ; the social chapter, which the Labour party embraced, and a commitment to a single bank and a single currency. The Government were not willing to make that commitment and, clearly, the Danes are not willing to do so. So we protected ourselves from those two effects. The treaty which remains is the treaty to which we have put our hand and which we ask the House to enable us to ratify. It is the only possible agreed framework for the success of the Community in the next few years. That is the fact of the matter. If we are interested in enlarging the Community, making a success of the single market, and achieving other objectives of the Community, with Britain in it, in the next few years, it should be on the basis of a ratified Maastricht treaty. I do not see another foundation on which we can make that progress.
Dr. John Cunningham : Does the Foreign Secretary recall that in the Chamber on 24 September the Prime Minister said that two matters needed to be clarified and agreed before we could proceed to consider the Bill to ratify the Maastricht treaty? First, a Danish accommodation would have to be agreed not only by the Danish Parliament but by the other 11 states. Secondly, the Prime Minister offered the opinion that there would have to be clear and agreed definitions of subsidiarity before we could proceed to consider the Bill. As neither of those conditions has been met, and neither can be met until the Edinburgh summit at the earliest, why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Why has he done a U-turn on this, as on other matters?
When the Foreign Secretary said that the House would have to decide next week whether the Prime Minister should lead Britain's representations in Edinburgh, was he not implying that the House would be asked to vote next week on a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister? If so, how does he expect us to support that?
Column 1005
Mr. Hurd : The House will have an opportunity for debate on 4 November, and it will be slightly surprising if that debate does not end in a vote of some kind. The hon. Gentleman, who has some experience in these matters, knows that the motion will be decided, discussed and communicated in exactly the usual way. We are seven days ahead of the debate. It would be unusual for matters of drafting and tactics to have been decided by this date. The debate is therefore being handled in exactly the same way as others. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, there is clarity now about the Danish plans. It is bad luck for the Opposition that the Danes happen to have come clear at this particular time, but it does not let the Opposition off the hook of their decision.
Sir Teddy Taylor : As the Prime Minister stated clearly and without ambiguity that we could not get on with the Committee stage until a detailed and settled system of subsidiarity had been worked out and put in place, will the Foreign Secretary advise us whether that may be worked out in Edinburgh so that those of us who want to get on with discussing the treaty will know? Is that likely to be resolved so that we can at least start discussing the treaty immediately after the Edinburgh summit?
Mr. Hurd : I have good news for my hon. Friend in the light of his concern that we should be able to proceed as soon as possible. On 16 October in Birmingham we made substantial progress. He will have looked at the Birmingham declaration, which shows how that work is being carried forward. First, there is the article on the Maastricht treaty ; then there is the Lisbon decision, which is now being carried forward in Birmingham. The detailed work has been set in hand, so the situation is advancing quite fast in the direction that my hon. Friend favours.
Cyprus
10. Mr. O'Hara : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the talks on Cyprus recently held in New York under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Mr. Hurd : This is Rabbit's busy day!
Direct negotiations, under the United Nations Secretary-General's chairmanship, reconvened in New York on 26 October. Security Council resolution 774 makes it plain that the international community expects this round to lead to the agreement of an outline settlement on the basis of the United Nations Secretary-General's "set of ideas", as set out in his report of 21 August.
Mr. O'Hara : We must all be positive and optimistic that the round of talks will at last resolve the problems of Cyprus, but we must also be aware of the number of disappointments in the past 18 years and be concerned about the extremely negative statements made by Mr. Denktas before departing for New York. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the United Kingdom Government have contingency plans? Will he offer us a specific initiative--something pro-active--to demonstrate Britain's special position in relation to the problem? Not only is Cyprus a member of the Commonwealth, but Britain is a guarantor power with specific and clear moral and legal responsibilities for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the republic of Cyprus.
Column 1006
Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a special position in that matter. That is why we have been doing our utmost to back up what the Secretary-General plans to do and encouraging him to persevere against the obstacles. The hon. Gentleman knows what the obstacles are, but it is important that both parties in the talks now taking place in New York should understand that the problem cannot be allowed just to drift on. A heavy responsibility falls on them and their friends. In the past few weeks I have talked to the Turkish Foreign Minister, the Greek Government and President Vassiliou to emphasise that point. I urged them strongly that the present round of talks should proceed.
Sir Dudley Smith : Is it not plain that, after all this time, partition is bound to continue in that troublesome island, particularly in view of the negative attitude taken by the Greek Cypriot Government?
Mr. Hurd : I do not agree that partition can be the basis for a settlement. My hon. Friend's underlying thought is perfectly right--there are two communities on the island and they must be given rights as two communities--but if there is to be a lasting settlement, it must be within the sovereignty of one Cypriot Government.
Mr. Cox : Is the Foreign Secretary aware that any attempt to continue the separation of the island of Cyprus would be absolutely disastrous for both communities there? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked together continuously for the past 18 years for a settlement for both communities. As the officials in the state department and those in the United Nations said, the problem is the lack of meaningful involvement from Mr. Denktas. When will the Government make it clear that we want a settlement? And does Mr. Denktas want one?
Mr. Hurd : That is something that Mr. Denktas has to answer in the talks. He says that he wants a settlement. I hope that he understands that a settlement is desperately needed by members of his community, and of the other community, and that it will not be reached on the basis of the status quo but must be reached on something like the set of ideas proposed by the Secretary-General at the last round. It was on the basis of those suggestions that the Security Council passed the last resolution.
Occupied Territories
12. Mr. Page : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Israeli Prime Minister to discuss the future of the occupied territories.
Mr. Douglas Hogg : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to meet the Israeli Prime Minister during the latter's visit to the United Kingdom at the beginning of December. I am sure that the future of the occupied territories will be one of the issues that we discuss.
Mr. Page : I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and I am delighted that the subject of the occupied territories is to be discussed. On my visits to the occupied territories and Israel I have seen a growing willingness on both sides to reach a settlement. The recent action of the new Israeli Government in restricting settlements has gone a long way to help. Does my right
Column 1007
hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a chance of reaching an agreement under the new Israeli Prime Minister whereas there was not a cat in hell's chance of doing so under the previous one?Mr. Douglas Hogg : I certainly agree that there is a greatly improved chance of negotiating a settlement under Mr. Rabin's Government. I also believe that the changed policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is extremely welcome. I should like to see the Arabs reciprocate by removing the boycott regime.
| Next Section
| Home Page |