Middle East (Hansard, 27 November 1974)

§ 10. Mr. Luce
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has discussed the latest developments in the Middle East with the Foreign Ministers of the EEC.

§ Mr. Ennals
My right hon. Friend holds discussions on the Middle East with his EEC colleagues from time to time but the details must, of course, remain confidential. The most recent discussion took place on Monday 18th November.

§ Mr. Luce
In welcoming these discussions, will the Minister say, in the regrettable absence of the Secretary of State, whether he agrees that the greatest prospect of bringing any influence to bear in the Arab-Israeli dispute is by means of a common European approach? Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Secretary of State to take an initiative to obtain a Common Market agreement, 425 first, to persuade the Palestinians that the State of Israel has a right to exist, and, secondly, to persuade the Israelis that the Palestinians have justifiable grievances that can be put right and solved only by direct negotiations with them?

§ Mr. Ennals
This has been precisely the purpose both of my right hon. Friend and of his colleagues in the EEC in the discussions that have taken place. There have been a number of discussions, because we felt it important that on these vital issues, especially in the debate in the United Nations on the Palestinian resolution, we should, if possible, secure a common European approach.
We did, in fact, achieve that. All nine member States of the EEC took a common line in respect of the Palestinian resolution. None of us was prepared to support it, although we acknowledged that the rights of the Palestinian people must be recognised. However, any resolution that did not also recognise the absolute right of the State of Israel to exist within protected and secure frontiers as outlined in Resolution 242 could not be acceptable to us.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
What kind of discussions did my right hon. Friend have with the EEC countries on the votes at the United Nations last Friday? Does he not accept that one of the resolutions which were carried gives observer status to a terrorist organisation? Does he not also accept that the other resolution, taken logically, denies the existence of the State of Israel? Does my right hon. Friend think that the best moral lead this country can give is by persuading the rest of Europe not to vote?

§ Mr. Ennals
An abstention is not a non-vote. The Opposition know very well that it is a procedure which is fully recognised in the United Nations. Two resolutions were referred to. First, on the Palestine resolution, we made absolutely clear, as did our colleagues in the EEC, that we could not accept such a resolution, for reasons that my hon. Friend has given. That was clearly stated in the explanation of vote. The second resolution, which would have accorded observer status to the PLO, was voted against by us and most of our colleagues in the EEC.

§ Mr. Rippon
While we may all agree that in any settlement legitimate 426 Palestinian interests should be borne in mind, there is grave anxiety on both sides of the House about the recognition of an organisation engaged in terrorism. Of course, the Opposition are glad that the Government have reaffirmed their adherence to Resolutions 242 and 338, so that there is no doubt about everyone in this House recognising the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised borders.
Is the Minister aware of many other things going on at present? We hear of new discussions taking place between Kissinger and others, and the possibility of reconvening the Geneva Conference. I am concerned that the Foreign Secretary is not here to deal with this major international matter. I should point out that he has sent me a most courteous letter in which he explains that he is acting as chairman at the Labour Party conference——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is crossing the limit now.

§ Mr. Rippon
With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of major concern to this House——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is Question Time.

§ Mr. Rippon
May I raise a point of order, then, Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will raise his point of order at the end of Question Time.

§ Mr. Ennals
I shall deal with that matter when the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises his point of order.
With regard to the central issue, my right hon. Friend has been extremely active in his discussions within the EEC, in his constant discussions with Dr. Henry Kissinger, and with representatives of other countries including countries in the Middle East, in order to further what I believe is the common objective of both sides of the House to bring about a peaceful settlement. In this sense, the mission of Dr. Kissinger is one which we all fully support.

§ Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory reply to this Question, I shall endeavour to persuade the 427 hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huck-field) to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Rippon
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought it right during Questions, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members had commented on the absence of the Foreign Secretary, to say that I had received a courteous letter from him, as I should expect, saying that he was taking the chair at the Labour Party conference. But I expressed concern also that a matter such as the Middle East should be discussed in the House without his being present. Of course, we on this side will always be very sympathetic to Ministers who are absent on Government business, but I submit that there is a difference here, and the Foreign Secretary is, we know, very close to this House. I raise this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I recall that it has always been customary on these occasions for an explanation to be given. I recall that in 1972, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was the Foreign Secretary, was at The Hague, it was the present Foreign Secretary who said that he thought that normally the Foreign Secretary should fulfil his duty to the House and answer Questions here on the day when they are down to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 889.] I hope that this type of issue will not arise in future.

§ Mr. Ennals
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised what I think is a petty party point. I think it was also discourteous of him to do so, since he had received, as he generously said, a courteous letter of explanation from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I think that both sides of the House will agree that my right hon. Friend has always been very open with the House and has been ready to come here when important questions needed to be answered, whether concerning Cyprus or the EEC renegotiations, for example. I do not recall a Foreign Secretary who has been more 428 ready to be present to answer questions when circumstances required. I deeply regret, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise such a a petty party issue.

Several Hon. Members rose
——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Foreign Secretary may be in the chair at the Labour Party conference, but I am in the Chair here. I allowed the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) considerable latitude in raising this matter as a point of order. I thought it was right to allow the Minister of State to reply. More than that I cannot put up with.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that during the course of the last administration but one I tabled a number of most important Questions to the then Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition? On three occasions he was absent yachting and on the last occasion he was in China negotiating for two pandas.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Chair has many responsibilities, but the presence or absence of Ministers is not one of them.

§ Mr. Farr
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to call attention again to the point of order raised earlier about the absence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not strictly a point of order. I allowed the matter to be raised earlier, and I allowed the Minister to reply to it. I cannot permit any more talk about it today. It is a matter for the Chair to rule. The absence of a Minister cannot possibly be a matter for the Chair. It is not a point of order for me, and so I rule.