Page
Foreign Affairs
4 NOVEMBER 1982
absolutely sure that it is a sign of strength and confidence in policy that the hon. Gentleman has to make a speech every few days saying that the policy of his party has not been weakened in any respect, but that is what he is doing.
My reply is bound to be rather discursive, but I shall try to answer some of the specific questions that were put to me. Although the questions put to me were important, one is not always able to reply in a very definite way. Wise and clear decisions will be forthcoming, but they are not yet in place in every instance. That applies to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) concerning the Law of the Sea conference. The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) also spoke strongly about that matter. The balance of argument is not at all easy to strike, and I think that the hon. Member in particular rather over-simplified the proposition before us. It has been a very complex negotiation. The draft treaty is very complex, covering not only the deep sea mining provisions but a wide range of issues concerning maritime law. Given the split vote with which the negotiations concluded, it is not easy to decide whether it will be in the interests of the United Kingdom to sign the treaty when it is open for signature. Obviously, the Government will need to inform the House when they have come to a decision about it.
Several hon. Members spoke about the Middle East, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked me about the Lebanon. In reply to his question about a British contribution to an international force, I say boldly what he asked me not to say, that we have not received any formal request to contribute. We are in close touch with the Lebanese and the American Governments about the plans that they have, with others, to help to bring about something which we certainly support-the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. There are obvious difficulties, which will occur to everybody, about agreeing at this time to a British military contribution. But, as I have said, that is not a question formally before us at the
moment.
The right hon. Gentleman rather decried the idea that we might contribute to training the Lebanese forces. But one of the difficulties is that the Lebanese security forces have been too small for their job, and that they have not so far I think that the Lebanese Government would accept this developed the kinds of characteristics which are needed to maintain impartial order in a country such as Lebanon. There is a tremendous role for training and it may be that we can help in that respect. In a way, that is more at the centre of the problem than is the temporary provision of an international peacekeeping force.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) about keeping open a dialogue with Israel. I think that we have such a dialogue. He was a little harsh in that respect. Lord Carrington's visit reopened some channels which had become a little blocked. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saw the Israeli Foreign Minister recently in New York, and in different ways we are keeping the dialogue open. I agree that that is necessary.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made the same point. I was a little sad to hear some of his remarks about the invasion of Lebanon, but I agreed with what he said about the need for new thinking. It has to be done on the Israeli side as well, of course, and I think that he accepted that. One cannot say that the Israelis will not put up with this or that and that
Foreign Affairs
208
is an end to the discussion. Some fresh thinking has to come from Israel as well as others on the nature of the Palestinians and the PLO.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) made a remarkable speech entirely without notes. He was entirely right to stress the complexity and turbulence of the whole area that he describes, and to make the point, which is familiar but true, that even if the Israeli- Arab dispute did not exist it would still be a difficult and turbulent area. I was afraid that he might make the point that one sometimes hears from Israel that therefore we should not worry too much about the Israeli-Arab dispute. He did not do that. He developed his own ideas and called for fresh thinking. Broadly speaking, and rather unexpectedly I agree with much of what he said.
People have been jerked by different events out of the intellectual trenches in which they had sunk. That is a good thing. It is something to which we have contributed and will continue to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) spoke interestingly about Hong Kong and from my limited knowledge of the colony I sympathise and agree with much of what he said. I noted what he said about the need for progress reports as discussions with the Chinese continue.
I hope that it will not be long before we can give an answer about our conclusions on the report of the Overseas Students Trust which he praised. He is right to say that the Hong Kong Government have made a preliminary proposal for fund sharing. That is one of the matters that we are looking at.
My hon. Friend was right also to raise the point about what is written on passports. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not forgotten what she said on that subject in Hong Kong. Officials are looking at that matter with a sense of urgency derived from that fact. I hope that that matter can be sorted out and disposed of fairly soon.
If I can skip across the globe, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East chided us a bit about our relationships with the Irish Republic. We want to see normal, friendly relations with the Government of the Irish Republic. Naturally they have strong views on the future of Northern Ireland. They know our view of our responsibilities and of the rights of the people who live in Northern Ireland. Those views have been explained often directly to them and in the House. We want to keep in touch with them on a wide range of matters. That has not changed. They are partners with us in the Community. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, to some extent I, have been consulting in recent weeks with all our European partners on Community matters. I was in Dublin yesterday consulting with the Irish Foreign Minister. It was a friendly and useful discussion which I use simply to illustrate the fact that we want to keep open friendly discussions with the Irish Government on a wide range of
matters.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that during the debate on the last Queen's Speech the Prime Minister said that she attached great importance to the series of joint discussions that she then planned with the Government of the Irish Republic which she saw as possibly creating a framework that might help solve the problems of Northern Ireland. That was completely absent from what she said yesterday and the right hon. Gentleman
129
Voc. 29. No.168.
503
Business of the House
3.31 pm
HKCK 026/5
تا
Business of the House
DANS
21 OCTOBER 1982
Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale): Will the Leader of the House state the buisness for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill.
Motions on the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER-Consideration of Lords amendments to the Transport Bill.
Motion relating to the British Gas Corporation (Disposal of Offshore Oilfield Interests) Direction 1982.
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER-Remaining stages of the Industrial Development Bill (Lords) which is a consolidation measure.
Motions relating to the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Regulations, to the Education (School and Placing Information) (Scotland) Regulations and to the Meat (Sterilization and Staining) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER-The House will meet at 2.30 pm for Prorogation.
The new Session will be opened on Wednesday November.
Mr. Foot: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman arranged the business before we had heard the Prime Minister's replies about the steel industry. Will he have further conversations, through the usual channels, to see whether we may have a debate on the steel industry next week? The Prime Minister does not seem to appreciate that the agreement that has been made between the EEC and the Americans—if it is concluded-involves a further cut in British steel exports to the United States of America and an intensification of the crisis in the British steel industry. It possibly threatens further jobs in that industry.
Tomorrow's strike is the result of the sense of desperation felt in the industry that is produced by the Government's policy and failure to do less than any other country in Europe to protect the steel industry. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have discussions through the usual channels to seek a debate on that subject next week before the position deteriorates further.
I ask also for a statement next week on Britoil. There are conflicting stories in the newspapers and elsewhere about how the operation is to be mounted. The Amersham International precedent still leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for a statement on that subject to be made next week.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister proposes to make a statement to the House about her visit to the Far East.
The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister shakes her head. After such visits, the Prime Minister normally makes a report to the house. There were many matters that arose during that tour that should have been reported to the House.
21/10/82 cous.
Business of the House
503-511
504
349
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have a full six days for discussion on the Queen's Speech? A host of industrial matters are crowding for discussion. The steel industry is only one of them. Other industries are threatened by Government policy and the general position. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the opportunity for a full debate on the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Biffen: I shall take in reverse order the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I acknowledge that there is great interest in having a full debate upon the Queen's Speech as it gives an opportunity to discuss a range of domestic economic issues, including the steel industry. I am happy to confirm that there will be a six-day debate as he requests.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given a written answer which sets out the points covered by her Far Eastern tour. I am certain that that answer can be supplemented during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
I take account at once of the right hon. Gentleman's' anxieties about Britoil. Those anxieties are not confined to the Opposition. I shall do my best to ensure that a statement on that matter is made next week.
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to have a usual-channels discussion about the talks that have been conducted over the past 24 hours by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I know that the House will want to be apprised of what is decided. I shall certainly see what can be done.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South): Will the right hon. Gentleman be putting down a motion to give more than one and a half hours for the consideration of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order in view of its great importance to that Province and the unique nature of the legislation? If he does not put down such a motion, does he understand that it will be taken as yet another instance of the cold and unremitting hostility of the Government to that Province and its people?
Mr. Biffen: The hostility is in the eye of the beholder. It is proposed that the motion shall be taken on Monday evening following the normal rules of procedure for a 90-minute debate. It is a matter which has been widely discussed by the Northern Ireland Office-
Mr. Powell: "Office"?
Mr. Biffen: --by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers with those in the Province. I am certain that there will be a constructive debate if there is a constructive attitude of mind.
Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton): Following the publication of the Treasury's comment on the report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on efficiency and effectiveness in the Civil Service and certain other much more controversial comments, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the Civil Service early in the new Session?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot make any such arrangement for next week, but I shall bear in mind my right hon. Friend's point.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Because of the evident anxiety felt by police officers about the sudden announcement of a 4 per cent. pension contribution
266