HC Deb 19 February 1957 vol 565 cc284-352

Question again proposed, That subhead B.I. Cyprus (Grant in aid) be reduced by £100:

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Bennett

As I was saying, I do not think we can look forward to a solution of the problem simply by either a continuance of the present stalemate or, for that matter, by partition. I should have thought that something much more in the nature of an ultimate special autonomous status for the island, with the widest possible freedom for the expression of opinion within the island for self-government, with some kind of representation at Executive level of all the three Powers interested, would provide the ultimate hope.

I have given this matter serious thought, and I myself feel that the only way in which we can go ahead ultimately, when terrorism is crushed, is on these lines: for example, by providing for, perhaps, a British Governor-General and two deputy-Governors, one Turkish and one Greek, with a Legislature which represented fairly the proportions of population in the island. There would, of course, be a Greek Cypriot majority, and there would have to be agreement whereby no constitutional change could take place without the consent of two of the three senior executives. That is only one way. Obviously, I do not pretend to have the means at my disposal to make any very expert analysis; but, as we have been asked to make suggestions for a constructive solution, I would say that it is along those lines rather than in partition, which I cannot help feeling would only lead to an increase in communal bitterness, that our hopes for the future should lie.

It is really up to the Greeks to make the maximum contribution here, I am afraid, because it is the Greeks alone—let us face it—who are maintaining the present state of tension in the island. Certainly, by trying to whip up hatred in the Mediterranean or in the United Nations, they bear a very grave responsibility in harming an old, traditional ally which has often come to their aid in the past. They are trying to stimulate heat and keep the pot boiling, instead of trying to make the positive contribution which it is in their power to make, irrespective of what the Archbishop may do, by condemning violence. The Greeks could make a great contribution in that way, out of which they would be bound to get much more satisfaction in the long run than they will as a result of the present bloodshed and strife, which even if we did give way and went out of Cyprus could only lead them into real trouble and, possibly, into war with Turkey in which they would suffer extremely, whatever might be the ultimate outcome.

Having listened to the speeches from the benches opposite, I must say one really could have been forgiven for thinking this was really a very easy problem to solve. Time after time hon. Gentlemen opposite have attacked the Secretary of State for being reactionary, for being brutal, or for being tyrannous. I cannot even remember all the adjectives hurled at him by the hon. Member for Swindon; I imagine there was practically nothing in the dictionary of abuse which was Parliamentary which he did not include in the course of his speech.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker

I really must ask the hon. Member to look at HANSARD tomorrow morning and, after reading my speech, to withdraw what he has just said. I said nothing un-Parliamentary and nothing abusive. The fact is that we feel very strongly on this question. We feel that the Government have made a series of calamitous mistakes, and that it is our duty to say so.

Mr. Bennett

I will not try to tell the hon. Gentleman what is or is not his duty; he must work out his duties as he thinks fit. I said, in fact, exactly the opposite of what he has suggested. I said that I believed there was practically nothing abusive in the dictionary, except those words which were not Parliamentary, which he did not use. Obviously if he had used non-Parliamentary expression he would have been called to order by the Chair in any event.

On this, as on so many other matters of international affairs, there has been an element of playing party politics by those on the benches opposite. I do not by any means say that that applies to all hon. Members opposite, but really, for an Opposition which was so recently in Government, when one considers the line right hon. Gentlemen opposite took when they were in office on this very problem and then listens to their speeches today, one can only draw the conclusion that they have ben playing party politics in what it now taking place.

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought out in the course of debate some extremely interesting information as to what had been the attitude of the Labour Government when they had to face this problem. It was not nearly so easy then as they would have the Committee believe now. If it was then so easy, why did we not have these free plebiscites, why was not an opportunity given to opt for Enosis, why were not arrangements made then for all this free expression of opinion and for democracy to take its course, and why was it not made possible for Cyprus to join Greece or do whatever else it is alleged to want?

Let us look back no farther than 1951. On 14th May, 1956, the Secretary of State was speaking about this matter. Although there was an awful lot of fuss afterwards about whether he should or should not have published telegrams, he told the House of Commons that when the Greek Government made representations to the British Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) sitting opposite was a distinguished Member, asking for consideration of the proposal that Cyprus be given an opportunity to opt, if it wished, for Enosis with Greece, this is what happened. My right hon. Friend said: The answer was that there was no disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government"— the Socialist Government— to entertain or discuss the Greek proposals, that the strategic position of Cyprus was of the greatest importance to the United Kingdom, and for that reason alone Her Majesty's Government could not contemplate a change of sovereignty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1737.] If that was true in 1951, what has changed since, except the benches upon which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now sit? What has changed to make it so easy now to contemplate a change of sovereignty, which was then ruled absolutely out of court for exactly the same reasons as we now advance in 1957? I hope that any hon. Member from the benches opposite who follows me will seek to give some explanation of this quite dramatic turn-about in Labour views on Cyprus which has occurred since the Labour Government went out of office.

Further to that point, later in the year 1951, when the Greek Government refused to take "No" from the then Labour Government and put in a further request asking for reconsideration at the highest level of their view that the island should be given the opportunity to opt for Enosis if it desired, the answer was, as my right hon. Friend told us on 14th May, 1956: When further requests were made by a very high authority indeed in Greece, it was decided by the Socialist Government not to make any reply to that demarche."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1741.]. Thus, not only did the Labour Government maintain their negative attitude, but they did not even have the courtesy to send an answer to that communication.

I do not blame them for the difficulties in which they found themselves at that time. They are very similar to the difficulties in which we find ourselves today. What I do say is that, in a serious matter like this, some explanation ought to be given of what amounts to a complete somersault in policy on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite between the time they were in Government and today. Otherwise, we must conclude that nothing more has happened than that they have taken this opportunity to play party politics on what is an extremely serious question.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I had the honour to succeed in this House the father of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), and I wish for that reason that I could say a kind word about the hon. Member's speech tonight, but, search my heart as I will, I cannot find one. The hon. Member decided that he was holding a position of sufficient eminence to award marks to the speakers on this side of the Committee. He decided to give "very good" to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), while for my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) he was not as kind in his judgment. I should not dream of telling the hon. Member how many marks he earned himself. I think too much of him to let him down in public.

History has a way of repeating itself and it is repeating itself in the matter of Cyprus. In the history of the British people, we have had lesson after lesson that the way to lose the friendship of people is to regard them as though, somehow or another, we have superior rights in their country. It was within my lifetime that a similar policy to that which we now pursue in Cyprus was being pursued in Ireland. For military and strategic reasons, we made such enemies of the Irish people that all over the world there are people who today speak bitterly of us as a result of the misguided policy of the party opposite, who had power at that time.

We ruined the prospect—[Interruption.] We will come to Russia later. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has Russia on the brain.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)

My intervention was that the Irish all rushed over here to work.

Mr. Thomas

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I withdraw and apologise to him. They come over here to work for very good reasons.

I listened with deep interest to the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), who makes unusual speeches here. I am sorry that he is not now present, but I liked the concluding part of his speech, in which he suggested that we would have to swallow pride and act in humility if we were to have a solution to our present difficulties in Cyprus. The good name of Britain and her influence in world affairs is suffering incalculable damage by the events now taking place in Cyprus.

It is impossible for anyone to travel abroad without learning very quickly of the utter contempt in which the world holds our policy towards the Cypriot peoples. In the United States of America, from New York to San Francisco, from Maine to Mississippi, people are asking questions about the policy of brutality and repression which we are exercising in that little area, which, I believe, has no more than half a million people.

I am of opinion that there is no military solution to our problems in Cyprus. We are behaving as though, by brute force, we can drive the Cypriot people to accept our point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, in what I regarded as a masterly speech, asked many questions of tile Secretary of State and there are some that I wish to ask also. What are we doing in Cyprus? It is, I believe, 3,000 miles away from here. At least, Russia had the excuse that Hungary was next door when she was—

Mr. F. M. Bennett

I am also checking the hon. Member's speech carefully for marks. If he is asking what we are doing in Cyprus, would he like to say what we were doing there between 1945 and 1951?

Mr. Thomas

We were defending ourselves. That was what we were doing then, as we think we are doing now, whereas, in fact, we are not. We are damaging the interests of this country by our presence in Cyprus, and today, when we need friends all over the world, we are making enemies.

What is our aim in Cyprus, and how long do we intend to remain there? Are we intending to stay till we go out, as we went out of Egypt, on our necks? Are we to stay in Cyprus until sufficient terrorism has taken place that we can no longer stay there? This was the basis on which, as the hon. Member well knows, we finally decided that it was intolerable to stay in Egypt where we were not wanted and we decided to come out. The party opposite must not be surprised if Cypriots have learned the lesson that we have taught them from Egypt.

Rather than suffer the odium of the free world and the contempt of the Communist world, we ought entirely to withdraw our forces from Cyprus. I shall come later to what I believe is the solution. At present, Cyprus as a base is negligible, as even some of the militarists, such as Field Marshal Auchlinleck, agree. The hon. Member for Torquay asked what had changed since 1951. It may be that time has passed him by and that he does not realise the changes that have taken place in military strategy, too. Perhaps he does not realise that Cyprus has lost the significance that it possessed as a military base in 1951. On that argument alone, the hon. Member ought to be prepared to look afresh at the subject.

The international obligations which keep us in Cyprus were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). He referred also to the ill-feeling between Greece and Turkey and Greece and ourselves. This is the direct result of the policy of the party opposite. As far as I can see, no solution is possible as long as the party opposite is in power. We are unlikely to get either the Greeks, the Turks or the Cypriots ever to agree to a formula by a party covered by so much prejudice and with such a record in that part of the world that its word will not be taken. The sooner that that party makes way, the better it will be for the peace of the Middle East.

Mr. Callaghan

And of the world.

Mr. Thomas

And of the world, as my hon. Friend says.

As for our interests in the Middle East, the hon. Member for Torquay will know what his party has done to our interests there. They have disappeared like sugar in tea. I suppose they are somewhere, but they are not in the Middle East. Our trade has disappeared. At least, where there is friendship there is a possibility of trade, but we are today handicapping ourselves in every way. We are taking boys from industry in Britain against their will to send them out there for a policy of which they disapprove and at the same time we are damaging the economic interests of these islands.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, in his speech this afternoon, to which I have already referred without giving marks—

Mr. Callaghan

I had nine out of ten.

Mr. Thomas

No. The hon. Member for Torquay gave my hon. Friend only five out of ten.

Mr. F. M. Bennett

Ten out of ten.

Mr. Thomas

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the Archbishop. I ask the Secretary of State: is he going to tell us the old, old story tonight? Has he nothing new to say about the Archbishop? Is he going to leave the Archbishop in the Seychelles? How long is the Archbishop to stay there? Until we are strong enough to reach a conclusion by military might?

Every time there is a debate on Cyprus we hear the same story, that terrorism is on the point of disappearing. It is like prosperity: it is round the corner. It is said to be on its way out. I say to the Under-Secretary of State that he must offer us a more substantial statement of the grounds for his confidence that terrorism is about to be stamped out.

Mr. Profumo

I really must put the hon. Gentleman right. I did not say it is about to be stamped out. I was very careful to say that, although the Observer had given us some hope that, perhaps, the tide was on the turn, I did not think that terroism was by any means finished and that there was still a good deal of kick in it. I gave factual information about what had happened. I was careful to say that I did not think that we could regard terrorism as being finished yet.

Mr. Thomas

That is a very sad and depressing reply which the Under-Secretary of State makes. He may as well bring the Archbishop back. At least, he would be nearer to talk to, if he were back in Cyprus. Who believes that he is not the respected and much loved leader of his people? It is strange that there are Archbishops in two troubled spots, Mindszenty in Hungary, speaking for his people, and Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus. Who is to say that they are not both great patriots? One is a nuisance to us and the other was a challenge to the Communists.

Major Wall

Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that Cardinal Mindszenty speaks on religious grounds, whereas the Archbishop of Cyprus speaks on political grounds?

Mr. Thomas

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is living in a world of his own if he thinks that Cardinal Mindszenty is not concerned with politics as well as religion. He very much is so, as he has made clear, because he is dealing in politics when he deals with Communism, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be well aware.

I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the growing impatience in this nation because our good name is being smirched as it is. The day when we could behave as a big imperial Power pushing little people around if they got in our way has gone. After all, Cyprus is not our country. It is far enough away from us. It is half-way to the other side of the world. It is an impertinence for us to think that merely by sending the British Army there we can decide the future of Cyprus.

There is the problem of the Turks. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for his analogy of Formosa, off the coast of China. The United Nations does not feel that that ought to be handed over to China. We are using Turkey, I feel, stirring up her fears to buttress our position in Cyprus. The Government have undoubtedly made up their mind that any old argument will do as long as we stay in Cyprus. They should realise that the time is coming when they will have to get out of Cyprus. When we get out of a country we like to think that we leave behind a form of democratic government. How can this be done? We shall not do it by the present policy. What does it entail? It means that British boys and Cypriots are dying. That is not a policy. That is disaster.

Mr. Fell

Nor are we going to do it by leaving the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots to murder one another.

Mr. Thomas

When the party opposite took over the Government the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus were not killing one another. There was a demand for Enosis, but there was not this campaign.

Mr. S. Silverman

The argument which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has just put has been put repeatedly since 1945, and was put, indeed, before that, about Palestine and whether we ought not to stay there to prevent the Jews and Arabs from murdering one another.

Mr. Thomas

I believe that it is not right for this Committee to put British conscripts in such jeopardy in defending a policy they regard as wrong. We know that young soldiers object strongly to it, yet they are sent there by a Government whose feeble grip on events is condemned at home and ridiculed abroad. We ought to learn the elementary lesson of the Suez fiasco. We ought to stop pretending that we are a big imperial Power. Let N.A.T.O. decide, if it will, about its bases, but let us not talk and behave as though we are N.A.T.O. In view of recent events, we need a major reassessment of our rôle in overseas affairs. The Government are not making friends, but making enemies.

I believe that there are no unimportant people in the world, and I think that the Cypriots have to be treated as our equals in this matter. We are unable to reach the solution of the Cyprus problem ourselves, and we ought to seek outside arbitration. Why not let the United Nations have this problem to deal with? It need not take long. Let the world's conscience tackle this problem. One thing is sure: we are not going to solve it, any more than we solved the problem of Ireland, by violence alone. We shall create a legacy of hostility and bitterness for future generations if the current policy is not reversed. We are already weak enough in the world. That weakness has been exposed by the party opposite, and it has been exposed by events in the Middle East.

I beg the Government, in the name of those who have to be protected by us, the next generation, to show our readiness to accept outside opinion on this question, and our willingness to withdraw our military forces, so that the United Nations forces may go there while a decision is being reached. That need not take a long time. It could be done quickly, and I think it ought.

7.29 p.m.

Major Patrick Wall (Hull, Haltemprice)

We spoke of awarding marks a little while ago, but I am afraid I cannot award many to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and I will tell him why, because he has not mentioned, nor indeed did the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), the Radcliffe Constitution. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Swindon, who is now leaving the Chamber, was completely unconstructive and unrelated to the facts as they now are. So was the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, and that is why I suggest they cannot be awarded any marks.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that the Cypriots do not want us. I wonder if that is true. Certainly the Turkish Cypriots want us. I know that they are in the minority, but neither he nor I nor anybody else can say whether the Cypriots want us—or want to remain in the Commonwealth, which is the important thing—until terrorism is finished and they have a legislative assembly able to express their point of view.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West also suggested that the British Government were using Turkey in the same way as the hon. Member for Swindon seemed to suggest that the Secretary of State was using the Field Marshal. That is to put a very low estimate on the value or integrity of Turkey or the Field Marshal—to suggest that they could be used for matters of which they do not approve by foreign Governments.

I am pleased that I have been called after the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, because I think his speech illustrates the difficulty we are up against on this side of the Committee, that is, to decide what exactly is the policy of the Opposition in regard to Cyprus. If I may digress for a moment, in the spring of last year there were a lot of stories in the papers to the effect that certain hon. Members of the party opposite had decided to end bipartisanship in foreign affairs. How true that was I am not going to discuss, but one of the results of that undoubtedly was the Suez incident, which, whatever may be said about its success or failure, certainly did not do the country any good.

I suggest, and I believe that I carry the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee with me, that as far as possible we should keep bipartisanship in colonial affairs. I really did believe after the very statesmanlike speech of the hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition and from the speeches of other hon. Members who have spoken from those benches that this was going to be the best debate on Cyprus we have had. We have had eight debates on Cyprus in the last eighteen months, and at last we seemed to get a common measure of agreement between the two sides of the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan

I am bound to say that the whole of my speech was directed to indicating that the Government would have to reverse their policy both in regard to Archbishop Makarios and in relation to their strategic appreciation of Cyprus, and would, in fact, have to come to terms.

Major Wall

Yes, I agree, but the hon. Member surely agrees that the constitutional proposals for Cyprus are fundamental. The hon. Gentleman did indicate that he thought the Radcliffe proposals could be the basis of a solution. I believe that a large majority of hon. Members on this side agree. Surely, we must try to find a common basis on Lord Radcliffe's proposals, and that point is to be the burden of the rest of my speech.

I should like to try to find out exactly what is the point of view of the Opposition, because they have had so many different ones. May I quote some of the alternatives? We have had certain hon. Gentlemen opposite saying, or appearing to say, that we should regard Archbishop Makarios and E.O.K.A. as representative of Cyprus, and that they would concede Enosis and let Cyprus join Greece. Surely, they realise that the Turks could not possibly tolerate any such thing, and that they have said so repeatedly on the highest level?

I really must ask hon. Members who express that desire to face the facts. If they mean anything like that, we have to face the fact that, although the Turks are in a minority, they are only forty miles from the Turkish coast, that they have a very good reputation as fighters and that a civil war will be the result. I think we should get much the same sort of happenings as occurred in Palestine. I am one of the people who believes that the British withdrawal from Palestine was the action that started the whole of the troubles of the Middle East from which we are suffering today, and I suggest that if we try to do the same thing in Cyprus, we should only repeat that situation and so involve the Greeks and Turks in hostilities, the break-up of N.A.T.O. and, possibly, the start of a third world war in that part of the world.

There is one other point I must put to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They must remember that although the Turks represent only 20 per cent. of the population, they own 40 per cent. of the privately- owned land in Cyprus. A man fights very hard for his own land, and I do not really believe that hon. Members opposite really believe this to be a possible solution to the present situation.

Let me now turn to the next alternative. It is the one which I understood was brought forward by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in a recent debate on Cyprus. I understood him in that debate to say that there should be self-determination in Cyprus in about five years' time. That was what I understood the general tenor of his remarks to be. I believe that that solution would give the worst of all worlds, because obviously no one would obey or support the Government, because both sides, including Greece and Turkey, would be preparing for the hostilities which they knew would break out. The only people who could possibly benefit from that alternative of self-determination in five years would be the 60 per cent. Greek Cypriots who are already affiliated to or members of the Communist party, who are working in very close association with the large Communist party in Greece, which is pledged to bring about "democratic government" in Greece. Indeed, the Communist mayor of a Cyprus town told me that when they had achieved self-determination in Cyprus the majority of the Greek Cypriot communists there, added to those in Greece, would give them "democratic government" in Mother Greece. That is exactly what Turkey fears.

It has been pointed out from the benches opposite today that Turkey could not tolerate Communist control of an island off her southern shore, when she is faced by Russia in the north and Greece in the west, and I suggest that the only result of that alternative of self-determination in five years would be an increase of that Communal unrest which we all deplore.

What, then, are we faced with? I think there are only two other alternatives to consider. One is the Radcliffe Constitution and the other is partition. Before I take up those two points, I should like to digress for a moment, and say that one of the main reasons holding up a solution of the Cyprus problem is the fact that we have not got, or do not appear to have, any measure of agreement between both sides of this Chamber. The Cypriots quite rightly think that if they back the Radcliffe Constitution and self-government and there is a change in the government of this country in a few years' time—I do not think there will be, but if there is—then, as far as they can see at the moment, Cyprus will be handed over to Greece and they will be labelled as traitors to Greece, blacklegs or what you like.

We cannot expect any Cypriot who thinks that hon. Members of the party opposite are advocating Enosis—and the majority of them do, rightly or wrongly—can possibly come forward now, with a fear of terrorism on the one hand and the possibility of a change of Government here on the other, to advocate a reasonable, constructive approach to the future government of the island. Unfortunately, it is the more extreme statements in this House and elsewhere that hit the headlines in the Press abroad, and, indeed, in this country.

Some while ago, I was in the island about the same time as, and again a little later than, the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). There was a big flap on at the time, because the hon. Member for Coventry, East had had a meeting with the mayor of the village of Kythrea, and in this conversation he was alleged to have said certain things. I will just quote a question which he was alleged to have asked by a person present there, and I will not say whether it was right or wrong. I have informed the hon. Member for Coventry, East that I was going to do this, but I understand that he cannot be present this evening because he has to be somewhere else, and I told him that I should put this point of view, when I had put my own. I am going to quote the words he is alleged to have said. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman, but merely trying to show that this is the kind of thing that hits the headlines in the Press, and that we shall not get stability in Cyprus while this fighting goes on between the two sides of this House over colonial policy. The hon. Member for Coventry, East was reported to have said to the mayor: Mr. Mayor, it is a historical fact that the once colonial peoples of India, Egypt and Palestine only achieved their freedom by resorting to violence. It was only after they started shooting and throwing bombs that the British withdrew and gave them their freedom. Why, during the 80 years of British rule, have not the Cypriots also resorted to violence? The statement was quoted in the Press as follows:—" The hon. Member observed that many people in England said that the Iraqi people, the Jews, the Egyptians and other peoples had not confined themselves to words in their struggle for freedom but had resorted to violence". He was alleged to have added that the same did not apply to the Cypriots and to have asked why. The hon. Member has informed me that when he learned of this report in the Cyprus Press he issued a denial to the newspapers in Cyprus, and that the whole thing had been taken out of its context and that it had been made to appear that he advocated violence.

It is not in order to attack the hon. Member that I bring this matter forward, because we know that things can be taken out of their context, but to show how the rather extreme views sometimes expressed in Cyprus or in the House of Commons on both sides are headlined and create the wrong impression. I have been in Cyprus many times, and my own impression was that people thought that the hon. Member had said that if they wanted self-determination they had better do something positive about it. I suggest that that is a very dangerous impression to give.

I come now to something more constructive and wish to discuss very briefly the proposals on which I believe the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee can find a common basis for the future, namely, the Radcliffe proposals for a new Constitution. It gives the Greek Cypriots a majority in the Assembly of 24 to 6 Turks and 6 nominated members. That is an overwhelming majority. Admittedly, Lord Radcliffe suggests safeguards on foreign affairs, defence and security to be in the hands of the Governor, but surely this is a liberal constitution. The Government could have been accused of being illiberal if they had given the nominated members and the Turks a majority over the Greeks. Surely, the object is to get the Cypriot people to govern themselves and to practise the arts of government and then, when they have done so and have accepted the Constitution and finished terrorism, they can decide their own future.

Why has this Constitution been rejected by the Greeks? Greece has said that she believes in self-determination for Cyprus. She says that she is not fighting to get Cyprus annexed to Mother Greece. If she was sincere in that statement she must have supported the Radcliffe proposals, because they are based on self-government and later self-determination on the island. I suggest that the reason is that the whole of the modern history of Greece is based on the idea of re-creating the old Byzantine Empire, for example, the Ionian Islands, Crete, Corfu, Rhodes, Cyprus and later parts of Turkey. If hon. Members will study the history books they will see that there is a certain amount of proof for that suggestion.

The Turks have been given safeguards in the Constitution. They are to have their own Minister and there are other safeguards to be operated by the Governor. As far as we can see, both Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots, though naturally not enthusiastic, would agree that these proposals would form a good basis for a future Constitution. We must pay tribute to the leader of the Cypriot Turks, Dr. Kutchuk, for keeping his sometimes aggressive countrymen in the island in order, and I would say the same as the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) has said of the leaders of the Greek Cypriot community.

We must not forget the British community there. It is not large but it is very important in the commercial life of Cyprus. At the moment these people are protected from paying double Income Tax. Could that be altered and could they be required to pay both Income Taxes here and in Cyprus if the Constitution were altered? They also wonder whether under the new Constitution the elected Assembly could take Cyprus outside the sterling area and ally the currency to the drachma as a step towards Enosis. They also note that although English is prescribed as one of the three languages in the Assembly, it is not definitely specified in the proposals as one of the three universal languages for the island. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some reassurances on those three points.

I believe that the White Paper on the new Constitution is a foundation for the future. I believe that the majority of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could come to an agreement on that basis. I believe that that is the only really firm future for the island of Cyprus. Whatever our political ideas may be, I am sure that all of us sincerely want a good future for Cyprus and would like to see her remain in the Commonwealth.

The only alternative to these proposals is partition, and nobody wants it. I am certain that that is true of both sides of the Committee, but if we cannot agree on the basis of the Radcliffe Constitution, and if terrorism and violence continue, then there is no other alternative. Therefore, I should like to make one or two points on partition to my right hon. Friend.

If we are forced to adopt partition, I suggest that the island should be divided into three sectors. The northeastern corner—the "panhandle"— should be Turkish, the centre, including the area between Nicosia and Famagusta, should be British and the remainder of the island should be Greek. Nicosia should remain a federal capital for ten years and there should be a federal Government of the three sectors, composed of Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and British, but after ten years the Turkish and Greek sectors could opt for Enosis with their separate countries, Turkey and Greece.

During the ten years the island's budget would be divided among the sectors but British colonial funds would be concentrated on the British sector. That would mean that an island of the size of the Isle of Wight would be divided into three. Nobody likes that, but it provides a possible alternative, a better alternative than the continuation of the present conditions, and the only alternative to the Radcliffe proposals.

I therefore beg hon. Members throughout the Committee to support, as far as they possibly can do so in their consciences, the proposals of Lord Radcliffe, because I believe that what goes forth from this Chamber today will have great effect on the future of Cyprus. If it can be said that at last Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition have found a certain measure of agreement, I believe that the people in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey will feel that at last there is some possibility of a solution of this problem which has troubled us all for so long.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

In debate after debate on Cyprus in the House and in Committee we, on this side, have been accused by hon. Members opposite of giving comfort and succour to terrorists because we venture to criticise, often in rather sharp terms, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in that island. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) was no exception in that respect.

This charge we have answered time and time again. I repeat that we cannot be deflected from what we believe to be our Parliamentary duty in criticising the Government because of the possibility that certain people in Cyprus may take comfort from our words. But it does not seem to have been said that very much the same charge can be made against hon. Members opposite, who say over and over again that if self-determination is given to Cyprus the result inevitably will be communal rioting between Turk and Greek.

If that is not stimulating communal feeling, I do not know what is. And this was' said not only by the hon. and gallant Member but by the Under-Secretary of State, in opening the debate from the other side this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman painted a lurid picture of the situation that would follow the granting of self-determination to Cyprus.

Major Wall

Could I ask exactly what the hon. Gentleman means by self-determination? I had Enosis in mind in painting that picture of civil war, not self-determination, which could be different.

Mr. Robinson

I agree that it could be different, but we all agree that Enosis is the probable outcome of self-determination, so the point I am making holds good.

As I have said, the Under-Secretary of State painted a picture of murder and of communal rioting and of civil war between Greek and Turk which would inevitably follow. There is no doubt that this is part of the policy of stimulating Turkish intransigence, which made its appearance seriously for the first time on the occasion of the London Conference in October, 1955.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

For the record, did the hon. Gentleman say "stimulating" or "stimulated", because there is a great difference? Was he suggesting that someone had been stimulating it or that it had been stimulated, not from this country?

Mr. Robinson

I said that remarks of this kind inevitably stimulated Turkish intransigence. While we are on the subject of Turkish intransigence I would like to say that the recent communal rioting in Cyprus is, thank heaven, an exceptional feature of this tragic story. I do not think that anyone in this Committee ought to forget that for most of the last two wretched years in Cyprus, Greek and Turk have lived together in reasonable peace side by side, as, indeed, they have done in Greece and in Turkey almost without a break for the last twenty-five years. It is the most tragic new development in this situation that the dragging out of this problem in Cyprus has given rise to communal strife.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the use of Turkish police. There is a statement in an article, which I shall have occasion to quote in another connection a little later, in the current number of the Spectator. The quotation is as follows: The administration in Cyprus is employing no fewer than 3,000 Turkish auxiliary constables to patrol; many of these men are quite unfitted for their choice as guardians of law and order. Unemployed at the outbreak of the emergency, a number of them are convicted felons. It continues: The present Chief Constable, Colonel White, promised to weed out this unsuitable material as soon as he was appointed, but nothing has been done. I would like to have the comments of the right hon. Gentleman on that, because it is clear that it must be an exacerbating factor, to put it no higher, in the communal situation if Turkish police of this character are being used on patrol work in the Greek Cypriot areas.

I must confess to a feeling of despair when I learned that the right hon. Gentleman was to wind up this debate. We have had this situation in all too many colonial debates. It means that we get another exhibition of the technique which I have had occasion to describe in the House of Commons before, of the right hon.

Gentleman galloping through his brief, answering a few selected points made in the course of the debate, and sitting down breathless and exhausted like the rest of us.

It also means that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing new to tell us. However, on an occasion like this—and this is a censure debate—we are entitled to have a statement of policy from the senior Minister in charge at the beginning of it. I must add, here, that I thought that the speech of the Under-Secretary was totally inadequate. After a reasoned case has been made, as was made this afternoon by my hon Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), it is not good enough for the opening speaker for the Government merely to come along with a prepared brief and reel out a few items of recent history in connection with Cyprus and be unable to answer the substantial points made.

He also suggested that moving a reduction in the Vote was merely a method of staging a debate on Cyprus, and that there was not too wide a division between the two sides of the Committee.

But if Her Majesty's Government will not move one inch forward on their policy, it is not good enough to suggest that the two sides of the House of Commons are coming closer together on the issue in Cyprus. Several hon. Members have fallen into that error this afternoon. Our policy has been made abundantly clear time and time again, and there will be no coming together unless the Government show signs of reversing the tragic policy they have been following for so long.

I had intended to say something about the question of Cyprus as a base. I propose to say very much less than I had intended because my hon. Friend, in opening this debate, dealt with that aspect of the matter so admirably and so cogently. However, I will say this much for the Secretary of State—that I believe that if he had been faced with this problem in Cyprus as a purely political colonial problem he would have found a solution long before this. I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole of the Cyprus matter has been bedevilled by the strategic interests involved in it. The trouble is that we have felt it necessary to retain the whole of the island as a base for the defence of British interests in the Middle East.

I have never been wholly satisfied with any of the arguments put forward against the use of Cyprus as a N.A.T.O. base. Indeed, I once went on a small Parliamentary delegation to N.A.T.O. Headquarters. In the course of the lecture which we were given by the then Supreme Commander, the usual number of N.A.T.O. maps were pulled down. One of them was a map of Europe and the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, showing the N.A.T.O. area. The line bounding the N.A.T.O. area came down from Turkey, had a little kink inwards to exclude Cyprus, and then continued downwards, including Crete.

I asked a fairly innocent question: why Cyprus, which naturally came into the area of N.A.T.O., was so carefully excluded? I was told that it had been excluded at the specific request of the British Government. I was prepared to accept that statement, because the authority for it was no less than General Gruenther himself. It seemed that Her Majesty's Government required the whole of the island of Cyprus for this British base, and that is what this problem has been all about. That is why we have equivocated and procrastinated all along the line.

How fatuous these arguments look since the Suez operation. My hon. Friend pointed out the lessons that we must draw from Suez. First, it has proved that Cyprus is no use as a base even for the limited kind of military operation that was launched against Egypt. I ask the right hon. Gentleman when it was decided by the defence experts that Cyprus was of such value as a military base? Was it not a fact that, ten years ago, an appraisal was made of the island for military purposes by the then military experts, and that the reply was that it was virtually useless?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Then the hon. Gentleman might perhaps inquire of his own colleagues, who formed the Government of that day and who made emphatic statements in the House of Commons to the effect that a change of sovereignty was out of the question, and no doubt did that on the basis of the advice they had received.

Mr. Robinson

I do not think that it was ever said that a change of sovereignty could not be contemplated because of strategic reasons, but if it gives any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman I gladly say that I think that the policy of the Labour Government at that time was mistaken.

The second lesson from the Suez operation is that we shall never again launch the kind of aggression, or police action, single-handed, outside the United Nations, that we launched against Egypt.

Major Wall

I understood that it was always said that Cyprus was to be a command centre and perhaps an aircraft carrier. Whatever the success or failure of the military operation in Suez was, Cyprus performed exactly that function and was extremely useful.

Mr. Robinson

I do not think that any operations were conducted from Cyprus which could not have been conducted from Malta. I am not putting myself forward as an expert on strategy. I am trying to put forward the lessons which a layman might learn from what has happened in recent months.

Cannot the Government digest these lessons? How long will it take them to do so? This is not the view only of the Opposition. A leading article in The Times yesterday said: The Suez crisis, and Britain's reappraisal of her defence needs, must certainly lead to a reappraisal of her needs in Cyprus. It could be that Britain's own strategic stake in the island became less important, but that of N.A.T.O. remained unaffected. I believe that if only this idea of the value of Cyprus from the strategic angle can be removed from the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is a possibility of their looking afresh at the Cyprus problem, no longer blinded by strategic assumptions which never were valid and have now been proved invalid in the eyes of the world.

We have heard references at some length to the Radcliffe Constitution. I said a few words on this subject in an Adjournment debate the day the House rose for the Christmas Recess. I was taken to task by the then Minister of State, because I was not more enthusiastic about the Constitution. However, I went as far as to say that I hoped, subject to certain conditions, that the Greek Cypriots would agree to work it and give it a chance. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that not many people have gone as far as that.

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely disappointed at the reception which the Radcliffe Constitution has received, but he ought not to be very surprised, because whatever chances those constitutional proposals had were virtually destroyed by his ridiculous talk about partition. I do not think that the Secretary of State need have offered partition to the Turks in order to get their support for the Radcliffe Constitution. The safeguards for the Turks built into the proposals are perfectly adequate. By talking of partition in the same breath as he talked about the Constitution, he injected yet another powerful irritant into an already inflamed situation.

In today's debate not one hon. Member on either side of the Committee has had a good word for partition. Those who have accepted it at all have only accepted it as a last resort. The least we can ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to withdraw what he said about partition and tell the Committee that it no longer forms part of Her Majesty's Government's policy, or possible policy, for the future of Cyprus. Until he does that, it is impossible for the Radcliffe Constitution to be looked at objectively by those who will be most closely affected.

In the meantime, the bloodshed goes on and the repression in Cyprus continues. Indeed, it is intensifying in some respects. The Governor appears to have embarked upon a feud against the Cyprus Press. We had occasion to call the attention of the House to the new Press regulations before Christmas. Some modifications were made to them, but they were not very significant.

Now we have the spectacle of one of the two English-speaking newspapers in Cyprus having received a letter from the Governor, or the Assistant Governor, threatening to suspend publication, which means that that newspaper can now be shut down at a moment's notice without any reason whatever being given. I have with me a file of cuttings from The Times of Cyprus, dealing with the matters which have given rise to this threat from the Governor about shutting down the newspaper. They are too voluminous for me to quote, but I wish to quote an article in the Spectator which I think, having read the extracts from The Times of Cyprus, gives a fair summary of what the newspaper is alleged to have done to justify the threat being made.

The Spectator says: For the last two weeks Mr. Foley has been publishing daily articles warning the Government of the danger of allowing Greco-Turk relations to flare in to a forest fire. The article describes how communal rioting took place and how dangerous incidents occurred. It goes on: Again 'The Times of Cyprus' stepped into the breach, taking up an idea which had just been mooted that the Greek and Turkish leaders should form a mixed commission to find out who was responsible for these acts of inter-communal violence and to propose ways of relieving tension.… The Greek leaders were prepared to use all their influence to persuade E.O.K.A. to stop the attacks on the police—this would have been the first time they had spoken up against E.O.K.A. The moderate Turks agreed to the idea of a mixed commission; even, after much persuasion. Dr. Kutchuk, leader of the extreme 'Cyprus is Turkish' Party, agreed. And then, twenty-four hours later, Dr. Kutchuk changed his mind and withdrew. When 'The Times of Cyprus' published an article criticising Dr. Kutchuk, Mr. Foley received a letter from the administration threatening to close the newspaper. These are totalitarian methods. I do not think that anyone who has consistently read The Times of Cyprus could deny that Mr. Foley's contribution has been at all times a beneficial one and that he has done his best to mitigate the more unpleasant aspects of the situation in Cyprus as between both Greek and Turk, and between the Cypriot people and the Government. I hope that this threat will not be held over him indefinitely. I do not know what the position is. Does it mean that if the letter is not withdrawn he will have this Sword of Damocles hanging indefinitely over his head? I hope that the Colonial Secretary will say a word about this.

I also want to refer to the attack which has been made on the Cyprus Bar. This follows the formation by the Cyprus Bar Council of a Human Rights Commission in October last. It was designed to investigate complaints of ill-treatment of persons during interrogation and damage to property during searches. Now we find that one of the most distinguished Cypriot lawyers, Mr. George Polyviou, has been arrested. Charges have been made against a number of lawyers in Famagusta, including the mayor. Today, we have in the Manchester Guardian an article quoting a number of cases of alleged ill-treatment which have not received the thorough investigation to which I feel the right hon. Gentleman will agree they are entitled.

A brief reference was made to the case of Maria Lambrou. The Committee should know what is alleged in this case. I have no doubt that it is one of the cases to which the Colonial Secretary will refer. This was a young Cypriot woman who was arrested on 13th October, a few days before her fiance was injured in a bomb-throwing incident. It is alleged that she was punched on the nose when she was being asked if she would tell the whereabouts of Colonel Grivas. She was then threatened, according to the account, "If you do not confess, I will cause a miscarriage of your child", because it was obvious that she was pregnant.

This young woman claims that she was punched again on subsequent occasions, and the following day she had, in fact, a miscarriage. According to this article, which is written by a very reputable lawyer, the most cursory examination of the charges was made, and the complaint was dismissed by the Administration on the ground that no case had been established against any public officer. A request for the name of the man who interrogated this woman was refused.

It was also said that no action could be taken because she had not complained to the police at the time, although we are assured that she complained to a police constable, whose number was given, after receiving legal advice within one week of the incident. Other cases are quoted. There is the case of a man who sustained two broken ribs and other injuries. A case was brought following that incident and dismissed by the judge.

Then we have the new Emergency Regulation, which we referred to before Christmas, by which it is forbidden to institute private prosecutions against members of the security forces, except with the permission of the Attorney-General. That seems to me to be a quite intolerable situation. No one is saying that cruel treatment of prisoners who are being questioned is a regular practice. What we do say is that there must be no suggestion whatever of "covering up".

If cases like these are not properly investigated, and if power and influence of the Attorney-General is used to prevent prosecutions against members of the security forces, then people all over the world will draw the most sinister conclusions. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will announce that, at any rate, this Emergency Regulation governing prosecutions against the security forces will be withdrawn.

I want to make a very brief reference to the debate that is going on in the Political Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Under-Secretary sounded very confident that the British motion would get the support of the Assembly. I am not so concerned about that. But we did seek to exclude this problem from the United Nations for about two years. It was only when it was quite obvious that our attempts would not be successful that we changed our ground and ourselves tabled a motion attempting to put Greece in the dock.

What I want to ask about is the Greek second draft motion, which seems to me to be a very reasonable one. This asked the Assembly to set up a seven-nation fact-finding committee to investigate British charges of Cypriot terrorism and Greek counter allegations. I hope that the British delegate at the United Nations will vote for that and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what is the Government's attitude to this extremely reasonable proposal of getting an independent, seven-nation inquiry into the charges brought by both sides.

In conclusion, I want only to say what I have said before here, that the Government will have to swallow their pride in this matter of Archbishop Makarios. They will not get a solution of this problem unless they are prepared to discuss the situation with the Archbishop. It has been made abundantly clear that there is no one else who carries the support and respect of the Greek Cypriot people. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Colonial Secretary will realise that and agree to bring the Archbishop to London, or anywhere else that is mutually agree- able, for discussions about the future of the island.

The Under-Secretary said that the Archbishop had refused to discuss the future of Cyprus under present conditions. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary could tell us what was meant by "under present conditions". I assume—and I should like to know whether I am right—that he will not discuss the future of Cyprus while he is exiled in the Seychelles. I think that that is not unreasonable. We ask the Government to think again about this matter and to see in Archbishop Makarios, whatever they may think about his association with E.O.K.A., the only key to the problem. If they cannot swallow their pride in this matter, we must reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Government are not capable of solving the Cyprus problem.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

I disagree with almost everything that was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. K. Robinson), except that partition does not provide a very acceptable solution to this problem. I would not urge my right hon. Friend, as he would, to dismiss it entirely, because we cannot see the end of the Cyprus problem. The end is not in sight. Therefore, it would be unwise, in my view, to rule out any of the possibilities to which we may have to resort in the ultimate. I agree that I should not like to see it if no other choice was before us.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman very materially on the question of the military appreciation. He spoke as if it had been decided that as Cyprus no longer had the military value once attached to it—I do not know whether that is correct or not we were relieved of all our responsibility for the citizens of the island.

Mr. K. Robinson

I am grateful for the opportunity to correct that impression. I said that once this strategic concept was out of the way, hon. Members might be able to think straight about the problem.

Mr. Shepherd

That may be the party slant which the hon. Gentleman is now giving to his remarks, but I took the view that he thought that our responsibility for Cyprus and its people was less important than its military value to us.

That is certainly not a view that I would share with him.

When we come to the question of "thinking straight," as the hon. Gentleman calls it, I think that it would be wise of us to try to think straight on these issues. There has been some extraordinarily distorted thinking here this afternoon. Let us take, for instance, the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), which was a vicious and unhelpful speech, not generated in the heat of the moment but conned over while burning the midnight oil. He was trying to do as much damage as he could to the relationship between this country and Greece. I hope that on reflection, when he reads his speech, the hon. Member will realise how undesirable it was.

I agree with hon. Members opposite who say that there may be some wrong thinking on the Right in this country. There is also a great deal of wrong thinking on the Left. There are those on the Right who see every change of status of other nations with whom we have had some association or over whom we have had dominion as a disaster. That is an old-fashioned, useless and outmoded concept. I also see in the expressions of opinion of many hon. Members opposite and many people on the Left the idea that everything that is done by a British Government not of their own choosing is old-fashioned colonialism. That is not really true.

What I would plead for is a measured view between those two extremes. I, for one, am very proud of what my right hon. Friend has done since he has been Colonial Secretary. I am also proud of what his predecessor, Lord Chandos, did. Our record in colonial affairs stands almost any examination. I am not prepared to say that we have not made mistakes. I am sure that we have and that we shall go on making them, but our record is as proud as that of any other colonial Power in the history of the world.

It is grossly unfair to make allegations, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon did, about nineteenth century colonialism concerning the actions of my right hon. Friend or those of his predecessor, because I think that we have a record that is enlightened and of which we can be proud. Even when we come to the government of the Colonial Territories it is true that of all our colonial legislatures over two-thirds of them have a majority of native representatives. We have nothing to fear on the question of the way in which we have carried out our obligations and duties as a colonial Power.

There has been a reference to allegations of cruelty by members of the security forces in Cyprus. Some of those allegations have been made recklessly, and we know how recklessly allegations can be made in this matter. We have had one or two unpleasant examples in the last twelve months of accusations, made by seemingly responsible people, which have had little or no foundation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be reticent about giving currency to allegations until they are fully satisfied that they have a foundation in fact.

We should be as ruthless with those who do not maintain decent standards in our service in Cyprus and elsewhere as with the terrorists. There should be no offences in our name and nothing of which we could be ashamed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that any case where there is good evidence of maltreatment of prisoners will be dealt with with the utmost rigour of the law so that justice is satisfied. Nothing could be more salutary than the action of Judge Bernard Shaw—no relation, I think—who dismissed a prosecution. In view of the misconceived idea which was heard in the Committee a little earlier, I want to draw attention to the reason he dismissed that prosecution. He did so because, he said, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that a statement was obtained voluntarily.

It is a most terrific sanction against the use of force in obtaining statements for a judge to say that unless he is fully satisfied that a statement has been made voluntarily, and the prosecution can prove that it has been made voluntarily, he will not accept the statement as evidence. I was very much relieved that Judge Shaw should have made that declaration.

Mrs. Jeger

Is the hon. Member relieved that in this case the Crown was unable to prove that the confession had been made voluntarily?

Mr. Shepherd

I am not and I think that my right hon. Friend will probably institute some inquiries about the reasons for the refusal to bring forward the evidence in question.

There have been many accusations against various individuals, but we can be very proud of what has been done by policemen from this country who have gone to Cyprus. There is no doubt that their high standard of conduct has had a very marked effect on the morale of the police force, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish.

I want to deal with one or two aspects of the political situation in Cyprus. I do not accept the view of hon. Members opposite. I do not want, at this stage, to trade with Makarios. I believe that he is an evil man, with blood on his hands, and I do not want to see us forced by circumstances to trade with him. It is not necessary, either for the future of the island, or for our own position, to deal with him at this juncture. We have one clear duty as a Power there, to preserve law and order. All our efforts ought to be devoted to ending terrorism. That is the only immediate duty which the Government ought to perform.

It is a good thing that we have brought forward for discussion the admirable proposals of the Radcliffe Commission. The primary duty of the Government is to restore law and order and end terrorism. We shall not be facing the future—and those who, in the future, will consider our actions—with any degree of pride if it can be said of us that we were forced to take a line because we feared terrorism. The first essential of our policy ought to be the ending of terrorism, and we are very near to doing so.

When Sir John Harding was here, he said that he hoped by Christmas to have a virtual end to terrorism, and the end is not far away. The terrorists are on the run and we should stick to the ending of terrorism as the prime duty which we have to perform as the colonial Power in Cyprus. I do not believe for one moment that we can end with that. We want to go beyond the ending of terrorism, but we can think in terms of a future policy only when we have ended terrorism, because while it persists we cannot see into the future with any degree of clarity. If we carry on and end the terrorism we will see moderate Greek Cypriot opinion formulated. We might well weaken the power of this evil man Makarios.

It may be that if we end terrorism and bring back some normality to the life of the island, moderate Greek Cypriot opinion will assert itself. Some views on the Radcliffe Constitution may well be expressed and in a relatively short time we may put ourselves in a position where Makarios no longer has the power for evil which I think he has. I should not like to think that we are dependent on Makarios for the future of the island. I strongly oppose the suggestion that we should weaken our policy in any way. We should stand firm against Makarios, firm for those things which we believe to be right.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees with me in the view that union with Greece at this juncture is not a policy which we can tolerate in any circumstances. We must stand against any policy which would lead us foolishly in that direction. I do not want union with Greece for reasons which are not necessarily connected with the prestige of this country. I look upon union with Greece in terms of the damage which it will do to the ordinary Greek Cypriot.

We must remember the advantages which the Greek Cypriot has over his less fortunate brothers in Greece. There is the advantage of British prestige; the sterling area advantage; the advantage he receives from agricultural goods having a 10 per cent. preferential treatment upon entering his country, and of receiving loans from London to develop his island. All those things are of very real value to the Greek Cypriot.

If he had union with Greece they would be swept away, and his rising standard of living would be dragged down to the level of that of Greece itself. Although I am not unmindful of our responsibility and certainly do not want to see us abandon our trust, I nevertheless feel that from the point of view of the Cypriots themselves there is a very good reason for resisting any union with Greece at this juncture.

I do not want to see us letting down our gallant friends, the Turks. Some of my views about the Suez operation are rather different from those of some of my hon. Friends, but I have been very impressed by the way in which the Turks stuck by us during that difficult time, and the way in which they have rallied to our aid and gathered a good deal of support for our country. The same may be said of the Turkish Cypriots. They are a very good bunch of people. I do not want us to surrender our trust because of any pressure by terrorists, or because of any political pressure, whether or not it conies from the United Nations. We must stick by the Turks and see that they receive justice. I should not be prepared to buy political or military peace in Cyprus at the expense of surrendering the principle of justice for the Turks.

This problem can be solved by good will, but it cannot be solved if we rush it. Having listened to hon. Members opposite, I have the impression that they feel that this situation, which is bubbling over with trouble, turmoil and bloodshed, must be resolved tomorrow. That is not the order of things. We need infinite patience to resolve the problem; it cannot be resolved overnight. Our first duty is to do away with terrorism. Only when we have done that can we and the Greek Cypriots start thinking about the problem of the political future of the island. We must not be rushed along to try to find a solution tomorrow, as hon. Members opposite seem to want us to do, because we shall not find it tomorrow; it is much too complicated and difficult a problem for that.

We must be prepared to wait upon events. Our prime duty is to end terrorism. Then we can start influencing political events as much as possible. I urge hon. Members opposite—many of whom have a very sincere outlook upon this question—not to take the view that a solution must be found tomorrow, because it cannot be done. We must be prepared to exercise the greatest possible patience.

If we can end terrorism and can bring a new outlook into the island, I do not rule out the possibility of our being able to begin talking about the new Constitution and see that it is discussed by Greek and Turk alike, and reach some sort of agreement. We must keep Makarios out of the island altogether. I do not see any reason why he should be brought back. We can then bring back to the island a very much healthier state of affairs than it has had for a very long time. I hope that we shall not try to rush events in Cyprus. There is no hope for us if we try to impose a ready-made solution of the problem. We must try to take one step at a time.

I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said and repeat that I am proud of the work that he has done in the colonial sphere since he has been Colonial Secretary. There is nothing for anyone in this country to be ashamed of in what he has done. In the administration of colonial affairs he has been as enlightened as any of his predecessors, whether they be from this or the other side of the Committee. I am content to leave this difficult problem to his handling, and have confidence in his ability to deal with it.

8.34 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) should feel pleased with the Colonial Secretary, for the right hon. Gentleman seems to have taken the hon. Member's advice. He certainly shows no signs of rushing into a solution of the Cyprus problem. He shows no signs of appreciating that there is anything urgent in the position. He seems even more pleased than his hon. Friend to wait upon events and see what happens, and not to expect anything tomorrow. I wonder how many more tomorrows there will have to be—tomorrows which will see killing, murder and deaths from all sorts of causes which are defiling this beautiful island—before the Government decide that there is something urgent about the question.

I have followed the debate very carefully, and I must admit to a feeling of profound disappointment and dismay. The Radcliffe proposals, for which we had waited long and anxiously, were published before Christmas. Then the right hon. Gentleman, taking the advice of his hon. Friend about not hurrying, let everything go. It was the Opposition which had to find time even for today's debate. We hoped that in providing time today we were giving the opportunity to the Government to make some constructive statement of policy. I submit that throughout the whole of this debate we have had nothing new, nothing useful, nothing interesting. In fact, one felt from time to time caught up in a sort of time machine and of having been here before.

Quotations have been made from debates from 1945 to 1950. The same columns in HANSARD have been quoted, the same interjections and the same arguments used, and there has been a complete failure to look forward and give the Committee and the country a lead on what has to be done in Cyprus. Hon. Members opposite who have complained about lack of bi-partisanship in this debate have no right to do so, because they cannot expect us to be associated with their completely unsuccessful and disastrous policy. It seems that they have learned absolutely nothing but, unlike the Bourbons, have forgotten everything. The hon. Member for Cheadle tried to do an arithmetical sum about an historical comradeship in arms, but he must look further back than Suez to find whether it has been the Greeks or the Turks who have most often stood alongside this country in her hour of need. Perhaps he has not heard of Gallipoli?

The Under-Secretary of State made a futile statement, which was as monotonous but not as interesting as a Greek chorus, that the final destruction of E.O.K.A. is now near. We have been told that time and time again. When Grivas offered a truce we were told that it would not be accepted because it was only a trick as E.O.K.A. was on its knees and about to be defeated instead of which we have had increasing violence everywhere.

The difficulty is that we cannot work out the progress we are making in dealing with E.O.K.A. in terms of the number of individual leaders who are captured in the mountains. The real problem about E.O.K.A. is not to be found among the individual full-time leaders, but in the fact that there is a bit of E.O.K.A. in thousands of people in Cyprus. It is that bit of "the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker" which makes him patriotic and makes him have aspirations for his country which might not coincide with our aspirations. That is particularly true of the young people. All we have heard about continuing repression in Cyprus is particularly disastrous so far as the younger generation is concerned. It seems such a failure to understand the kind of things which make young people tick.

Do the Government not realise that repression and fear of punishment add a dreadful glamour to violence and that the threat of death and being found with a bullet in one's pocket dramatises the situation in a way which may be terribly glamorous, like a frightful rock 'n roll, which is demanding and consuming? The greater the danger the bigger the stature given to young people who take these risks, however mistaken they may be thought to be in taking them.

We have had the repetition of the statement that we must have law and order first before we can do anything else, as if the very circumstances about which we are talking are not in themselves inimical to the restoration of law and order. It is rather like a doctor saying that he will not deal with a patient until the disease starts to behave itself. We have to recognise that the pacification of Cyprus must start before we can expect violence to decrease.

The Minister of State also referred with some surprise to the fact that the Greek Government had made a statement on the Radcliffe proposals before the Cypriots had had time to speak about them. I hope the Secretary of State will explain that he went to Athens, presumably to ask the Greeks what they thought about the proposals, whereas as far as I know he did not go to Cyprus on this occasion or ask the Cypriots what they thought about them. It is extraordinary that his Minister of State should seem to blame the Greeks for expressing a point of view.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I went to Athens and Istanbul to urge both Governments to say nothing prematurely but to study the proposals in detail. I was desperately anxious, particularly in the dangerous situation in Athens, that the Greek Government should not come out with some hasty judgment before they had read the full proposals. I was not wholly successful in my visit. I went not to get them to say something but to get them to say nothing until they had read the full proposals.

Mrs. Jeger

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the anxiety of all of us is that it should be the views of the Cypriot people which we get on the Radcliffe proposals. Time and time again in history they are the forgotten people. An hon. Member earlier today referred to the fact that Britain was in Cyprus by treaty rights—but she is not there by a treaty with which the Cypriot people themselves have been associated in any way.

From hon. Members opposite we have had a repetition of their condemnation of Archbishop Makarios for his failure to condemn violence. This seems to me to be completely unconstructive. Surely it is a challenge to statesmanship in an impasse of this kind to find a way out and not to continue repeating the same difficulties. This is a complete failure to understand that the rôle of the Church in the East in nationalist movements is quite different from the rôle of the Church as we understand it in this country. I remember that during the last war we were very proud of the part which Archbishop Damaskinos played in Greece as a leader of the national movement. It is very much a part of the traditions of the Church that their leaders should be in the forefront of the struggle for nationalism.

Nowhere in history, as far as I remember, has there been a nationalist movement in which there was no violence. Those who refuse to deal with Archbishop Makarios will surely recall that very similar things were said during the Irish troubles, but in the end we had to bring the Irish leaders to London and our statesmen had to "shake hands with murder", as was then said.

In the brief time remaining I want to do what I blame other hon. Members for not doing—to try to look ahead. The Radcliffe proposals were published before Christmas and this is the first opportunity we have had in the House of discussing them. It seems to me that we are in great danger that the Radcliffe Constitution on which such high hopes had been fixed will end up as a superb irrelevance. I say "superb" because, as a piece of constitutional draftsmanship, this is a superb document. Within the confines of the very difficult terms of reference which were laid down for Lord Radcliffe, he had no option but to produce what is fundamentally a colonial constitution, with a Governor's veto and very large areas of reserve powers. Given those restrictions, I think Lord Radcliffe has produced a constitution in which the safeguards which it provides for the Turkish minority could not be bettered.

But this Constitution can be regarded only as part of the picture. By itself it is irrelevant, but during the talks last year Archbishop Makarios emphasised that although self-determination must be the ultimate goal, for an interim period he would be prepared to try to work out some sort of self-governing constitution. I submit that if we really want this Constitution to be worked out and put into effect, it must be on the understanding in the first place that it is negotiable, that it can be changed; and secondly, that it is only an interim measure, and that the opportunity will be given to the Cypriot people to determine their full sovereignty in the future.

In order to do that, I submit that we have to create a new situation. We cannot just leave this on the table and go on hoping that moderate leaders will come forward. It is not only because of terrorism that moderate leaders do not come forward. They did not come forward when on previous occasions constitutions were put before them long before the emergency began. If after having put Lord Radcliffe to all this trouble, the right hon. Gentleman is now just leaving these constitutions on the table, hoping that someone will come and pick them up, that is not good enough. He should tell the Committee—I wish he had told us at the beginning of the debate, because it would have been more courteous and helpful—what are his proposals. Unless the parties are brought together to discuss this document, what is the good of it?

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise, whatever he or his hon. Friends think about Archbishop Makarios, that he is the person the Cypriot people want to lead them out of this present impasse. If I may say so, it seems to me extraordinarily impudent of hon. Members opposite to suggest that we cannot possibly negotiate with His Beatitude. Surely, when we are trying to negotiate with the people of another country, it is for them to say whom shall be their spokesman. Anyone who knows Cyprus, or anything of the history of that island, must accept that the leader of the Church is the leader of the people. He is the Ethnarch, and if anyone wants to criticise his position, let them remember that it was under the Ottoman Empire that the office of Ethnarchy was first created.

One hon. Member suggested it would be a good idea rather than partition to try a federation constitution. I would refer to Lord Radcliffe's examination of the federation possibility. He said that he examined federation, and on page 13 of his Report goes on to say: There is no pattern of territorial separation between the two communities, and, apart from other objections, federation of communities Much does not involve also federation of territories seems to me a very difficult constitutional form. It seems to me too, and if there is no pattern of territorial separation sufficient for a federation basis, there certainly cannot be any territorial pattern that would point to partition as a basis of settlement of the whole dispute.

I think the suggestion of partition is one of the most mischievous and dangerous which can possibly be made. I do not wish to make any unworthy imputations, but it seemed to me at the time almost as if the Colonial Secretary was afraid that the Greeks might accept Lord Radcliffe's proposals; and, to make sure that they would not, threw in at the same time this threat of partition. It is an interesting fact that of all the Turks with whom I have discussed this problem in Cyprus and in London, never once has any Turkish spokesman put forward the idea of partition.

I am absolutely convinced that it was thought up in London. I can remember when it was first referred to in this House and not taken seriously, but I see now that a kite was being flown and this idea, which has no spontaneity at all so far as the Turks are concerned, has now bedevilled the whole situation. In discussing with Cypriots the good points in the Radcliffe proposals, I find that they are frightened, because partition was announced as a possibility at the same time as the Radcliffe proposals were published, that there is some connection in the minds of the Government, that there is a real danger that if they try to come half-way on this, they will find themselves caught in a trap which will lead to partition and that is quite impracticable. I do not think that the Government could point to any historical success for partition anywhere in the world. Even Lord Curzon was very anxious after the First World War to oppose the suggested partition of Asia Minor.

We must face the fact that Archbishop Makarios must be brought into negotiate on the Radcliffe proposals, on the certain understanding that the Archbishop must be made to feel absolutely free from any duress. These proposals should be put forward as a halfway house to full self-determination. I would like to see not just a conference across a table but a round-table conference, in which the Mufti might be asked to take part with other leaders, such as trade union leaders.

Her Majesty's Government are at the end of their tether. They should try in Cyprus the pattern which they tried in Malta and that was tried before the war in India. I hope that Members on this side of the Committee might be associated in discussions on the future of the island. It might induce our Cypriot friends to take part in these talks if certain assurances were given beforehand.

I hope that the Colonial Secretary will reply fully on the subject of the emergency laws. There is great disquiet at many of the reports that have appeared in the Press and that have been referred to in the debate. I have been reading all the cuttings from The Times of Cyprus very carefully, including those articles which have brought down such wrath on Mr. Foley's head. Mr. Foley is a most responsible and serious editor, who is greatly respected by the British community in Cyprus. If one reads his articles and then reads the Government's reproof of him, one is surprised and dismayed. One is left with the conclusion that the Government do not want newspapers at all.

Mr. Callaghan

Unless they agree with them.

Mrs. Jeger

Yes. Mr. Foley starts off one of these articles by congratulating the Governor on his broadcast, but even that congratulation did not help. Members of the Press in Cyprus must be feeling that the Government are very hard to please.

Even more serious are the accusations which involve the treatment of prisoners. I am glad that the Government have given an assurance of taking these things very seriously, especially when the Cyprus Bar, as such, makes such serious allegations. The Bar in Cyprus is the one professional body which consists entirely of people trained in this country. In most of the other professions there is a tendency to go to the University at Athens, but lawyers have to come here. All the lawyers who form the Bar in Cyprus have been called to the Bar by one of our Inns of Court and they have been trained in our common law.

When a responsible body like that makes such serious allegations and finds that, in order to protect their people, they have to set up on their own a Commission of Human Rights, the most serious consideration should be given to the matter. Why, for instance, was Mr. Kypriakou of Yeri kept from his lawyer for thirty days? It took his lawyer thirty days to get information as to the prison in which he could be found. We have had reference to the case of Christodoulides, who was acquitted by Mr. Justice Bernard Shaw on this matter of duress, or, let me be careful and say that the decision of the judge was that there was no evidence that the confession had not been obtained under duress, which I find equally worrying.

I wish that the Secretary of State would tell us a little more about the senior officials in Cyprus. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the Governor, who has not a great deal of political experience, is surrounded by very helpful advisers. Again, I want to know something about the public information services. I understand that we have a new chief information officer, the third since the emergency began. I wonder what has happened to the other gentlemen, and what are the qualifications of the present official.

As we must give adequate time for the remaining important speeches, I should like, in conclusion, to reiterate what seem to me to be the minimum constructive proposals. As regards the complaints of the Bar and the complaints about the Press Regulation, it would be a good thing if an all-party delegation from the House, including one or two lawyers from each side, were to go to Cyprus and investigate. If that delegation represented the whole House, I think that we would find people able and willing to discuss the problems.

Secondly, turning to the Radcliffe proposals, I submit that Makarios should be brought either to London or to some other place where he is not regarded, or does not regard himself as a prisoner, together with such advisers as he may wish to accompany him, and with other leaders of the Cypriot people, so that we can take a constructive step forward. If the Government are not prepared to take any constructive measures, then that is another reason why they should get out and make room for someone who will.

8.57 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

The last occasion on which we discussed fully the tragic situation in Cyprus was in September of last year. Today, we on this side have again pressed the Government to indicate that they have some positive proposals to break this disastrous deadlock. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) by saying that his speech was helpful; that though it contained proposals that did not commend themselves to them it was, at any rate, a constructive speech.

I am quite sure that we all looked forward greatly to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State some answer to the question which we had put as to how the situation was to be brought to an end. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying so, but I thought that the only really helpful remark he made was to promise us that the Secretary of State would deal with the various instances of brutality to which we have called attention. I am sorry to have to say this, but it seemed to me that his speech was completely and utterly devoid of content. We were met by the same dreary recital of the circumstances; that terrorism must be brought to an end. We were given no kind of indication at all when it was to come to an end.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State; how long are we to wait? Are we to wait for a month, for six months, a year, for two years—for ten years—to see an end of this succession of murders and woundings before the Government will bestir themselves to take some active steps to get into negotiation with the only persons who are in a position to speak on behalf of the Greek Cypriots in the island?

What is the situation today? We have the same dreary recital of these sad murders and woundings, shootings from behind doorways, of young men lobbing bombs against innocent civilians and soldiers. We have been told that there have been successes scored against the E.O.K.A. terrorists. I was in Cyprus last month, and all I can say is that when I was there an unfortunate soldier, in circumstances of great heroism on his part, was killed, and a few days afterwards I heard I hat there were other outrages, other people losing their lives in various parts of the island.

I would ask the Secretary of State whether he can at least give us some figures of killings and woundings in January which will provide some indication that they are lessening in number. So far as I have been able to understand, since the beginning of November last year to date there have been 59 killings, if my calculations are correct, besides the woundings which have gone on. I again ask the right hon. Gentleman, by what time does he think we have any hope of seeing a permanent cessation of this series of outrages?

May I make it perfectly plain that neither I nor any of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in any sense apologists for violent action. We dislike it as much in Cyprus as we disliked it in Suez. The tragedy of the situation, a situation for which the Government must accept a large measure of responsibility, is that though we abhor the acts of violence which are committed, those who perpetrate them perpetrate them in the belief that they are doing acts of heroism and sacrifice. The tragedy is that, when there is a violent clash of feeling between large numbers of people, those misconceptions arise to bedevil the situation. Those acts of brutality continue.

The Under-Secretary of State said, as did certain of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a comparatively new and extremely dangerous feature of the situation today is the outbreak of inter-communal violence. I would particularly like to call attention to this because, unless these incidents cease, all hope of bringing together once more in peace the two principal races in the island, the Greeks and the Turks, will quickly vanish. That is something which is happening today and is likely to go on. The Under-Secretary said that these incidents had died down for a bit, but almost in the next sentence he said that they had broken out again. I suppose that, just as the various acts of violence of which we have heard have gone on throughout the months, we shall now hear of this sort of thing going on throughout the months. This is another circumstance which emphasises the urgent necessity of taking some steps to break through the deadlock which exists.

I should like to say a word or two about the repressive regulations, about this serious and, I would think, wholly unjustifiable invasion of the right of free publication in newspapers. I must confess that I agree very readily with the comment made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), that when we have such situations as this, of course one has to have extremely repressive regulations in order to try and restrain them. That is the consequence of Government policy, and it makes it all the more essential to bring to an end the situation which makes that kind of repressive legislation necessary.

Another feature of this sort of thing is that rumours get about of brutality on the part of members of the police force, of excessive and brutal methods of interrogation being applied. We have had examples referred to in the course of debate, and we shall look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say about them.

I should like to refer to two in particular. One is the first of the cases mentioned in the article by Peter Benenson published in the Manchester Guardian today. The Under-Secretary was not in a position to reassure us about it, but I would ask the Secretary of State to make certain that that case has been fully and thoroughly investigated. I have not the least doubt that Sir John Harding abhors brutality as much as anybody else, and I have no doubt that he conscientiously believes that the matter has been investigated, but I would ask the Secretary of State to pay attention to the facts in that case.

After some considerable time, a letter was received from the Administration saying that no officer could be identified as an officer who might have committed the acts of brutality that were alleged. The woman in question had had a miscarriage and it could easily be ascertained whether she had had it. Those who attended her in her miscarriage surely must have been able to give evidence with regard to injuries that might have been visible on her body, and the number of the police officers to whom she had complained is given in the article.

Surely, it must be possible to get at some verification of the facts, and surely it is unsatisfactory for the Under-Secretary to say simply that nothing was proved and for the Secretary of State, if that is what he is going to do, simply to repeat it. I urgently press upon the right hon. Gentleman to see that the case is fully and thoroughly investigated and, in due course, to come back to the House and make a statement showing the result of the investigation.

Particularly would I urge the Secretary of State to do that, because another case is reported in the Manchester Guardian today. A Cypriot was charged with murder before Mr. Justice Shaw, Mr. Justice Shaw being unwilling to call upon him for a defence because he could not be satisfied on the evidence that the accused person had not been subjected to ill-treatment.

That is a particularly serious feature of the situation. It is particularly serious because, as has been said before, incidents of that sort may be true or may be untrue. Even if they are untrue, they are believed when people's feelings are as exasperated as they are in Cyprus today. It is believed that that sort of thing is going on. It is, therefore, imperatively necessary that every case in which treatment of that kind is alleged should be immediately, fully and thoroughly investigated. But what is more imperative than ever is that the Government should awake out of their lethargy and decide that they will take steps—at least, that they should carefully consider the steps which we have proposed—to try to break through the deadlock which now has descended upon the situation and threatens, apparently, to crystallise it for months.

The Under-Secretary said that there had been successes against the E.O.K.A. terrorists. If there are successes against them which give him such hope, why do the murders continue, as they do today? I will suggest a reason. It may well be that the guerrilla fighters in the mountains are gradually being rounded up and, possibly, killed; but how is it possible to prevent the murders which are committed in the narrow streets in the walled towns, when nobody is prepared to denounce the murderer and when the murderer has easy and ample opportunity of escape in the narrow alleyways and in the crowded streets?

Whatever the explanation, the fact cannot be gainsaid—and I challenge the Secretary of State to give the figures for last month and this month—that the killings and woundings are continuing. The answer that we have had, month after month almost, in Parliamentary Questions and in reply to question put in the course of debate, that the E.O.K.A. violence is about to come to an end is, I would fear, as false today as it has been ever since it was given in April, 1955, when violence first broke out.

While this goes on, incredible damage is done to the good name of this country all over the world. I have no doubt that the officials in Cyprus work with the best of intention and by common consent it is accepted that the British soldiers there are behaving as we should expect British soldiers to behave. They are carrying out their difficult and unpleasant duties in circumstances of danger with that dignity, patience and restraint which we would expect of them. In spite of their behaviour, however, the good name of Britain is being gradually lowered and the reputation of Britain is being smirched all over the world because, it is said, these repressive and, indeed, totalitarian measures, as they have been described in the course of this debate, are being applied to try to keep down the population of Cyprus. That is how it is represented throughout the world and that is what is causing the damage to the good name of this country throughout the world and will go on causing it damage so long as this deadlock remains.

The Government's thinking from the very beginning of this tragedy has, I believe, been based upon a wholly false conception, two complete miscalculations of the real factors in the case. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), in an extremely moving and useful speech, pointed out, was their belief that when they deported Archbishop Makarios they were, as it were, taking away the head and the heart of terrorism and that it would gradually cease. Events since then have shown how completely and utterly untrue that forecast was. Terrorism has gone on. All that has happened is that Archbishop Makarios, exiled in the Indian Ocean, from having been a leader, as he was at the time, has now been exalted into a national hero whose presence is absolutely indispensable to the conduct of negotiations. That is what the Government have achieved by it.

The second misconception was that sooner or later terrorism would come to an end and that public opinion would swing against the terrorists. I was in Cyprus. I agree that I was there only a very short time and was able to talk to only a few people, but all those to whom I talked were people who were responsible and measured in the opinions which they expressed, as I thought, at any rate, and they at that time expressed exactly the contrary view. Their view was that the Government were miscalculating if they thought that the terrorists would lose popular sympathy. Their view was that the repressive measures taken by the Government, those very acts of alleged—I emphasise the word "alleged"—brutality of which I have spoken were gradually winning sympathy over to the terrorists and that if the Government were looking to the time when acts of violence would cease they really were backing a completely wrong horse. That is what events would seem to show. After I left, there was an outbreak of terrorism which was worse than any which had been experienced for some time before.

What is the basic factor of this situation? The Secretary of State has said today that he was convinced that he was right in deporting Archbishop Makarios. Personally, I think that he was completely and hopelessly wrong, but whether he was wrong or whether he was right—if I may have his attention, because this is a serious debate and I am sure he will realise it is, just as his own measure of responsibility in it is very serious also; so I hope that he will pay attention—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I was only looking up what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) said, who strongly supported what I did, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will quote him also.

Sir F. Soskice

My hon. Friend has a perfect right to his opinion. So have I, and so have all my hon. Friends, a very great many of whom, so far as I am aware, share the views I am now expressing, which is that one of the greatest acts of folly committed by the Government in these tragic events was the deportation of the one person capable of conducting negotiations on behalf of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus, and that almost at the very moment when agreement was about to be reached.

The right hon. Gentleman says it is untrue, but the fact is that since Archbishop Makarios has gone—and I challenge the Secretary of State to contradict me if I am wrong about this—since March, 1956, so far as I know, there has been a complete gulf between the Governor, the Secretary of State and any responsible leader of opinion on the part of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus. That has lasted now for practically a year, and I dare say that if the Government do not change their policy it will go on for another two or three years until the position is utterly past retrieving.

I think myself that the Secretary of State again made a serious miscalculation in August of this year when the E.O.K.A. leaders in Cyprus declared the truce and did bring an end to violence. The Secretary of State, almost immediately after that took place, made what I think was one of the most intemperate speeches, besides being wholly misconceived, ever made in this Chamber. He affected to look upon the cessation of violence as no more than a mere device on the part of the E.O.K.A. terrorists at their last gasp, completely exhausted and about to give up, to gain a little more time in which to recruit their forces and regather their strength. That is what he said in this Chamber, and in consequence the terms of surrender were issued, which were at once rejected by the E.O.K.A. terrorists, who at once again resumed their active campaign.

I should have thought that that was another case which showed conclusively that the Secretary of State's appreciation of this position has been wholly false from beginning to end. It was false in March of last year, when he deported the Archbishop and thought that it would bring an end to acts of violence. It was false again in August, when he misconstrued the objective of the E.O.K.A. leaders in declaring the truce. I believe that it is just as false today, when the Under-Secretary of State, no doubt on the authority of his right hon. Friend, again reverted to the same position by saying that what we must do is bring terrorism to an end before anything can happen.

That really was all he said, or very nearly all. The same thing was said in different ways, but it came to the same thing in the end. He did also say a few other things, speaking for about half an hour, but somewhat anchored to a prepared brief, which made it somewhat difficult in the circumstances to answer the actual questions put to him by my hon. Friend. Therefore, I am putting them again. I am asking the Secretary of State, when he gets up to reply, to give us the answers to the questions we have been asking from the beginning of this debate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said in opening the debate, and as has been said by many of my hon. Friends since he spoke, there are really some basic features of the present situation. One of the original prime necessities which the Government apparently had in mind at the time of the famous "never-never" speech in July, 1954, was the idea that Cyprus must always remain a special British responsibility, because of strategic considerations. My hon. Friend who opened the debate examined that concept in great detail, and there was an exchange on the present situation concerning the Tripartite Declaration which I feel sure the whole Committee would agree ended in favour of my hon. Friend, somewhat to the discomfiture of the Minister who tried to answer.

From beginning to end, there has still been no answer given to the case made by my hon. Friend, and to the fact that Cyprus as a British base is something which no longer should enter as a predominant feature into our consideration. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, but I cannot remember that he gave any answer to the case my hon. Friend made except in the interjection he made when my hon. Friend was on his feet. If there was any such answer, I did not cull it out of his brief as he pursued the various lines of reasoning contained in the brief. Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State will either be able to accept the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend, or, if he cannot accept it, will say what the answer is.

The second basic feature in the situation is that it is really essential now to start thinking in terms of bringing the Archbishop back into the sphere of negotiations. My hon. Friend asked over and over again for the name of any responsible leader who had either come forward or was likely to come forward, or who could be looked upon as a possible negotiator on behalf of Greek opinion in Cyprus, and with whom the Governor had been in contact or with whom the Secretary of State had been in communication since the date in March, 1956, which brought to an end the five months' old negotiations which had then been taking place between the Governor, the Secretary of State and Archbishop Makarios. The Under-Secretary of State could give us no name. Indeed, I am not surprised at that, and I do not blame him, because there was no name to give.

That being so, I would again put the question which my hon. Friend put, and I put it to the Secretary of State himself. I ask him what alternative is there to bringing back the Archbishop to negotiate with him? The only alternative is to let this deteriorating situation get worse from week to week, until, as I have said, it gets hopelessly beyond cure. I would therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have already urged him, to accept at long last the view that, whether he was right or wrong in originally deporting the Archbishop, at any rate, now he should accept the humiliation—if it is one, for accepting the right policy does not necessarily bring humiliation to anybody if it is designed to bring an end to violence—and accept the view that he must now bring back the Archbishop.

After all, it really does not advance matters simply to go on saying that the Archbishop is a wicked man, and that therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have nothing to do with him. It is even less so when it is perfectly clear from Sir John Harding's own declaration at the time the Archbishop was deported that it was perfectly well-known then, and was apparently well-known during the five months in which the negotiations had been going on with the the Archbishop from September, 1955, to February, 1956, that he was thought to be implicated in violence.

I do not join in the controversy as to whether the Archbishop was implicated or not. I would agree with my hon. Friend that it would certainly look as if he was implicated, but if he was it was known at that time. The fact that he was implicated in violence should surely be no more of an obstacle now to the resumption of conversations with him than it was at that time when the negotiations were carried on for five months up to the time that he was deported. If that step is not taken, I ask the Secretary of State what other step can be taken in order to get conversations in train which may hold out some hope of bringing an end to this disastrous deadlock with its melancholy toll of innocent victims, Service men and civilians, week after week, month after month for an indefinite period—nobody knows how long.

I would say to the Secretary of State that the longer conversations with the Archbishop are delayed, the higher and more impregnable does the Archbishop's position become amongst the E.O.K.A. leaders and E.O.K.A. sympathisers in Cyprus. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to do it now, when there is still some hope of getting the Radcliffe Constitution operated for an agreed trial period in Cyprus, the time will come, perhaps when it is almost too late, when the right hon. Gentleman will have to accept and bow down to the view that he has been wrong to keep the Archbishop exiled in the Indian Ocean as long as he has.

I should like to say something about the Radcliffe Constitution itself. I cannot help thinking that when he announced the Constitution to the House on 19th December last year, the Secretary of State again made an error of calculation when in effect he presented it to the House and—though I do not know—I dare say he presented it to the Greek Government when he went to Athens and perhaps to the Turkish Government as one organic, systematic whole which could not accept change without completely upsetting its balance. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Athens and said to the Greek leaders in Greece, "You can either accept or reject it", that was a profound error. I suspect from the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the House at that time that that was the kind of way he spoke to the Greeks.

If, as it appears, the right hon. Gentleman is indicating that he did not, I accept that, but if his speech in the House was read in Athens it would convey a very unfortunate impression. I earnestly ask him to say now perfectly clearly, in the course of his reply, that he accepts, as my hon. Friends have asked him to say, that the scheme is discussable—to use that rather ugly term—and that it is susceptible to change, in particular because the Radcliffe proposals are somewhat less generous in their scope than was the original scheme which was discussed with Archbishop Makarios in February, 1956.

It is less generous in this respect at least—that the Radcliffe proposed Constitution reserves in perpetuity to the Governor responsibility for internal security, whereas in February, 1956, that was a matter which was to be reserved only until the restoration of law and order. Therefore, the scheme being less forthcoming in the direction of self-government for Cyprus, I would say that for that reason, if for no other, in order to ensure that the scheme may have some prospect of really being put into operation, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say quite unequivocally now that he accepts at once that the scheme—the proposals framed by Lord Radcliffe with such skill and care—are the subject of negotiation and discussion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that the provisions in regard to internal security and the safeguards for the Turkish minority can be discussed and, in general, that this is a point of departure and is not to be regarded as a closed gate.

I would add this. I think he made another very grave error, as many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee pointed out, in seeking to tag on the prospect of ultimate partition as one of the concomitants of this scheme. I confess that I have a very limited knowledge of Cyprus, but even during the one small journey I made there—and my impression is confirmed by many others who have been to that island—it seemed to me that the idea of partitioning it between the Turks and the Greek inhabitants, let alone the other two races, is utterly unpractical. Driving along, one passes first through a Greek village, then through a Turkish village, with Greek and Turkish houses almost next door to each other. So, unless there is a wholesale transfer of population compulsorily from one part of the island to the other, I cannot see how any proposals for partition could be regarded as being practicable or within the sphere of possibility.

I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will deal with the point. The basic pivot upon which the discussions have so long turned is the question of self-determination. Over and over again the Government have said, since they first abandoned their position taken up in July, 1954, that they accept the principle of self-determination. By so doing, they accept in principle that at some time or other the peoples of Cyprus shall be entitled by their own expressed will, to say what their future is to be.

Having said that, if the Under-Secretary of State is to be accepted at his full face value when he makes the speech that he made this afternoon; when the hon. Gentleman says that if the British leave the Greeks and the Turks will be at each other's throats, is that not another way of saying that although the principle of self-determination is accepted, it is never to be granted? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me put my point. If the likely, or a possible, result of the right to choose their own future being accorded to the Cypriots in Cyprus is that they may choose Enosis—and putting it at the very lowest that cannot be excluded as a possibility and most people would say that it was almost a certainty; and if, supposing we cede Cyprus to the Greeks, the view of the Government is that Greece and Turkey will be each other's throats—to quote the words of the Minister as closely as I could get them down; if that is the true situation, is not that another way of saying that there is never to be self-determination?

Mr. Profumo indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice

The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. I hope the Secretary of State will reconcile what seems to me to be an irreconcilable inconsistency.

Mr. Profumo

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to put this straight? I know he is anxious to represent me correctly. What I said was, if we were to leave now. I said there were some hon. Gentlemen who felt that, if it were not important to keep a base in Cyprus, we might be able to hand the whole thing over and leave now. I pointed out that if we left now it would leave the Turks and Greeks at each other's throats.

Sir F. Soskice

That interjection emboldens me to make the next proposal I was going to make to the Committee. It is this. We ought to strive to get the Constitution in operation after due negotiation and discussion upon it, with, if possible—and this I would stress—a perod agreed between all the parties concerned for its operation. During that period it would be wise to reserve, so far as we can, and not to put, the specfic questions that will ultimately have to be answered when the right to determine their own future is accorded by means of a free vote on the subject to the people of Cyprus.

In the meantime, I urge the Government to make perfectly clear what they mean. I feel that the situation has been confused, and is being bedevilled, by the apparent inconsistency between an attitude which says the Turks cannot agree to it and an attitude which says the Cypriots shall have the right to determine their own future. Prima facie, the two things seem to be inconsistent. The statement made by the Minister today in the debate was not being made for the first time. It was made by Sir Anthony Eden in July last and has since been repeated.

I believe that the argument concerning the Turks has been introduced somewhat late in the discussion. It did not feature earlier than the Tripartite Agreement in September, 1955. It is an argument introduced into the discussion which has led to uncertainty in the minds of would-be Cypriot negotiators as to what the Government's real intentions are.

I will summarise the proposals which have already been made to the Government, and which I will again put to the Government for their earnest consideration. First, I would again remind the Secretary of State of the promise made by the Under-Secretary that the right hon. Gentleman would say something to dispel the uneasiness which has undoubtedly been engendered by allegations—I emphasise "allegations" because I have not the faintest idea whether what is alleged is true or not—of brutality by the police. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to deal with the matter fully now, I hope he will undertake to do so in the House in due course when a proper investigation has been made.

Secondly, I would urge, as has already been urged, that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the necessity for bringing Archbishop Makarios back into the discussions. It might be asked whether the Archbishop should be brought back unconditionally and without his making an appeal for the ending of violence. Frankly, I wish he had done that already. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) that I do not regard it as a great indignity to ask people to stop killing each other.

I believe that if it was made clear to the E.O.K.A. leaders in Cyprus that there was a desire to bring back the Archbishop so that he could conduct negotiations, there should in practice be no real difficulty about getting an unqualified statement from him, to be suitably published, asking that violence should come to an end in order that discussions might take place. There is a question that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will deal with it. Is he not really committed to doing that, having sent Mr. Tornaritis and Mr. Pearson to explain the content of the Radcliffe proposals? Surely it is a somewhat inconsistent attitude to say to a man "I should like to know what your views are, but I think you are a terrible villain."

Therefore, the second thing I would ask the Government to do is now to take up a positive and clear attitude on the basic question of self-determination by trying to remove the doubts which have arisen in the minds of the Cypriots as to what the Government's intentions really are with regard to conceding the right of the inhabitants of Cyprus to decide their own future.

Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East asked him, to make it clear that the Radcliffe proposals are susceptible of discussion, and to make a real endeavour to bring the Archbishop back to get discussions going on the proposals, with an agreed time for their operation, in the hope that at long last we may bring an end to this tragic situation.

If that is not done, I can see no alternative to a gradual deterioration of the situation leading to an increasing number of communal incidents and growing bitterness, with increasing numbers of killed and wounded, until the position becomes one which no statesmanship can possibly retrieve. Much as both sides of the Committee deplore acts of violence, it is the province of statesmanship, both Greek Cypriot and British to avoid the conditions which gave rise to the sort of situation characterised by the tragic features which we have been discussing today.

9.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, rightly, that the last time we had a full discussion of Cyprus problems was in September last year. We have, of course, had a number of debates on definite Cypriot issues since then. On 19th December, I made a comprehensive statement when announcing Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of Lord Radcliffe's proposals.

From time to time it has been suggested that I extinguished the light at the end of the tunnel, that light represented by the constitutional proposals, by my mention, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, of the option of integral self-determination, that is, self-determination for each community under certain circumstances. I do not believe that I extinguished the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is no secret, I think, to say that that point was never made to me with great vigour in any of my talks either in Istanbul or in Athens. To me it was, and to Her Majesty's Government it seemed, an inescapable consequence of the exercise of self-determination.

May I remind the Committee under what circumstances this integral self-determination would come about, if it comes about at all? It would come about when it was felt that there should be self-determination for the island. There would then be a vote in the island as a whole. If, as a result of that vote, the majority voted for a change of sovereignty and for breaking their link with the British Commonwealth, then there would be a second vote among the Turks in the island. If the Turks then decided that they did not wish to follow the Greek majority, they would be allowed then to have integral self-determination with Turkey.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he knew very little—he was quite candid about it—about the problems of Cyprus. If he really believes, having been in Cyprus, and if, having been in Cyprus more often he still believed, that an island which was for three hundred years part of the Turkish dominions and which is only 40 miles from Turkey and flanks the only two ports through which aid could come to Turkey in the event of an armed conflict if, after experience of Cyprus, he really believed that the Turks would be prepared to allow self-determination for the island as a whole in these difficult circumstances, then I suggest that he ought to think again. I am rather reassured by the knowledge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that his knowledge of Cyprus was very limited. [Interruption.]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman used quite rough language to me and hon. Members opposite must not be too choosy if I use rough language to them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the Radcliffe proposals. He and a number of hon. Members complain that I did not open the debate and an equally large number of Members would have complained—I think a greater number—if I had not closed it and dealt with the various points that have been raised. I hope that hon. Members on both sides, whether they think that I ought to have opened or closed the debate, will listen to my contribution.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether the Radcliffe proposals represented a point of departure, or whether it would be possible in fact for them to be amended. As we explained both to the Greek and the Turkish Governments, and as the Governor has explained repeatedly to the people of Cyprus as a whole, these proposals were carefully, and—I would agree with the hon. Lady the Member for St. Pancras and Holborn, South (Mrs. Jeger)—I think brilliantly worked out, by Lord Radcliffe as a balanced whole.

The Turkish acceptance of these proposals was on certain definite assumptions of the protection of Turkish interests. There would be fundamental changes in the proposals which would alter the whole balance if the proposals were no longer, or might well be no longer, acceptable to Turkey, or, indeed, might not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. But, of course, there might be suggestions—we told both the Greeks and the Turks this—about the proposals which we would listen to with sympathy and, if possible, would incorporate. I hope that that will answer to a certain extent the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

There is one aspect of this matter on which I think there is need for the utmost frankness and about which I do not want there to be a possibility of doubt. When I had negotiations on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus, some time ago, we discussed the possibility of law and order being reserved to the Governor for as long as the Governor thought necessary. That was some time ago and, as hon. Members on this side of the Committee have pointed out, a great many atrocities have taken place since then. I know only too well the full extent of the conspiracy which has since been unearthed.

That being so, I made it perfectly clear at the time I was explaining to the House the terms of reference under which Lord Radcliffe would operate, that law and order must, for the whole currency of the constitution, be reserved to the Governor or Her Majesty's Government. I do not believe that any responsible Government would come to a different conclusion in the circumstances of Cyprus with a mixed police force of Greeks and Turks, a vital security problem, the Communist Party in Cyprus being, as it is, the largest organised political party, and the crucial importance of Cyprus in the scheme of things. I am not prepared, and I do not believe that any responsible Minister would be prepared, to have law and order handed over after a year or so to an elected Minister in a country which, incidentally, through no fault of ours or right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has not had a constitution for more than a quarter of a century.

The Radcliffe proposals certainly deserve long and continuous discussion here. I hope that their author knows the gratitude which we all feel for the superb task which he has accomplished. I see that Mr. Averoff, in America yesterday, said that the Constitution was less liberal than the Constitution of Rhode Island before the War of American Independence. I do not know on what he bases that rather sweeping statement.

Defence, external affairs and internal security would remain completely under the control of Her Majesty's Government, acting through the Governor. The Governor would be entitled to legislate by ordinance in reserved matters and would have ultimate power to decide whether Bills submitted by the Legislative Assembly trenched upon his reserved powers. It is true that his decision would there be final, but in all other respects, covering the vast majority of the activities of the island, the self-governing side would control its own affairs, subject to the written safeguards of "fundamental rights" which would be subject to ultimate appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal of Guarantees.

When we first started discussing a Constitution for Cyprus, I was told that if only Her Majesty's Government would agree in advance that there would be a Greek elected majority, all would be well. Any number of hon. Members opposite are on record as having said that that would be a major contribution. I always said that until we could see the picture as a whole, and until a skilled and impartial hand had worked out Turkish guarantees, it would be impossible to give that undertaking.

Now a Greek elected majority is promised in this Constitution, with rights promised for the Turks, and I have yet to see that it has made very much practical difference to the reception of the Constitution in circles, where, we were told, it would make all the difference if that concession were made. None the less, we are proceeding with the drafting of constitutional instruments and all other steps in the hope—and something more than the hope, in the belief—that we shall be able before very long to see some practical action taken in this constitutional matter.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) opened the debate in a speech which was understanding and helpful to those of us who have direct responsibilities in administration and in trying to find a way to solve this most intractable problem. He said—and it is perfectly true—that the Opposition had planned to have a debate without knowing that it would coincide with the debate at the United Nations. He also said that we should stick to realities. I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have stuck to realities throughout the debate.

Perhaps I can make an exception in the case of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who painted a rather ludicrous picture of my relations with Sir John Harding, a rather fantastic flight of fancy. When, with everybody's support and gratitude, the hon. Member was working in Cyprus to try to bring about a settlement, he was nicknamed by everybody, in a friendly way, "The Dove"—the dove of peace. I think that even doves should come to earth from time to time, and I would commend that advice to the hon. Member.

To the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I would say that our policy is based upon realities. No considerations of pride, or of previous statements, or anything of that kind, would stand in the way of our adopting any policy which we think is the right one under the circumstances. But our policy must be based upon reality and not fantasy—upon things as they are and not as the Opposition like to think they are.

The first thing that has emerged has been a general recognition by most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Phillips Price) called the Grivas gangs must first be suppressed. Nobody can say when that task will be completed. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South is quite right in saying that there is something of Enosis rather than E.O.K.A. in every Cypriot. I do not deny that, but that does not mean that the great majority of the people of Cyprus are not desperately anxious to be free of the leadership of the terrorists who are intimidating them. With the progressive capture or destruction of those terrorists—and here I should like to say that the security forces have done a wonderful job—we are moving towards a situation when we can claim that tranquillity has been restored, and can take action upon that assumption.

The second reality which has emerged has been the general recognition by hon. Members on both sides of the importance of the Turkish side of the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Turkish problem did not rear its head until the tripartite talks took place. That is completely untrue. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, whom we respect so much, was a little less than fair to the Turks, whom he knows so well, when he dismissed the idea of integral self-determination as being a foolish dream. None of us wants to see the partition of Cyprus; that is obviously not the best solution. But we would be very foolish if we did not recognise that we may have to come to that solution. I very much hope that it will not come about, but I hope that it is not lost sight of by anybody that serious people like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall), who take an interest in all these matters, are putting forward suggestions of detail as to how such a partition might be brought about.

Suggestions which have been made have not been pushed home today, and I am very glad that that is so. It has been suggested that the Turks themselves have a considerable share of responsibility for the troubles which have come upon the island. We know quite well that when the regrettable riots took place in Turkey, at the time of the tripartite talks, not a Greek was killed. In the riots which have taken place in Cyprus, however, 17 Turks have been killed, of whom nine were Turkish policemen.

I hope that the hon. Member for Swindon will not give further currency to the monstrous suggestion that the British Government or the Government of Cyprus either encourage or welcome communal strife. That is a gross slander. What we have said—and what the Governor has repeatedly said—is that terrorism is contagious, and that if there are continual murders of Turkish policement there are almost bound to be violent reactions.

When the Governor sent his warning to the editors of two newspapers—one an English and one a Turkish newspaper—Halkin Sesi, the Turkish newspaper said: It is our duty to help the situation by doing what the highest authority in the country considers desirable. The hon. Member also asked whether I knew anything of threats that Greeks living in Turkey might be persecuted in the future. I know of no such threats, end I am very glad to know of the friendly personal relations which exist between the Patriarch and the Governor-Mayor of Istanbul. My feeling is that by far the best way of helping the Greeks in Turkey would be for the Greek Government to come out in the open and condemn terrorism in Cyprus.

As to the contribution that Turkey has made to a calm study of constitutional proposals, I think the Committee knows what my views are and how grateful we all ought to be. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) spoke of the Turkish auxiliary police and quoted from a newspaper which referred to a considerable number of felons. I know of only one isolated instance of a special constable having had a conviction and I think it would be monstrous to apply that description to the auxiliary police as a whole.

I have been asked a number of questions about Press censorship. No one likes Press censorship and, like the Governor, I shall be delighted when it is possible to lift all the censorship rules and all the restrictions on the freedom of the Press. The Governor has served in many trouble spots and he tells me— believe him—that he has never encountered a situation in which irresponsible comments by the Press could more quickly and easily lead to the risk of loss of life. Comment has been made on the Press laws. As my hon. Friend said today, the Governor has agreed in principle to an appeal to the courts against any action he takes under the Press laws in respect of newspaper proprietors and others.

I have also been asked a number of questions about an article which appeared today in the Manchester Guardian. The Under-Secretary did not answer them in detail, not that he could not answer, but because I had arranged with him that I would answer the questions in every individual case which might arise. The first is the case of Miss Lambrou. That case was fully looked into by the Governor himself. Mr. Benenson, who wrote the article, discussed it with the Governor. The conclusions of the Governor, after investigation, is that her allegations were unfounded. I have all the clinical details of this unfortunate case and there seems very little doubt—in fact, no doubt—that what happened was what in clinical language is called a septic abortion. I am quite ready to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the information I have got and am quite prepared to make a fuller statement in the House if anyone finds that in the circulated Answer any aspect of the question has not been fully answered. I do not think that I can do more than that.

As for Mr. Christoforou, I cannot comment on the result of a court case, but I understand that that complaint was brought before a judge and the case dismissed because of insufficient evidence. I shall also answerr in greater detail on that case if hon. Members care to put a Question to me. I suggest that they put a Question for Written Answer, or, if they like, for Oral Answer, in the next few days. I can assure them that these and other cases will be swiftly and fully examined by the Governor, who is anxious to maintain for himself and for the Administration the high standards that he has followed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) dealt with the case of Mr. Christodoulides and quoted the exact reason why Judge Bernard Shaw, in Cyprus, released that prisoner. I hope that, on reflection, it will be recognised that that was further proof that the rule, of law prevails in a Colony like Cyprus, despite the tragic difficulties in which the Governor and his staff are working.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, while referring to the emergency regulations, asked me about the regulation under which the permission of the Attorney-General is necessary for prosecutions of servants of the Crown. I wish that that regulation was not necessary. I hope it will not be necessary indefinitely, of course, but, unhappily, there is evidence that lawyers purporting to act for such prisoners have been trying to get the names of people who have given information to security officers. That would put in danger people who are anxious to bring to an end the terrorism under which their fellow Cypriots are now living.

I was also asked a number of questions about Archbishop Makarios. I have repeatedly made the position of the Government plain in this matter. I do not in the least apologise for the deportation order against the Archbishop. When the Archbishop was deported doors were not permanently slammed and no one talked about exile for life. But I do not regard it as unreasonable that the Archbishop should either give a firm denunciation of violence or say that violence should come to an end, or at least give some indication that he proposes quite definitely to say so in the very near future. I do not believe that any reasonable Government, faced with our task, could ask for less than that.

While the Committee is debating this matter the debate has been taking place in the United Nations. I think it is fair to say that there has been a growing recognition both in this country and outside it of the strength of the British case. As the Committee knows, there was evidence to the effect that there would be a stepping up of terrorist activities in the week or two before the U.N.O. meeting, to give the impression that this was a nation-wide revolt against British tyranny. A notice has been sent to me by the Governor, following that general order by Grivas, which was found in an unopened envelope enclosing correspondence in Grivas's own handwriting. It began: Order. I wish to see you displaying all your activity for work in these days when the debate in U.N.O. is about to commence. This is a national necessity and you must not spare sacrifices or labour or dangers. The leader, Dighenis. Facts like these have more and more convinced a growing number of people outside this country, as well as within it, that we are dealing here not with a genuine national movement but with a cruel conspiracy which has taken advantage of the widespread love of Greece and of that spark of Enosis in everyone's breast in Cyprus, which I recognise is there, and has perverted it to such cruel ends.

Mr. Callaghan

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this negative aspect of his speech will lead many people in this country to assume that he is more interested in making his case than in attempting to find an honourable settlement?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will answer that on another occasion, for I understand that I have only one minute more.

I was asked a question about the role which N.A.T.O. might play in this great matter. We do not, of course, forget that we are signatories of the undertaking to use the N.A.T.O. machinery of conciliation in disputes between N.A.T.O. Powers. We signed that undertaking and mean to abide by it. But we cannot forget that in the Greek Press of 12th January the Foreign Minister of Greece claimed that this would not apply to the Cypriot dispute which was already before another international body.

We do not rule out the good offices of any of our friends in helping to bring to an end the present situation in Cyprus, but it must be brought to an end on a basis of reality and on a basis of the recognition of our own just rights, the Turkish case and the facts of history and geography.

Question put, That Subhead B.1., Cyprus (Grant in Aid) be reduced by £100:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 307.

Division No. 65.] AYES [9.59 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Awbery, S. S. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Lewis, Arthur
Balrd, J. Fernyhough, E. Lindgren, G. S.
Balfour, A. Fienburgh, W. Lipton, Marcus
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Finch, H. J. Logan, D. G.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Fletcher, Eric Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Forman, J. C. MacColl, J. E.
Benson, G. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacDermot, Niall
Beswick, Frank Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. McGhee, H. G.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Gibson, C. W. McGovern, J.
Blackburn, F. Gooch, E. G. Molnnes, J.
Blenkinsop, A. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. McKay, John (Wallsend)
Blyton, W. R. Greenwood, Anthony McLeavy, Frank
Boardman, H. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Grey, C. F. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Mahon, Simon
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Griffiths, William (Exchange) Mainwaring, W. H.
Bowles, F. G. Hale, Leslie Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Boyd, T. C. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, W. W. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Brockway, A. F. Hannan, W. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hayman, F. H. Mason, Roy
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Herbison, Miss M. Mayhew, C. P.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hewitson, Capt. M. Messer, Sir F.
Burke, W. A. Hobson, C. R. Mikardo, Ian
Burton, Miss F. E. Holman, P. Mitchlson, G. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Holmes, Horace Monslow, W.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Holt, A. F. Moody, A. S.
Callaghan, L. J. Houghton, Douglas Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Carmichael, J. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Mort, D. L.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Champion, A. J. Hoy, J. H. Moss, R.
Chapman, W. D. Hubbard, T. F. Moyle, A.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mulley, F. W.
Clunie, J. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Coldrick, W. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Hunter, A. E. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) Hynd, H. (Accrington) O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Oliver, G. H.
Cove, W. G. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Oram, A. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Orbach, M.
Cronin, J. D. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Oswald, T.
Crossman, R. H. S. Janner, B. Owen, W. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Daines, P. Jeger, George (Goole) Palmer, A. M. F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Pargiter, G. A.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Johnson, James (Rugby) Parker, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Parkin, B. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Paton, John
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Peart, T. F.
Delargy, H. J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Pentland, N.
Dodds, N. N. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Donnelly, D. L. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Kenyon, C. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Dye, S. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Probert, A. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. King, Dr. H. M. Proctor, W. T.
Edelman, M. Lawson, G. M. Pryde, D. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Ledger, R. J. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Randall, H. E. Steele, T. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Rankin, John Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Redhead, E. C. Stones, W. (Consett) West, D. G.
Reeves, J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Wheeldon, W. E.
Reid, William Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Rhodes, H. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) Wigg, George
Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Swingler, S. T. Wilkins, W. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Sylvester, G. O. Willey, Frederick
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Williams, David (Neath)
Ross, William Taylor, John (West Lothian) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Royle, C. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Short, E. W. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Shurmer, P. L. E. Thornton, E. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston) Timmons, J. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Tomney, F. Winterbottom, Richard
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Turner-Samuels, M. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Skeffington, A. M. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Usborne, H. C. Zilliacus, K.
Snow, J. W. Viant, S. P.
Sorensen, R. W. Wade, D. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Warbey, W. N. Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.
Sparks, J. A. Weitzman, D.
Agnew, Sir Peter Corfield, Capt. F. V. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Aitken, W. T. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Crouch, R. F. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Alport, C. J. M. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Cunningham, Knox Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Currie, G. B. H. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Arbuthnot, John Dance, J. C. G. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Armstrong, C. W. Davidson, Viscountess Hesketh, R. F.
Ashton, H. D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Astor, Hon. J. J. Deedes, W. F. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Atkins, H. E. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Baldwin, A. E. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Balniel, Lord Doughty, C. J. A. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Barber, Anthony Drayson, G. B. Hope, Lord John
Barlow, Sir John du Cann, E. D. L. Hornby, R. P.
Barter, John Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Horobin, Sir Ian
Baxter, Sir Beverley Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Howard, John (Test)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Errington, Sir Eric Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Erroll, F. J. Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Bidgood, J. C. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hulbert, Sir Norman
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Fell, A. Hurd, A. R.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Finlay, Graeme Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Bishop, F. P. Fisher, Nigel Hyde, Montgomery
Black, C. W. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Body, R. F. Fort, R. Iremonger, T. L.
Boothby, Sir Robert Foster, John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bossom, Sir Alfred Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Boyle, Sir Edward Freeth, Denzil Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Braine, B. R. Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Johnson, Eric (Biackley)
Biaithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Garner-Evans, E. H. Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. George, J. C. (Pollok) Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Gibson-Watt, D. Joseph, Sir Keith
Brooman-White, R. C. Glover, D. Kaberry, D.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Godber, J. B. Keegan, D.
Bryan, P. Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Gough, C. F. H. Kerr, H. W.
Burden, F. F. A. Gower, H. R. Kirk, P. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Graham, Sir Fergus Lagden, G. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) Grant, W. (Woodside) Lambert, Hon. G.
Campbell, Sir David Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Lambton, Viscount
Carr, Robert Green, A. Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Cary, Sir Robert Gresham Cooke, R. Langford-Holt, J. A.
Channon, Sir Henry Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Leavey, J. A.
Chichester-Clark, R. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Leburn, W. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Gurden, Harold Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Cole, Norman Hall, John (Wycombe) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Cooper, A. E. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Harris, Reader (Heston) Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Linstead, Sir H. N.
Llewellyn, D. T. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D. Stevens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Longden, Gilbert Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Osborne, C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Page, R. G. Storey, S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Studholme, Sir Henry
McAdden, S. J. Partridge, E. Summers, Sir Spenoer
Macdonald, Sir Peter Peyton, J. W. W. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Pickthorn, K. W. M. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
McKibbin, A. J. Pike, Miss Mervyn Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Teeling, W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Pitman, I. J. Temple, J. M.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Pitt, Miss E. M. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) Pott, H. P. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Powell, J. Enoch Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Price, David (Eastleigh) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.) Thorneyeroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Profumo, J. D. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Ramsden, J. E. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Maddan, Martin Rawlinson, Peter Turner, H. F. L.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Rees-Davies, w. R. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Remnant, Hon. P. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Renton, D. L. M. Vane, W. M. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank Ridsdale, J. E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Rippon, A. G. F. Vickers, Miss J. H.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E. Robertson, Sir David Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Marshall, Douglas Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mathew, R. Ronson-Brown, W. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Maude, Angus Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Roper, Sir Harold Wall, Major Patrick
Mawby, R. L. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Medlicott, Sir Frank Russell, R. S. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Moore, Sir Thomas Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Webbe, Sir H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Sharples, R. C. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Shepherd, William Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Nairn, D. L. S. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Neave, Airey Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Nicholls, Harmar Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Soames, Capt. C. Wood, Hon. R.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'th, E. & Chr'ch) Spearman, Sir Alexander Woollam, John Victor
Nugent, G. R. H. Speir, R. M.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Oaksbott.
Original Question again proposed.
It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
Back to