I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Norwood on the subject of housing and jobs, although identical petitions will come from many constituencies in which people like the residents of Norwood express deep concern about the dearth of homes and jobs in this country.

My petitioners ask that

Resources are made available to enable people to choose to be public sector tenants without suffering as a result of such a choice and to ensure that the wishes and needs of the tenants determine the plans, designs and decisions affecting their homes;

My petitioners pray that

There is an immediate increase in investment in public as well as in private sector housing and a reform of the system of housing finance to re-allocate resources to those in greatest need;

They ask that

There is a priority given to the development of planned programmes of training and retraining to standards set by the construction industry with immediate steps taken to decasualise that industry.

One cannot condemn a country for problems that lie beyond its control. We do not castigate countries because they suffer from tidal waves or earthquakes. However, if a country faces a problem and the solution to that problem lies within its power, it is morally reprehensible of it to ignore its ability to exercise that power. We regard it as reprehensible if people starve while mountains of food are available. What might——

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not enter into argument while presenting a petition.

I understand that, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents ask the House to recognise the ability to match the needs and resources in this country with the needs expressed by thousands of petitioners who pray that this House should give them the chance to rent and live in a decent home. That is the essential and important content of the petition.

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and myself from the people of Birmingham and Leeds. They have asked us to present the petition because far too many of them are living in unhealthy, damp, black mould-infested housing while they and others are unemployed. They believe that those two needs should be put together so that housing may be improved and people can be usefully employed. They request the House that

1. Resources are made available to enable people to choose to be public sector tenants without suffering as a result of such choice and to ensure that the wishes and needs of the tenants determine the plans, designs and decisions affecting their homes;

2. There is an immediate increase in investment in public, as well as private, sector housing and a reform of the system of housing finance to re-allocate resources to those in greatest need;

3. There is a priority given to development of planned programmes of training and retraining to standards set by the construction industry with immediate steps taken to decasualise that industry.

It is a shame and a disgrace that, as housing in London, some of it luxury housing, becomes more expensive and glamorous, too many citizens are living in rotten, damp, mould-infested housing. If the House had the will, we could start to put that right.

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the future of the Republic of Cyprus is best served by the maintenance of a sovereign, independent state, with all foreign troops withdrawn and basic human rights guaranteed; urges Her Majesty's Government to press the Secretary-General of the United Nations to continue his mission of good offices; and, in view of the application of the Government of Turkey for membership of the European Community, calls on Ministers to ensure that the Turkish Government is aware of the United Kingdom's concern over the Cyprus problem.

I will not conceal from the House that for the 17 years I have been in Parliament, I have regularly entered the ballot and this is the first time ever that my name has come up. Wishing as always to represent the interests of my constituents, my first thought was to put down a motion regarding the community charge. However, my hon. Friends in the Whips Office pointed out most courteously that they might well have to put a Whip on the Conservative party to come and vote at 2.30 pm, so after some consideration I decided to move to something else of great concern, admittedly to a smaller number of my constituents. Many Cypriots live in Streatham and I have many Cypriot friends who live there.

The Government and the country have a responsibility to Cyprus, whose position has not changed much over the past few years. It seemed to me that this would be a good opportunity to allow hon. Members who have the interests of Cyprus at heart to have a discussion on this very difficult and vexed issue. I very much hope that, in taking the opportunity to call attention to the problems of Cyprus today, we can in some small way give another impetus to resolving the difficulties facing that country.

I have never had the privilege of visiting Cyprus, so I cannot speak at first hand about that country, although I am sure that will be put right by many of my hon. Friends who have had that privilege. I say this right at the beginning, in case later in the debate I should be taxed with not having visited Cyprus. I thought I would get it out of the way.

It might be helpful to the House if I run through the series of events that have caused the present problem to develop in Cyprus. One must start with 1960, when Cyprus became independent of Great Britain and the constitution of Cyprus was drawn up by Great Britain. That decade and the previous ones were great decades for Great Britain, which drew up constitutions for many countries. The constitution of Cyprus was guaranteed by this country, Greece and Turkey. Three treaties were signed: first, a treaty of establishment, which guaranteed independence to Cyprus; secondly, a treaty which guaranteed that the state of independence would exist and continue; and thirdly, a treaty of alliance between the three powers to protect the integrity of Cyprus.

Incidentally, among those treaties were special provisions to allow Greece and Turkey to leave a few troops in the north and south of Cyprus. I understand that Greece left 940 troops and Turkey left 650 troops. I do not think that one can turn one's eyes from the oppression of the minority community in the years following the granting of independence in 1960. We have seen that in other countries. It is something to be deplored, but perhaps not something that should surprise us.

The next major date was July 1974, when two blows were struck at the integrity of Cyprus. The first blow was struck by the military Government of Greece which, it is said—I have no reason to disbelieve it—organised a coup to overthrow the President of Cyprus, with the secondary intention that Cyprus should become part of the Greek state. Within three days, the Greek military Government had been overthrown, so the coup in Cyprus came to nothing, but during those three days there was considerable unrest and military disturbance.

The second blow came—I am not certain whether it was during one of those three days or at the end; perhaps an hon. Member will tell me—when Turkey seized the opportunity of the disruption to invade Cyprus. The reason it gave was that it sought to restore order and protect the state of affairs, which was one of the obligations of the treaty. It sent in troops numbering not fewer than 20,000 and not more than 40,000. There is still argument as to how many Turkish troops actually were in Cyprus then, and how many are there today.

It could be said that when that happened Turkey was acting properly under the treaty of guarantee, but—we come to the crux of the matter—when within three days the Greek Government fell and the coup petered out and disappeared, did Turkey withdraw from its attempt "to re-establish a state of affairs"? No. It dug in and left its troops in northern Cyprus, with a foot firmly on the land. As the months and years went past, it became apparent that the country was partitioned by the Turks with the well-known green line, the line of demarcation between north and south. The partition gradually became established and the troops were maintained.

The north now controls about one third of the land, having only one fifth of the population. Furthermore, across the green line is no freedom of movement without permission and there is no freedom of settlement from one side to the other. Moreover, compensation for those who lived in the north but who were dispossessed, including a small number of my constituents, has been refused.

A matter of some controversy and of great bitterness is that there seems to have been — I shall not say deliberate, but effective — destruction of much of the Christian cultural heritage in the north of Cyprus. It started fairly soon after the invasion. There was an article in The Times on 25 May 1976 that said:

"As the Turks have steadily moved into the former Greek villages of the north they have wrought terrible damage and desecration on Greek churches and graveyards.… It is important to distinguish between random damage that might have been caused by drunks after a night out, and the demolition of crosses, tombstones and heavy marble slabs which weigh several hundredweight and would need men with sledgehammers to destroy them. We found nothing to fit the first category."

I have in my hand a list of 18 churches in the north of Cyprus that have been vandalised, looted or damaged. Various treasures from the north of Cyprus have, in some extraordinary way, turned up in various English salerooms, where they have fetched very good sums of money.

I am a member of the Council of Europe and sit on the Committee on Culture and Education of that council. A report of that committee on the cultural heritage of Cyprus, dated 18 November, states that five historic churches of artistic importance in the north of Cyprus have been damaged or looted in recent years. The Committee on Culture and Education has decided to send a fact-finding mission to Cyprus to investigate at first hand what may be happening there and to report back to the Council of Europe. In fairness, I should add that a rebuttal by the authorities of northern Cyprus is to be found in the same report. The damage is blamed on the violence that took place during the coup in 1974. The bitterness in Cyprus does not seem to have lessened.

The next date of importance is 1983, when northern Cyprus declared itself to be independent and called itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. No country, apart from Turkey, has recognised the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I cannot believe that that declaration would have been made by northern Cyprus were it not for the agreement of the Government of Turkey. One must accept that the Government of Turkey, which has 20,000 to 30,000 troops in northern Cyprus, agreed to that declaration. I repeat, however, that the independence of northern Cyprus has not been recognised by any other country.

With the support of the British Government, the United Nations has started to play an increasing role in the affairs of Cyprus. During the last three years, three proposals have been made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar. The first was made in January 1985, the second in April 1985 and the third in March 1986. I understand that President Kyprianou did not accept the first proposal of January 1985 because it did not deal specifically with the withdrawal of troops. Mr. Denktash did not find the second proposal of April 1985 to be particularly acceptable, because it included what President Kyprianou had looked for in the first proposal. The third proposal has been lying on the table since March 1986, although it is no doubt under consideration. It deals, among other matters, with whether the north of Cyprus should be recognised, and with the withdrawal of troops.

The fundamental problem—which it is difficult for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to deal with must be dealt with within Cyprus and between northern Cyprus and Turkey. The United Nations initiatives deal with whether Cyprus should be a federal republic, or whether there should be power sharing, with an administration in the north and in the south, and compensation.

The fundamental question is whether in the long run, after a settlement has been reached, Cyprus will be a partitioned country, with two co-operating states, or whether it will be a united and unified country, with two subordinate provinces. If the guarantees of 1960 mean anything, the second proposal must surely represent the most suitable and satisfactory outcome. The experience of other countries shows that if there are two separate and distinct nations within a small island, the government of that island remains unstable and unsatisfactory. The long-term future—I hope it will not be long in coming—for Cyprus must be a unified nation, with two co-operating provinces.

If we believe that that is the way forward for Cyprus, we must accept that between 1960 and 1974 there was some oppression of the Turkish minority. It is difficult to find out how much oppression there was, what form it took, how long it lasted and exactly what happened. However, there was certainly some oppression of the Turkish minority, which leads me to the conclusion that it will be well-nigh impossible to achieve a unified country, with two provinces, unless human rights can be guaranteed for the minority as well as for the majority of the people of Cyprus.

It is likely, if it were announced that Turkish troops were to withdraw tomorrow, that many in the north would feel apprehensive — wrongly, I hope. However, that perception must be taken into account. That brings me to the conclusion that, if a single country is to be achieved, the rights of the majority as well as the minority must be protected. We are all aware of the problems involved in guaranteeing human rights, but they are not insurmountable, especially in a contained area such as Cyprus, if there is good will between north and south and between Turkey and Greece.

Whether those guarantees of minority rights would best come from the guarantor powers—the United Nations, the EEC or NATO—I do not know, but we have a United Nations presence in Ireland—Cyprus; I shall have to look at Hansard and delete that—and I should have thought that valid guarantees could be forthcoming from the United Nations, should we move towards that position.

As my hon. Friend is dealing with the United Nations, will he deal with the Greek attitude to the United Nations proposals, which have been accepted by the north and by the Turks, but. regrettably, not by what might be described as the Greek side of the island?

As I said, three proposals were put forward; two in 1985 and one in 1986. My hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the first proposal was not accepted by President Kyprianou because, in his view, it did not deal sufficiently with the withdrawal of troops. The second proposal, a few months later, was not accepted by Mr. Denktash of the north. He felt that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had gone too far in meeting the objections of President Kyprianou.

I understand that the third proposal, which was put forward in 1986, has not been accepted or rejected by the north or the south; it is still lying on the table, but one hopes that it will be picked up and discussed in the near future.

It is clear that the position remains difficult and tense, but hon. Members may have seen a report in The Times on 23 November. The headline reads:

"Women brave Cyprus minefields.

Hundreds of Greek Cypriot women, protesting against the division of their island, braved unmarked minefields to cross a UN controlled buffer zone yesterday".

It was also reported in The Independent. The report in the International Herald Tribune reads:

"Hundreds of Greek Cypriot women bearing white banners stormed and scrambled across the line dividing their country … Unarmed United Nations forces … joined the Turkish troops to prevent the women protesting far into northern Cyprus".

On a wider front, hon. Members will have seen the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I draw attention to paragraphs 61 and 62, which are headed, "The economic situation". Paragraph 61 reads:

"There is a stark contrast between the state of economic development of the two parts of Cyprus".

Paragraph 62 reads:

"In 1985, southern Cyprus, with an estimated population of 544,000, had a per capita GNP of US $4,346, with an inflation rate of 5 per cent. Northern Cyprus, with a claimed population of 160,000 (including settlers), had a per capita GNP of US $1,269, with an inflation rate of 43 per cent.".

That is a per capita rate of just over one quarter of that of the south and an inflation rate of 43 per cent., compared with 5 per cent. in the south.

That cannot be satisfactory, and it must be to the advantage of northern Cyprus and Turkey to come to an accommodation. It cannot be right that the northern region is in economic difficulty while the south is booming.

How can we, the United Nations, Turkey or Greece, move forward to resolve this question? Clearly, we shall not resolve it this morning, but perhaps we can give it a nudge forward by airing it in the Chamber. No magic wand can be waved. In the long term it must be resolved, but I hope it is not in the too long term.

There are pressures for certain initiatives. The first, which was mentioned in the Select Committee report, to which I referred a moment ago, is that the United Kingdom Government should convene a top-level meeting between the three guarantor powers — the British Government, Greece and Turkey—to discuss the current situation. This possibility has been mooted as a way forward.

I agree with the Government's observations on the Select Committee report that such a meeting could well be useful at the appropriate time. They say:

"But we do not believe it would be timely for us to propose guarantor power discussions now."

The second initiative is being undertaken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and in their response, with which I agree, the Government state:

"We believe success in international negotiations of this kind is more likely to come about as a result of sustained diplomatic effort, rather than through the dissipation of effort in separate initiatives."

In other words, if they organise guarantor power discussions, it would cut across initiatives made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That is why in the motion in the Order Paper I have asked the House to endorse and urge the Government to continue to press the Secretary-General of the United Nations to redouble and continue his efforts. He should consider the third initiative that is lying on the table and see whether movement could be achieved.

A third way forward, which must have an effect, is in the growing realisation that Turkey is moving into the comity of western democratic nations. I am sure that the House will agree that we should congratulate Mr. Ozal, the premier of Turkey, on the recent victory at the polls and wish him every success in the task that lies before him of governing his country. Hon. Members may have seen the announcement in The Times the day before yesterday of a probable meeting between Mr. Ozal and the Prime Minister of Greece. That must be excellent.

The main burden is Turkey's application for membership of the European Community. I understand that that is being considered by the Commission at present. Paragraph 14 of the Government's response to the Select Committee's report says:

"As the President of the Council of the EC, the Secretary of State took the opportunity of the EC Turkey Association Council in September 1986 to repeat to the Turkish government the Community's concern over the Cyprus problem and its strong support of the UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a lasting settlement".

I find it difficult to see how Turkey can become a member of the European Community while maintaining a small army in a country the integrity of which has been guaranteed by Turkey, Greece and Britain. There seems to be an internal contradiction that I do not believe could be overcome. The tide of history is moving Turkey towards the Western nations — we welcome that — and it is becoming increasingly democratic and looking towards joining the European Community. However, I do not believe that the Turkish army in Cyprus can stay if it is to achieve its ambitions.

I have been talking about long-term initiatives but let me put a proposal for the short-term, about which something could be done quickly if the United Kingdom Government are prepared to take the initiative. I suggest an immediate way forward to increase co-operation between the two communities, increase trade and tourism in the north and south and to bring the people together in co-operation. I must give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) with whom I was discussing the Cyprus problem. He and I perhaps do not see eye to eye on the situation, but I believe that the suggestion shows good sense.

At present, the south—the Republic of Cyprus—has two airports. There is Paphos, which is way down south, and Larnaca, which is adequate but is not one of the best airports. The north also has two airports. The main one, Ercan, is a long way from anywhere and is not entirely satisfactory. There is also the small airport of Gecitkale. Neither of those airports is well positioned or satisfactory.

However, there is Nicosia international airport—this is why I am sure that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will wish to take an initiative — which has outstanding potential in every way. It is located on the green line between the north and south and, at present, it is used only by the United Nations and is under United Nations control. The proposal is that that airport should be used for international flights serving both the north and south. In no way could that be allowed to imply recognition of the northern Government. It would not.

I suggest that the airport should continue to be under United Nations control and be operated by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, presumably employed in proportion to the population of the two provinces. There should be free access from both the north and the south. Nicosia international airport is a superb airport but it would need a great deal of money to be spent on it for modernisation. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that money could well be forthcoming from various sources in the United States. That money could be used to modernise the airport and provide new equipment in order to place it among the best airports in the world.

As part of that deal, would it not be possible to persuade Turkey to withdraw perhaps a division of its troops from northern Cyprus? As I said earlier, no one knows how many troops there are in northern Cyprus but one assumes that there are no fewer than 20,000 and no more than 40,000. A division is about 7,000 men. If Turkey withdrew a division, it would have a tremendous psychological impact but it would in no way lessen what it believes is necessary; guaranteeing the security of the citizens in the north. I do not believe that that is necessary; but that may be the perception in the north. To withdraw a division would in no way endanger the status quo in the north, from which we are trying to move away.

Nicosia airport should be modernised and become a joint airport for the Republic of Cyprus and the northern province. It should remain under United Nations control and should have free access, serving international flights to the north and south. That might help the trade and tourism in the north, which as we have seen when we compare the economic situation in the north to that in the south, sadly needs a great deal of help.

If there were difficulties about the withdrawal of a division it would be possible for the United Nations or NATO to look to give some guarantees. However, I cannot see that that would be necessary because to withdraw 7,000 troops out of 20,000 or 40,000 would not be cataclysmic. If that admittedly limited initiative could be brought about and have some success, there would at least be some movement. We have seen only a hardening of the position since the invasion and the failed coup. We have seen nothing but increased rigidity and conflict between two sides. A small and limited initiative such as this would be a reversal of that tendency. If that could be achieved, and with the tide of history moving Turkey towards the West, within a few years — I hope even earlier—the major problem will be solved.

The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) has expressed his views in a serious, measured and conciliatory way without hiding his basic sympathy with the Greek Cypriot position. I hope that I can express my views in a measured way and I would in no way seek to mask my sympathy for the Turkish Cypriot position.

My views are my own, and I suspect that they will diverge from those of the Opposition Front Bench. I have my own experience on which to draw in judging the very difficult situation in the troubled island of Cyprus, which all hon. Members hold in high affection. Whatever our differences, none of us will argue against the interests of the island and the islanders. It is to be hoped that if we express our views in a constructive way others outside may follow our lead.

My views are the views that would be expressed by members of the Turkish Left, at least the democratic Turkish Left—Professor Inonu's party and Mr. Ecevit's party. Both parties are accepted by the Socialist International, so my view could not be regarded by my Front-Bench colleagues as deviant from the democratic Socialist views held by parties such as the Labour party.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham on raising the subject and giving us an opportunity to express our views. Party lines will not be readily discerned in the debate. We shall be seen as sympathising with one group or the other, but we have an obligation to express the facts in a rational manner.

My interest in the eastern Mediterranean goes back many years. I have been interested in it as an academic, as a Member of Parliament, as someone who is interested in defence and, above all, as someone who has watched from afar, and visited on one occasion, an island torn by intercommunal violence. The hon. Gentleman's slip of the tongue—he referred to Ireland—brought to mind hon. Members' impertinence in offering to resolve intercommunal tensions in Cyprus when we have not been remarkably successful in reconciling intercommunal difference in a part of the United Kingdom.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that at the sovereign bases we have Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots working side by side? Does not that show that in its funny old way Britain can contribute positively to easing intercommunal tension?

I shall discuss later the ways of bringing about reconciliation, and the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is certainly part of that approach.

Having read the newspapers, talked to many politicians and visited the island, I have deep sympathy with it. As chairman of the Political Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, I can speak with a degree of authority on the consequences of the domestic situation in Cyprus, which has widespread ramifications. for Greek-Turkish relations and for NATO. The hon. Member for Streatham suggested that NATO might somehow underwrite a Turkish troop withdrawal. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Cyprus is very much out-of-area to NATO, and I doubt whether there is the remotest possibility of NATO's seeking to intervene directly, or indeed indirectly, in Cyprus.

We have all observed events in Turkey over the past week and the elections there, confirming Mr. Ozal as Prime Minister for the next few years. Turkey is moving closer to democracy. No country can claim to have arrived. Democracy is a continuous process and we must all strive to improve the way in which we devise our institutions. Nevertheless, Mr. Ozal's remarks on Greece during the campaign, and, indeed, those of Mr. Papandreou, will have been beneficial to future relations. There is every possibility of a meeting between the two in the next three months or so.

A precondition for any improvement in relations in the island will be reconciliation between the "mother countries" of Greece and Turkey. Anything that can be done to improve relations between Greece and Turkey will contribute across the board, and tensions in Cyprus will be eased.

Unfortunately, views that are construed as pro-Turkish are seen by some people as being automatically anti-Greek. I refuse to fall into the trap that some would seek to lay. It is possible to like both Turks and Greeks, and liking one country in no way precludes one's having affection for the other country and understanding its history. The trouble is that the West has not really forgiven the Ottomans for capturing Constantinople in the 15th century. We have never really forgiven the Turks for Gallipoli. Those who have seen the film "Midnight Express" will not forgive the Turks for the barbarous behaviour depicted in it. Our spectacles are coloured by this antipathy for Turkey. The flight information region in the Aegean is seen as the frontier of Christianity, civilisation and democracy, and by some, all to the East is regarded as alien.

However one must recognise Turkey's strenuous and continuing efforts to democratise. That process is far from completed, so it is incumbent on us to consider the situation objectively.

The hon. Member for Streatham gave a brief and sometimes partial account of the history of events in Cyprus since 1960. The House has an interest in that history because, as the imperial power, Britain bears much of the responsibility for the events in Cyprus. In the words of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its third report, which I recommend to those outside who have not yet read it:

"Cyprus is one post-colonial responsibility which the United Kingdom cannot afford to evade, if its own interests are not to be prejudiced."

We have a historical responsibility and a legal obligation as one of the guarantor powers. Many Cypriots live in this country and many of our people live in Cyprus. We have a large military presence, guaranteed by the 1960 constitution, and we are Cyprus's major trading partner. We have moral, legal, historical and economic motives for wanting the differences in Cyprus to be reconciled.

History is most important. From paragraph 26 onwards, the report is well worth reading. The 1960 constitution was foisted on Cyprus by Britain, and regrettably quickly proved to be unworkable. However, the attempt was noble. The attempt was to constitutionalise the fact that there were two communities in Cyprus — a majority of Greeks and a substantial minority of Turks. For a while, both communities were involved, to a degree, in decision-making. However, in 1963, there was a crisis which led to the collapse of the system of government and the 1960 settlement.

The Foreign Affairs Committee report says:

"Although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to 'operate the 1960 Constitution, modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation', this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of December 1963 the Government of President Makarios continued to advocate the cause of Enosis"—

union with Greece—

"and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related Treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective."

In those days, the Greek Cypriots desired union with Greece. That led to the constitutional amendment that would have destroyed the constitutional status of the Turkish Cypriot community which led in turn to the 1963 crisis.

Post-1963, the Turks were huddled into their enclaves and not protected by the Cypriot armed forces. The Foreign Affairs Committee said that there were between 8,000 and 10,000 mainland Greek soldiers on the island, in contravention of the 1960 agreements. The present Greek Government can accept no responsibility for what was done by previous Greek Governments, but, in talking about the alleged illegal occupation of the island by Turkey, one must remember that there was a substantial Greek military presence on the island during those troubled times in the 1960s.

We have been told that there was "some oppression" of the minority community. I do not wish to exaggerate — others may put the case more strongly — but the position between 1963 and 1974 was shameful. Atrocities were committed on both sides, but people must look objectively at what happened. The events of the 1960s and early 1970s led the Turkish Cypriot population to believe that their rights and lives could not be guaranteed by any means other than their endeavours and those of the Turkish armed forces. The legacy of the period is not only paranoia of the Turks about the Greeks, but, because of Turkey's reaction, reinforcement of the Greek Cypriot paranoia towards Turkey. No country can have been so adversely affected by its recent history as the unfortunate country of Cyprus.

The attitude between 1963 and 1974 was hardly one of charity by the majority towards the minority. In 1974, there was the Athens-inspired military coup in which President Makarios barely escaped with his life. He described in graphic detail to the Security Council what happened:

"What has been happening in Cyprus since last Monday morning is a real tragedy. The military regime of Greece has callously violated the independence of Cyprus. Without trace of respect for the democratic rights of the Cypriot people, without trace of respect for the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, the Greek junta has extended its dictatorship to Cyprus."

These were nightmare years for both communities, especially in the northern part of the island. The coup was undoubtedly designed to enforce Enosis, and Greece had violated the 1960 constitution.

Eventually, in 1974, the Turkish armed forces intervened because people of a similar ethnic group were being murdered. The Foreign Affairs Committee said that if those troops had left it at that, they might have been treated as heroes. There was every justification for their action because they acted according to the constitution. If the British Government could act to defend the interests of 1,800 islanders in the Falklands, with none of them killed, one can understand why the Government of Bulent Ecevit, the leader of the Republican People's party, stepped in. That party is affiliated to the Socialist International and he is held in high esteem by the Labour party.

The Turkish Army intervened, but the critical aspect was not the first intervention, but what was seen as the second phase, which incurred the wrath of the international community. The Turkish Government acted because the Turkish military was dangerously exposed and because they wanted to establish an area controlling Greek Cypriots—so that they could bargain them away for the Turkish Cypriots who were in considerable danger in the Greek-controlled part of the country—and because they wanted to establish a greater economic and population base. Their action has been condemned by many people, but that is the justification as expressed by the Turks.

We must accept that there are two de facto Administrations in Cyprus. We must find an international and domestic environment in which the problem can be solved. A number of proposals have been made. Ultimately, I should like the Turkish troops to withdraw. The hon. Member for Streatham referred to the unilateral gestures by Turkey and the withdrawal of a division, but I eagerly wait to hear what reciprocal unilateral gesture —almost a contradiction in terms—will be made on the other side of the island. Gestures to create confidence must be two-sided. I hope that these unilateral or bilateral gestures will break the political logjam.

The island is bicommunal. If it is to survive and not to continue to stare down the barrel of other countries' guns, its bicommunal status must be underpinned and maintained. Many have sought to offer their good offices —the Commonwealth, the United Nations, NATO, the non-aligned movement, the Islamic Conference and individual countries such as Britain, Canada and the United States — yet all the endeavours, most of them sincere, have come to nothing. In recent years, the Soviet Union has taken an interest in Cyprus, but, as the Foreign Affairs Committee said, the idea of an international conference is premature. I would put it more strongly and say that it is an attempt by the Soviet Union to take advantage of the divisions between Greece and Turkey and to intervene in an area in which it has little involvement. I do not regard the Soviet Union's good offices as other than a cynical attempt to gain political advantage in an area which already has enough problems without the East-West dimension being injected into it.

A number of theoretical solutions have been advanced. One such solution is maintenance, somehow, of the status quo. We have been told that the southern part of Cyprus is prospering. Perversely, there is an interest in the status quo being maintained. Greece has some advantage in having at hand a weapon with which to hit the Turks constantly on the head. Perversely, if the Greeks can portray the Turks as an evil empire, whereby they forcibly occupy as defenceless country, and as long as there is animosity between Greece and Turkey, the present position may be maintained. Some people do not admit that the Greek Cypriots are prospering and that there is some satisfaction with the present position. Those to the north would say. "We are now safe in our beds. We no longer face the prospect of being dragged out of our beds, beaten up, jailed or even worse; we are now protected by the Turkish army." Perversely, the current position has attractions, but I would not endorse any suggestion that this unhappy stalemate should or could survive.

Another solution that I reject, is incorporation of each part of the country into the mainland countries. That is a possibility—the Greek Cypriots have long cherished the idea of union with Greece and the Turkish Cypriots might think that their security would be enhanced if that approach were adopted—but I reject that solution, as, I think, would most other people.

I also reject the unity solution, if unity means majority rule. Cyprus was heading for that in the early 1960s. However, democracy is not majority rule. If majority rule means that the majority can use its numerical superiority to exploit and undermine the minority, that is a negation of democracy. We have found such a situation in Northern Ireland, where the majority sought to dominate the economic, political, social and educational institutions to the detriment of the minority.

I reject the idea that the island should be ruled by the majority making some token concessions to the minority. That is not good enough. The Turkish Cypriots would not be prepared to contemplate even remotely a situation such as that which led to the current crisis. If we reject unity, incorporation and the status quo, the solution must surely lie in recreating a constitution in which the majority and the minority have rights that can be guaranteed. There have been occasions when that has been a likely prospect. Indeed, that was the situation after the initiatives of Perez de Cuellar.

The first version was the initiative of 1985 after the so-called "proximity talks" in 1984. They were accepted by President Denktash, but rejected by President Kyprianou. The details had been made public. They aimed to create a non-aligned, bicommunal, bizonal federal republic. The presidency would be held permanently by a Greek Cypriot and not rotated between Greeks and Turks. The vice-president would be Turkish. A senior Ministry, such as the Foreign Ministry, would be held by a Turk. Foreign armed forces would be withdrawn. That was agreed by the Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by President Kyprianou.

The second version came in April 1985 when Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar had worked on the Greek Cypriots. This proposal was accepted by President Kyprianou but rejected by the Turkish Cypriots on the grounds that they were in the midst of a referendum and parliamentary elections and that confused their response. However, they also believed that they had made their maximum concessions, but that they had been rejected by President Kyprianou.

The next version was the third draft framework agreement, brought forward by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the end of March 1986. The hon. Member for Streatham was slightly wrong—he was half right — in saying that it had been neither rejected nor accepted by the Greek or Turkish Cypriots. He was wrong, because that draft framework agreement was repeatedly accepted by the Turkish Cypriots, and rejected by Mr. Kyprianou. The Turks found themselves in a rather unusual situation because for a long time world public opinion had seen the Turkish Cypriots in a negative light, but it was not the Turkish Cypriots who had rejected Perez de Cuellar's initiative.

International public opinion is not as simplistically deployed as previously. As one distinguished academic, Professor John Groom has said, the Greek side has again shown less interest in a rightful settlement of Cyprus than in a settlement on Greek terms.

After President Kyprianou's rejection of the proposals, Perez de Cuellar stated:

"the procedures proposed in the draft framework agreement provided each side with every opportunity to ensure that the negotiations proceeded in a manner that took full account of their concerns and that the concept of an integrated whole meant that the parties' ultimate commitment to an overall solution would depend on the resolution of all issues to their mutual satisfaction … By March 1986 I believed that the differences between the two sides could be bridged by a decisive effort. I therefore presented to them the draft framework agreement of 29 March 1986. I remain convinced that, if accepted by each of the two sides, this document will provide the right framework for negotiating a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem … I regret that, since one side is not yet in a position to accept the draft framework of 29 March 1986, the way is not yet open to proceed with the negotiations I have proposed for an overall solution. In these circumstances I am convinced by the dangers inherent in the present situation. The way forward will require careful reflection by all concerned."

Perhaps it is wrong to maintain that the 1986 draft framework is still the basis for a settlement, but I believe that it still is. When one simplistically portrays post-1960 history, using an approach of selectivity on one side or another, one reaches dangerous conclusions. There must be an agreement which, I hope——

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Yes, with pleasure.

To avoid the same selectivity, it might be helpful if my hon. Friend continued by relating the latest position of the Secretary-General of the United Nations who, in his last report, informed the Security Council that he had suggested that a process of informal discussions by initiated between both sides. He said in March this year:

"the Greek Cypriot side informed me that it accepted this suggestion for informal talks. The Turkish Cypriot side advised me on 15 May 1987 that it would not accept my suggestion, unless the Greek Cypriot side first accepted the March 1986 document."

The document that was agreed by the Turkish Cypriots in 1986 should be the basis of any agreement. The Greek Cypriots have realised that they have been wrong-footed in the international community. I hope that there will be attempts to create a genuine conference and that in the coming months the Turkish and Greek Cypriots will operate and discuss the Secretary-General's initiatives within his framework.

rose——

I shall give way in a moment.

I hope that we shall see a continuation of that process. The great need is to sort out the difference between genuine positions and posturing. Clearly, both sides have an eye to the international community. Therefore, one must try to pin them down and to progress from talks and not simply run along with them if they are trying temporarily to exploit the situation for public relations purposes.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has referred to the acceptance by the Denktash group of the March 1986 proposals. Was that not on the condition that there should always be a Turkish armed presence in Cyprus and is not that why it was unacceptable to the Greek Cypriot Government? Is it not also true that the Greek Cypriots were prepared to accept the April 1985 proposals of the Secretary-General, but that the northern Turkish Cypriots were not prepared to do so?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have outlined the three negotiating points. I said that the Turks had accepted two proposals and the Greeks one. I was not seeking to evade or avoid the fact that one proposal had been accepted by the Greek Cypriots. No one wishes to be too immersed in the minutiae of negotiations. One must bear in mind what has happened, but one must look forward. Although one may look backwards, one should spend more time looking forward. That is why, in my concluding remarks, I shall look at what might happen.

Unilateral gestures should be taken and the suggested withdrawal of a division would be feasible. The Turkish Cypriots have established an airhead and a port, so they could swiftly reinforce the island, should the need arise. The British Government have similarly substantially withdrawn forces from the Falklands because now, with Mount Pleasant airfield and the rapid reinforcement capability of transportation in wide jets, it is feasible to lower the military presence. I am sure that something similar could be done in Cyprus. I hope that the other side will also make gestures to demonstrate its good faith. Perhaps the Republic of Cyprus could seek to end its embargo on northern Cyprus which its Government are seeking to maintain. Unilateral gestures from both sides would not be out of place.

We must remember that Cyprus is not and has never been a nation in the accepted sense of the word. It was a colony ruled by a foreign power which could maintain its position administratively, politically and militarily. The vacuum created by the British withdrawal left the two communities at each other's throats. Cyprus has never been a nation; it was temporarily a state.

We must get this logjam unblocked to create a genuine state. Surely the key lies in Ankara and Athens. Whether we like it or not, the domestic politics of both parts of the island are, if not orchestrated, at least influenced by the Governments of Greece and Turkey. They play a considerable role economically, militarily and politically. We must point out to the Governments of Greece and Turkey that disputes over the Aegean, flight information regions and territorial limits, the historical emnities between Greece and Turkey, and everything that divides the two democratic Governments must be addressed, diminished and resolved.

I hope that we do not fall into the trap of seeing the problems purely in terms of Cyprus. We must stand back geographically and agree that any progress is likely to come as a result of several initiatives on several fronts over a period of time. We should not pin all our faith on the Secretary-General; there should be other initiatives worthy of consideration.

The ultimate key is to get a decent relationship between Mr. Papandreou and Mr. Ozal, whose authority has been increased since he was democratically re-elected. The hope of a possible summit certainly gladdens my heart and I hope that a resolution of the Cyprus problem will be high on the agenda of any forthcoming meeting.

I thank the hon. Member for Streatham for giving us this opportunity to debate Cyprus. Whatever our differences, we must surely all be united in the view that that troubled island's history must somehow be reversed. We must all hope that one day in the not-too-distant future the two communities will not be separated by a line or protected by large armed forces, but will be able to live in an era of good relations. If, in some tiny way, we can contribute towards that, our debate will have been worth while.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) for taking this opportunity once again to discuss Cyprus. All of us owe a debt to the people of Cyprus and it is right and proper from time to time to examine the position there to see whether there is anything more we can do to help them escape from the trap which they seem to have got themselves into, often through no fault of their own.

I was sad to hear that my hon. Friend had not yet visited Cyprus and I hope that that will be rectified and he will be invited by both communities to see what a remarkably beautiful place it is and full of so much promise, which unhappily has been dashed over the past few years. I spent some three years in Cyprus, perhaps not in the right way, and I grew to love the island and the people. Therefore, it is a great sorrow and tragedy for me to see it reduced to the present position.

Some would say that we do not want to rake over the past, but we cannot understand the position in Cyprus today without looking backwards a little amd putting some facts into historical perspective. What a tragedy it is that in the early 1960s we got into the situation that we did. If only the guarantor powers had lived up to their responsibilities. But from day one they turned their backs on them. The crucial time when they could have lived up to their responsibilities was December 1963. If ever we should have used our right as a guarantor power, we should have used it then, but we did not.

If only Archbishop Makarios, who in many ways was such a great man, had abandoned the thought of Enosis which remained with him almost from the day after independence was declared. Indeed, in one of his earliest speeches he talked about Cyprus being a Greek island, which was not exactly the way to build up confidence between the two communities.

If only that evil band of men, the EOKA-B, under Nicos Sampson, had been dealt with in the 1960s and exorcised from the community, it might have been possible for the two communities to come together. Sadly, none of those events happened, so we come to the events of 1974. The coup took place, the attempted assassination of the archbishop failed, but it forced him to flee from the island and the evil men with the support of the junta took over in Nicosia. If only we had had a British Government prepared to live up to their responsibilities, but we did not. The Select Committee report in 1975–76 stated:

"There is little doubt in your Committee's opinion that, either alone or as part of a United Nations force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion … Britain had a legal right to intervene, she had a moral obligation to intervene, she had the military capacity to intervene. She did not intervene for reasons which the Government refuses to give."

I point to the Opposition Benches and condemn the guilty men who at that time had the right and duty to intervene. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but Mr. Ecevit came to London and begged the Government to intervene, as they had a duty to do as a guarantor power. One hour after an intervention, there would have been British forces in Nicosia, Sampson would have fallen and although there might have been a token landing of Turkish troops at Kyrenia, that would have been the end of it. That did not happen because the Government of the day——

rose——

No, I will not give way. That did not happen because the Government were far too involved in the election that was due to take place in October 1974. They did not want to muddy the water. I say to all my Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot friends that they should never forget that a British Government failed in their duty, because in the report of that Select Committee it is quite clear that the Government of the day failed to intervene. Even to this day, our Government cannot go into the detail of just why that did not happen, but in our hearts we know quite well why the Government of that time did not intervene. Now we have to live with the reality of a divided Cyprus.

(by private notice) asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his actions yesterday in the High Court concerning the BBC.

Yesterday morning, 3 December, the Daily Telegraph carried a story in the "Peterborough" column that began with these words:

"There are, I learn, jitters at Broadcasting House ahead of tomorrow mornings transmission of the first of three 45-minute Radio 4 programmes about the British security service. They feature no fewer than eight of its former employees and, even more controversially, one civil servant who still works at GCHQ".

The third paragraph reads:

"The most remarkable aspect of the programmes, which are presented by Paul Barker, is the cast of former spies who have agreed to speak publicly about their secret world. These include three ex-MI5 people, three MI6 agents and three from GCHQ — all described by an insider as 'better witnesses than Wright, if sometimes a bit obsessional' ".

The concluding paragraph reads:

"The serving GCHQ official, who will be named in tomorrow's programme, is featured for only a few seconds and, I'm told, is 'discreet'. But the fact that he agreed to be interviewed in the first place is likely to set the alarm bells ringing round at the Treasury Solicitor's office."

As the House knows, members and former members of the security services are under a lifelong duty to the Crown of confidentiality in relation to information deriving from their employment. In the interests of the security of this country, the Government attach high importance to protecting that confidentiality. In the light of the evidence contained in the Daily Telegraph story, the Treasury Solicitor spoke yesterday morning to the legal adviser of the BBC. He informed the legal adviser of the information that he had read and asked if it was true. He was told that it was indeed true that nine members and former members of the security and intelligence services would take part in the programme, all of them identified by name, but that in the opinion of the legal adviser who had considered the programme carefully, none breached his duty of confidentiality. He said that the Daily Telegraph story was a gross over-representation of the contents of the programme.

The Treasury Solicitor said that, without sight of the transcript, he was unable to rely on the legal adviser's opinion that there was no breach of the duty of confidentiality that was owed to the Crown, and he asked for a copy of the transcript. This was refused, as was a request for all the names of the members and former members of the security services who were interviewed.

Following consultation within the Government, the Treasury Solicitor later asked for a copy of the transcript limited to the contributions of those members and former members of the services. This, too, was refused. The BBC was then put on notice of the Government's intention to apply for an injunction. At 4.30 pm yesterday, on behalf of the Government, I applied by counsel to Mr. Justice Henry in chambers for an interim injunction. The BBC was represented by leading counsel.

The Government sought an order restraining the BBC in the following terms:

"from broadcasting, or causing or permitting to be broadcast, as part of a radio programme entitled 'My Country Right or Wrong scheduled to be broadcast by the BBC on Friday, 4 December 1987, or in any way whatsoever, any interviews with, or information derived from, current or former members of the security or intelligence services of the United Kingdom relating to any aspect of the work of the said services, including their identity as current or former members thereof."

The judge heard argument from counsel for each side and made the order in the terms requested on my undertaking to issue a writ forthwith and to serve on the BBC the draft affidavit that was before the judge. He also gave the BBC liberty to apply on 24 hours written notice for the variation or discharge of the order.

Is it the view of the Government that allegations of illegal and subversive action must never be published without newspapers first informing "the proper authorities"? Is this not censorship, of the kind emulated by every tinpot dictatorship; and were not these programmes discussed with the security services and the D notice committee, who were satisfied with the generality of the programmes? Secondly, was this gagging injunction sought not because it related to the content of the programme, but in order to counter the charge of inconsistency in relation to the treatment of "Spycatcher" and other books.

Thirdly, which interpretation of the order do the Government rely upon? Do they rely on the reportedly wide one of the Attorney-General's office in accordance with the July ruling of the Court of Appeal, that it applies to every organ in addition to the BBC and to every person wherever he be, or do they rely on the narrow one reported in The Times this morning of the No. 10 view that it applies only to this series of programmes? Which is it?

In answer to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, it is not for me to comment upon a matter that is directly in issue in the current litigation in the High Court involving The Guardian, The Observer and the Sunday Times. There is no question of censorship in the action that I took yesterday on behalf of the Government. However, there is every question connected with the duty of the Government to protect the confidentiality that is owed to them by members and former members. Had the BBC been prepared to meet the reasonable request of the Treasury Solicitor to see the passages of the transcript limited to the contributions from members and former members of the service, great difficulty would have been overcome. [Interruption.] There seems to be a certain discrimination today about freedom of expression.

In answer to the third part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, yesterday was the first occasion on which the Government learned evidence from the source that I have described of the full extent of the programme. I am told that learned leading counsel for the BBC made no comment upon the width of the injunction and limited his comment on the proposed order to saying that at least it had the merit of being clear. However, I must make it perfectly clear that he objected to any injunction. It is not for me to interpret the order made by the judge. It speaks for itself.

In congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his robust, timely and entirely necessary action—[Laughter.]

Order.

If I wanted confirmation that I was right, the laughter of the Opposition over this serious matter would confirm it utterly.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend what the position would have been if he had not taken this action and if the programme had gone out? If there had been a breach of security in that programme — perhaps made unwittingly by the BBC — where would we have been, because the press would immediately say that it was then in the public domain and could be repeated? That would be the end of any success that any Government could have to keep secrets secret.

My hon. Friend is completely right. We know that considerable importance and significance is attached by those who wish to publish matters that may well be sensitive in the security sense to the fact that the information is in the public domain. My hon. Friend is right to say that there was a real and patent risk that if material went forth of the sort described in The Daily Telegraph article, and it was material that was obtained or published in breach of the duty of confidentiality, it might well be said thereafter, "Now it is in the public domain. Perhaps it should not be, but it is." In that way, the boundaries are pushed further back. That was not a risk that the Government felt that they could properly take.

Is the Attorney-General aware that the only benefit that his injunction has brought the country is that this morning a 45-minute interview with the leader of the Liberal party has been broadcast in place of the scheduled programme? That does not sufficiently impress me as a reason to support the Government's action. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he is saying that yesterday, in lumbering into this legal action, he acted on the basis of an article that appeared in a gossip column? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has ignored the fact that the nature of the programme has been known over many months — for example, to Conservative Members who appeared in it.

The work involved has been done under the authority of the controller of Radio 4, a full description of the programme has been publicly advertised in the Radio Times for more than a week, and the programme has the authority of the director-general. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman's action should have been limited to calling the attention of the director-general of the BBC to the public obligations of the corporation. Will he accept that most of us believe that this is yet another symptom of the dangerous slide into authoritarianism into which the Government are taking the country?

I dispute vigorously the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I agree entirely that there is every advantage to the country in hearing as much as possible from the right hon. Gentleman on the wireless. No doubt we heard him at 10.30 or whenever it was this morning.

It is wrong to suggest that the Government were motivated by authoritarian considerations. The Government wish to protect the security of the United Kingdom by protecting the duty of confidentiality that is owed by all former members of the service.

It is not much of a criticism to say that the Government were spurred into the action that they took by an entry in a gossip column. If the Government did nothing, having been put upon clear notice, as it might later have been said, of the content of the programme and the quality of its individual contributors, it would then be said that they blow hot and cold.

There was no means by which the Government properly and responsibly could have ignored the detailed story that appeared. That is why the Government spoke, through the Treasury Solicitor, to the legal adviser of the BBC. The legal adviser knew well the burden of duty that the Government consider they are obliged to protect, and he was unable to disclose the transcript.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, as one of those who recorded a contribution to this potential programme, I recognise the total distinction between an analysis of the purpose and need to protect the security services, which is a legitimate subject for the BBC to organise a programme around and in which I and others thought that we were participating, and the Government's absolute right to insist that their former servants abide by the contracts into which they entered, especially when the security of the nation can be in any way prejudiced if they do not? My right hon. and learned Friend has properly drawn the attention of the House to that distinction.

The House will attach the greatest importance and weight to what my right hon. Friend has said, coming from someone who discharged his responsibilities. We do not criticise the individual contributors to the programme, and among them were many distinguished people, including my right hon. Friend. We criticise only those who may have done so in breach of the duty of confidentiality that they owed to the Crown. I do not know whether they have done so. I could have been put into the picture had the Treasury Solicitor's request for the names been granted, but it was not. I could not have possibly advised my colleagues to accept that risk.

The Attorney-General has made an astounding statement. He has used the phrase "may have done". He does not know whether any duty has been breached. In effect, he is saying that we should not have any proper, serious and responsible discussion about the role of the security services because some who participate in the discussion may or may not reveal that which is confidential. How can there be serious and responsible discussion about the security services unless ex-officers of the services tell us what happened, without giving away secrets? Is it not clear that once again the Government are trying to cover up something that is rather nasty? "Spycatcher" has revealed that the previous Labour Government were being undermined by a service that we all ought to know more about.

I reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion that no Government are ever entitled to seek an interim injunction from the High Court to prevent possible damage of a serious nature of which there is a real risk. I cannot go before any court without affidavit evidence to substantiate that contention. That is what I did yesterday, to the apparent satisfaction of an independent High Court judge. The hon. Gentleman advances an extraordinary contention in saying that in every instance we must wait until the horse has left the stable before we can take any legal measures. That cannot be right. He should address himself to the question whether it is right for the Government to protect the duty of confidentiality in the interests of national security. If he agrees that it is right that they should so protect that duty, how is that to be done if we have always to wait until the horse has left the stable?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that each officer signs a vow of confidentiality both when he joins the service and when he leaves it? Does he agree with me that their failure to honour that vow puts at risk the security of our country and affects the trust of other countries in our security services? Does he further agree with me that the attitude of Opposition Members underlines their lack of concern for the security of our country?

My hon. Friend is right in drawing attention to the fact that every member of the Security Service knows full well his duty of confidentiality. He is right also in pointing to the danger that can arise to the country if that duty is allowed to be broken. There are many, various and not always foreseeable ways in which serious harm can be done if former members of the service are allowed to speak on matters that came into their knowledge by reason of their employment.

As the programme was discussed with the security authorities and the D notice committee, as the programme has been quite some time in preparation and as the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and the previous Lord Chancellor participated in it, why has the Attorney-General issued a peremptory ban on the BBC on the very eve of the broadcast? Why did the Government not act before if they felt it necessary to do so?

The right hon. Gentleman should know that I have issued no ban. A ban has been made of an interim nature that can be reconsidered at 24 hours notice by an independent High Court judge. I have no power to issue a ban.

A nice point.

Yes, and an important one. I hope that it is a distinction and a function that will always remain under our constitutional arrangements. I do not wish to see a member of the Executive able to impose a ban, and I hope that that is the view of the hon. Gentleman who interjected.

As to the scale and date of knowledge of the scope of the programme, the first day upon which the Government had notice and evidence of the full scope of the programme was yesterday.

I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the last part of his reply? Is he aware that, long before the Daily Telegraph gossip column caused such excitement in Whitehall, some of the retired security service officers who took part in that discussion programme had actually written and informed the director-general of the security services of their participation and the content of their contributions — apparently with no objection from the director-general?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept, from someone else who took part in those hitherto rather obscure radio programmes, that they have virtually nothing to do with current national security or past operational matters? They were largely taken up with a somewhat academic discussion of accountability and the need for further oversight. Is that not a legitimate area on which retired security service officers can comment?

Will the Government cool down a little and try to draw a line between the necessary confidentiality of the security services and the responsible need for a democratic discussion about them in a more appropriate place?

There had been notification by one former Government servant of the fact that he had been invited to contribute, and had contributed, to a programme. No information was available to the Government about the scope and scale of the programme until the story appeared in the newspaper yesterday. I will not repeat the grounds that the Government considered sufficient, and indeed imperative, to lead me to act in the way that I did yesterday on their behalf, based upon that article.

On the question whether I would accept from my hon. Friend his account of the content of the programme, of course I attach tremendous weight to anything that he says to me. However, when dealing with matters of national security, especially the integrity and confidentiality of the security and intelligence services, I am afraid that no responsible Government could conceivably take a risk without seeing the text of the programme—or at least without knowing the full names of those taking part. That was the request made to the BBC, but it was denied.

Will my right hon. and learned colleague explain how he equates his statement to the House with the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to the House on 3 March, that nothing that had been said by Mr. Fred Holroyd or Mr. Colin Wallace had anything to substantiate it? There was a similar statement by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, that there was not a shred of evidence to support the accusations of Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Wallace.

Given that most of the serving officers who contributed to the programme notified the Government of the nature of their comments, is not the real reason for the ban the Government's determination to continue to deny the allegations of Fred Holroyd and Colin Wallace? Is not the real person being protected not the state and not security, but the Prime Minister, who has been the major figure in the cover-up of what went on in our dirty war in Ireland? She knows——

Order. Are the gentlemen that the hon. Gentleman mentioned relevant to the case? He must confine his comments to the case.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point is that there is an attempt to suppress the programme because Holroyd and Wallace are interviewed in it. Is it not an attempt to continue that cover-up because the Prime Minister is clearly guilty of knowledge of the treasonable actions of MI5 officers in Ireland during the period of the last Labour Government?

Had I any information on whether Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Wallace were among those who contributed to the programme, I might have been able to answer the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I would have that knowledge only if the BBC had agreed to tell the Treasury Solicitor yesterday whether they had contributed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that information was denied.

As to the hon. Gentleman's references to a dirty war in Ireland, I think that I had better ignore that part of his question.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the text of the programme is as academic as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), there is no reason why the BBC should not have divulged it on the limited and confidential basis requested? Does he further agree that those who have undertaken an oath of confidentiality and subsequently break it should, at that moment, have all emoluments ended? Should not that be a condition of their service? They should not be able to profit from this or any other Government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely understand the need to preserve what might be described as the proper journalistic proprieties. I certainly do not believe that anything in the action taken by the Government yesterday could be construed as a breach of those proprieties or an attempt to seek to attain such a breach. I shall explain what was done by the Government yesterday. We read in some detail, from other journalists, that a programme was to take place that contained the names of considerable number of former and serving members of the security services. We read that there were "jitters at Broadcasting House" and so on — [HON. MEMBERS: "Really."]

Pathetic.

Oh, no. I think that Opposition Members must decide whether they are upholding and standing firm behind the integrity of journalism, or whether they are saying that nobody pays the slightest attention to anything said by journalists because as a class they are irresponsible. They must make up their minds on which stand they are taking. Supposing that, yesterday, we had been told the identities of those contributing to the programme and what they had said, it might have been —I know not—that we could have agreed to the whole programme.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that the BBC was prepared to disclose the transcript to Mr. Justice Henry, who could then have applied the appropriate legal principles to that? Does he accept that the Government's stand on the duty and confidentiality of former security service servants would be much improved were it not characterised by a shrill authoritarianism against the media and selective leaking to trusties on the Right?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I understand that at the hearing, counsel for the BBC offered to show the transcript to the judge, but he said that he did not wish at that stage to see it. At that stage, it would have been the view of the Crown that, in any event, there would have been insufficient time for it, let alone the judge, to form a view at the hearing. The matter would have had to be subjected to examination and consultation. Of course, there might well have been time, had the request been granted when it was made earlier in the day. Unfortunately, it was not. The BBC has leave from the judge to go back on 24 hours notice to apply for the injunction to be discharged or for its scope to be narrowed.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it all depends on what he means by that buzz word "authoritarianism". The Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for the security services of this state. She alone has that authority. If, by exerting that authority and protecting the confidentiality that is owed to the Crown, she is to be described as authoritarian, and her colleagues collectively with her, that is a label that I should be proud to wear.

Is not the nature of the question another sign of a grubby little campaign by the sneaks and narks on the Opposition Benches to undermine national security—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a very serious matter that the whole House is taking seriously. I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to keep the temperature down.

I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that there is a desire on the Benches opposite, or let us say a cavalier attitude to national security, where they feel that they might be able to vainly acquire a certain amount of party political benefit. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on the Front Bench opposite as to what his attitude would have been had he found himself in my right hon. and learned Friend's position?

I watched the performance of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on "Newsnight" last night, when he took part in the programme in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), and I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again this morning. He was asked that question twice and he dodged it twice. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to wound, but afraid to strike.

Will the Attorney-General accept that Opposition Members are as concerned about matters of security as any Members on the Conservative Benches? We are equally concerned about the freedom of the press. Even with retrospect and hindsight, will he not admit that the Government have acted in a fashion that can only be described as high handed and clod-footed?

With regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's question about confidentiality and his concern for confidentiality referred to the contracts of those concerned and not about a facile injunction which attacks the freedom of the press? The Attorney-General skated over the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) with regard to the interpretation of the injunction. Downing street claimed last night that the injunction was narrow and had a narrow and limiting effect. Will the Attorney-General confirm or contradict that?

I do not interpret orders made by the court. The courts speak for themselves and their orders must be interpreted by those to whom they apply. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question whether I accept that his colleagues and he are patriotic and concerned about security, I am sure that they are concerned about security. I would certainly hope that right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are so concerned. I cast no aspersions about that. I merely stress that those who must protect the security of this country have the duty to take all reasonable steps open to them. They asked for information which could determine the issue one way or the other, but were refused that information. I am afraid that there was no option but to take the steps taken yesterday. If that is high-handed, so be it. However, I do not believe that many people would regard it as such.

rose——

Order. This is a private notice question, not a statement. It has gone on longer than I would normally allow for a private notice question. This is a Back-Bench day and many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I am afraid that some of them may not now be called.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. This is very unfair on a Back-Bench day.

There are only three of us left wishing to speak.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been called, but I am not prepared to allow an extension of this Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not an extension of Question Time.

Very well, I will take Mr. Corbett.

Will you please confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the exchanges that we have just had are still covered by parliamentary privilege and therefore may be freely reported by the BBC and other media in spite of the injunction that the Government have obtained?

I have allowed the private notice question today and it is in the public domain as far as the Housie is concerned.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past you have taken points of order from other hon. Members who have complained about their difficulty in obtaining information in ministerial answers and the evasions that have taken place. You quite properly said on those occasions that you had no power to compel a Minister to divulge information and that hon. Members should apply themselves to other means of obtaining and discovering that information. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the means left to hon. Members on occasions such as this is to use the media in concert to smoke out information of that kind. With the deepest respect, I ask you to reflect, Mr. Speaker, on the position in which this form of gag places hon. Members of this House——

Order. That is nothing to do with me. I am concerned with order in the Chamber. I say to the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that Back-Bench time is very short in this place. I am constantly concerned to ensure that Back Benchers have an opportunity to make their points in debate. That is what the House is about. I have allowed well over half an hour for this question. At an ordinary Question Time, that would be excessive.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you allow me to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 arising from the exchanges that we have had——

Order. No, not on a Friday.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficult balance which must be achieved, as you have liberally allowed an unusual 35 minutes for the private notice question. However, it is not only procedural matters which should be taken into account in future. You must take into account the nature of the material which the question brings out.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this occasion relates to freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and the freedom of hon. Members to participate in the proceedings on those fundamental constitutional freedoms. In future judgments about time, I hope that you will bear that in mind, especially as hon. Members may not have been able to ask questions who may be able to bring matters into the debate which would otherwise not be aired.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know, as you are in charge of these proceedings, that there is a difference between a private notice question and a statement. It is significant, as I read the situation, that the Attorney-General who gagged the BBC had to be dragged squealing to the House because he did not make a statement, which would have attracted a wider variety of cross-questioning. He only came here as a result of the attempt of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) to table a private notice question. Here we are, in the interests of glasnost, with a pathetic Government with their 100-seat majority——

Order.

I am getting to my point

No. The hon. Gentleman was not called again.

rose——

Order. I must tell the House that I received dozen of letters from hon. Members this week complaining bitterly that they were not called in debate. How can I possibly answer letters of that kind when hon. Members take up the time on completely different matters?

rose——

Sit down.

Order. I have an absolute obligation, as the whole House accepts, to protect the business of the House and the interests of Back Benchers. It is unfair to the whole House.

rose——

Order.

I just wanted to finish.

No. The hon. Gentleman is regularly called and it is unfair for hon. Members to seek to take up other hon. Members' time.

rose——

Order. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain, and has complained, about such abuses.

You are here to protect Back Benchers. We are going down the road——

Order.

Further to that point of order.

No. I am not taking any more points of order on this matter.

I will attempt to reiterate the points that I was making before the private notice question. I had referred to the guilt of Labour Members who constituted the Government of the day in 1974.

Since the hon. Gentleman appears to be referring to guilt among Labour Members, is he claiming that in 1974 the Conservative party was pressing for intervention and was in favour of intervention?

That was a matter for the Government. In the debates on Cyprus as I recollect them, there were many calls from Conservative Members for intervention. We had a duty to intervene, but that was a Government duty.

What was the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition in 1974 about intervention?

I do not know. However, I know what my view was and the views of many of my hon. Friends. We pushed our view as hard as we could. I remember distinctly in July 1974 meeting Mr. Ecevit when he visited London. I remember what he said to me. He was in despair. He said, "We have no choice but to intervene. All this would be so easy if only your people would do their duty." They did not do that duty because they were craven.

No one knows what discussions took place in Cabinet, but it is clear that those of us who knew about the concerns of the Greek Cypriots at the takeover by Nicos Sampson certainly would have welcomed intervention. Within one hour we could have had a force in Nicosia and we could have seen the end of Nicos Sampson, the re-establishment of Archbishop Makarios in his rightful place as President, the reconvening of the conference and the re-establishment of the constitution — perhaps with a few more teeth added—which had not been observed during the 1960s.

The responsibility for the tragedy of Cyprus rests largely with Opposition Members who were in government in 1974. So we have to live with the reality of a divided Cyprus 14 years on from the events of 1974. Much worse, we have to live with a divided community. People such as Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides, from opposing communities, were educated together, came to London together and still talk to each other, but their grandchildren cannot talk to each other because for 20 years they have lived apart. It is part of the tragedy of Cyprus that hate and suspicion is deeply embedded in those children, and I do not know how that can be overcome.

The only way forward is through the acceptance of a federal structure for Cyprus; nothing else will suffice or meet the suspicions of the two communities. Other hon. Members have mentioned the result of the Turkish elections. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the Government of Turkey being in the hands of Mr. Ozal, and that Mr. Papandreou, after the re-election of Mr. Ozal, said "We must come together and talk." In an atmosphere of calm, perhaps those two states and statesmen can put some pressure on Cyprus. The point has already been made that unless Greece and Turkey are prepared to bring that pressure, nothing can be done. The solution rests in their hands.

We have a special role, despite there being Greek and Turkish Cypriots, as all Cypriots hold to their links with our country. They do not want to be Greek or Turkish Cypriots; they welcome the fact that over the past 150 years Britain has had an input into Cyprus, and most of them would rather come to London than to Ankara or Athens for their education. We have a special role, quite apart from our role as a guarantor power, and we must continue to build on those links and to support the Secretary-General.

Beyond that, we must do whatever we can to build bridges between the two communities. I suggest one or two areas where we might do that. First and foremost, a time bomb is ticking away in Cyprus which could explode at any moment. I refer to the water supply. Many United Nations reports have been made on the water supply in Cyprus. We know that the water table is dropping rapidly. Many ambitious schemes have been suggested over the years, one of which involved piping water from mainland Turkey to Cyprus. It is high time that the plans were resurrected and looked at again, because the growth of tourism, especially in the south of the island, could cause the water in the pipeline to Nicosia to become saline. That would be dangerous, because the main aquifers m the north lie almost directly under the partition line between the Greek and Cypriot communities.

If the United Kingdom is to attempt to bring the two communities together, the British Council, with the support of the Government, should bring together young Turkish and Greek Cypriots for a fortnight at a time, for informal discussions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred to the re-opening of Nicosia airport. I raised the proposal during another debate on Cyprus some two or three years ago, when it was clear to me, and I think to most people, that although tremendous advantage would be gained for the Turkish Cypriots, the Greek Cypriots would not wish to open up the international airport, with dual access, because that would immediately increase the prosperity of the north. The Greek Cypriot Government were not anxious to do that.

The point has been made that re-opening the airport may result in a reduction in the Turkish armed forces in Cyprus. I have said many times, and to the Turkish Prime Minister and Mr. Denktash, that I cannot understand why the Turkish Government and Turkish Cypriots insist upon maintaining as many forces in Cyprus as they have now. It is clear that in 1963, when the Turkish community in Cyprus was under severe attack and threat, nothing happened; neither the Turkish forces nor the guarantor powers made any move. In 1967, again the Turkish Cypriots were under immediate threat, and again nothing happened. It is perhaps sad that something did not happen then, either with the guarantor powers jointly or with the Turkish army.

By 1974, those people who did not wish the state of Cyprus well were lulled into a false sense of security and believed that they could act with impunity, as Nicos Sampson did. We know that that can never happen again. If the Turkish armed forces were reduced to brigade strength, I could suggest a disposition of the brigade which would more than adequately cover the security of Turkish Cypriots, because everyone in Cyprus, not least the Government, knows that any move on the part of anyone would immediately bring about the re-intervention of Turkish forces and possibly even the occupation of the whole island. Nothing would do more to bring together the two communities than to open the airport, with dual access. That is something to which we should all look forward.

My speech was interrupted, and I am sorry that it has been rather disjointed. I join all hon. Members who have spoken and will speak in saying that we cannot stand by and see the people of the marvellous island of Cyprus continuing to live in a state of tension. The tension not only exists between the two communities, but has a knock-on effect on relations between Greece and Turkey and on the NATO Alliance, so it behoves us to do all we can to find a solution and help both communities.

This is a very interesting debate. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on introducing it and I pay the warmest tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are genuinely seeking an honourable settlement for Cyprus.

We are discussing events that are taking place in a country that is part of the Commonwealth. Hon. Members who have an interest in other countries may believe that they have a right to bring events in those countries to the notice of the House, but we are referring to events in a country that is an honourable and a loyal member of the Commonwealth. I hope that one day Cyprus will be united and that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots will be able to live and work together harmoniously in what is without doubt one of the most beautiful islands in the world. When an honourable settlement is reached, it will also become one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

We have heard a great deal about what happened between 1960 and 1974. I do not say that hon. Members should not refer to that, because it influenced events subsequent to 1974. However, I shall concentrate on what happened after 1974. Following the invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish army 13 years ago, the position in Cyprus grew worse year by year, and the suffering that was caused by the invasion continues. There is the tragedy of the 1,600 Greek Cypriot men and women who disappeared. Despite repeated attempts, and documentation that contains the names, the professions and the villages of those people, there has been no satisfactory explanation of what happened to them. Thousands of people were forced from their homes in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. They lost their homes, their land and their possessions. We have never been able to find out what happened to the property of those people. The one desire, however, of both the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities in this country is to return to Cyprus.

Many of us have looked in recent years for evidence that Mr. Denktash wants an honourable settlement in Cyprus, but we continue to look for that evidence. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) referred to the large number of Turkish troops in Cyprus. During the lifetime of the last Parliament, I was a member of a delegation that went to see the Foreign Secretary who, to his credit, has said both in public and in private that the British Government believe that a substantial reduction in the number of Turkish troops in the occupied part of Cyprus is long overdue.

Thousands of Turkish men and women from the Turkish mainland have been brought into northern Cyprus. They have no links with the island. Even the opposition parties in northern Cyprus are highly critical of Mr Denktash's actions in bringing those people into northern Cyprus. In an article headed "Turkish Cypriots fearful of Turkish settlers", it is said that representatives of three Turkish Cypriot political parties — the Republican Turkish party, the Communal Liberation party and the Elan People's party — have united to condemn the actions of Mr. Denktash in bringing people from mainland Turkey to settle in the north of Cyprus. The article says:

"The fact that the Turkish Cypriots are becoming a minority in the north of Cyprus does not bother Mr. Denktash. On the contrary he is pleased. It makes him happy because as the number of the settlers increases, Denktash's percentage of vote increases."

That is a source of great concern to both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. However, Mr. Denktash does nothing about that. He is encouraging more and more people from mainland Turkey to come as quickly as possible into the occupied area. There is no evidence of good will. If anything, it has made the prospects of a settlement even more difficult.

Many of us hoped that the basis for a settlement would be reached during the intercommunal talks that have taken place since 1974. Sadly, a settlement was not reached. Since the invasion in 1974, United Nations resolutions 353, 541 and 550 have called for a settlement in Cyprus. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has made it quite clear that Mr. Denktash must be prepared to do certain things, if there is to be a prospect of a settlement in Cyprus. A meaningful withdrawal of Turkish troops and the ending of the settlement of mainland Turks in Northern Cyprus are high on the list. We have heard in the debate that, while Mr. Denktash is prepared to accept certain United Nations proposals, the Greek Cypriots are not prepared to accept other United Nations proposals. The United Nations resolutions set out clearly what the Secretary-General believes could form the basis of a settlement, if certain things happened. Tragically, they have not happened.

I am a great believer in the United Nations, but as one of the guarantor powers in Cyprus, we shall have to consider what we must do if the discussions taking place under the auspices of the United Nations are not successful. New initiatives will have to be proposed. This may not be the appropriate time to do that, but I pay the warmest tribute to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for what he said in his recent Adjournment debate on Cyprus—that although the United Kingdom will do all that it can to support the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the time will come when we shall have to consider other initiatives. It would be interesting if the Minister commented on current policy. It is easy for the Government to say, "Of course we support the initiatives of the Secretary-General," but, sadly, over the years we have seen that, whatever initiatives he tries, they are unsuccessful. We may have to consider other avenues for support.

Criticism is made of the attitude of Greek Cypriots. I shall say here what I say when speaking at functions organised by Greek Cypriots—that the Greek Cypriot community and the Government of Cyprus have made far too many concessions already. The time for making further concessions has long since gone.

We must always remember that Cyprus was invaded. It is still being invaded by a foreign army in the area that is occupied by Turkish troops. Some 30 per cent. of the island is occupied. There are thousands of foreigners on the island; they may be Turkish citizens, but they are foreigners to the island of Cyprus.

We have had the declaration of UDI by Mr. Denktash, but that is not evidence of good will. Despite the history, if he wants to achieve a settlement for Turkish Cypriots as well as Greek Cypriots, he will have to demonstrate much more good will.

I must tell the Minister that it is to the credit of the Government that they have refused to recognise the illegal action of independence by Mr. Denktash, but it is strange that they condemn his actions yet do everything they can to keep him in power by means of the unlimited trade that is allowed with the occupied area. It trades with Europe and this country. If we are saying that Mr. Denktash is wrong and that we should not support him, we should not therefore give him support by allowing his economy to continue, and certainly not to prosper. No hon. Member has said, sadly, that there is prosperity in the occupied area; the position is quite the reverse. We have a right to condemn UDI, but equally we must take action to stop trade between Europe and the occupied area until there is a greater willingness on the part of Mr. Denktash and his colleagues to enter into meaningful discussion to end the tragedy of Cyprus.

We are entitled to ask what the United States of America is doing. Many believe that the United States, with its close involvement with mainland Turkey, does and could have an influence. President Reagan repeatedly says how his Administration champions the rights of people to their freedom and independence, which we applaud, but where is the evidence that he is following that principle to ensure the freedom and rights of the people of Cyprus? It would be interesting if the Minister were to say whether he is aware of any involvement of the United States in the problem of Cyprus.

Comment has been made about the number of Turkish troops. People who are sympathetic to and campaign for the Greek Cypriot community are often accused of exaggerating this issue. Therefore, I shall quote a comment recently made in the Congress of the United States by a United States Assistant Secretary of State, Rozanne Ridgeway, who was asked about the current levels of Turkish troops in Cyprus. She said:

"The mainland Turkish forces on Cyprus continue to be high, ranging from 22,000 to 30,000."

That statement was made by an official of the Unted States Administration, so one can accept that those figures are correct. I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, West in his criticism of the levels of Turkish troops on the island.

I am sure that every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate wants a settlement to the Cyprus problem. I want a settlement in which the rights of the people are fully protected and guaranteed. I am not, and never have been, campaigning solely for the Greek Cypriot community. To do so would be sheer folly, given the rights of the minority community on the island. I want a settlement that is honourable to both sides. I believe that in the future there will be a Government of Cyprus made up of Greek and Turkish men and women, who will share the responsibility of a united Cyprus. Any attempt to divide Cyprus, to allow the status quo to continue, to accept that we can do nothing about it, would be the tragedy of this century. We have seen, in countries that are divided, the long-term effects of such division on their people.

We have heard about the methods by which we could progress—through the use of airports and the potential development of water; mention was made of the role of the British Council. They are all commendable suggestions, but I must throw two spanners in that line of thinking. Attempts are repeatedly made in Cyprus to allow Greek and Turkish Cypriots of all ages and of various professions to come together to talk about how they see the development of their country. However, Mr. Denktash will not allow Turkish Cypriots to go into the Greek Cypriot area to discuss the future of Cyprus. They often come to this country and to the House to discuss the future of their country, because Mr. Denktash does not allow them to do it in their own country. The British Council may have a role to play, but the men and women of Cyrus have a real role to play when they meet to discuss the problems of Cyprus.

Reference was made earlier to Famagusta. What will happen to it? This has been an issue over the years, and had Mr. Denktash been willing to say, "There are differences that may take a long time to resolve, but I am prepared to show good will," Famagusta would have been high on the list. Hon. Members have mentioned issues that could be developed — the airports, the potential development of water and the British Council — and I support all of them, but until other issues are decided, little progress will be made.

The hon. Member for Streatham made a valid comment on the recent Turkish elections. It was pleasing to read in a report in The Times that the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, had sent a letter of congratulation to the re-elected Turkish Prime Minister. I hope that that is genuine evidence of the willingness of the Greek Government to meet the Turkish Government and to discuss the obvious problems that they have. If that is evidence of good will, it is something we should do all in our power to encourage.

I find it unbelievable that the people who were forced to leave their homes, lands and possessions have never been allowed to go back to see what condition their properties are in. They are not allowed to see whether they are being farmed or looked after or whether their homes are being occupied. They may feel bitter, but it would at least give them some comfort to know that their lands are being looked after. Sadly, they are never given that opportunity.

Three basic issues divide Cyprus and will continue to divide it: troop withdrawal, free movement of people and stopping settlers from mainland Turkey. Until something is done about those issues, there will be no settlement. No matter what we do in this Parliament or what is done anywhere in the world in an effort to bring about a settlement, there will be no settlement. I am sure that every hon. Member who speaks in the debate wants a settlement, but we are now entitled to evidence of good will by Mr. Denktash and his colleagues. He is aware of the basic issues that concern the Greek Cypriots, and he should respond. If he does so, we can look to an honourable and lasting settlement for Cyprus.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on his good fortune in topping the ballot for a motion after 17 years. I can tell him that I have been waiting for 21 years and have not attained his good fortune. I also congratulate him on selecting this subject for debate. It is a subject that has been ignored by the House over the past 13 years. There is a handful of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have shown an interest in the subject and their views cross the party divide.

It is regrettable that we in this House have not paid more attention to the fact that a member of the British Commonwealth has remained, in part, under occupation by foreign troops for 13 years. That is totally unacceptable and we should be straining to achieve a solution. If there is not a legal obligation, there is certainly a moral obligation on the part of the British Government under the treaty of guarantee, which I feel successive Governments have not honoured to the extent that they should.

We have to bear in mind that there are some 200,000 British subjects of Cypriot origin living in the United Kingdom for whom this is an urgent and pressing problem. As Members of Parliament we have a duty to reflect their views in the House. I immediately declare an interest as I have a substantial Cypriot population within my constituency, both Greek and Turkish. They are able to live in harmony with one another. Therefore, one cannot accept that Turkish and Greek Cypriots could not live together in harmony in their own land were it not for external political interference.

I agree with everything, that the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he also accept that before the invasion in 1974 there were many villages in Cyprus where Greeks and Turks were living closely and harmoniously?

That is perfectly true. However, it is dangerous to dwell too much on the past, because there are rights and wrongs on both sides. If one talks to Mr. Denktash, one will hear a great deal from him about what happened in 1963 and 1964, when there was a determined move by some Greek Cypriots to bring about enosis and drive the Turkish Cypriots away. Those claims are equalled and paralleled, if not exceeded, by complaints we have had since 1974 about the way in which many Greek Cypriots were treated by Turkish occupying troops in the early days and the way in which that unhappy island has remained divided and so many people have been deprived of their homes and basic human rights.

Reference was made to the 1975 Select Committee report. I am the only hon. Member in the Chamber who served on that Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) was right when he said that the view of the Committee—it was an all-party Committee—was that the Government of the day failed in their obligations under the treaty of guarantee. The irony is that, if that Government had had a little backbone and joined Mr. Ecevit in stopping the coup d'etat of Nicos Sampson in that attempt at enosis, the Labour Government would have had the satisfaction of having brought down a Greek junta, because that is what happened subsequently. They denied themselves that opportunity, when they had the wherewithal in the sovereign bases and Malta to be able to deal with the situation effectively. As has been said, there was an election in the offing and Messrs. Callaghan and Wilson were not anxious to become involved in Cyprus.

The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Anderson), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, is not correct in saying that the Conservative party did not raise the matter at the time or at the first opportunity. I happened to be a Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition in those days and I raised the matter at the first opportunity during the reply to the Gracious Speech. I was given the brush-off by Mr. Callaghan.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. My point was simply whether the then Opposition made a clear declaration that they supported intervention by the British Government.

They were not in a position to do so, because of the timing. The hon. Gentleman knows that it occurred in the middle of a parliamentary recess. However, as soon as we returned, we raised the matter in the way I have described.

Surely that is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that parliamentarians, even in recess, have ample opportunity to make statements on matters of importance if they so choose. If the then Opposition chose not to make that sort of declaration, we can draw our own conclusions.

We can draw the firm conclusion— the hon. Gentleman is trying to get his hon. Friends off this hook—that the Government then in power, with all the means at their disposal, chose to do absolutely nothing. The hon. Gentleman cannot blame that inaction on the Opposition of the day. That was the view taken by the all-party Committee of which a former Cabinet Minister in a previous Labour Government happened to be Chairman. However, although the matter has been raised, I do not think that there is much to be gained by raking over old political embers. I intend to address my remarks to the present state of affairs.

I have been critical, and I shall continue to be critical, of my own Government. I believe that they could do more. They are equally bound by the obligations under the treaty of guarantee, and they are not doing all that they could be doing. In order not to be too unfair to the Government, I say at once that they took immediate and positive action at the time of the declaration of UDI by Mr. Denktash. The British Government responded immediately that the act was illegal and that the regime could not be recognised. Moreover, the representatives of the British Government did all that they could in the United Nations to marshal world opinion and to bring about a universal condemnation of that illegal declaration.

Having said that, I do not think that the Government — whatever they may be doing diplomatically — have spoken up publicly enough about the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus and the growing number of settlers from Anatolia, to which several hon. Members have referred. Between 30,000 and 35,000 Turkish troops are stationed in a part of the British Commonwealth. They arrived there as an act of war, by way of invasion and uninvited. The British Government should not accept that state of affairs. Such acceptance is certainly not in line with the Falklands spirit with which this Government have come to be associated. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to be more forthright in their attitude to this unhappy situation.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said so far, and he has touched on a good point. Does he accept that in recent months and years not only has the Turkish garrison in the north been expanded but it has been re-equipped with new NATO tanks? We now have 300 modern tanks sitting in a very small land space in the north of Cyprus. That enhancement of force is totally unwarranted and has not been specifically condemned by the British Government as it should have been.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

The other matter on which the British Government could and should say more—certainly in public—relates to the growing number of settlers arriving in the north of the island from the mainland. There are differing figures, which range from 30,000 to 60,000. The problem that such settlers create is twofold. First, with the passage of time, they will come naturally to regard Cyprus as their own home. The human problem will become more and more difficult to solve if they have to be asked to leave the land and homes that they occupy, which belong not to them but to others who have been denied access to them.

Who is going to ask them to leave, and why?

I should have thought that, first, we should discourage any more settlers.

That is a different matter.

The number of settlers continues to grow and our Government have not been seen to be doing anything to protest against this development, which has accelerated in recent years. It will become very difficult to deal with those who have become established and say to them, "You must leave the house and the land that you occupy because it is not yours; it belongs to somebody else." One simply cannot understand the motives of Mr. Denktash in giving away title deeds to property that is already owned by others, who are denied the right to enjoy land that their families may have worked for generations.

By allowing the situation to continue, we are creating a human problem. We are allowing land to be given away to others, who, in time, will insist on remaining there. The original owners will say, "This land has belonged to my family for 100 or 200 years. Why should it be stolen from me by political action?" The problem will be compounded when the children of the settlers, who have been born in Cyprus, say, "I am a Cypriot." It will then be impossible—I agree with my hon. Friend—to say to those people, "You must go back to Turkey." They will say, "We do not know Turkey. We were born here. We are Cypriots." That is why I urge that quick action should be taken to discourage the process.

The human problem created by the process must be dealt with as sensitively as possible. Perhaps it will be necessary to set up a compensation fund or to exchange land that previously belonged to Turks in the south, which is now being used by Greek Cypriots, for land in the north. Basic human rights have to be honoured and respected. We must start from the premise that people who have lost their land or had it stolen from them should have the first claim to its restoration, to alternative land to replace it or to monetary compensation. That cannot be pushed under the carpet.

Does my hon. Friend know whether Cypriot law is similar to British law, in that occupation of land for 12 years or more gives squatters' rights? If the land in the south is occupied by Greek Cypriots and land in the north by Turkish Cypriots for perhaps more than 12 years, under the normal British system they would have good title to that land.

I should not like to pronounce upon the niceties of Cypriot law. I find it difficult enough as a practising lawyer to deal with all the niceties of English law. I am not sure whether, if a person has been kept off his land by physical force, by a squatter, the prescriptive right to which my hon. Friend referred would run in the way suggested. As for the land previously in Turkish ownership, I understand that the occupiers are required by Greek Cypriot law to pay a rent, which is deposited in an account and available to be paid to the rightful owners as and when they are able to reclaim their land. One might have thought that there would be a reciprocal arrangement in the north but, unhappily, it does not exist. Instead Mr. Denktash has issued title deeds to the people who have come from Turkey and led them to believe that they are the legal owners of that property.

The human problems of one individual dealing with another — not the problems on which politicians pontificate or with which international Governments deal— are becoming more difficult because of the way in which the situation has been allowed to drift. Little has been done to stop the influx from the mainland of Turkey. There is no justification for it—except, I understand, to bolster the political power and influence of Mr. Denktash. I understand that he derives his popular support from it.

Statements which issue from northern Cyprus seem to show that the Turkish Cypriots are extremely worried and unhappy about the influx and regard themselves as third-class citizens. That is another aspect of the tragedy. The opposition's problems in the north are difficult, if one is able to believe the information coming from the area. Democracy in the sense in which we understand it does not apply there. It is very much a one-man state in the north, bolstered by Turkish arms and guns. The House and the Government must pay attention to that matter.

One can understand the history of this unhappy island in recent years, with two communities, one in fear of the other. The Turkish minority is afraid lest there once again be a united island on a one-man, one-vote basis, making them second-class citizens. They complain that that is what happened before 1974. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but it is what they say and believe.

The Greek Cypriots are afraid that, because of its geography, Turkey can at any moment annex the whole island and that that is the reason for the presence of Turkish troops in such large numbers. Those fears must be overcome. It can only happen through the international community, led by Britain — because of our responsibilities to a Commonwealth country and former colony —ensuring that there are guarantees and by the creation of organs of state that guarantee the rights of the minority in the island. That is a sine qua non. Basic human rights of the kind to which I referred must be protected by the international community, supported by international guarantees.

Resolving the fears that the communities have of one another is more difficult. Around the world, we can see situations in which communities live together, but in which one is in fear of the other. We are in a position to help by asserting greater moral influence than we have so far.

Hon. Members have referred to the recent election in Turkey and the success of Mr. Ozal, and to the immediate reaction that that has produced in Athens by way of statements made by Mr. Papandreou. In that result, and in Mr. Papandreou's reaction, we can see the beginnings of a desire by the two main contenders to reach an early agreement, on sensible terms, about the future of Cyprus. We must do whatever we can to encourage that new feeling and atmosphere in every way we possibly can.

There is one other way in which we could give a meaningful impetus to the discussions that are taking place. Turkey is a supplicant for entry into the European Economic Community. It should be made quite clear that, as long as its troops occupy the sovereign territory of another state, it is acting in such a fundamental breach of the attitudes of Community members that it would be hard to accept it as a member. We should insist on that. I advise my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that I hope that the Government will be more forthcoming and positive about this matter.

I noted with interest that the recent report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs made a recommendation along those lines, but the Government's response was ambivalent. One can understand the desire to be diplomatic rather than positive when dealing with a member state of NATO. Nevertheless, when matters of principle are involved of the type that we have been discussing this morning, we have every right to say to a supplicant member of the Community, "Certain standards must be observed if you wish to become a member." There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying that. Because of our position and our history in this situation, we have not only a right but a duty to say so.

A great deal more could be said about the unhappy situation in Cyprus. Various proposals have been made involving matters of detail, ranging from an international airport to the release of Famagusta. In fairness, I should correct one observation by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) about Famagusta. He suggested that Mr. Denktash should put that on offer. I believe that he has done so in the past but that, unhappily, it was rejected. Serious mistakes have been made by both sides in the handling of the proposals that have been made by one side to the other, or by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the past few years. One does not wish to attach greater blame to either Mr. Denktash or Mr. Kyprianou for the failure of those talks, or to the attempts of the Secretary-General but, nevertheless, there have been shortcomings on both sides.

I hope that, in the new atmosphere that prevails between Greece and Turkey, some rethinking will take place both to the north and south of the green line which divides Cyprus. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to see the quick restoration of a united, independent sovereign state on that delightful island, where the individuals living there have their basic human rights fully protected and their land and homes restored to them as quickly as possible.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on enabling us to have this debate and particularly on the terms in which he opened it. There has been a broad consensus in the debate, except for the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), and it is important that we reach a consensus on this issue, if possible. The pity is that we shall be denied the opportunity of hearing the views of the Liberal party or any of the three bits that make up the SDP. Their Benches are empty.

The re-election of the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ozal, is extremely important for Cyprus. Both before and after his election he made it clear that the principal aims of his Government would be to secure entry into the EC and to improve relations with Greece. In all fairness to someone in his position in Turkey, we must congratulate him on his bravery and honesty in putting those two aims so firmly and publicly on the agenda.

That new spirit was immediately picked up by Mr. Andreas Papandreou, the Greek Prime Minister who, as The Times reported,

"in an unusually warm message of congratulations and good wishes to Mr. Ozal … expressed his conviction that 'our personal contacts will continue for the benefit of relations between our two countries as well as peace in the region'."

That statement and the response of the Turkish Prime Minister on his re-election give grounds for greater hope than there has been for a long time that there is now a better possibility of Cyprus resolving its agonies and problems.

It is a truism to say that no one stands to benefit more from improved relations between Greece and Turkey than the people of Cyprus. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, when I say "the people of Cyprus" it is no slip of the tongue; I mean the people of Cyprus, whether from the Turkish Cypriot community or the Greek Cypriot community.

Before those exchanges between the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers, I believed that time was running out for Cyprus. for 13 years since the brutal invasion by Turkey this problem has festered, and there comes a point when people lose interest because a more urgent matter comes along and takes priority in the headlines of the world's media. I was wrong, because with those exchanges it is possible that we have reached one of those rare moments in history when, with an act of boldness, good will and openness, it is possible for the two Prime Ministers to jump over the barricades and debris of history which have helped to bedevil a solution to the problems of Cyprus.

It would be quite right for us to take absolutely at face value the Turkish Prime Minister's words about his wish to improve relations with Greece and to give him every good wish for the achievement of that objective. It may or may not help, but perhaps it is worth considering asking the United Nations Secretary-General to ask the Turkish Prime Minister quietly to expand on what he proposes to do to try to improve those relations, and to offer any assistance that the Secretary-Gereral or the Greek Prime Minister may feel that they need. In a sense I hope that that will not be necessary, because the best way for people to resolve problems that are between them is to have a mutual willingness to get over those problems and to push aside the things that stand in the way.

Better relations between Greece and Turkey are in everyone's interest for reasons other than Cyprus, and if progress can be made on achieving a solution, for example to the problems in the Aegean between the two countries, there is a chance of opening the door to progress in solving the problems of Cyprus. Given good will and boldness, it is possible to arrive at a solution that again guarantees the territorial integrity and independence of Cyprus. However, those taking part in the discussions must have a better sense of what tomorrow could bring rather than a detailed minuscule knowledge of what happened yesterday and in the days before it.

A solution will come only if the leaders of the two main communities in Cyprus look ahead rather than backwards. History should not be allowed to get in the way of a settlement that respects the interests of all Cypriots on the island and the island's integrity. Most Turkish Cypriots born on Cyprus—I do not include settlers—know from their own experience, as in this country, that it is possible for them to live in peace with their Greek Cypriot neighbours. That has happened more often than not. They recognise that the sooner the distinctions between the two communities can be put to one side the better. Of course everyone must respect cultural differences, but that is not the most important point about the exercise. The most important point must be the integrity and independence of the island of Cyprus, in the interests of all who live on it.

It does not help this process when in the north of the island, seemingly at the diktat of Mr. Denktash, Mr. Ozker Ozgur, the leader of the official Opposition party, the Republican Turkish party, is at this moment threatened with trial for allegedly libelling Mr. Denktash in an article written in December 1985.I understand that any day now a judicial court is to decide whether to strip Mr. Ozgur of his parliamentary immunity so that proceedings may be taken against him. That does not inspire confidence either in the House or in people living in the republic of Cyprus about what is going on in the north of the island or about the true intentions of Mr. Denktash. It does nothing to reassure anyone of the claim by Mr. Denktash to democratic commitment.

I know that Turkey and its military rulers have had little experience of democracy lately, but now that Mr. Ozal has taken that country down a new and more democratic path that we welcome, we shall expect that to be extended to the illegally occupied northern part of Cyprus. In recent days there has been a test of the strength of democracy in Turkey and its result has not set a very good example. Two committed Marxists, Haydar Kutlu and Nihat Sargin, expelled from Turkey since 1980, flew back from West Germany into Ankara and were immediately arrested for questioning. On 19 November, the European Parliament called for the release of the two leaders and we should support that call.

It must be understood in Turkey, as in any other democracy, that democracy must include democratic rights within the law for those whose opinions are unpopular or disliked by the majority of the country's citizens. That must be an essential ingredient of a democracy. We have a right to demand that the Turkish Prime Minister and others respect that principle.

Those whose hands were stained with the blood of the Turkish invasion in 1974 have now left the political scene, which gives me reason to hope that a solution to the problems of Cyprus will be achieved. Those who were actively involved in 1974 are no longer having to save face or be seen not to lose face. They are out of the way now. They are on the sidelines, and in their place is a new generation of leadership in Turkey. This gives me hope that a fresh start can be made.

When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will explain as best as he is able what the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office meant when she replied to the Adjournment debate on 23 October. The right hon. Lady said that the Government did not believe that an international conference would help at that moment and added:

"We have contingency plans to cover the fact that, sadly, it might fail.

" She then said:

"I hope that we will not need to put them into action and I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand that these contingency plans need to remain confidential."—[Official Report, 23 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 112.]

I do not have a clue what the Minister of State was referring when she made those remarks.

I accept that there may be good reason for keeping contingency plans under the counter, but if there is, I cannot think why the right hon. Lady mentioned them. I am not attacking the right hon. Lady, but her statement was bound to send wrong signals to any one of the parties involved in trying to reach a solution to the Cyprus problem, if not to every one.

For example, it could appear to Mr. Denktash that there is no need for him to do much about trying to reach an agreement with President Kyprianou because the Brits have something up their sleeves. He might take a view that he will get more if he holds back. Similarly, that view might be taken in Ankara. President Kyprianou might think, "Why should I make more concessions to try to get rid of the Turkish troops and establish the territorial integrity of the island? I might be giving more away than necessary because the Brits have a little parcel that they might be able to flog quietly to the Turks."

I hope that the Minister will be able to dispel any fears that the so-called contingency plans are ready and waiting. If that is understood to be the position, pressure will be taken off the leaders of Greece and Turkey to try to facilitate a solution to the problems of poor, bleeding Cyprus.

It would be right for us all, whatever views we take on the detail of the argument over Cyprus, to wish the Greek Prime Minister and the Turkish Prime Minister all success in the contacts that they are making. We do not expect these contacts to be public and to provide instant overnight headlines, but, we have a right to expect—the people of Cyprus have a right to demand—that the two prime Ministers will continue talking and improve relations until they can deliver a solution to the problem of Cyprus that enables it once again to live as one people on one beautiful island with respect for both communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. As a member of the Friends of Cyprus organisation, he would have liked to be here. However, he had to attend a family funeral.

I join those of my colleagues who congratulated our hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on his good fortune in the ballot and on his wisdom in choosing this subject for debate this morning. Its timing could not be more fortunate, because there has just been a Turkish general election, there is shortly to be a presidential election in Cyprus and it is possible that the Greek elections will take place in 1988 rather than in 1989.

There is a danger that, 13 years after the 1974 invasion, Cyprus has been put on the back burner of foreign affairs. There are strong reasons why that should not happen. Cyprus has a strategic importance to the United Kingdom, which is emphasised by the presence of the sovereign bases there. The importance of Cyprus to our European alliance is clear, and anything that divides Greece from Turkey provides hope for our enemies and does nothing for the alliance.

The real importance of the debate goes much wider than matters of strategy, defence and real politik—it is a humanitarian subject. Whenever I have visited Cyprus, I have been impressed by the large number of people who have been adversely affected by the developments after the 1974 invasion. If we visit Nicosia and wander through the streets, we will suddenly come across sandbags that effectively divide one part of Cyprus from the other, and we then realise how artificial is the division between those two parts of the island.

Of course, there is the further fact that a large number of people have been deprived of their homes, having been driven out in 1974 from either northern or southern Cyprus. They live not in their historic homes, but in the temporary abodes where they have been since 1974. They had to leave homes in villages where their families had lived for generations, and where they had inherited their homes from their parents and their grandparents before them. I remember meeting someone from northern Cyprus who said, "Every day I can see my home, but I cannot live in it." That really underlines the tragedy of Cyprus. More than 100,000 people currently do not reside in their family homes.

It is, of course, much worse for the Greek Cypriots, who know or fear that their family homes are being occupied not even by fellow Cypriots, but by Turkish settlers. It would be as though our very own Bexley and Sidcup was occupied not by other English people but by Frenchmen. I am sure that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would object to that.

One of the real tragedies for the Cypriots is illustrated in Varosha. In 1973, it was very much the centrepiece of the tourist industry in Cyprus. Today, I am told that the hotels stand empty, rat-infested and crumbling. They are a monument to the failure of the world to persuade Turkey to disgorge the fruits of military victory.

A further tragedy was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) —that 1,600 families still do not know what happened to their loved ones in 1974. They do not know what happened to their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters —something that is quite intolerable in a civilised world.

The resilience of Cyprus is shown in its economy. In 1973, 264,000 tourists visited the whole of Cyprus. It is estimated that 1 million tourists will visit Cyprus in 1987 and they will visit the Greek sector rather than northern Cyprus. There has been a 25 per cent. per annum compound growth in tourism in Cyprus but only about 10,000 tourists from the European Economic Community will visit northern Cyprus. That emphasises the great prosperity of the Greek sector and the fact that the northern sector has become a peasent economy with very low incomes.

Clearly, the status quo is unacceptable. When people suggest that a bizonal federation is the answer to the Cypriot problem, they fail to emphasise that that would mean that many tens of thousands of people would be unable to live in their own homes. That is why the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was very wise to suggest a system of cantons in Cyprus with Greek and Turkish communities living apart. At least many more people would live in their own homes than is currently the case.

The European Community has a positive role to play in the Cypriot problem. I remember meeting Cypriot politicians in the late 1970s. They asked when they could achieve customs union with the European Economic Community. I am pleased that a protocol was signed in October this year which will lead over the next 15 years to full customs union between the Community and Cyprus.

Reference has been made in the debate to Turkey's application to join the European Community. Like everyone else, I welcome the fact that the recent elections were generally considered to be democratic. Indeed, nine members of the European Parliament formed a delegation to watch the elections and they agreed unanimously that the elections were fully democratic.

Although we have seen democratic elections in Turkey, we must recognise that Turkey is providing the wherewithal for the Denktash regime to continue. Given the fact that there is an association agreement between Cyprus and the EEC, and given the importance that the Community attaches to human rights, it would be wrong for Turkey to be allowed to become a member of the European Community so long as it is pursuing its present policies in respect of Cyprus.

There must be a danger, unless there is some early movement in Cyprus, that partition will become institutionalised. The longer we await a settlement, the more difficult it will be to return to normality and trust between the two communities. There has been much discussion about the various constitutional proposals from time to time. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has made a series of very important initiatives. Unfortunately, at no time have both sides agreed to a particular set of proposals.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am afraid I cannot give way. I have quite a lot still to say and I know that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Any movement towards improving the position in Cyprus relies upon a series of small steps one after the other rather than a major constitutional initiative. If there were a series of bridge-building exercises between the two communities, confidence might return to that beautiful island. We should not expect the answers to come from a series of high-flown constitutional initiatives. Clearly, the first two concessions from the Turkish community must be in regard to missing persons and Varosha. It is nonsense for that part of the island to be unoccupied. Concession in that regard could be a highly productive move in respect of tourism and building confidence between the two communities. The Greek community ought to make concessions to try to reduce the disparity in income between the two parts of the island, because the disparity is so vast that everyone who goes to Cyprus is struck by its size. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that in the United Kingdom Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace and prosperity.

Under British rule?

I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we go back to the situation that prevailed before 1960.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will tell us what he means by "a return to normality". Does he mean a return to British rule during the invasion or the period after the invasion? What is normal in this intransigent situation?

We would like the normality which prevails in the United Kingdom, where Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace and harmony. That surely must be the prayer of all of us, including my hon. Friend who seems to be very good at making sedentary observations. That must be the prayer of the whole House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his feeling and knowledge about the tragedy of Cyprus. I certainly concur with his view that the problem would be best addressed by confidence-building measures and by small steps, rather than by expecting a big bang, which would be unlikely to occur, knowing as we do the depth of intercommunal suspicion, the geostrategic problems of the island and the long-standing problems between Greece and Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean.

The hon. Member, like all preceding speakers, drew on a reservoir of experience of the island. All hon. Members have striven for consensus, although some clearly lean to one or other side of the communal divide. It is my pleasure also to congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on his selection of the subject, although I was concerned at his statement that it had been his intention to choose as his subject the poll tax, but that he had been mightily leaned upon by the Whips, who indicated to him that dire things would happen were he to continue with that course. I am most concerned that the Government are seeking to use a Friday, which has traditionally been a private Members' day, for their own ends. Is this another example of the way in which this authoritarian Government are seeking to dominate the procedures of the House?

The hon. Member is talking nonsense. He does not always talk nonsense, but he was talking nonsense then. If he looks at Hansard, he will see that I said that the Whips suggested to me most courteously— that was the phrase I used — that there may be a Division on the poll tax, because the Labour party might be sufficiently misguided as to put down an amendment, so we might have had to have a vote. Purely for my own welfare in the Smoking Room of the House of Commons over the next few months, I did not wish to call in my colleagues on a Friday afternoon to vote on an amendment. I was certainly not leaned on; there was no authoritarianism at all. The hon. Member is talking absolute nonsense.

I accept that the hon. Member was spoken to with total courtesy, but he cannot re-run the proceedings of the House and claim that the Whips did not intervene in a mafia-style operation with an offer he could not refuse, even had he wanted to. Hence it is to our benefit that we have a debate on Cyprus, moved in a felicitous way by the hon. Member. He has provided us with an opportunity to consider what is happening in Cyprus.

The wording of the motion is acceptable to the Opposition. Therefore, we hope that the House as a whole will be able to send a clear signal to all the parties concerned. The Labour party has set out its position from time to time in the clearest of terms. For example, in 1983 we said:

"We support genuine guarantees for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, and the pursuit of intercommunal discussions sponsored by the UN for as long as both communities are committed to those talks."

The then spokesman for the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. East (Mr. Healey), said at that time to the Friends of Cyprus:

"Labour believes in a free, united, independent Cyprus —with no occupying foreign troops. We want to see all the Cypriot people living in one nation under the government of their choice, with a guarantee for all Cypriots of peace and protection for human rights. We want all Cypriot refugees to be able to return to their homes."

After UDI and the referendum, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have been ready to set out their position, which is based on principle.

Following the proximity talks in 1984, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that the prospects for a settlement were reasonable, and in January 1985 he told the Security Council in somewhat jubilant tones that he expected the meeting in that month

"to conclude an agreement containing the necessary elements for a comprehensive solution to the problem, aimed at establishing a Federal Republic of Cyprus."

The hon. Member for Streatham properly set out the failure of both that initiative and the subsequent initiatives of the Secretary-General. Progress was not made. What is happening on the island can be characterised as drift, stalemate and the failure of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make serious progress. I advise those hon. Members who dissent from that view to read the Secretary-General's last report. Its terms are negative and sad. The Secretary-General is personally very much on top of events in Cyprus. He knows very well what is happening there and he has the confidence of all the major players on the stage.

I invite hon. Members to look at the Secretary-General's report for the period 1 December 1986 to 29 May 1987, which was delivered to the Security Council on 29 May 1987. It makes very depressing reading. It says that no progress was possible, that the Secretary-General had pursued his efforts to find a way to overcome the existing impasse and that he had suggested a period of informal discussion, which might help to bring about progress, but that both sides had been unable to make progress. In effect, the Secretary-General said that both sides reiterated the positions that they had adopted in respect of the 1986 proposals.

In October 1987, the Minister of State said that we must still rely on the Secretary-General's initiatives. That refrain becomes a little less credible if we honestly come to the belief—the last report of the Secretary-General tends to confirm this — that he is unlikely to make any serious progress on his current initiative.

There appears to have been a hardening of attitudes and, although the mediation of the Secretary-General has not broken down, he has done no more than keep the two sides together in a process of discussion. The last resolution of the Security Council in June 1987 —resolution No. 597 — rather despairingly requested the Secretary-General to

"continue his mission of good offices, and calls upon all parties to co-operate with the peace-keeping force."

We all know that even the contingents to the peace-keeping force are under threat; the Swedish contingent is pulling out by 1 January 1988.

During the debate in October 1987, the Minister stated her belief that support of the Secretary-General's mission represented the most effective way of pursuing our goal in Cyprus, and she said that we are not alone in that belief. In the light of the current stalemate, we are bound to ask whether that remains a wholly tenable position and, if the current stalemate continues, at what point the Government will be prepared to take some initiatives. Otherwise, there will be considerable suspicion in the House that the formula of relying on the Secretary-General's good offices is being used as a cover for inaction on the part of Her Majesty's Government, for dragging their feet and refusing to consider any new initiative.

We recognise the complexities of the problem — the intercommunal and international relations aspects. The House has achieved a basic consensus. We agree that United Kingdom interests are involved for historic, human and military reasons and because of our contribution to the United Nations force, which last year cost us £27 million. We further agree that Britain, as a guarantor power, and for the reasons outlined, has, or should have, a role to play in the resolution of the conflict in Cyprus.

We should be most careful to do nothing that might be construed as according any form of recognition to the Administration in north Cyprus. The Minister of State, I am sure inadvertently, fell into that trap during the debate in October when she spoke about north and south Cyprus, as if one were dealing with two Administrations with equal validity.

We must remember that there is a republic of Cyprus, which is a member of the Commonwealth, and it is to that entity, and that alone, that we should accord any formal relations. We must be very careful, in terms of trade or any other relations, to do nothing that could be construed as recognition. I noticed, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to "President Denktash". That is the wrong way of addressing Mr. Denktash, and it accords a spurious recognition to the Administration in the north.

As to such recognition, the Minister may have noticed that in June 1986 the Christian Science Monitor quoted what it called "western officials" as saying that recognition — that is, the recognition of the regime of the Administration in the north — was inevitable in a few years' time. It claimed that several countries, notably Bangladesh, Indonesia and some Gulf states, had said that they would recognise the Administration if the United Nations initiative was seen to fail. That imposes certain constraints on us and makes it necessary to find an appropriate successor to the Secretary-General's initiative if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to produce a solution. Obviously, we have to bear in mind the objective of preventing any permanent partition in the island.

A key feature of the situation is the Turkish invasion and subsequent consolidation. Whatever may have been the legal and practical justification for the invasion — there are two ways of interpreting the treaty of guarantee —there can be no justification for consolidation of the position subsequent to the invasion. It is creating facts that make it more difficult to find a long-term solution to the problems of the island.

At the end of any process, there are certain principles that have to be upheld. For example, the invading Turkish army must withdraw. Several hon. Members have mentioned the problems of the settlers who provide some of the electoral support for Mr. Denktash. They probably now form no less than 20 per cent. of the residents of the Turkish Cypriot part of the island. There must be a settlement that involves justice for the refugees of both communities but, in terms of numbers, that must relate principally to the Greek Cypriot refugees.

There must be security guarantees for both communities. We must not allow a situation to recur such as that in 1974, which was able to justify the intervention because of the legitimate fears of the Turkish Cypriot community at that time. It is not for us to prescribe any form of internal constitution, but a unitary state seems less and less possible, given the facts.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that there may be an opening of windows of opportunity in respect of making progress. That point was made by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Haringey——

I think that the hon. Gentleman means my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi).

I am delighted to have that co-operation from the Minister.

The changes that have occurred or are in prospect include the Turkish elections. All friends of Turkey welcome the elections. Major reservations still remain about human rights, emergency powers and prisoners of conscience, but it is clear that Mr. Ozal clearly enjoys wide and popular support within Turkey. There is now a more open and genuine expression of opinion and a major step has been taken on the road to democracy within Turkey. Mr. Ozal has been given an opportunity several years before the next election, and he can decide whether to use it constructively in respect of building bridges with Greece and seeking to find a solution to the Cypriot problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) quoted Mr. Ozal from the time of the election. He said that he is keen to improve relations with Greece.

The other new factor is the coming elections in Cyprus next February. If the result is conclusive, the leader who emerges will be in a stronger position in coming negotiations.

A number of hon. Members have referred to the Community and the Turkish application for full membership which is mentioned in the motion. That will give us and other Community members some leverage in respect of the situation in Cyprus. The motion says that we should show our concern about the island now that Turkey has applied to join the Community.

Judging by past statements, the Government's position appears to be that there is no nexus between Turkey's application to join the Community and the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops. Surely that position is wholly untenable. We know the problems that are anyway likely to be posed by Greece in respect of that application. Now that Turkey has applied for member-ship, and given the known policies of Mr. Ozal, we cannot ignore the leverage that the EEC may have. If the British Government are serious about a settlement in Cyprus, the Turkish occupation is naturally relevant and it is a clear obstacle to progress on the Turkish application.

I know from my experience of diplomatic usage that one would not expect that to be trumpeted from the rooftops, but Britain and other members of the Community should make it clear to the Turkish Government that if they wish to improve their relations with Greece and reach a constructive settlement of the Cyprus problem — it places an economic burden on Turkey to have to support the northern part of Cyprus — they cannot ignore the European context and their wish eventually to join the Community.

Given that the context has improved as a result of the Community application by Turkey, the Turkish elections and, one hopes, the elections in Cyprus in February next year, how do we make progress? Clearly we cannot rely indefinitely on the Secretary-General's good offices if it becomes clear that they are not producing results. That would be a gross injustice to the refugees. As I said, one of the sadder facts is that time is not on our side. As time passes, new facts are established. The Turkish Cypriot community will increasingly lose its identification as Cypriots and the settlers will be seen to be putting down roots so that it will become more difficult to have them return to the mainland. By our inaction, we are supporting the continuance of the status quo and the permanent partition of the island.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington reminded us of the tantalising phrase used by the Minister at the end of the debate on 23 October:

"We have contingency plans to cover the fact that, sadly, it"—

the international conference—

"might fail. I hope that we will not need to put them into action and I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand that those contingency plans need to remain confidential."—[Official Report, 23 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 1112]

Clearly, there is a strong hint that the Government are coming to the conclusion that the current initiatives are not working and that something else needs to be tried.

I hope that the Government are prepared to take the House into their confidence to some extent. The Government have ruled out the idea of an international conference, proposed by the Greek-Cypriot community and opposed by the Turkish-Cypriot community. They have ruled out other possible initiatives. When will the Government be a little more positive and reveal what they have in mind? Do they rule out, as a matter of principle, any initiative on a guarantor power basis? Are they saying that the European Community has no role in finding a solution to the conflict on the island?

It may be s aid that the United Nations' initiative is not succeeding, but an initiative on a regional basis, involving the European Community and recognising the links of all the relevant parties within it, might be a more fruitful approach. Have the Government ruled out a European Community initiative as a matter of principle? If not, what are their positive proposals? Do they believe that there is leverage within the European context? Does the Minister consider that the Community has a special role? As yet, the Community has not been seriously brought into play.

The background is the illegality of the Administration in north Cyprus and the injustices, largely relating to the dispossessed Greek Cypriot refugees. That background requires not folded arms or sheltering behind the formula of the Secretary-General's initiative—that good offices must continue to be the best prospect — but serious concern and a willingness to take other initiatives.

I trust that I am not interrupting my hon. Friends peroration. In as much as it is not clear quite what the Government have in mind, has it occurred to my hon. Friend that perhaps the British Government are considering making it plain to the Government in Turkey that even their application to be considered for membership of the European Community will be opposed by Her Majesty's Government until real progress is made towards removing troops from Cyprus? It is anomalous and a double standard that this application should be allowed to proceed and then, perhaps, if Turkey joins the Community, there will be a trade-off by removing some troops or reducing some commitment. The application itself could be opposed.

I would welcome the Minister's response to that suggestion. It is clear that Britain and the European Community are well placed to find a constructive end to the de facto partition on the island. We should not shirk that responsibility.

I am glad to have the opportunity to intervene in the debate. My only regret is that it is I, and not my right hon. Friend the Minister of State — the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) — who is replying to it, because she has responsibility within the Office for this area. As I think hon. Members will have seen from the newspapers, she has been on a long and arduous mission to southern Africa. She arrived back just this morning: hence my appearance here. I regret that I am not as well immersed in this topic as some hon. Members who have spoken and am not as knowledgeable of it as I am of those areas of the world for which I carry responsibility. I shall do my best to reply to the points. If my level of expertise proves inadequate, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend for an authoritative view.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and on the manner in which he opened the debate. He set it in a historical context, and it is interesting that, on a highly contentious subject, all those hon. Members who referred to his speech did so with approval. He was followed by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) who is much respected and liked by hori. Members of all parties. He said that, despite the differences between the views of individual hon. Members, the House should be united in its desire to see some progress in Cyprus and some repair of the damage done by more than 20 years of separation.

I agree wholeheartedly, and that is the Government's position. Indeed, it has been the view of all hon. Members who have spoken. Although inevitably our debate has reflected the divisions in Cyprus which make it so difficult for progress to be made, and have made that difficult over such a long period, the debate has been conducted in a good atmosphere, and I have no shortage of points to which to reply.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey had the opportunity to set out the Government's overall position a few weeks ago, and because other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not repeat the points that she made. Instead, I shall try to focus on points on which I can give further clarification because that should be helpful and should enable me to sit down in good time so as to enable those hon. Members who have sat patiently through the debate, waiting their turn, to have the opportunity to speak. It would be unfortunate if they were unable to do so.

Because of our historic connection with Cyprus, we are perhaps more aware than any other country, outside the two that are especially concerned with the dispute for ethnic reasons, that the division of Cyprus is tragic and wasteful. We must bend every sinew to try to ensure that there is a peaceful, just and lasting settlement. Indeed, that is what we are doing. Our position is to try to see a settlement reached by giving every possible support to the United Nations initiative. I should make it absolutely clear that that initiative is designed to bring about a unified federal Cyprus. We support that. We do not recognise the so-called independent state in northern Cyprus, nor shall we do so.

I advise the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for whom, as he knows, I have boundless admiration and affection, that I cannot help feeling that he made a slightly bad point in referring to my right hon. Friend's comments during that Adjournment debate. All that she said was:

"The division between the north and south of Cyprus, as it is sometimes colloquially described, weakens Cyprus in all sorts of way and it weakens the Nato Alliance."—[Official Report, 23 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 1109.]

My right hon. Friend gave a geographical description of the realities of the division, and it is a bad point on the part of the hon. Member for Swansea, East to suggest that my right hon. Friend was somehow institutionalising that, or suggesting that the British Government support it. We do not. We seek a unified and federal Cyprus. My right hon. Friend was properly forthright in saying that she wished that the 1986 initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General had been accepted by both sides. That is the Government's position.

We have tried to help the Secretary-General in every way. Indeed, he has been kind enough to say how much he values our help. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met President Kyprianou in London no fewer than five times since the start of the United Nations initiative and has had talks with the Secretary-General about Cyprus on several occasions. There are frequent high-level meetings with all parties in which we try to bring home our views in support of the Secretary-General's initiative. We believe that there is still plenty of room for making progress on that initiative and that he offers the best prospects of progress towards settlement.

It must be understood that any progress that has been made during the past few decades has always taken place within the framework of the United Nations. The record of initiatives outside that framework, without the co-operation of all the parties, has always been poor. The Secretary-General's initiative remains the best prospect. Indeed, he has just appointed a new special representative, Mr. Camilion, from Argentina. Obviously, it will take Mr. Camilion some time to take stock of the situation and consider how to move forward, but he should be supported in that effort.

Again, in a spirit of amity towards the hon. Member for Swansea, East I must point out the irony that, as the representative on earth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey this morning, I am compelled to defend the Government's support for the United Nations initiative. Yet when I return to the safer—in terms of my knowledge—but equally precarious—in terms of the difficulty of finding a solution—area of the Gulf war, I am berated by the same hon. Gentleman for refusing to support a United Nations naval force. There is an element of opportunism in the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Surely it is the Minister who is now making a bad point. I am speaking of effectiveness. The whole Gulf initiative has spread over a much shorter time span than have the good offices of the United Nations' Secretary-General in respect of Cyprus. I simply asked, and ask again, whether the Government, as a result of the passage of time and the rather depressing reports of the Secretary-General, have decided that his initiative is on the point of being played out. If so, what other initiatives do they have in mind?

No. Far from being played out, the Secretary-General's initiative is taking on a new lease of life with the appointment of a new special representative. The Secretary-General is not to be blamed for the failure of his initiative, which got a long way in 1986; it is more a sign of the intractability of the problem.

When people talk of a fresh initiative, there is always an element of hucksterism, because every politician worth his salt goes round with several fresh initiatives on every conceivable human problem falling from his pockets in the hope that the elucidation of the initiative is sufficiently attractive for people not to worry about the long-term inadequacies of the proposal. No matter who takes the initiative, whether the Government, the United States, the EC, or the Commonwealth Action Group, our view is that any such separate initiative would only cut across the Secretary-General's initiative and would not start from at least the position of hope of the Secretary-General's initiative, which both parties said they wanted and both states which support both parties said they wanted. That is why we believe that it is right to continue to support that initiative.

I reject the hon. Gentleman's implication that this is somehow just a fig leaf to hide our nakedness and unwillingness to think about the issue.

rose——

I will give way, but the hon. Gentleman, who spoke for a long time, is simply making it less likely that I can allow others to speak, so this is his last bite of the cherry. I say again: please, please, please, may the good Lord give him the merit of consistency. The next time he starts lecturing me on United Nations initiatives on the middle east, I shall remind him of some of his comments this morning.

If the Government are so confident about the initiative, why, oh why, did the Minister mention the contingencies?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey was responding to a direct question about whether the Government had given any thought to what might happen if the Secretary-General's initiative failed. We do not believe that it will fail; it must not be allowed to fail. My right hon. Friend believes, as I do, that there are no parameters on the human imagination. Naturally, all the guarantor powers are giving some thought to what might happen if in future there were a vacuum. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, and it would be extraordinary if we had not.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) put the point much more attractively. He did not use this as a weapon against the Government, but suggested that those comments might have given rise to some misunderstanding. The point was made with his customary fairness which, I am glad to say, is not merely confined to those Home Office issues on which we used to reach more agreement than was perhaps comfortable for our respective standing on either side of the great divide. AU that my right hon. Friend was trying to do was to reassure the House that, of course, we look ahead. The Government's commitment is entirely to the Secretary-General's initiative, because that represents the best way forward. Anything that cuts across the Secretary-General would be unhelpful and would not get our support. We hope that we will not need to think in terms of a further initiative outside that framework.

In the time remaining I shall respond to some of the matters raised in the debate and I shall start with some of the interesting points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. We are aware of the grave problems caused to very many people by partition. We do not have the locus standi to make representations about people who are not British citizens, but we pursue with vigour the claims by British citizens. Indeed, one of my constituents was quite gravely damaged in respect of his enjoyment of his property rights. The Turkish Cypriot claims commission has made about 350 awards to British citizens. The Turkish Cypriots say that some claims must await a political settlement. That is regrettable, and we shall continue to press our case.

My hon. Friend spoke about the draft framework of agreement of March 1986. That does not deal in detail with questions about the withdrawal of troops or the freedom to move, settle and own property. It reserved discussions on these items to working groups, with the proviso that the settlement was to be accepted only as a whole. We hope that that adequately safeguards all positions. Once again it is a matter for regret that this was rejected by one side.

In that context, I was asked about the bearing that all this has on Turkey's application to become a member of the European Community. It would be wrong for us to make any comment about the merits of Turkey's application in advance of receiving the commission's opinion. That is the proper way forward. I do not use that as an evasion and I make it clear to the House that the question of Turkish troops is a matter of great concern to the Government and we raise it regularly with the Government of Turkey. It was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when the Turkish Foreign Minister came to London in July. We have always made it clear that the withdrawal of Turkish troops must form part of any comprehensive future settlement.

I was also asked about tanks, in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). He has been here for much of the debate and no one has done more to ensure that the issue of Cyprus is kept before the House. It was he who instigated the Adjournment debate on the matter in October.

We raise the matter of tanks at every opportunity, and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it with the Turkish Foreign Minister in July, he was told that this upgrading was part of a programme that involved the whole Turkish army. The Turkish Foreign Minister also spoke about recent arms purchases by the Cyprus Government. We understand that the Turks have recently withdrawn some tanks. I say clearly that they should reduce the number still further, and we shall continue to urge them to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and other hon. Members spoke about Nicosia airport. As my hon. Friend said, there are now airports in both parts of the island. We would certainly welcome any project that had the support of both sides and which brought them together in practical co-operation. Plainly, practical co-operation is a commodity of which there can never be too much in the present unhappy situation.

The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a number of interesting points, especially when he spoke about Turkish settlers to which other hon. Members have also adverted. We believe that the issue will have to be dealt with in the context of an overall settlement. The hon. Gentleman and one or two other hon. Members make it seem as if there can be no other approach to the issue than theirs and that the problem is merely one of the colonising of a part of Cyprus with immigrants from Turkey. When the isssue is described in those terms, that course of action may seem irresistible, but there is another element that makes the matter more complicated. I shall raise it in the interests of those who read the report of the debate and not because the Government take a contrary view to that which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Tooting. I wish them to appreciate, as we have had to do, that the matter is not so straightforward as some would suggest.

The Turkish Cypriot authorities say that some of those who are now counted as settlers are Turkish Cypriots who left the island in the troubled times of the 1960s and who have exercised their right to return. Others came to the island early on, when they were needed to help restart economic activity, and have since married into Turkish Cypriot families. There are others who are seasonal workers, who come and go. I put that on record merely to show that this is a somewhat more complicated matter than some would imply.

The hon. Member for Tooting talked about trade with northern Cyprus. It is true that we continue to trade with it, and the hon. Gentleman criticised us for doing so. The terms of article 5 of the European Community-Cyprus association agreement provide that member states trading with Cyprus should not discriminate between nationals or companies in Cyprus.

I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he implied that a trade embargo would bring about progress in Cyprus. On the contrary, we think that it would be wrong to try to punish individual Turkish Cypriots in that way. Indeed, we think that it would be counter-productive. Such a course would merely increase the disparities between the two communities. We know that GNP in the southern part of the island — I shall tread carefully in making these descriptions because I do not want them to be used against me in a future debate, when who knows who might be responsible for replying to it— in the republic that we recognise is three or four times that in the north, which exists only because of an occupation and independence that we do not recognise. An embargo on the north would serve only to increase the north's dependence on Turkey.

We hope that the United Nation's Secretary-General's efforts will be successful. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to suggest that either side is prepared to make the effort necessary to build up the trust and confidence that is needed if any permanent solution is to be found. This would be true whosever hat was tossed into the ring as a mediator or who came as St. George to the rescue.

Too many of the comments made by those on both sides in Cyprus seem more concerned with obtaining support for their entrenched positions and bringing pressure on each other rather than anything more constructive. It is time for both sides to try to reacquire the habit of continuous and constructive co-operation that marked the earlier stages of the intercommunal talks. We think that Mr. Camilion's appointment is a challenge to which both sides must respond. Our role, in common with other members of the international community, is to encourage and support both sides in making difficult decisions and compromises, without which no solution can be found.

First, I must offer my apologies to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) for having been unavoidably delayed in getting to the House this morning and for having missed most of what he had to say. I wish warmly to congratulate him on selecting this topic for debate. It has offered the House an opportunity to discuss at length and in some detail the problems of an island for which Britain has a special affection and responsibility, and to do so at greater length than was possible in the all-too-brief Adjournment debate on Cyprus some weeks ago.

I first became acquainted with the problems and the sadnesses of Cyprus through my constituents, many of whom are Cypriots from both communities. Some of them suffered grievously in 1974. For example, one had a home that he had built on his family's land at the place where he was born, but which was subject to occupation by the invading forces. Since 1974, he has not been able to return to his home. He has not received any compensation for the loss of that home, and has had to make an entirely new life in Britain. He is but one of many who have been similarly affected.

I have, however, become much more closely and directly acquainted with Cyprus because, two months ago, I had the opportunity to visit it and to see at first hand the current position. I do not think that anyone could possibly fail to be moved by the sight of the green line that divides the island. To come down a busy shopping street in the middle of Nicosia—the capital city—and be confronted with a troops station, an area of wasteland patrolled by the United Nations with barbed wire making an impenetrable barrier, can only make one very careful and sad about the state of the island.

Looking down from the Troodos mountains in the area around Morfu — the greenest, most beautiful and productive part of the island—and then to talk to those who used to live there and can no longer return, is a moving experience. One can look down on the ghost town of Famagusta from the dividing line, and know that no life goes on in many parts of it and that its former residents cannot return there. From most parts of Nicosia, one can look up and see the Turkish flag that has been inscribed in stone on the hillside above that town.

To see that at first hand and to experience directly what it means to have a bitterly divided island, is something for which I am most grateful. It has certainly dramatically altered my thinking on Cyprus——

My hon. Friend has spoken poetically and with great feeling about the suffering on one side of the island. Does he think that his process of self-education would be enhanced if he had the opportunity to talk to people on the other side of the island? He would find there some 103 villages whose people were swept out between 1964 and 1974.

While my hon. Friend can cite many instances of suffering on one part of the island — all of which I endorse—is he aware that the whole island has suffered? If any blame is to be apportioned it should not be—as he appears to be suggesting—largely in one direction; it must be widely apportioned.

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my arguments. I certainly do not wish to apportion blame entirely to one side. I happen to believe that the greater part of the blame must lie with the invading armed forces, but there has been tragedy on both sides of the communal divide in Cyprus.

Many Turkish Cypriots have suffered, and they suffered before 1974. When trying to establish a solution, we must ensure that all Cypriots, both Greeks and Turks, can feel entirely safe, protected and fulfilled within the solution. I have found very few Greek Cypriots who disagree with that analysis. If I had the opportunity—I would welcome such an opportunity—to talk to people in the northern part of the island, I suspect that there would be no overwhelming disagreement with that ultimate aim. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) agrees with that aim.

The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) clearly stated that Britain has a special responsibility in these matters. We are the former colonial power and were one of the guarantor powers under the constitution. As the hon. Member for Dorset, West rightly said, the British Government did nothing when the 1974 invasion occurred. I freely admit that that was the wrong decision. Intervention could have prevented what has subsequently become a long-running tragedy.

What do we want to achieve? There must be substantial agreement among hon. Members about the ultimate aim. There must be an undivided island, with full freedom of movement for all Cypriots everywhere in the island. The existence of the green line and the restrictions that it places on people's movements, is the overwhelming and dominant fact of life in Cyprus today.

The removal of that division must be one of the elements of any solution. As part of that solution, it is important that people are regarded as Cypriots, not as Greeks or Turks. They must be regarded as part of a united island of Cyprus. To achieve that, and to ensure that the rights of minorities within the island are protected —that must be part of a solution—the proposals that have consistently come forward over the past decade and a half for a federal solution as the constitutional objective must be the right way forward. It is a considerable tribute to the Greek Cypriot community that it has consistently accepted the idea of a federal solution as something it could support if its position were safeguarded.

There must also be international guarantees. We must ensure that the guarantees are worth more than those written into the original constitution. However, other steps must also be taken. There must be a genuine effort to investigate the cases of missing persons. About 1,600 Cypriots are missing and many families do not know what has become of relatives or what happened to them in 1974. That still rankles with many people and has left many families torn, divided and embittered. It is important that those cases are investigated. It is a pity that there has not been more co-operation with the efforts of the United Nations to investigate those missing Cypriots, especially from the authorities in the northern part of the island.

There must be a solution to the problem of refugees returning to their homes, and to the issue of the settlers. While I accept from the Minister that some settlers who have come from mainland Turkey to the north of the island have a genuine connection with Cyprus, many have not. In discussions to find a solution, we must resolve what will happen to those settlers and to the property they occupied, which formerly belonged to others.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the withdrawal of foreign troops is absolutely crucial to any solution. On that point I disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South said about the 1986 proposals from Perez de Cuellar and their acceptance by Mr. Denktash. The presence of foreign troops on the island meant that the Cypriot Government was not able to accept the proposals which were accepted by the Denktash regime. Foreign troops from both sides must be removed entirely from the island before there can be any solution which will ensure a free-moving, protected and integral federal Cyprus.

The key lies not just in the continuing and valiant efforts of the Secretary-General; as much pressure as possible must be brought to bear on the newly elected Government of Turkey to ensure that they are prepared to withdraw Turkish troops. That message must be made crystal clear to Mr. Ozal and his Government. Our Government are in a very strong position to bring such pressure to bear, as Turkey wishes to join the European Economic Community and become part of the European community of nations. We must seize the opportunity to reinforce the message about the withdrawal of troops.

Everyone who goes to Cyprus must be struck, as I was, by the disparity between the two economies. I have nothing but admiration for the success of the Cypriots in the south. While I accept that they have the advantage of the sun, which brings tourists, the economy, which has a growth rate of 6 per cent. a year, unemployment at 2 per cent. and inflation at 3 per cent., must be the envy of even our self-congratulatory Chancellor of the Exchequer. That success has been achieved in the past 15 years, at the same time as one third of the population has been rehoused, and the south of the island provides all the electricity to the north entirely free. In those circumstances, it is an economic miracle. On the other hand, the north is still economically depressed. That is a tragedy, especially bearing in mind that in 1974 the north had about 70 per cent. of the island's economic resources. It is important that we look at how the economies have developed.

I ask the Minister whether he will ask his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate the tax position of the Polly Peck company. Polly Peck is using resources that were seized when the north of Cyprus was invaded. I understand that it claims immunity from United Kingdom taxation under our "no double taxation" policy. I understand that it pays no tax in northern Cyprus either. Given the most recent substantial profits of the Polly Peck company, it is important to establish under which taxation regime it ought to come. If Polly Peck is not paying tax in the north of Cyprus, we have to ask why the no double taxation policy is being maintained for Polly Peck and why no corporation tax is due on the company's British activities. I hope that the Minister will draw the attention of his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to that fact. It may be worthy of investigation; the Government may be forgoing tens of millions of pounds in tax.

I draw attention also to British-owned property in northern Cyprus, to which the owners do not have access. I understand that there has been considerable disagreement between Mr. Leonard Fairclough, the owner of the Salamis Bay hotel, and the authorities in the northern part of the island. Furthermore, the properties of British American Tobacco in Cyprus include the building in which the parliament of the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus meets. British property owners have rights in northern Cyprus. I refer not just to those who have lost their homes but also to those who have lost access to commercial properties and the income derived from it.

I should have thought that that issue would have concerned a Government who believe in market forces as sincerely as this Government appear to do. The Government ought to be pursuing those matters, and I am surprised that they are not doing so. This debate may encourage the Government to take an interest in them.

We must make every conceivable effort that we can to bring about a just resolution of the problems that face Cyprus. We must bring unity to the island and ensure the removal of all foreign troops. We must give a warm-hearted people back their homes, their freedom of movement and their remarkably beautiful homeland.

This has been a very useful debate, which has highlighted many of the problems that face the unhappy island of Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) IS to be congratulated on having introduced it, thereby giving the House an opportunity to discuss in detail the problems of Cyprus. Those problems are shared by many of our constituents. I am sure that I am not alone in having constituents who came to this country from Cyprus, or who have families or property there. They have suffered grievously from the problems that have beset Cyprus during the 13 years since the island was invaded. But they suffered before the invasion because of the conflict between the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots. It is difficult for us to imagine their sufferings during the last 20 or 30 years.

The problem goes back before the time, when we fought against EOKA. It goes back to when there was already conflict between the Greek and Turkish settlers on the island. It led to Cyprus being brought into the British Empire. Disraeli returned with peace and honour from a conference to solve the Turkish problem and produced Cyprus out of the bag as a way of ensuring that we could defend the entrance to the Suez canal.

My only reason for mentioning that is that today Cyprus is a key strategic location to monitor what is happening in that part of the Mediterranean and the middle east. As long as Cyprus is an area of potential conflict between the Greeks and Turks, and as long as they see that as the crystallisation of their mutual dislike for each other, the problems in the Aegean sea will never go away, despite the friendly noises that emanate from time to time from Athens or Ankara. There is always potential for a change of regime in Greece or Turkey, which could spark a major conflict between the two countries.

Turkey considers itself to be a member of the European family, and I understand that at some time it would like to join the Common Market. In reality, it is more strongly allied to the middle eastern countries, partly through the historical conquests that the Turks went in for under the Ottoman empire, but, more strongly these days, because of the religious connection between the bulk of the population of Turkey and the strongly religious countries that form the bulk of the middle east.

Turkey's role is pivotal to the solution of the Middle East problem. Turkey recognises that, as do many of the Gulf countries, which are so critical of finding a solution to the conflict in the Gulf.

Cyprus is part of that problem, and it is part of the solution to the tragic conflict in Lebanon. Cyprus has played a role there, largely because of its geographical position, but one that in itself complicates the search for a solution to the dispute between the two nationalities on the island.

We must consider in detail what has happened in the past, as we have in the debate, and in a way that brings to the fore the traditional historic problems of the island. We must try to discover the reason for those problems and the reason for the mutual antagonism between the Turks and Greeks on the island. This tragic dispute has built up a large measure of mutual distrust between the two populations. We know from our own experience as constituency Members that, away from the island, the two communities can live happily together. The conflicts of the island do not carry over to their lives here.

What has led to that mutual disregard and mutual problem? It is an historic problem that has resulted from the dominance of the Greek community, which is partly based on numbers but also, as we heard from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), on the ability of the Greek community to prosper while the Turkish community has always failed to do so. Thus, there has not only been a national and religious separation between the two communities; there has been a growing economic separation. It has been growing not only since the invasion but long before, and had its roots way back in the developments of the 1950s and 1960s.

The difficulty is deep. The distrust was fostered by the Greek community when it tried to seek union with mainland Greece. That was the trigger point which led to the invasion by the Turkish troops in 1974. That invasion was deeply to be regretted. It was quite wrong and possibly, as we have heard, could have been stopped at the time. I was not terribly closely involved with that situation but I was involved in the middle east and my view is that the problems involved in stopping the invasion are easily understated. I suspect that the determination of the Turkish Government to invade Cyprus was strongly held and that they would not willingly have backed down from something they had perhaps wanted to do for 10 years — to put their troops on to the island to solve the problems once and for all.

It is no good us looking closely at history in the hope of finding a solution to the present problem. What has happened has happened and, regrettably, it cannot be undone. We have to look forward to find a solution. Greece is a member of the Common Market and Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey has ambitions to join the Common Market, but I am sure I am not alone in believing that the Common Market would be wise to look carefully before it extends its borders to incorporate Turkey. I do not say that for any reason other than a purely economic one and, possibly, because of the relationship between Turkey and the middle east.

Once a country such as Turkey becomes a member of the Common Market, the likelihood of being forced to bring in countries such as Morocco, Tunisia and possibly even Algeria would increase, and the pressure to do so would become much more difficult to resist. We may find that the Common Market would cease to be a cohesive political and economic community—if it is not that at the moment, at least it has some hope of becoming one—and would become much more politically diverse. It would be more difficult to provide for the consensus we need if we are to develop the structure of the EEC institutions.

Cyprus, sitting as it does between Greece and Turkey, is a problem for which we have to find a solution. That raises the question of what shape the solution should take. We have heard of the various proposals that have come forward from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Broadly speaking, they amount to some form of federal government inside the island. We have heard from the Select Committee the proposal to go one step lower down and develop cantonal government inside the island, presumably on the Swiss model. Both those proposals have considerable objections to them.

The two communities used to live closely together. To separate the two is as difficult as separating any other communities, in that it could give rise to injustices as to who is to move out and who is to move in. That would lead to disputes between families and communities which will live on long after everybody has forgotten the basis for the disputes. We are faced now with a de facto partition of the island which has led to a de facto federal system, although not a federal Government. By force of arms we have two separate countries inside the island. Rightly, the northern Government is not recognised by the British Government. Nevertheless, in terms of economic and military power, it exists as effectively as if it had been set up under a proper legal process.

There has been no solution to the serious problem that affects my constituents, as I am sure it affects other hon. Members' constituents, of what is supposed to happen to the property inside either of those two parts of the island. We have not even begun to find a solution to that problem. It is not a problem of economics alone. It is not a question of the Turkish or Greek Government saying to those who were dispossessed in 1974, "We will compensate you for what you lost and enable you to start up somewhere else." The problem is much more emotional than that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, someone who has been farming a piece of land for years and whose family has been farming it for generations is emotionally attached to that land; it is historically his home. No amount of compensation can reconcile him to the loss of that land.

Economic factors may well dictate that those who have been displaced come to terms with it in the management of their affairs. However, I doubt whether many of them have come to terms with it in their emotional attitude to those who displaced them, whether Turks or Greeks. That is the major difficulty. We cannot go in and impose solutions from outside—any more, I fear, than the Turkish or, indeed, the Greek Government can now impose a solution. We need to find a solution acceptable to both the Greek and the Turkish communities in Cyprus that will reconcile their irreconcilable differences. It will take a long time to find such a solution. In the meantime, the best that we can hope is to give the Cypriots a period of tranquillity, peace and relative economic prosperity to provide the hope of a reconciliation of the two communities in the future.

The United Nations initiative perhaps goes some way to producing those conditions. It allows the possibility of the two communities running their own affairs and coming together in a federal structure of government inside the island which will allow for economic compensation to be made and for the communities slowly to learn to trust each other as they have not trusted each other—certainly in living memory and perhaps for the past 100 years.

That trust will take a long time to build up. The process needs to be given time not just by the United Nations coming in and providing a basis for a settlement and for troops to police any disputes that may occur. It must be given time by all of us assisting Cyprus and assisting north Cyprus to catch up with the economic prosperity of the south of the island. Unless the two halves can come together economically, the envy and greed that exist behind the injustices and moral outrage on the surface will never die down and time will never be allowed to heal the wounds and the divisions between the two communities.

We need to provide external stability. As a country with long historic links with the island, which still has bases there—the island is still of major strategic importance to us, to NATO and to the Western world—we need, in conjunction with America, which has a great influence on Turkey, to provide stability and economic assistance to both parts of the island. When the federal structure of government is in place and when the Cypriots have reached the stage at which there can be elections for the federal Government as well as for the local Governments, we can enable the island to overcome the economic disadvantages of the north which is being propped up largely by the influx of money from Turkey, which Turkey can ill afford.

My suggestion to the Government is that we need strongly to support the Secretary-Genera's initiatives. We need to give all the encouragement that we can and bring pressure, through NATO and the EEC, on Athens and Ankara to work towards a solution. We need to provide the back-up of economic support.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in such delicate situations it does not help when the British Government make positive statements——

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you could give us some help. In his efforts to protect the interests of the House earlier, Mr. Speaker agreed to grant a private notice question on the Government's injunction against the BBC Radio 4 programme, because the Government had refused to make a statement. In deference to Mr. Speaker's efforts to protect our interests, we did not want to prolong the questions following that private notice question, especially as private Members' time would have been eaten away.

We have been pressing for the Attorney-General to make a further statement, not just because of what he said in his reply, but because he was talking about the culmination of a number of substantial efforts by the Government to interfere with the independence of the BBC. This is not an isolated incident. There have been political appointments to the board of governors and, rather more extraordinarily, political appointments at a lower level in the BBC, where in effect Government appointees are seen as spies on what is going on. We have seen overt pressure from the chairman of the Tory party——

Name one.

If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will hear.

We have also seen the Government's efforts to prevent the Zircon film from being shown to Members. We have seen the raids on the BBC in Glasgow, which were related to that. We are in danger of the rest of the world seeing the BBCs reputation as so besmirched that it becomes the British State Broadcasting Corporation.

The Attorney-General said this morning that the Government had to intervene so late in the day because they had read about the nature of the programme in the gossip column — the "Peterborough" column — of The Daily Telegraph. We should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain why, if the Government behave with such vigilance when they see references in The Daily Telegraphto spy programmes, they did not respond when they read the pre-reviews in the weekend newspapers on the programme's content.

One reference stated that the first programme would examine the roles of MI5, MI6 and the Government's communication headquarters and that next week it would cover "yesterday's spies and today's politicians." The Observerassured us that what would be broadcast today would be "an opening delve" behind the scenes of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and the question would be: "Why do we need them?"

All the information that needed to be available for the Government to mount any legal action has been available to them for a long time. The Opposition find it difficult to believe that the security services did not know that there was to be a programme about the security services. If they did not, they are totally incompetent. We should like to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you have had any representations from the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General to the effect that they intend to make a statement, preferably today or, if not, on Monday.

I have heard the hon. Gentleman's long point of order. He will understand that the Chair is not responsible for the lack of early response which he claims that the Government could have made. However, I can tell him that Mr. Speaker has not received any application from either the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General to make a statement.

I should like to underline some points about the timing and contents——

Order. May I guide the hon. Lady? She must make a point of order and not a debating point. Will the hon. Lady please make a direct point of order to the Chair?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I believe that the Government have a duty to make a statement to the House about the banning of that programme. I believe that because I was a participant in the programme and know something of its content.

My invitation to appear on the programme was given to me verbally in September. It was followed up by an open letter that came through the post to the House of Commons. At every stage, this matter was completely open and available to everybody, and I was free to tell everybody that I was participating. The programme covered an exploration of matters that are absolutely fundamental to the House of Commons, such as whether the citizens of this country have a right to know the way in which this country is governed, and whether the media, and especially the BBC, are free to inform the citizens of this country——

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a point of order. I shall give her another minute to come to a point of order. I know that she has a lot to say and if, within a minute, she comes to a point of order, I shall try to deal with it.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I repeat that, because these are fundamental matters, we have the right to know. Therefore, the appropriate representative of the Government must make a statement so that we can understand. What we have been told is clearly inadequate and inaccurate and does not serve the purposes of the House of Commons. It does not reveal to us the reason for the banning of the programme. That suggests that the Government will be politically embarrassed by something in the programme and that it is not a matte of state——

Order. The hon. Lady has stated a matter of opinion, which, I fear, is not a point of order. However, she will have heard me say that it is not for the Chair to request or require Ministers to come to the House to make a statement. The Chair must wait for that application and request to be made.

Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House recently debated what I believed to be a fundamental transgression of justice, when the pass of my research assistant Mr. Ronan Bennett, was suspended by the House. Many allegations were made at the time about the security services and the need to take the lid off them.

I think that you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is disturbing that, when the BBC was apparently about to take the lid off the security services and their undemocratic behaviour, the Government have sought to use draconian powers to prevent those programmes from being broadcast. My point of order to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is this. If the Government are not prepared to apply through a Minister to make a further statement to the House, or to arrange for a debate in Government time on the security services, will you advise us by what means we can ensure, immediately or as soon as possible, that a full debate is held on the question of the control, or lack of control of the security services and the way in which public money is being spent by the Government to prevent the BBC from broadcasting information about the security services in just the same way as they prevented the broadcast of the films about Zircon, and the way in which they are spending vast sums of money to prevent the publication in this country of Peter Wright's book on the security services?

The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to drag the Chair into debate. This is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will note that the Leader of the House is in his place and may well have noted his comments.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that the programme was intended to blow the lid off the security services——

Order. That is not a point of order. I am dealing with specific points of order and I have been fairly generous. Mr. Skinner.

I have not yet reached my point of order——

Order. I have called Mr. Skinner.

On a point of order ——

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I shall return to him. I can hear only one voice at a time.

According to section (4) of Standing Order No. 11, which deals with Friday sittings,

"At eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members".

It goes on and on, and I shall not read it out.

Earlier today, the Speaker was placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. It would have been straightforward and easy for the Government to comply with Standing Order No. 11 and tell the Attorney-General to make a statement about the freedom and liberty of the British people in relation to the gagging and censoring of the BBC by a party whose friends own and control most of the press, and which has a majority of 100 in the House. The Speaker was placed in a predicament from which he could hardly escape. Although he allowed several questions on the private notice question, because the matter was of such major public importance, he could not allow questions to continue much beyond half an hour.

You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that several weeks ago we had a similar situation on not such an important matter. The Attorney-General had to be brought to the House at 2.30 pm to explain himself and several hon. Members took the opportunity to ask him questions. With the censorship and gagging of the BBC— God knows where it will end with this Government—and with the apparatchiks stuck inside the BBC who somehow could not tell the Government: about this programme that was about to be broadcast on Radio 4——

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming to his point of order?

Yes. In accordance with Standing Order No. 11, it would have been far better for this pathetic Government to tell the Attorney-General to make a statement. Because he has not made a statement but has put the Chair in this predicament and been dragged here kicking and squealing for a private notice question, he should be brought here now.

Now.

Order. There are no procedures by which any Minister can be brought to the House now. [Interruption.] Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order and he is correct in saying that under Standing Order No. 11 a private notice question can be asked or a statement made at 11 o'clock. Mr. Speaker wisely chose to accept the private notice question.

In accordance with our Standing Orders, we had a private notice question this morning and the Attorney-General came to the House and answered it. There is absolutely nothing further to add. Hon. Members will recall that, if the BBC had made available the information sought by the Official Solicitor, the Government would not have needed to seek an injunction, nor would we have needed a private notice question. All these points of order are wholly spurious, including mine.

I wish to raise a different point of order, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the Speaker has been placed in an embarrassing position. It may have been because of the atmosphere at that time that I was unable to make myself understood and I should like to raise the issue of an hon. Member's ability to represent the interests of his constituents and others who refer matters to him or her as a Member for Parliament.

When we had problems in the past about obtaining clear answers to clear questions directed at Ministerial Departments and when Mr. Speaker received complaints about that, he said that there were other ways of investigating the issues. Very wisely, he never specifies those but says that other hon. Members may well advise the unfortunate Member who is in difficulty. One of those ways is the investigative journalist, and by gagging investigative journalists the Government are restricting the ability of hon. Members — especially Opposition Members—to represent their constituents.

I have heard the point of order made by the hon. Gentleman. This is becoming a debate, and I shall now accept only direct points of order.

If the Attorney-General chooses to come to the House to discuss this matter, will it be in order for Conservative Members to raise with him the unhealthy obsession of the Opposition and perhaps some people in the BBC with our own security services, while they do not seem to be interested in the activities of the Russians?

We will see what happens when the time comes.

Further to that point of order. I appreciate the difficulties that you are in, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to add to them. I know that Mr. Speaker was in similar difficulties earlier. This is not the first time that something like this has occurred when a matter of considerable public interest has been raised and when it has been impossible for the House to discuss matters in the form of a ministerial statement—even when those matters have been widely discussed outside the House in the media and among people generally.

My point of order is, would it be in order for the Leader of the House, who is present, and whom perhaps I can address through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make some statement about the affairs that were discussed this morning by way of a private notice question? Perhaps he could give an assurance that, in future when a matter of grave public concern that is clearly of interest to the House is raised outside the House, he will use whatever good offices he can to ensure that the appropriate Minister comes to the Dispatch Box?

rose——

My point of order——

I thought that the hon. Member had made his point of order.

I was going to conclude my point of order be saying that what we witnessed this morning was the Opposition doing their job and that it is generally accepted that we do that adequately and well. We had to raise on a private notice question a matter that should have been the subject of a ministerial statement. The Attorney- General spoke about the horse leaving the stable. It is not the horse t at we are concerned about, but the mess that is left in the stable, and that is why, to make sure——

Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point of order, which was, would the Leader of the House make a statement? The answer is no. Points of order are for the Chair to deal with and I shall deal with them.

This is a point of order specfic to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, about the events of this morning. This is not the first time that we have seen a steady erosion of the rights of the legislature in the face of the Executive. They have consistently refused to come to the legislature and explain themselves and hold themselves accountable. It is made clear in the pages of "Erskine May" that one of our privileges in the legislature is freedom of speech.

My specific point of order to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, is that the usual channels exist. Mr Speaker this morning, and you this afternoon, are constantly placed in embarrassing situations. The way out of that embarrass-ment is through the usual channels that Mr. Speaker has, you may have to explain to the Government that it is not good enough for the legislature to be treated in this fashion.

I am sure that that point of order has been heard on the Treasury Bench and in all parts of the House.

Come on, make a statement.

Order. I call Mr. Allen.

Further to that point of order, Madame Deputy Speaker. I had the great privilege of being one of the draftsmen or authors of the very renowned document on the security services that currently constitutes Labour party policy for debates. Of course, that was before I entered the House. As a new Member of the House, I had obviously assumed that the security services could be discussed in the House. I find that I cannot table questions at the Table Office——

Order. This point of order does not at all relate to this matter.

rose——

Order. The hon. Gentleman should listen to me for a moment. Unless his point of order directly relates to this matter, I must ask him to resume his seat.

There is no departmental Select Committee overseeing the security services, and we cannot even examine the moneys that are allocated to those services. Therefore, we depend wholly upon the freedom of the press, so-called — [Interruption] — to examine these matters. I find now that we cannot even listen to a BBC radio programme. I was looking forward to the programme, as I cannot ask questions in the House on security matters, I thought that I might learn something from outside. I ask that the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General — again, there is no departmental Select Committee to oversee the work of the Attorney- General — make a statement to Parliament rather than through the pages——

Order. There has been no application made to Mr. Speaker for a statement today.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate fully the difficult position in which Mr. Speaker was placed earlier this morning as a result of the Governmenfs failure voluntarily to make a statement. Mr. Speaker generously allowed more time than he would normally have done for a private notice question. However, I and several of my colleagues who wished to question the Attorney-General were unable to do so because of the time constraint which Mr. Speaker was under.

There are major issues at stake involving the relationship between the Government and the media and the Government and their own servants, civil servants. Also involved is the degree of accountability to which a Government and their actions can be held by the general public in a democracy. These are all important issues, and one of the mechanisms that is open to us to pursue them further is to apply for an emergency debate on Monday.

I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether Mr.Speaker or yourself will be able to view favourably an application, if it is tabled on Monday, for an emergency debate to discuss these grave issues which arise from the Governmenfs——

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but he has raised a rather hypothetical point. The hon. Gentleman must wait until Monday.

Will the tape of the programme that the Government have prevented from being broadcast be made available to hon. Members so that we can make a reasoned judgment about the programme, either through the good offices of the Government in their contacts with the BBC, if they have any, or through Mr. Speaker's Office? If the tape is made available to hon. Members themselves, will they be permitted to play it in the House?

That is not a matter for the Chair. It is certainly not a matter to which the Chair can respond.

rose——

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all recognise the predicament in which you, and Mr. Speaker found yourselves this morning. We, too, are in a predicament. Of all the possible justifications that the Attorney-General might have advanced for yesterday's court action, I do not think that anyone in his wildest dreams believed that he would say that it was based on an item in a gossip column in a Tory newspaper. That is why we are pressing, rather unusually, for a further statement. Neither you, Madam Deputy Speaker, nor Mr. Speaker, can require a Minister to make a statement, but can you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if a private notice question were to be submitted on Monday and accepted by Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General would then be required to make a statement?

That is somewhat hypothetical, as I explained earlier. I recognise the seriousness of the situation and I have no doubt that any private notice question submitted would be considered extremely seriously.

I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the position of St. Saviour's Church of England first school in my constituency. I do so with some optimism, as I recall the decisive intervention of my hon. Friend the Minister when, on a previous occasion, I raised with him the need for a new building at Twyford school, which is also in my constituency. I hope that the case of St. Saviour's will provoke the same favourable response.

Earlier this week, the House gave a Second Reading to the Education Reform Bill, which is designed to make the system more responsive to the wishes of parents and to raise standards. In 15 minutes today, my hon. Friend the Minister could achieve those objectives for St. Saviour's without the hassle of having to put a Bill on the statute book.

I wish to provide some basic background information. St. Saviour's became a first school in September 1974, having been an infants' school since 1861. The site could not be enlarged at that time as the boundaries of the Ealing town centre scheme had not been finalised, so the additional children had to be accommodated in temporary huts erected in the playground. The site, which was already substandard under the school premises regulations of 1972, then became even more so. In 1981, new school premises regulations were published, with which, as an existing school, St. Saviour's must comply by 1991. Under those new regulations, the site and the building are substantially substandard.

By 1982, the town centre scheme had been finalised and it was then possible for the council to define the site for the school extension. Three years ago, the land was transferred to the education committee for the purposes of St. Saviour's, and ever since then has been lying as waste ground, while conditions at the school continue to deteriorate.

In 1983, the governors — in consultation with the local education authority, the diocesan board and the Department of Education and Science area architect— instructed architects to draw up a development plan for the school. That was then submitted to the DES for approval in the building programmes for 1985–86. That submission was refused. Further submissions for the building programmes for 1986–87 and 1987–88 were also refused. They have been resubmitted for 1988–89, and as I speak they are sitting in my hon. Friend's in tray— hence the opportune timing of the debate.

The London borough of Ealing has designated the development as its top priority among the bids from local voluntary schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend were successful, a few weeks ago, in obtaining additional resources for the education programme in the public expenditure round. I have no doubt that they could not find a better project in which to invest those additional resources than the much delayed building programme at St. Saviour's.

I want to describe some of the problems at the school, which I have visited on many occasions. I have already mentioned the temporary huts that were put up in 1974. Quite naturally, they are progressively deteriorating and there is a growing cost in maintaining them. When it rains or snows, because those temporary huts are in the playground the children who need to use the facilities in the main school get wet. There is no library at the school as there simply is not room for one. Therefore, no library skills can be taught, nor can a wide variety of reference books be made available to the children.

The main building, which dates back to 1861, has a highly dangerous spiral staircase, on which several by-elections have almost been caused. Quite rightly, that must be replaced for safety reasons. There is no medical room, and any ill child must stay in a stock room. The administration area is inadequate—there is not sufficient room in the staff room for each member of staff to sit down at any meeting. There is only one adult lavatory. The head's office must be shared, which makes it difficult to hold confidential discussions with parents. The playground is very substandard in quality and quantity. There is an acknowledged need for a nursery unit as there is no nursery school in any of the Church schools in the borough. There is nowhere for parents to meet.

It is much easier to show the problems than to describe them, so the parents and teachers have prepared a brochure—which I handed to the Secretary of State a few weeks ago—which gives a visual representation of the problem that speaks for itself. In a nutshell, the school is desperately overcrowded, especially in the administrative area. Those are not the sort of condition in which teachers should teach and children should learn in the 1980s.

Despite the difficult conditions, it is an excellent school. It is very popular and is over-subscribed. The reasons for that are entirely to the credit of Angela Mark, the head, the staff, the governors and the parents, who have created a popular, cheerful and successful school under rather difficult conditions. They have already raised £38,000 towards the rebuilding project and are raring to go. However, they cannot possibly proceed without support from the Department of Education and Science. Of course, the cost rises each year. Therefore, the parents and the Friends of St. Saviour's find themselves shooting at an ever-moving target.

The parents and teachers have been patient. They are not militants and they have made their case to me persuasively and forcefully. They are aware that the economy of this country is picking up. They look around west London and see visible prosperity because the Government's economic policies are working. It is becoming very difficult for the local Member of Parliament to explain why, year after year, funds are not made available for this worthwhile project.

The parent body, the Friends of St. Saviour's to which I have referred, is totally committed to the school. There is an active parent-governors body and good support is given to the many extra-curricular and social events organised at the school. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), many of whose constituents have children at the school, has asked to be associated with the plea that I am making this afternoon.

I want to sum up my case to my hon. Friend the Minister. The site and the buildings are substandard according to the Government's education regulations. There is an acknowledged need for a nursery school on the site. The land for the school is now available and presently lying as waste ground on the edge of a very successful and environmentally pleasing town centre. The plans are available and the scheme is ready to go. The parents and governors are very committed and will raise their 15 per cent. share. The local authority and the diocesan board support the rebuilding of the school and local people vote confidently in favour of the school by over-subscribing to it year after year.

If there is one school which represents all that the Government and the Conservative party stand for in terms of standards, parental commitment and the rest, it is St. Saviour's. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give the parents, governors and myself the assurance we seek, that the building programme will not be delayed further.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on the voluntary aided capital programme and, in particular, the proposed building work at St. Saviour's school in Ealing. I am glad of the opportunity to reply. My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently on behalf of the school, but this is by no means the first time that he has raised this issue. His active and continuing support for the school typifies my hon. Friend's keen concern for the interests of his constituents. I ask my hon. Friend to thank those at the school who were responsible for preparing the silver brochure which graphically and pointedly shows the range and variety of problems that the school faces and has faced for some time.

My hon. Friend spoke of the problems faced by the staff and pupils of St. Saviour's. Before I reply to those points, I should like, if I may, to touch briefly on the general issues of national policy which underlie this question, since this background will contribute to an understanding of the position of St. Saviour's.

There are in England almost 25,000 primary and secondary schools within the state system, maintained by local education authorities which meet their running costs. Most of these —rather over two thirds — are county schools, provided by the local education authorities. The remainder, known as voluntary schools, were provided by voluntary bodies — principally the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. This arrangement, introduced by the Education Act 1944, is known as the dual system. Voluntary schools make a very important contribution to the maintained sector of education. They bring variety to the provision of schools and they extend the range of educational choice available to parents for their children. The Government are strongly committed to the preservation of the dual system and the fostering of voluntary schools.

There are different types of voluntary school, but the largest category—to which St. Saviour's belongs—is that of voluntary aided schools. These are distinguished from voluntary controlled schools—the next most numerous type — by the greater powers possessed by their governors and by the division of responsbility for certain capital building and repair work. In brief, the governors are responsible for external repairs and for the greater part of capital building work, and they are entitled to seek from the Department a grant of 85 per cent. of the cost to them of such work.

The funds available to the Department for disbursement to governors are, however, limited. My hon. Friend knows that a fundamental element of the Government's economic strategy is the achievement of a sustained reduction in the rate of inflation. Only in this way can we generate the economic growth that is needed, and which is happening, to underpin the provision of state services. In order to achieve this, it is essential that public expenditure must be limited: expenditure on education, by both central and local government, cannot be exempt from the need for restraint.

In distributing the resources which are available for the voluntary sector, priorities therefore have to be decided and choices—often difficult choices—must be made. I should like, if I may, to outline the approach we take here. Each year the Department invites all local education authorities to submit details of their plans for capital expenditure in the following financial year at the county and voluntary schools in their areas. In aggregate, these plans always exceed what the country can afford. We are therefore faced with the difficult task of deciding between competing voluntary aided school projects. In doing so, our first priority is necessarily to meet continuing expenditure required for projects which have already started—committed expenditure, in other words.

Having met committed expenditure, our next priority must be to programme new projects which result from published statutory proposals which have been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 13 of the Education Act 1980. They are normally of two kinds: either the proposal is to establish a new school which is needed to provide new places in areas of population growth—this is known as "basic need"—or it relates to a reordering of provision in an area where the school population is declining, perhaps by amalgamating two or more schools so that a proportion of the surplus places can be taken out of use. Approval of such proposals places upon the proposers a statutory duty to implement them by a specified date. If building work is required in order to implement the proposals, it has to be programmed to avoid the risk of the proposers being unable to fulfil that duty.

The third priority, after such "committed" and "statutory" expenditure has been allowed, is for work which, for convenience, I will refer to under the blanket title of "improvement". Projects of this sort include minor alterations or extensions to existing school buildings; replacements of failing or unsatisfactory structures, such as outside lavatories or aging "temporary" accommodation; and work intended to bring a split-site school on to a single site.

Regrettably, we are always faced with many more worthy projects in this category than can be accommodated within the available resources, and hard choices have to be made on the basis of the urgency of the need and the general condition of the school buildings in question. In making these assessments, we draw upon the views of the maintaining local education authorities and, where appropriate, upon the expertise and experience of the Department's officials. We also have to bear in mind the implications of the projects in terms of capital expenditure in future years.

For the current financial year, committed expenditure took more than two thirds of the available resources for capital work at voluntary aided schools. Governors' plans for expenditure on projects to start during the year totalled nearly five times the balance of resources available for new work. Meeting the priorities I have outlined therefore used up all the funds available for new work and, in those circumstances, many schools have inevitably had to be disappointed.

A small reserve has been retained to cover those projects which are dependent on statutory proposals, which were awaiting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision when the allocations were announced. No other reserve is held, but, as a normal part of the management of resources, my Department regularly monitors the progress of expenditure on projects at aided schools. If this monitoring shows that understanding is likely, it will enable us to authorise the start of further new projects.

Turning now to St. Saviour's, may I say that I take very seriously the representations rnade by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and others about the needs of the school. I am in no doubt about the difficulties pupils and staff are facing. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that our inability to programme the project so far is not the result of pervesity or lack of knowledge about the school's case, but is a difficult decision of the sort that must be taken when what is desirable exceeds what is possible. As my hon. Friend may well be aware, Ealing local education authority has again put forward the project at St. Saviour's for inclusion in the Department's programme of starts for 1988–89.

All authorities' plans are currently under consideration, and allocations for capital expenditure at county arid voluntary schools are expected to be announced later this month. My hon. Friend will understand, I am sure, that I am not in a position to give any assurances at this stage about the likelihood of programming the work at St. Saviour's. He will, I know and hope, accept the assurance I can give that the points that he and others have so eloquently made will be taken fully into account before decisions are made. Again I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this Adjournment debate.