HC Deb 22 February 1978 vol 944 cc1413-6
3. Mr. Sims

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the Belgrade conference on the issue of human rights.

Dr. Owen

Not a great deal. I would, however, claim that for the first time ever all countries that signed the Helsinki Final Act have had their record on human rights systematically examined and criticised and have been given an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Sims

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, limited though it has to be. Has he seen the report this morning about the arrest of the eighteenth member of the so-called Helsinki Group in Russia, Mr. Vins, whose name is likely to be added to the list of Scharansky, Ginsberg, Orlov and many others whose names we do not know and who are imprisoned without trial in Russia? When the right hon. Gentleman took office, he made a robust speech on human rights. Will he confirm that this is still the Government's policy.

Dr. Owen

Yes, Sir. I stand by every word of that speech. I have repeated many of those views since. I do not believe that any of us would accept that it could be an offence to monitor the progress of the Helsinki Final Act, which was signed by the Heads of Government of all the attendant States. Therefore, one would have expected all the member States to give facilities for people to monitor the implementaton of the Final Act, but they have not been given in a number of the member States.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Was anything said about the proposal in Great Britain to withdraw the human right of a woman to live with her husband here in this country?

Dr. Owen

I do not think that that specific issue was raised, but our record on human rights was subjected to criticism, and rightly so. If the Belgrade Review Conference is to have any success, all member States should accept scrutiny and criticism. We were criticised for some of the things that have occurred in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. We rebutted those criticisms. I regret that we have not made progress on human rights in the sense that we can achieve, at the end, a communique which will reaffirm in a way that I would like a commitment to human rights.

Mr. Blaker

Has the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Government of the Soviet Union that they cannot expect to pick and choose which parts of the Helsinki agreement they observe and which they do not? They should not expect to benefit from the economic sections of Helsinki if they flagrantly break the human rights sections.

Dr. Owen

It has always been part of our policy that the Helsinki Final Act must be seen as a whole, in all its aspects. That is why we have been willing to discuss the military confidence-building measures, and scientific and technological exchange and communication, but have also insisted on human rights. The Soviet Union on a number of occasions seemed to resent the fact that human rights were legitimately discussed under the Final Act.

Mr. Watkinson

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Soviet Union has stonewalled consistently at Belgrade, that it is vital that there should be mention of human rights in the final statement, and that to have no such statement would be an absolute mockery of the Helsinki agreement?

Dr. Owen

I think that the final statement will reflect that. We have not been able to reach massive agreement, but I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that I prefer that to a cosmetic communiqué which pretends that there is more agreement than there is. I prefer to live to discuss these matters another day, to go to Madrid and cover the same ground, hoping that by then there will have been further progress towards implementing the Final Act.

Mr. John Davies

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but will he confirm that in ensuring that there should be a continuation of the dialogue and discussion he will not let the Government be drawn into being party to such an emasculated statement, after the Belgrade conference, as to undermine people's confidence in their defence of human rights?

Dr. Owen

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "emasculated statement". If one fails to agree, one will effectively end up with a minimalist statement, virtually saying that one has met. If it is to be an agreed communiqué, it will not cover many of the grounds. What we have done is to table the sort of communiqué that we, the Western Powers, think should have been the accumulation of our efforts. Unfortunately, the full realisation is not likely to be so successful.

Mr. John Davies

Yes, but a communiqué would not be invalid which rehearsed on the one side our views of what the conclusion should be and on the other the Soviet Union's rebuttal. To my mind, that would not be an emasculated statement and would therefore be a valid one.

Dr. Owen

I agree, but at present that sort of statement does not look as though it can be achieved. It is not finalised yet, but I think that it will be a fairly bare statement of fact.