§ 23. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)How many Ministers of the Government of Chile have visited his Department since 2 May 1997. [79969]
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)We are aware of eight visits by Chilean Ministers during this period. I have met the Foreign Minister, JoséInsulza, and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mariano Fernandez. I meet JoséInsulza again tomorrow for breakfast.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIs the Foreign Secretary aware that only two of Her Majesty's Ministers have visited Chile 696 since his Government came to power—the Lord Clinton-Davis and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)? Is it not the case that, if rather more Ministers had visited, there would be a better understanding of that country as it now is, rather than a mentality locked in the 1960s and early 1970s? Is it not the case that Chile desires good relations with the United Kingdom four times as much as Britain does with Chile?
§ Mr. CookAs I said, I have already met both Foreign Ministers of Chile, and I meet the senior one again tomorrow. We have had regular contact and dialogue with them, and we have encouraged them also to understand the nature of modern Britain, where the rule of law applies and the Government intend to uphold the due judicial process. This is the umpteenth time at Question Time that the hon. Gentleman has invited us to depart from the due legal process, which we have no intention of doing.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)When my right hon. Friend has met Chilean Ministers, have they said that they are grateful to this country for the way in which, in 1974, when a Labour Government were elected, we gave asylum to so many Chileans who were fleeing from the terror following the coup of 1973? Is that not a great tribute to our country? Is it not a fact that those who found asylum in Britain at the time well understand what is happening and want the rule of law to continue?
§ Mr. CookMy hon. Friend makes a fair point. The decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was taken in a quasi-judicial role and with the strict application of the legal rules. It was not taken in response to public opinion. However, if we are being invited to have regard to public opinion in Chile, it is important for the House to recognise that there is more than one opinion in Chile. The last opinion poll in Chile found that the public were split down the middle on whether it was right for Senator Pinochet to be detained in the United Kingdom for extradition and trial in Europe.
§ Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)When the Foreign Secretary has breakfast with the Chilean Minister tomorrow morning, will he make it clear that it would have been lawful for the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion so that Senator Pinochet could be returned to Chile? Will he also make it clear that he will raise a protest over the stopping of LanChile flights to the Falkland Islands at the end of last month as a direct result of the Government's treatment of visitors to this country from Chile? The matter is of great concern to the Falkland islanders, who believe that the Government have sacrificed them on the altar of their own incompetence.
§ Mr. CookLanChile's decision was a decision made by LanChile as a company, not by the Chilean Government—and the Chilean Government have no right to order it to resume a service, any more than I have the right to order any airline to resume a service.
As for the hon. Lady's wider point, the Home Secretary made a decision involving strict application of the legal rules, having regard to the due process, and rightly decided that this was a matter for the courts, not politicians, to decide. There was a time when the 697 Conservative party prided itself on the rule of law; that pride deserts it when the rule of law is applied to one of its own political cronies.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The relationship between the House of Commons and the courts is always very delicate. May I refer to questions 8, 9 and 13, which dealt with Lockerbie? We shall have to study what was actually said in Hansard, but it seemed to some of us who have spoken to the lawyers acting for Pan Am's executors, and to 698 Professor Black, the professor of Scots law, that to say much about this subject is sailing very close to the wind. Will you reflect on what was said, Madam Speaker, and possibly make some ruling on what can be said in the House in future? After all, a trial is about to start at Zeist.
§ Madam SpeakerI was conscious of the exchanges that took place today, and I very much doubt that they offended against the sub judice rule—if, indeed, such a rule applies. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, however: I want to give some careful thought to the matter, and I hope that he will allow me to do so.