Poland

HC Deb 22 December 1981 vol 15 cc933-61

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer].

7.51 pm

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins)

I am glad that we are having this debate on Poland, even though it will be shorter than we had hoped, because I recognise the intense and justified concern of the House about the critical situation in Poland. It is a concern which the Government share in full measure.

Poland is a country for which I believe the vast majority of us feel a particular warmth and admiration, a country whose people have become synonymous with courage. Many of us had first-hand experience of the gallantry and valour of the Poles when they fought side by side with us during the last war, distinguishing themselves in the Battle of Britain and in campaigns in North Africa and Europe. We remember with gratitude their distinctive blend of physical courage and spiritual strength, laced with a marvellous, irreverent Polish sense of humour.

The redoubtable character of the Poles saw them through the appalling sufferings of the Second World War when they lost some 6 million dead—the same combination of qualities that have sustained them through a history unhappily punctuated by tragedy. Three times partitioned in the late eighteenth century, Poland ceased to exist as a sovereign State for over a hundred years, only re-emerging on the map of Europe after the First World War.

In 1939, only 21 years after her resurrection, she was again partitioned, this time by the twin tyrranies of Hitler and Stalin. However, Poland's history, if tragic, is also instructive. Despite the efforts of her neighbours in the nineteenth century, the idea of Poland lived on in the hearts of the Poles and was again realised in the re-emergence and renewal of Poland in the twentieth century. This is a lesson: those who would now extinguish today's renewal would do well to ponder on the failure, over many generations, of oppression, force and tyranny to subdue the Polish spirit.

What has been happening in Poland in the last 17 months has inspired a sense of excitement and hope not only in Poland itself, but throughout Europe. Here, it seems, is proof that political change is possible, even where the dead hand of totalitarianism has lain so heavily and for so long. Despite their valour, the Second World War brought no new dawn to the Poles; merely the imposition of Stalin's will in cynical disregard of the wishes and traditions of the Polish people. The Iron Curtain descended, locking the Poles, along with so many of their neighbours, into a system where free expression has no place. For that very reason it is not a system suited to the Polish character.

In 1956, in 1968, in 1970 and in 1976 the Poles tried to change it, often at great cost in terms of the risks run and the lives lost. Let us not forget that the events of the last 17 months have not come from nowhere.

The renewal movement is the culmination of a long process of popular revolt against a system imposed from without and rejected from within; a process which, in 1980, produced a new force, Solidarity, led by the charismatic Lech Walesa.

The renewal has offered inspiration to the Polish people and has enjoyed enormous popular support. It has been watched with sympathy and hope by many other of our fellow Europeans to the east of the Elbe. It certainly has our sympathy, which we have expressed not only with words but with deeds. During the last year, we have given £65 million of commercial credit, and have also made available short-term credit facilities. We have provided food supplies at special prices from the European Community, including over 450,000 tonnes of British barley, 10,000 tonnes of British butter, and 3,000 tonnes of British beef, together with the credit necessary to finance those purchases.

We are considering how we can ensure that supplies of food are distributed to those Poles who most need them. As Presidency of the Community, we have called an urgent meeting in Brussels this evening of the Community ambassadors to review the situation and to consider arrangements to ensure that these supplies are distributed in a way satisfactory to the Community and to the benefit of those whose need is greatest. We shall also need in due course to decide what arrangements should be considered for these or other kinds of help to Poland in 1982. No immediate decisions are necessary, and it would be premature to take them until the course of events in Poland is clearer. However, while the present policies prevail in Poland, it will clearly not be possible to continue on the basis of business as usual.

We supplied this assistance, in company with many of our Western partners, to help the Poles while they grappled with their economic and political difficulties. This was assistance which, I have no doubt, had the strong support of this House, which has shared the Government' s hope that, by a process of dialogue and compromise, Poland would evolve a system more responsive to the needs and wishes of its people. However, tragically, the hopes engendered by the Polish August of 1980 are now shrouded by the clampdown of this December. The long night threatens to fall once again in Poland. Martial law has been declared and a state of emergency has been imposed. There is a curfew, civil liberties are suspended, and trade union activity is banned. There have been thousands of arrests. Lech Walesa has been depraved of liberty and sequestered in silence. From the start it was a very comprehensive clampdown, obviously planned in detail and well in advance. Since then, things have become very much worse. A tragic threshold was crossed on the fifth day, when at least seven miners were killed in Silesia.

Poland is now clearly in the grip of wholesale repression, and we hear a stream of alarming reports: of many more arrests and deaths, and of terrible conditions in the internment camps. Today there are rumours, which are particularly horrifying in view of Poland's recent history, that anti-Semitic prejudices may again be emerging. Let me say at once that we have no hard evidence to confirm much of what we hear. The reports may be far-fetched; no one would be more pleased than I if they were. However, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made abundantly clear to the Polish ambassador this afternoon, the military authorities' obsession with secrecy prevents Governments and international public opinion from distinguishing rumour and speculation from the truth.

What is clear is that there has been widespread resistance to the new measures. The Church in Poland has not concealed its dismay. As the days have gone by since the clampdown began, we have heard of growing numbers of strikes and sit-ins in factories, mines and universities and crowds gathering in cities. We have heard of evictions by the authorities, of beatings, of the use of truncheons and tear gas. We have heard also of miners who have taken their families into the mines of Silesia and are threatening to blow themselves up. It is a grim picture, but, because of the restrictions imposed on foreign diplomats and correspondents, it cannot be a full one.

From the start of this new crisis the Government have made clear their mounting concern about events in Poland. Since I spoke in the House on 14 December the Governments of the Ten have made a statement underlining their anxiety and their sympathy for the Polish people. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke about Poland in his speech to the European Parliament on 17 December. The British delegate at the Madrid review conference has also made our views clear. In a word, we utterly condemn the repression that is now going on and we deplore the suspension of civil liberties. We also deplore the bloodshed and the injury that has resulted.

Some hon. Members may recall a sonnet by the great English poet Tennyson about Poland which includes the historic question: How long shall the icy-hearted Muscovite oppress the region? There has been speculation about whether martial law has been imposed on Poland at Moscow's diktat, or whether it was merely done with the Russians' encouragement. At present we cannot say, but we can be sure that the Russians knew and approved of what General Jaruzelski has done, and they will hope that his actions will safeguard the system they imposed on Eastern Europe after the war.

The Russians have repeatedly made clear their opposition to the Polish renewal and have pressed for action against it. The means of pressure have included press comment on mounting resistance, letters to the Polish leadership which were then published and military exercises in and around Poland. All this is known. What may have been taking place in private we can only guess, but it requires only a small amount of imagination to guess that the Russians are now delighted and relieved by what is happening. Since the renewal began, Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly warned the Soviet Union that direct intervention by it would create the gravest international situation for many years. I repeat that warning here tonight.

Since the Polish crisis intensified nine days ago, one of the Government's highest priorities has been to co-ordinate policy with our partners. There have been consultations in NATO. The North Atlantic Council will meet again tomorrow to discuss Poland. My right hon. and noble Friend has had talks with other Foreign Ministers and the member States of the European Community. There have been discussions with many other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Spain. There is a high level of agreement among the Western Governments. We are continuing to hold very close consultations with our partners.

Meanwhile, there are important practical problems. Consignments of voluntary aid continue to leave this country. We have asked the Polish authorities to ensure that these supplies of essential food and medicines are allowed into their country without delay. The Polish embassy in London has assured us that they are getting through. My information is that this is the case, but we are, with the help of the agencies, following this as closely as possible. We are prepared to make a contribution towards the general co-ordination and work of the agencies in their efforts to provide food and medical supplies and my officials are in touch with the agencies to consider how this might best be done.

British nationals in Poland are restricted in their movements. Although many have left the country, others have been unable to do so. British Airways flights have been interrupted since martial law was declared. The Government have made representations to the authorities about relaxation of these restrictions and about access for our consular staff to the cities where there are British subjects. Our embassy is in touch with British nationals in Warsaw. We have told all British nationals in Poland to listen to the BBC for advice. I am glad to tell the House that there is no news of any British subject being harmed.

British journalists are restricted in their work. This is highly regrettable. We have made representations to the Polish authorities about the importance of open communications. There has been limited improvement, and journalists can now send some reports, but a cumbersome system of censorship is in operation which is contrary to the Polish Government's commitment under the Helsinki Final Act, and should be lifted immediately.

Some Polish nationals visiting this country have asked to stay. As the House, I think, knows, they have been given leave to remain here for a further period.

There is also the question, in which some hon. Members have expressed their interest, of the BBC's broadcasts in Polish. As the House knows, there are at present 21¼ hours of broadcasting in the Polish language each week—about three hours a day. As a result of our discussions with the BBC. I am glad to say that this will be increased by three-quarters-of-an-hour each day. These extra periods will be devoted to news bulletins and topical commentary and will start tomorrow morning.

In a statement on 16 December the military authorities in Poland said that they were acting in the name of saving the basic content of the socialist renewal and would return to the path of reform as quickly as possible. They have told us that there will be a place for Solidarity without what they call extremist elements. We note these statements. In talks with the authorities in Warsaw and with the new Polish ambassador in London, we have emphasised the importance of implementing these assurances quickly. We wait to see if they will live up to their word.

The renewal of the last 17 months has been an effort by the Polish people to escape peacefully from the rigidities and inadequacies of the much vaunted "road to socialism" which has brought such social, political and economic miseries upon them. Tragically, their efforts have now been met by the imposition of martial law which, as we have learnt in these last few days, leads through a depressing but familiar pattern of repression, truncheons and tear gas, of barbed wire and internment camps and of beatings, shootings and deaths.

We hope above all that the authorities will now desist from violence and release those that have been detained. I say that these are our hopes, but the situation is too uncertain for us to be confident. The world is watching to see whether and how soon the authorities will take the action which could give meaning to their words. How can Poland resume work and emerge from her economic crisis? How can Poland look to a future of hope unless that future is determined by the full hearted agreement of the Polish people themselves?

I have painted a sombre picture, for that is what it is. We know, as well as most, the qualities of the Poles, their enduring will and their vitality. We all hope that those qualities will prevail and that Poland will speedily get back on to the path on which she started 17 months ago. If she does not, the world will know that it is brute force that is preventing it. The free world will give no comfort to brute force.

8.7 pm

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

The Lord Privy Seal has given us a sombre introduction to what I fear is bound to be a sombre debate. To quote the defecting Polish ambassador in Washington: The cruel night of darkness and silence has spread over a country— a country to which I believe we have a unique moral responsibility. Like many hon. Members of my age, I have many personal links with Poland. I served with the Polish Corps in Italy. I spent the early years after the war trying to protect what remained of Polish socialism from destruction under Soviet occupation. Ever since, I have maintained close contact with Polish friends, both inside the country and emigrants, as they maintain contact with one another. One of the striking things about the Poles is that among them, more than any other people, blood is thicker than water.

No one who, like people of my age, has lived through this period can approach the current situation without a certain sense of guilt. I make no apology for using that word. It is true that we declared war when Poland was attacked in 1939, but we were unable, for physical reasons, to lift a finger to help the Poles from being occupied by Germany.

The Poles made a major contribution to our own war effort by land, sea and air. Yet, we found it necessary, for reasons of State, to cover over the crime of Katyn for fear of upsetting the Russians. When the Russian armies stood passive on the other side of the river as the Germans pounded Warsaw to pieces and the Poles fought them in the sewers, the British, despite heroic efforts by the Balkan air force, were unable to give significant help. At Yalta, we allowed Russia to take eastern Poland into the Soviet Union and to install a Communist Government under guarantees of free elections which they did not even expect us to believe.

For all those reasons, we watched the growth of Solidarity in the past 18 months with a special excitement and hope, and we have watched the events of the past eight days with a special horror. What can we do other than to express our horror? We renounced direct military intervention long ago, and the Secretary-General of NATO did so explicitly earlier this year. Short of that, we cannot rationally decide how to help those who are fighting for freedom in Poland without a careful analysis of the position. I shall do my best to contribute to such an analysis.

In my opinion, the rise of Solidarity in the past 18 months showed that Poland had entered a revolutionary era in the most fundamental sense of that phrase. As in France in 1789 and Russia in 1917, the people had lost confidence in their system of government; and, in consequence, the apparatus of State was disintegrating and the economy was collapsing.

The Soviet leaders will not allow a revolution to take place in Poland and a new system to be born on the ruins of the old. So for 18 months Solidarity, representing the Polish people, and the Government, representing the State, have been trying to reach some compromise that is acceptable to the Russians, with the Church doing its best to oil the wheels of negotiation.

To the Soviet leaders, survival of the Communist Party in its leading role and of Communist ideology as its guiding principle have been as fundamental an objective as the security of their State, but it is now clear that neither the Communist Party nor the Communist ideology can survive in Poland in the old form. The Poles have never accepted the Communist dictatorship imposed on them in 1945, because it is alien to their culture and to their sense of nationhood.

Since 1945 a series of crises has shaken the Polish Communist Party to its core. In 1956, the worst excesses of Stalinism were tempered by Gomulka, but he failed to adapt the political and economic structure to a more liberal regime. Many of us had some hopes when Mr. Gierek took over, but while he was in power the Communist bureaucracy became increasingly inefficient and corrupt. It is a significant irony that those who suffered worst were the working people that it claimed to represent. '[he working people of Poland rose against the Communist bureaucracy in the Baltic ports, as their comrades had risen against similar bureaucracies in East Berlin, Budapest and Prague. In the end, they produced an alternative to the current system in the Solidarity movement. Hundreds of thousands of Communist Party members, Communist bureaucracy members and those from the armed forces have joined Solidarity during the past 18 months. The Solidarity movement has penetrated all areas of Poland, except the security police, which remains in practice part of the Soviet KGB.

When General Jaruzelski became Secretary o f the Communist Party, as well as Prime Minister, the Communist Party's doom in its old form was sealed. It is significant that he is ruling Poland through not a Communist Government but a military council. The Gierek leadership is in gaol, together with two members of the existing Politburo of the Polish Communist Party.

Military takeovers are all too familiar in the non-Communist world. We have had them recently in Greece, Turkey, Chile and Pakistan, although it did not deter us from rescheduling their debts. However, this is the first military takeover in the Communist world. It must have a profound and disturbing significance for the old men in the Kremlin.

For us in the West the real test must be whether General Jaruzelski can or will fulfil the promises that he made publicly last week to the Polish people to bring martial law to an end as soon as possible and to resume the dialogue with the Solidarity movement and the Church, as both bodies would wish. I understand that the Pope this morning, after discussing the matter with his emissary who has just returned from Warsaw, said that he believed that a peaceful solution must be sought through co-operation between the Polish authorities, the Church and the Solidarity movement.

For that reason, I do not believe that all is necessarily lost. Therefore, our actions must be calculated not to extinguish that hope but to nurture it and to offer incentives to those, perhaps in the Polish Army, who wish to resume the dialogue and disincentives to those, certainly in the security police, who wish to undo the reforms of the past 18 months.

What does that mean in practice? I suggest, first, that we must not inflame passions with calls to violent resistance. The Times leader of 16 December earned a justified rebuke this morning from Mr. Czerniawski. There is no case here for heroism by proxy. We can do certain things that will help immediately. I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will tell us that the Government will accept a substantial proportion of the refugees who are bound to leave Poland for the West in increasing numbers, whatever happens in the coming months. I am talking about new refugees, not people who happen to have been here and to whom the Government have given the right to stay.

Secondly, we must not cut off food aid. I do not believe that any Pole would approve President Reagan's decision to take that step. It would be much better if the food could be distributed by the Church, but the important thing is that the food should get through. Otherwise, the strains on Polish society, not to speak of the sufferings of the Polish people this winter, could become intolerable.

Thirdly, we must make it clear that any new economic or financial aid, whether the supply of equipment or the granting of commercial credit, must depend upon the dismantling of the apparatus of martial law and a resumption of the political dialogue. I am uncertain whether that should apply to the rescheduling of existing debts. I remind the House that year after year we have rescheduled the debt of the Chilean Government despite the military takeover there.

Fourthly—this is the most important point that I wish to make—we must not use sanctions against Poland that should be held in reserve for possible use against the Soviet Union and the satellite Governments if they were to intervene directly with military force. It is true that the Soviet Government are intervening in Poland now. They have done so every day for the past 36 years, but if they were to use their armed forces to crush the Polish people, it would be by far the most dangerous development in the world since 1945.

What is happening now is tragedy and a catastrophe. The Foreign Secretary was right to use those words yesterday. Hundreds of people have been killed and thousands are in gaol, often in appalling conditions. However, Soviet military intervention would mean civil war. It would mean a national resistance movement on the scale that the Poles mounted against the Germans in the Second World War, but in this instance it would be based on the factories rather than on the manor houses of Poland. Hundreds of thousands of people would be killed and millions would be gaoled or even transported.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

Is not the use of Polish forces in Poland quite different from the importation of Soviet troops from other countries? My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dealt with that important point earlier. Nevertheless, the present operation has been mounted by Soviet brains.

Mr. Healey

I was making that point when the hon. Gentleman interrupted. We must remember that there is and would be an enormous difference in the response of the Polish people.

I do not believe that Mr. Brezhnev wants direct intervention with Soviet forces, but we must make it clear that, if he used Soviet troops to suppress the Polish people, he would face a range of specific economic and financial sanctions that would add immeasurably to the strains on the Soviet system. If he took such a step, the damage to the hopes of detente and disarmament might take decades to repair. If we imposed the sanctions now, we should weaken the disincentives to the Russians to use military force against Poland. We must hold the measures in reserve and hope that we are never required to use them.

The consequences even of what has already happened will spread over many months—even years. At this early stage two are worth commenting on. No one can deny that what has happened in Poland in the past eight days has struck a fatal blow to the noble hopes of many in the West who sincerely believed that unilateral disarmament in the West would find an echo in the East. It is no longer possible to sustain that belief.

The second lesson is that events may prove that Europe has a political meaning and function, even when its economic arrangements in many respects are absurd, farcical and damaging. The crisis has already shown that we in Western Europe can understand the agonies of Eastern Europe in all their complexity much better than, at any rate, the current leaders in Washington. The existence of a political identity in Western Europe may offer Eastern Europe a perspective—perhaps long-term—for a looser and more acceptable relationship with the Soviet Union than has so far been possible.

That is all for the future. For the moment the question is: what can we do in the coming weeks to help the situation? I repeat that our duty is clear. We must provide all the food aid that we can be sure will reach the Polish people. We must give no new economic and financial help unless the dialogue with the Church and Solidarity is resumed and makes progress. We must give specific warnings to the Soviet Government of the economic, financial and political penalties that they will face if they use their forces to crush the Polish people. I fear that beyond that we can only watch and pray.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. Hon. Members who were present earlier will have heard Mr. Speaker say that the debate ends at 10 o'clock and that there will not be time to move to the second debate on the Order Paper concerning the situation in the Middle East.

Eighteen right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to speak, and there may be others. I appreciate the importance of the debate and the strong feelings in the House, but I appeal for short speeches from right hon. and hon. Members.

8.23 pm

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

When the Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) caused the House to be recalled. The crisis that we are discussing is not much less serious, and it is a poor reflection on us that we can allow only so short a time to discuss it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Having served in the Foreign Office, I understand that Ministers there must be cautious, although I welcome the more robust stand taken by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. However, for those of us who are not carrying ministerial responsibility it is a time to face facts. It is not our job to make the world safe for hypocrisy.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) knows the subject well, and I agree with much of his analysis. He emphasised the distinction in his mind between what is happening in Poland and what would happen if Soviet forces were to intervene. However, let us face it—this is not a purely Polish affair. It is not even a mainly Polish affair. We have seen a number of civil disruptions in other countries—in Spain at the time of the civil war, in France during the occupation and in Vietnam—but the different sides all had deep roots in the societies to which they belonged. That is not the case in Poland. General Jaruzelski does not represent the workers, the peasants, the Church or the intelligentsia of his country. He has no foundation there at all.

It is worth looking at what the Polish army is. It was created by a Soviet marshal, Marshal Rokossovsky, after the Second World War. Every officer over the rank of colonel on the operational side goes to the staff college in the Soviet Union. Its equipment is entirely Soviet. The special forces carrying out the repression are branches of the KGB. Even the rations on which the army depends come from outside Poland. The army can rely on the back-up of two Soviet armoured divisions. They have not intervened; but one has only to recall one's military experience to know what their presence must mean to the Polish army.

The Foreign Secretary talked of the importance of strict non-intervention. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East re-emphasised his call with regard to the Russians. He admitted that there is a great deal of intervention already. There have been manoeuvres and unheard of economic and political pressures. Does it make much difference whether the Soviet army intervenes physically or whether the wishes of the Kremlin are carried out through what is, in effect, a surrogate force? General Jaruzelski may still need direct intervention. The House will remember that not so long ago there was a coup in Afghanistan when President Daoud was overthrown and the local communist leader tried to take over. He could not do it. I am not so sure that the general in Poland can either.

But the question is what do we do. As the right hon. Member for Leeds East said, we are not without resources. We have great economic power. I doubt whether the reconstruction of Poland is within the capability not even of just the Polish people but of the whole Comecon bloc. They need the help of western Europe and the United States if they are to put Poland on the economic rails again. We also have great financial potential. The cancellation of loans and default would hurt our banking system in the West considerably. It would hurt the Eastern bloc a great deal more. We have a good deal of moral power, exercised through the media and through the arms talks. If President Brezhnev cares at all about the arms talks, he should be a little careful about what he does in Poland. We cannot separate what goes on in Geneva from what goes on in Warsaw. It would be ludicrous to be discussing disarmament in Geneva while Poland was being repressed in the way that we see.

We are not altogether devoid of military power. Of course, there is no question of our intervening in Poland, but there are areas in the world where the Soviet Union has interests and where its interests are vulnerable—in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. Moscow should have that in mind also. We are not in a weak negotiating position.

Some people say "Why do you take this question so seriously? All that is happening is that Poland is going back to the position that existed before August 1980". That is not the case.

The period of detente changed the world in many respects. It was not just the document to which we put our signature in Helsinki but the immense increase in commercial, financial and cultural exchanges that produced a greater freedom and a greater interchange between East and West. That position cannot be reversed with any safety. Of course, detente produced its disappointments—in Angola, Abyssinia, Aden and Afghanistan. But what is happening in Poland is the first time that detente has been in direct question on the European Continent, to which the Helsinki agreement specifically applies. What is at stake is the good faith of the Soviet Union in Europe. Why should we trade and negotiate with it if its good faith is as much in question as it is?

The crisis goes deeper still. The Polish crisis epitomises the complete failure of the Soviet economic system, not just in Poland but in the rest of Eastern Europe. It epitomises the political failure to reconcile the pride in independent nations with the imperial designs of the Soviet Union. Poland was the first of its post-war conquests, just as Afghanistan is the latest. It has failed miserably in both. In neither, and nowhere else, is the Soviet raj acceptable.

The Polish crisis brings us to the edge of an abyss. The question that it poses is "Is it still possible to continue with detente?" Is it possible in these circumstances for the West to do what it has been dong to contribute to the ecomomic recovery of Eastern Europe? Is it still possible for the Soviets to accept the principles underlying the Helsinki agreement? If that were so, and if there were a return to a dialogue between Solidarity, the Church and the Communist Party in Poland, there would be hope. If not, we shall not just be going back to the cold war; we shall be going on to something much more serious.

In all this—here I part company with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—it is essential to move closely in step with the United States. Its appreciation of the position has been quicker and more accurate than ours in Europe. I have been concerned about the differences that have arisen between us over the Middle East, but differences over Poland would be even more serious. It is of paramount importance that Britain and the United States should work together and should be seen to be doing so.

I agree that in putting the problem as harshly as have done, we shall run risks. We lead in respect of the Soviet Union in our economic and financial power. It leads militarily. In a gladatorial confrontation this would be an encounter between the trident and the net. So inevitably the situation that we are discussing is very fragile. In such a fragile situation it is natural for those responsible to temporise. But fear is a bad counsellor.

I cannot guarantee—no one can guarantee—that by standing firm against the threat posed by what is going on in Poland we shall win through without risk and without a high price. We have already let our armaments go so low that the price may be high. What I am sure of is that if we do not so stand we shall pay a much higher price, and in very short order.

The Polish crisis is the moment of truth for the West. Let us face it while we can.

8.35 pm

Miss Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich, West)

Many years ago I believed that the strongest argument for my party and my country in belonging to the European Community was that of trying to make that grouping a more effective political force. I wish to see the Community co-ordinate its policies through political co-operation. I wish to see it speak with one voice in withstanding pressures. I wish to see it exert influence and become a force for stability in world affairs.

I speak tonight because I still hold that view.

The disaster which has struck Poland has struck at the very heart of the continent in which we live, and I regard the situation there as a challenge to the Community. If European unity means anything at all, it means that we have obligations to our neighbours on that continent in which we live together.

I want to speak particularly to the Government Front Bench, because, although we are in the final days of the United Kingdom's Presidency of the Council, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary still carry a responsibility to work towards a constructive European policy of not simply responding to events but of creating initiatives to try to meet and solve the problems.

Of course there can be no military interference in the internal affairs of Poland. The Community has no military dimension, nor should it have, but it has a political will and it has the resources which, if applied properly, can help to alleviate deprivation and to ease the way until such time as developments take place which can lead to negotiation and conciliation.

The Minister rightly placed on record the amount of food aid and all types of aid which this country and the Community have made and are making available. But the need of the Polish people for sustenance, warmth and medical supplies will increase as deprivation and a harsh winter take their toll. I believe that the millions of people throughout the Community who often complain about the production of surpluses, whether they be mountains or molehills, of food, grain, dairy produce, steel and textiles, would want to see those resources used in showing real solidarity, both moral and economic, with the Polish people.

What initiatives, as President of the Council, have been taken by Britain within the Community to increase the existing assistance programme? I was pleased to hear the Minister say that even tonight meetings are taking place in Brussels in an attempt to involve perhaps international organisations, perhaps religious groups and the Church, in using their expertise in acting on behalf of the 10 nations to carry out distributive work and to see that what is available reaches those in greatest need.

Never has the time been more important than now for us to show that we are more than a mere trading entity, but that we are 270 million people with a human face and that we are inspired with the need to exercise political will and to use the resources that we have produced within our Community to relieve the suffering of others who live cheek by jowl with us on the same continent.

Newspaper reports today seem to indicate that Western banks have refused Poland's recent request for a bridging loan, on the ground that the request was made improperly. I do not know about the propriety of making such requests, but I wonder whether the intention is that, while denying such loans, we make Poland even more heavily dependent upon the Soviet Union. That is quite apart from the rescheduling of debts long overdue. Surely, even in the dying days of Britain's Presidency, schemes can be worked out to find some way of guaranteeing Western bank bridging loans so that the process of stabilisation can be assisted. It may well lead to future negotiations and advance that process in Poland.

As I understand it, last week the military council in Warsaw spoke of the possible release of those in detention and of a move towards a process of negotiation and conciliation. That is fundamental to producing a solution to the situation and I wonder what initiatives the Foreign Secretary has taken since then, in concert with member States, to press for the release of the detainees and to ask for the assurances, given a week or 10 days ago, to be made effective.

I put this question because I see that, in reporting on the United Kingdom Presidency, only last week the Foreign Secretary spoke of the Community's strengthened political commitment to joint action in foreign affairs. He spoke of agreed procedures for convening meetings quickly to deal with crises wherever they occur. I would not wish anything to be said in the House which would worsen an already bad situation in Poland, but to express grave concern is not enough. I seek assurances that the voice of the people of the Community is being heard in Warsaw and that action is being taken to provide aid and medical supplies and to see that they reach those in need.

The year is moving to an end in a cloud of uncertainty. Poland seems to have frozen us into a silence. We hear cries from other Europeans in need, but it seems that in the name of non-interference we have to stuff our ears with wax. It is very saddening. The crisis of which the Foreign Secretary spoke is with us and we now need to know that before this country relinquishes the Presidency we are providing the political will to move our resolve into peaceful action in support of those who are oppressed and in need. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

8.43 pm

Sir Russell Fairgrieve (Aberdeenshire, West)

It gives me much pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). I agree wholeheartedly with what she said about the EEC and the possible chance of its being the example. It is tragic that Poland and other Eastern European countries could be part of the EEC and probably would be if it were not for the Russian yoke. We can only live and hope for the day when that dream comes true.

I should like to associate myself with some of the profound remarks made by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I, too, am of an age to remember being alongside Polish troops during the Second World War. I agree with what he said about the guilt at Yalta and the 36 years of Soviet intervention. The situation in Poland is tragic and will obviously put a strain on the nuclear disarmament talks which all of us wish to take place multilaterally.

As we rise for Christmas, it is tragic that another ancient and historic European and Christian nation is having to go through what the Polish nation is enduring. Liberty and the right to strike are being crushed. Those two principles are upheld by both political parties in this country. What we are seeing epitomised in Poland is the bankruptcy not only of any moral philosophy but even of any material philosophy. It is dead and buried. It can do nothing for the spirit and nothing for the body. It is totally and utterly bankrupt.

We have seen what happened in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and we trust that things will get no worse in Poland. [Interruption.] I think that I heard somebody say "Chile". I get annoyed at the great howls of simulated protest and mock anguish when one tinpot dictator of the Right lords it over some small banana republic in South America, while there is never a cheep about the hundreds of millions of people enslaved by the dictatorships of the Left.

I recall the famous remark of Stalin, the arch butcher, during the war "How many divisions has the Pope?" Tonight in Poland the only place in which people can meet and talk is under the sign not of the hammer and sickle but of the Cross. We have this wretched tyranny now stretching from Berlin to the Pacific ocean, from the Arctic circle to Kabul. I do not mind what words are used—Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism, or the Militant Tendency. They are just degrees of the same rotten system of human oppression.

As for the standards of living in the so-called workers' paradises, we see continual food shortages in agriculturally fertile countries. Where is the greatest discrepancy between the pay of officers and of other ranks? In the British Army? No, in the Russian Army. What about the difference in shopping facilities for the rulers and the ruled? Are they to be found in Britain and America? No, they are to be found in Russia. What about the elite and their holiday bungalows in the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union certainly outdistances the West in one area. It has the greatest number of men and materials in armed forces that the world has ever seen-and for what purposes? Truly, it is guns before butter with a vengeance.

The world has seen many thousands of years of the history of wars and conflict, but whether it be Hadrian's Wall or the Great Wall of China, walls were built to keep people out. Only one wall was ever built to keep people in—the Berlin Wall. We must strive for and await the day when the world is cleansed of this despicable and discreditable system of human slavery and bondage.

8.47 pm

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) on his first speech for some time from the Back Benches, although I must say to him quite gently that there are more than two views in this House.

What we are witnessing in Poland, and have witnessed over the past 17 months, has been the rejection by the great mass of its people of the Communist system by which they have been governed since the war. Those of us who, under our pluralist system, are accustomed more to overcoming public apathy than to changing State authority have to admit difficulty in understanding the bitter, surging force of that rejection and the entrenched power of the authorities that it challenges. Therefore, part of our consideration of what our response to those developments should be must be to look at the nature of our relationships with what, to be neutral, I will call the Comecon.

I have never believed that the maintenance of dialogue between the two systems—and, indeed, the reduction of tension between them—requires one to engage in the pretence that the differences are less than they really are. To do so is to make a profound political mistake, of w Lich the Trades Union Congress, acting collectively, has been guilty.

On Sunday I stood on the steps of the Polish embassy with Bill Sirs of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. No one can challenge Bill's adherence to democracy. I am not in any way seeking to generalise, nor am I saying that the long-standing relationships with the trade unions in Comecon—which, in the Polish case, Solidarity would now describe as puppet unions—which many British unionists maintain, should be severed. I do, however, say that their relationship should be re-examined.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Is the hon. Member aware that a Conservative Member of Parliament was prevented from standing with him and Members of other parties at the door of the Polish embassy on Sunday? The only Conservative Member of Parliament present at the rally in Hyde Park for Solidarity was physically prevented from speaking, until I finally managed to grab the microphone and was able to speak as it were by default. That has——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention and not a speech.

Mr. Greenway

I merely want to ask the hon. Gentleman to draw the attention of all Poles who are organising rallies in this country and elsewhere to the fact that freedom of speech is as important here as it is in Poland.

Mr. Johnston

I had nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I was not aware of any problem. However, if he says that there was a problem, I suppose that there must have been. In any event, he has made his point.

I was saying that the trade unions should consider their relationship with the unions in the East. If there is anything meaningful in that relationship it should now be used to press directly the case for free trade unions. That is most important.

It is not enough for Mick McGahey to call for a minute's silence at a meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers for the seven Polish Silesian miners who were shot. He and his new president, Arthur Scargill, know that if one miner was imprisoned, far less killed, in similar circumstances in this country they would call a national strike. They must stand up unequivocably in support of the trade union freedoms sought by Solidarity, because those freedoms are no different from those that they enjoy. Next time I visit the Scottish TUC headquarters in Glasgow to see Jim Milne—as I do frequently—perhaps he will take down the banner of the Hungarian trade unions, which faces me when I enter the door. It is not that I want him to stop talking to the Hungarians; I want him to stop pretending that they have the same freedoms as we have, or possibly even more.

My second broad point relates to the impact of the position in Poland on disarmament negotiations. No doubt other hon. Members have read, as I have, the enormously troubled and rather diffuse article by Professor E. P. Thompson in The Times today. I do not cavil at his good intent. However, what is happening in Poland is not a new manifestation but the exacerbation of an old well-established pattern that has exact parallels in Comecon's other member States. Only in Poland has the steam exploded from the kettle. His basic error lies in seeking to equate NATO and the Warsaw Pact as being exactly equal enemies of peace.

The starkest rebuttal of this further pretence is that one can imagine the events in Poland rehearsed even more fiercely in the German Democratic Republic but one cannot imagine them in the Federal Republic of Germany. Peace and freedom, Professor Thompson rightly says, are indivisible.

But that does not mean that the situation in Poland need in any way adversely affect the pursuit in Geneva of a measured and sustained reduction in arms expenditure and missile deployment. The two systems exist. If possible, they must avoid mutual destruction. They will not make a practical resolution easier by pretending that a vast political, if not moral, divide does not exist.

This morning I had an hour-long meeting with the Rumanian ambassador at his request. First, he said—from the other side of Iron Curtain—that in his Government's view Polish problems should be settled by the Poles. He said that there should be no intervention from outside, meaning the Soviet Union. Secondly, he said that there should be no stimulation or aggravation of anti-Socialist elements from outside by which he meant the West, since either course would lead to bloodshed and possibly to the gravest international consequences. He said that General Jaruzelski must be allowed to restore an anarchic situation to normality and that the normality would be a Polish normality, allowing for Polish interpretations of Socialism.

That approach is certainly inadequate from a Liberal point of view, but I found it extremely positive. It is something that can be built on.

It is a great pretence to act as if we can directly affect events in Poland. Even if the Russians were to go in directly and to act with the same harshness and brutality as they displayed in Hungary, we shall not go to war. However, indirectly we can do a great deal.

First, the unions can and must use the influence that they have built up over the years. That influence could have a crucial and vital effect. Secondly, we could link our support—whether through the banks or in broader economic measures—to evidence of a positive response towards Solidarity and to an involvement between Solidarity and the Government in seeking a solution that achieves both the freedoms that it seeks and improved efficiency for Poland's economy. Thirdly, when speaking to the Soviet Union we must separate clearly those economic measures that we should be compelled to take if Russia intervened, from progress in further arms reduction That will not be easy, but it must be done. That message must also be made clear to the other Eastern European countries.

One factor is beyond political calculation and was referred to at length by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Britain and the EEC should not hesitate—irrespective of conditions—to act in respect of Poland's problems of food supplies, medical supplies and refugees. We should not make too many conditions. It would be better if supplies were distributed by Solidarity or by the Church, but we should not make too many conditions. If Poland is faced with starvation, we must not be found wanting.

Likewise, I hope that the Government will not only take a liberal view of refugees in the United Kingdom but will be prepared to be equally supportive of Austria.

8.58 pm

Mr. Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)

I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks, but a deplorably short amount of time has been allocated to a debate on such a vital issue as this. Given that we are discussing the extinction of human rights in Poland and the balance of East-West relations during one of the most difficult periods since the war, it is lamentable that we should have only two hours or so in which to debate the subject.

Some people still wonder whether there should be a Western response at all. Such nervousness is understandable, because there has been a loss of confidence in the Western world. We have material and economic problems. Within the various alliances and groupings in the Western world there are strains, and the terrible problem of the threatening nuclear imbalance hangs over us all. However, if we were to make no response and to take no action it would be far more dangerous than if we were to take action. We would betray the Polish people and also our commitment to the idea of democratic freedom. In addition, if the oppressors win in Poland, they will reinforce their position in other parts of Eastern Europe and the Western case will be further weakened.

Despite the loss of confidence by the West, we have many cards in our hands and many reasons why we should accept that we can deal with the situation, but that must be done jointly. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal tell the House about the consultations with our Western partners. None of us can emphasise too strongly the vital importance of consultation not only with the European Community and other parts of the Western world but with the United States, which has a clear understanding of and considerable sensitivity towards the events in, and the problems of, Poland.

It is essential to find the highest common degree of agreement among, the Western countries. Of course there are different perceptions, but we must not have another Afghanistan. We must get together and decide what should be done. What has been said so far in the debate suggests that that should not be difficult. A high degree of agreement has already emerged. I hope that it will do the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) no serious harm if I say that I agree with virtually all his propositions.

Essentially—and this is accepted by the American Government—food and medical supplies must continue, but every effort must be made to ensure that they go through non-Government channels, for obvious reasons. We should now cease credits, financial aid and technical transfers. Those must be used as the one lever that we have in the West to help the Polish people. Those measures must be carefully controlled in a careful negotiation with whoever is making the decisions in Warsaw. We must avoid fiercely pushing people into a corner. We must use sensible, diplomatic approaches to achieve the objectives that we all share.

The next stage must be prepared, that being much stronger action against the Soviet Union. That is also a question of pre-planning and timing. Probably the time is not yet right to take action on grain shipments, finance credit and high technology, but it must be made clear to the Soviet Union that the West is ready and determined to take such action. The Government should suggest that programme to their allies and put it into action immediately.

There are two other areas where the Government and the West should act. First, we should return to the offensive of political warfare and fight again the information war that we have been losing during the period of detente. The Soviet ideologues made it clear that detente was an opportunity for them to continue their ideological warfare. We have an ideological war to wage—we have our freedoms, democracy and economic prosperity. Whatever our present problems, we have a tremendous package to sell while, clearly, the Soviet Union has a dreadful package to sell. We must do much better and not be ashamed to do so. All Governments, especially ours, must be ready to make a tremendous effort. We are talking about small amounts of money, but also about the vital fight for the consciences and hearts of the world.

I wish to refer to another point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. We must now bring all effort to bear on those in this country and the West who have been lured by the attraction of unilateral disarmament. That some people advocate unilateral disarmament for particular motives can scarcely be gainsaid, and that the great majority are alarmed and deeply worried about the threat of nuclear war is correct. We must all maintain the pressure for multilateral, safe and controlled disarmament. Commentators such as Mr. E. P. Thompson, who was given the opportunity yet again to express his views in The Times this morning, say that we should now unilaterally disarm and trust the Soviet Union and other parts of Eastern Europe to follow suit. That view must be exploded.

The Soviet Union and its Polish proxies have torn up the vital issues of the final act of the Helsinki agreement, and as what is at stake there is the freedom of movement and information and other simple human freedoms, they cannot possibly be trusted to operate on a unilateral disarmament approach from the West.

I wish to draw to the attention of the House a cry from the heart which went to Mr. E. P. Thompson and to all those in this country who advocate unilateral disarmament. It was from a Czech dissident from Prague, signed only 12 months ago. He said that the aim of a nuclear-free Europe is both naive and impossible: that but for the nuclear armoury of the West, and the pressure that it exerts upon the Soviet leaders, their totalitarian system will crush what vestigial liberties exist in the East. He also said that they operate in a prison which means the daily quiet and inconspicuous humiliation of millions

Finally, he warned the unilateral disarmers in this country that their own efforts work unconsciously in the interest of a totalitarian system whose aim is world domination based on the liquidation of human rights. That is what we are seeing in Poland and that is what we must all avoid.

9.8 pm

Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North)

I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) as this is a short debate.

For most people in Britain and for many hon. Members, Poland has a deep and significant meaning. I served with Poles in Normandy. I was in Warsaw in 1946—a city that was no more than rubble. I visited the concentration and mass extermination camps where millions of Polish people, as well as Jews, were deliberately assassinated. I have seen refugees who have settled in this country.

I have been back and forth to Poland. I feel that there is something close between our two countries. I am a Christian, a Socialist and a trade unionist. Therefore, I identify myself with Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Even those who do not necessarily accept those three parts recognise that men with courage were trying step by step to achieve what we all believe are the greatest things in life—freedom, peace and an ability to speak for themselves. That movement has been stamped on.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that it is too early to assume that all is lost. Perhaps what was done was meant to stop something worse being done. We may see some of the sacrifices made by those who have led Solidarity become meaningful in Poland in the years ahead. Let us not write off Solidarity. We must show our solidarity with Solidarity.

My second point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and other hon. Members. One of the most important things that we should do is to hasten and increase the food aid that we give to Poland. There have been pleas that we should pray for Poland. I am all in favour of praying for Poland, but even prayer is not enough if one has nothing in one's belly.

I am chairman of the Ockenden Venture. So far, with the lorry that went off yesterday, we have sent 100 tonnes of food and many thousands of pounds' worth of medical supplies. They have gone specifically to the people in the institutions set aside by the Catholic Church, where we had decided to help.

I believe that through the European Economic Community more than has been done should now be done. Of course we want to see aid distributed through the Catholic Church or other organisations than the Government. Some of it may go astray, but in Kampuchea we saved people from starvation. We can show no greater act of solidarity at this time than by magnifying the food aid and providing it quickly—and not only through voluntary organisations. The Government could probably do much more themselves and do more to help the voluntary organisations.

We must of course examine our inter-State relationship with Poland. We must consider economic co-operation, trade and debt relief. Those relations should be based on concessions made by the Polish Government. Every hon. Member, and I believe everyone in the country, wants to see Lech Walesa free in order that he can speak. Everyone wants to see the thousands of other leaders no longer detained. They are men of moderation, not extremists. They can lead Poland towards peace and settlement. They are not seeking to disturb the whole balance between East and West. They are not revolutionaries. They are not arguing the case for violence. If we are to maintain our present economic relationship with Poland, it must be conditional upon the Polish Government's releasing those who have been put behind bars in the past 10 or 12 days.

That is enough from me. I hope that the House can speak with a sense of unity in saying "Solidarity—solidarity with Poland today".

9.12 pm

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

While I applaud both the tone and content of the two admirable speeches with which the debate opened, the Government must be left in no doubt about the reaction of many of us to what has been happening in Poland in recent weeks. It has been one of anger and frustration—anger because the first genuine moves towards democracy at the grassroots in a Communist country have been so brutally crushed, and frustration because so far, apart from shipments of some supplies of food, the reaction of Western Governments has been one of uncertainty.

Indeed, the first reaction was to say loftily that the Poles should be allowed to solve their own problems without intervention by third parties. That was completely to misunderstand the situation. Ever since 1945, thanks to the initial British and American failure to comprehend Soviet intentions and to ignore what was known of Soviet methods, there has been nothing but intervention in Poland by Moscow. There have been Soviet troops in Poland all the time. There are two Soviet divisions in Poland now.

When General Jaruzelski imposed martial law a fortnight ago, there were those in the West, some of them in high places, clutching at straws, who saw him as a sort of Polish patriot, almost a knight in shining armour, who, by checking growing anarchy, would make it unnecessary for the Soviet tanks to roll. He is nothing of the kind. It must have come as a great shock to many that Polish soldiers should shoot Polish workers and sweep thousands of their fellow countrymen into prison camps in appalling conditions where some of them have already died, but that has happened.

Why should anyone be so surprised? General Jaruzelski is no Bonaparte. His action had the full support and approval of Moscow before he moved. It was, of course, the necessary precursor to the re-establishment of the authority of the discredited, inept and corrupt Polish Communist Party.

The price of that will be extremely high. If the former Polish ambassador in Washington is to be believed, several hundred killings have taken place, thousands of innocent people have been rounded up in inhumane conditions, and factories and mines are surrounded by the security forces. Food shortages which were already causing difficulties before the military takeover are now worsening, a curfew is in force and in the most Catholic of all European countries there will be no Mass on Christmas Eve in Warsaw. That has been forbidden. Truly, the darkness has descended upon Poland.

What should be the response of the West? The message must go out from the House to our allies and friends, to the peoples of Eastern Europe, and to the Poles in particular, that we condemn this latest assault on the long-suffering Polish people. But protest is not enough. The first requirement is to recognise that not all the cards are in the hands of the Kremlin and its Polish puppets. Crushing Solidarity does not solve any problems for them.

What has happened in Poland in the past 16 months is unique and astonishing. The Solidarity movement was the first assertion by a proletariat in the Soviet empire since the Russian Revolution of their right to form free trade unions, to hold local elections and to speak freely—the right of the ruled to speak to the rulers. It was the first popular challenge to Soviet domination and to Communist terror by workers without arms in their hands and without outside intervention, and it must have been shattering in its effects upon the ageing men in the Kremlin.

Whatever happens in Poland in the next few months, whatever sufferings are inflicted upon that hero of our time, Lech Walesa, and his colleagues in the Solidarity movement or upon the Polish nation, nothing will ever be the same again. An unarmed but truly heroic people have stood up and borne witness against Soviet tyranny.

Secondly, what has happened in the past fortnight should have illumined the paradox that, while the Soviet Union is immensely strong militarily, it is morally and economically bankrupt. Jaruzelski's move solves nothing. Killing workers, locking their leaders up and surrounding factories and mines with troops will not increase production and will not feed starving people.

Equally, the whole Soviet bloc is now in the grip of a depression which makes our situation in the West seem light by comparison. The despots cannot feed their own people. They are heavily in debt. There is not one of their satellites, if freed from the threat of Red Army intervention, which would not reject Communism and all its works. There must be internal changes within the Soviet system if the whole rotten edifice is not to collapse. Therein lies the best hope for Poland, the West and perhaps even the Soviet people themselves.

In the past three months we in the British Solidarity with Poland Campaign, which I am glad to say draws support from both sides of the House, have urged that the West should offer a deal: that substantial economic help—possibly on the lines of the Marshall plan—should be made available, but only on strict conditions. We urged that President Reagan should send a high-powered emissary to Poland to discuss the matter, but, alas, such initiatives have not been taken.

The situation has now been worsened by the establishment of martial law. The voice of Solidarity has been silenced. The task of assessing need, establishing priorities and ensuring that aid goes to those who really need it has been made much more difficult. However, we still think that aid should be forthcoming. Indeed, that is the message that has come from so many speakers in the debate.

The conditions that I envisage can be stated simply. First, martial law must be lifted. Secondly, Mr. Lech Walesa and his colleagues in the Solidarity movement should be released so that the dialogue between the ruled and the rulers can be resumed and a new start made on the road to reform. Thirdly, there must be an immediate assurance—nobody has mentioned this in the debate so far and it is important—that none of those now held in detention will be transported to the Soviet Union. Their names and whereabouts must be made known. Better still, they should be released if no charges can be brought against them. The point is of immense importance, because every Pole remembers what happened to the 14,000 Polish officers who fell into Stalin's hands in 1940. Every Pole knows about the savage deportations from the Baltic States immediately after 1945. General Jaruzelski, who already has Polish blood on his hands, must be made to understand that he will be held accountable for the fate of the people he has clawed in. They must not be transported to the Soviet Union. Fourthly, there should be a linkage between any aid given by the West and the Geneva disarmament talks. We should not give aid to strengthen Communist military power or to feed its soldiers. The price of economic aid should be an all-round reduction in arms, and there should be a linkage between economic assistance and the restoration of human rights.

The cost to the Soviet Union of rejecting such conditions would be high. Holding down 35 million Poles, with their long tradition of resistance to tyranny, would be a very different proposition from holding down and occupying a few towns in Afghanistan.

The cost should be made even higher by Western Governments making it plain that they will impose sanctions and stop the flow of grain—I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that sanctions should be imposed against the Soviet Union and not Poland—if there is any further bullying and intervention from that quarter.

Let us send a message tonight to the Poles: "We will not be party to your subjugation. We are with you heart and soul and will do all in our power to end the tyranny that has been imposed on you."

9.23 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

We are all full of worry and anxiety about what is happening in Poland. Every hon. Member including the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), has stressed the concern that we all feel. However, I shall preface my remarks about Poland by stating that those who speak critically about what is occurring there should have spoken out against military rule and the destruction of democratic liberties elsewhere.

I find it difficult to understand the sincerity of anyone who expresses concern about Poland but who did not express concern about what happened in Chile in 1973 when a democratic Government were destroyed by a military junta and about all the killings and torture which occurred in Chile from 1973 onwards. In addition, there are those who will not speak out about El Salvador and those who will not campaign against the regime in South Africa. They find many reasons why it is not politic or relevant to speak out against the horrors which happen to millions of people in South Africa because of the colour of their skin. I have said that because I believe there is a distinction to be made between the Tory Members who protest about what happens under Communist Party rule—as is happening in Poland today—and those of us who speak out and will continue to do so against all attempts to violate human rights.

The reports that are coming from Poland are tragic. The confrontation on the streets and in the factories between the military and workers, the killings that have taken place in the last 10 days, the detention and arrest of thousands of active trade unionists are all reasons why there is such concern and anxiety in the British trade union movement. Those of us who believe in trade unionism and who think that it is part of the dignity of working people that they can organise at their place of production, protest about the way in which trade unionism in Poland today is being destroyed and so many people are being persecuted for no other reasons than that they are active members of Solidarity.

It has been said by the Polish authorities—it has been said for many years—that they are a workers' State. It is rather like a State, run on capitalist lines, which claims to be dedicated to the market economy, and yet kills and imprisons bankers, industrialists and financiers.

The development of Solidarity last year and the mass support that it undoubtedly received from many Polish people showed the remoteness of the controlling authorities in Poland. It showed that the Government, who had existed on and off for the past 35 years, were unrepresentative of the mass of the people. The emergence of Solidarity in the summer of 1980 was a welcome development. It illustrated the monopoly of power by the ruling party.

Democratic Socialists often argue that, if power is allowed to be vested in one party and there is no opposition, inevitably dictatorship and tyranny will come about. What is also important is that there was no democracy within the ruling party in Poland. The emergence of Solidarity meant not only that Polish working people could belong to genuine trade unions, because previously trade unions were very much part of the State machinery, but a new lease of life in Poland. For example, the Polish Parliament became alive again. It was not just a rubber stamp. Genuine debates took place—perhaps for the first time in many years. In other walks of life, people had the opportunity of writing, making films, and producing plays. That was very different from the pre-Solidarity Poland.

I realise that it is easy to criticise from the comfort of the British House of Commons; I have already expressed my admiration of and full support for Solidarity, but in my opinion—and it may only be my opinion here—there were elements within Solidarity which did not help the situation. There were elements within Solidarity which, in my opinion, were more concerned with changing basic matters in Poland than with genuine trade unionism.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that?

Mr. Winnick

I am explaining what I mean, and I am explaining it, in some cases, to people in this country who are not very keen on trade unions, if I might say so.

It is interesting that a leading article in The Economist echoes the sentiments that I have just expressed. Those elements within Solidarity—which are a minority—played into the hands of people in Poland and in the Soviet Union who wanted the destruction of Solidarity and the ending of the emergence of civil liberties which had occurred in Poland during the last 16 to 18 months. So it is unfortunate that the more responsible leadership in Solidarity did not prevail at all times.

The TUC has called for the release of all the people who have been detained. The manner in which a number of people have been arrested and held reminds me of the worst kind of Right-wing dictatorship. There can be no credibility for the Polish regime, the junta that is ruling at the moment, until it releases those who have been detained, and until it ends martial law and accepts what it stated 10 days ago, that Solidarity is here to stay. We expect the people now in positions of leadership in Poland to act on those words. This explains why the TUC has expressed so strongly its demand for the release of those who have been held over the last seven to 10 days.

Poland has a long history of anti-semitism. Hon. Members know what happened in Poland before the Second World War. Polish society, to a large extent, was diseased by anti-semitism. It is an unfortunate fact that there was seen again in 1968 a large amount of antisemitism in Polish society. How many people of Jewish origin were hounded only for the reason that they belonged to the that race? It is rather disturbing—I agree with the Lord Privy Seal, who mentioned this matter—that, to try to attract some popular support in Poland, the junta seems to be relying on the old Polish weapon of anti-semitism. I do not believe that it will succeed this time.

One wonders at times whether the Soviet leadership does not understand and appreciate that in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, although the situation may be different in countries like Hungary, the ruling parties are completely alienated from the population. In any meaningful genuine election it would be difficult, I imagine, for the Communist party in Poland, even before the events of the last 10 days, or in Czecholslovakia to receive more than 5 per cent. of the votes. Even that is perhaps a generous estimate.

Would it not be more sensible for the Soviet leadership—this will not happen today or tomorrow—to consider new arrangements for those countries? They would not be part of any Western alliance. They would be neutral. The State ownership that has emerged in the last 35 years would not be reversed. If, however, arrangements were made similar to those established between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1944 and 1945, this would not merely be better for the people living in Poland and Czechoslovakia, who would have Governments more acceptable to them, but would mean that the Soviet Union was not the subject of so much hate and dislike. In countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia people say, understandably, that they cannot get a more popular Government because of the Soviet Union. These are wider questions, but I believe that they are relevant to consider in order to avoid the bloodshed and tragedy that is taking place in Poland today.

9.33 pm

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

The House debates tonight, unfortunately briefly, a national tragedy that has incalculable possibilities. It is a pleasure for once to move from the parochial trivialities that characterise most of the preoccupations of the House into the infinitely more important realms of issues of liberty and tyranny, courage and cruelty, humanity and inhumanity and peace and war. For a brief moment hon. Members confront the harsh realities of the world we inhabit and the privations and agonies of our fellow citizens of Europe.

For 20 years I have seen Poland and my Polish friends pass through a series of upheavals, disappointments, hopes and false dawns—a brave and fine people kicking out furiously but intermittently against a series of regimes that promised much but which invariably turned out to be inept inheritors of the narrow and ruthless creed that has dominated their country since 1945.

But no uprising in Poland or elsewhere in Eastern Europe has been more devastating or as complete as that of Solidarity whose purpose is not simply that of trade union reform and better living standards. It has developed into a genuine national liberation movement in which sectors of Polish society normally antipathetic to each other have willingly joined forces. It was this combination that made it, and makes it still, so potent, so novel and so significant.

We should have no illusions. The events of the past 10 days represent a genuine intervention by the Soviet Union. Only the most naive can continue to regard it as an internal Polish affair. If the question is asked about what we can do, it is at least a considerable improvement upon the dreary and defeatest lament that we can do nothing.

As I said in the House last week, there was a case for strong official economic aid from the West to Poland before the military coup. There is no justification for it now. If such aid is needed, it must be dependent upon certain conditions. Private aid through established charities, as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said, is different. However, I am doubtful whether under the present circumstances much of that aid will reach its intended destination. But for Britain and its allies to give positive official aid and comfort to the present regime in Poland would be an act of betrayal not only of the Polish people but of the principles of British democracy and of our history.

The House may recall some lines written by an English poet in the summer of 1940, when she spoke of how Europe clanged shut, like a prison door, And men who loved us not yet looked to us for liberty". In the five years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have become increasingly oppressed by our concentration upon the local, the immediate and the trivial. When from time to time we debate the crucial issues that confront mankind, those debates are usually brief and perfunctorily attended. We have become the House of the rate support grant, of London Transport and of bypasses. While we endlessly haggle and chatter about those topics, the shadows of the real world are gathering with terrifying possibilities and menacing perils. The glimmer of the light of freedom in Poland has been extinguished, at least for the present. But Poland's agony is ours as well and must arouse uncomfortable questions about how deep our rhetoric of freedom goes and how solid is our commitment to the precious liberties for which we are supposed to stand.

These are sombre notes on which to approach the end of 1981. The future for the Polish people is bleak. Prospects for improved East-West relations and for serious negotiations on arms reduction have suffered a serious setback. There are few signs of light in the encircling gloom, but the problems will not disappear simply because the House of Commons prefers to exhaust itself on banalities. Although it is doubtful whether our message will reach the Polish people today, we should at least try. I commend to them and to the House the words from the penultimate speech from the Dispatch Box of Sir Winston Churchill. He said: The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."—[Official Report, 1 March 1955; Vol. 537, c. 1905.]

Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in the Standing Orders or the conventions of the House to assist hon. Members so that they do not have to endure two sets of Front Bench speeches in such a short debate? Is it not outrageous that, having wasted three hours on a phoney debate about London, we are now faced with the position that Members who have sat here throughout the debate are unable to make a contribution? In a short and important debate, should not the Front Benches forgo the opportunity to speak so that the voices of Back Benchers may be heard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is the convention of the House to call Front Bench speakers when they rise to speak.

Mr. Amery

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is open to hon. Members to oppose the Adjournment of the House, but rather than do that, as many hon. Members still wish to speak, could there not be a consensus between the two Front Benches to prolong the debate for, say, an hour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We will not discuss that now.

9.41 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)

I have already decided to cut my speech a great deal.

The debate has been not only serious and sombre, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that it would be. The whole House will agree that the Polish situation is tragic and dangerous. It is important for the House to make its views known and also make it clear that we shall intelligently do everything that we can positively to help the Polish people. Those who believe in democracy and freedom must declare their support for Solidarity and by diplomatic and other means put pressure on the Polish authorities to change direction.

With the growth of Solidarity we saw a new type of free and independent trade union movement develop in Poland. As was rightly said, it was unique in the Eastern European bloc. The last independent trade unions in the Eastern European bloc went out just after the Russian revolution. We must declare our support for Solidarity.

The Gdansk agreement of 31 August 1980 began by stating: The performance of trade unions in the Polish People's Republic does not fulfil the hopes and expectations of employees. It is considered expedient to establish new self-governing trade unions that would genuinely represent the working class. In a country with a Communist Party in control, supposedly representing the working class, it is admitted that neither the party nor the trade unions represent working people.

The agreement is a tremendous and historic document. As a result of it, freedom in Poland edged its way forward, with the bureaucratic society in Poland and in every other Communist-controlled country in Eastern Europe beginning to be undermined. The rulers of those countries have power and privileges and were not prepared enthusiastically to accept a new free trade union movement, so it was clear that sooner or later they would take action against the free trade unions in Poland because of the threat that they represented to their privileges and power.

Most of us feared that the action against Solidarity would come through direct military intervention from the Soviet Union, as happened in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. It did not happen like that, but it would be foolish for any of us not to recognise the hand of Moscow here. It is clear that the Polish generals could not have acted as they did had they not had the approval of the Soviet Government and the Soviet military.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heifer

No, I am sorry. I have only a few minutes in which to make my comments, and I want to give the Minister of State as much time as possible to reply to the debate.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, what we are witnessing in Poland is something unique, in the sense that we are seeing the demise of civilian party control and the development of military control. I agree that the old men of the Kremlin must be wondering what next. Not only the old men of the Kremlin must be wondering that. All bureaucratic Communist leaders in all parts of the world must be wondering what next, because of the military takeover.

As the Opposition and as the Labour Party, we believe that on issues such as human rights, trade union rights, freedom to publish and express one's opinion, the right of people to organise politically and to create political parties in a pluralist society and government by consent and democratic elections, there cannot be any double standards. That is why we are opposed to military or non-democratic Governments.

I say to those hon. Members who attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, (Mr. Winnick) that, whether it is Poland, Chile, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Italy in the past, South Africa or any country in the world where there is a non-democratic Government and no real freedom of expression, we as democratic socialists take our stand against such regimes. We do not believe in double standards. Therefore, we call upon the Polish authorities, first to lift the ban on meetings and trade union activity and to rescind the state of emergency; secondly, to release all those who have been detained under the emergency powers; and thirdly, swiftly to return to civilian rule.

I shall not argue about unilateral or multilateral disarmament this evening. What is at stake is peace and detente in Europe—and that means in the world. If the Soviet Union intervenes, there is no question but that world peace is put in the balance. Surely every hon. Member must make it clear that we cannot accept that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said that there were people in Solidarity who went too far. In that sense, he is echoing the words of The Times on 16 December. Its editorial stated: The radicals in Solidarity overplayed their hand". Such arguments ignore the reality of what is happening in Poland. There is there an attempt to crush an entire labour movement, involving millions of working people. There must be an alternative to that. The actions or words of a few radicals within the labour movement in Poland can never be used to justify attempts to crush the entire movement.

The Polish Communist Party has had the option of fully implementing the Gdansk agreement and giving the Polish people a real stake in power. By rejecting that course, the leaders of the Communist Party created the radical mood inside Solidarity, and it forced Solidarity to become political. I do not agree with my friend Arthur Scarg who says "It got beyond a union; they became political". If people have no freedom, what is it expected that they will become but political? For me, politics means that anyone who wants to form a political organisation or trade union organisation to advance freedom has the right to do so.

Lastly, are the Government prepared to accede to the Austrian request that Britain takes its fair share of refugees? What will be done in that direction?

9.50 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce)

Without a shadow of doubt this has been a very moving debate, albeit a shortened debate, much to the regret of not only myself but many of my hon. Friends; but that was the decision of the House earlier today.

This is a matter of the greatest importance not only to the Poles but to ourselves in Britain and to the world. It is time, and it is right, that the voice of the British House of Commons should be heard on this crucial issue that faces the world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

That voice has not been heard.

Mr. Luce

All of us watch and share, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said in his moving speech, the agony of the Polish people. That agony is not only real but symbolic, because it bears witness to the continuing struggle of those who aspire to individual liberty. It is a struggle that is constantly carried on against the forces that wish to impose collective State repression. That again is something that affects not just one country but all the countries of the world.

We all heard the extremely impressive speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about some aspects of the history of Poland. We know that the Poles are prisoners of their geography and their history. We know of their struggle for independence and for national identity. We know of their constant desire to assume or reassume a democratic way of life, which they started in the fourteenth century. Yet always, because of their geography, they have been prisoners of their surrounding nations: in the eighteenth century it was Austria, Prussia and Russia; in the nineteenth century we saw the Soviet Union dominate Poland throughout that century, and this century we see a repeat performance.

I believe that amongst the Poles in the last century the cry was "The Cossacks are coming". The great fear in their hearts was that they were about to be repressed yet again. The kind of fear exists again today.

We know of the distinctive strength of the Church of that country. When I went there as a student, on Sundays I saw every church full of people, and people outside who wished to attend the services. We know of that distinctive feature of the Polish people.

The debate has focused on how we can help the people of Poland without creating—because this seems to be their dilemma—greater prospects of bloodshed and violence, and even war. Three main points seem to emerge from the debate.

First, there is the question of food aid, a matter that was raised by the right hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), by the hon. Members for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) and for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), among others. Acute anxiety was expressed that we should continue to provide food aid but only if it were distributed to the people and not seen as supporting the Government of Poland.

As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, that is our policy, and it is a matter that we are discussing within the European Community. That is something that interests the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, who attaches great importance to the work being undertaken in Brussels today and tomorrow. We are studying how we can achieve the objective of getting food to the people of Poland, which is the major desire of the House.

The second main point of interest that emerged was the question of detainees and of individual liberty. My right hon. Friends the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it plain to the Polish Government that, if they persist in leading their nation further down the path of oppression, normal relations with them will not be possible. That applies whether we are talking about the problems of detainees—which was raised so expressively and forcefully by hon. Members today—or about other issues that will come before us in 1982. When questions of economic assistance are raised, those matters must come within the criteria that I have set out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) raised the question of economic assistance and said that it must be dependent upon a return to normality. This is a factor that we have to take into account when the Western nations are working out their common action.

Sir Bernard Braine

There must be no deportation.

Mr. Luce

I should like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am anxious to try to answer all the points in a short time.

It is critical that the United Kingdom and the rest of the world should proclaim their support for the aspirations of the Polish people. That is one of the reasons why we shall increase the hours of broadcasting to the Polish people from tomorrow morning, as announced earlier by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. We must do all that we can to help the Polish people achieve their objectives peacefully and through what they describe as the process of renewal. That means that Solidarity and the Church, as well as the Government, have to work together. To this end it is essential to minimise the prospects of direct foreign intervention, because the consequences for us and for relations between East and West will be profound and grave.

Another matter—it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—is the importance of a co-ordinated Western approach to the problems of Poland and the Eastern bloc as a whole. That is why it is right that we should concentrate our attention upon co-ordination of discussion within NATO and with the European Community and other countries.

Many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) spoke of the post-war Soviet satellite system of which Poland is a part. They demonstrated the view of the House when they talked of the moral, spiritual and economic bankruptcy of the system.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put and negatived.