HL Deb 15 February 1971 vol 315 cc351-3

2.43 p.m.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the uncivilised action taken by the U.S.S.R. against her Jewish subjects, which is a serious violation of the Declaration of Human Rights, they will take steps in conjunction with other signatories to that declaration to deal with this grave situation.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN)

My Lords, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is acknowledged as setting certain standards to which United Nations Member States should aspire; but it has no binding force in international law. There is no machinery to implement its principles. None the less, the noble Lord's suggestion is one which we shall certainly consider most carefully.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, may I ask him whether he will take note of the fact that the U.S.S.R., in addition to every other country, signed that Declaration; that they committed themselves to performing acts, and that there are now flagrant denials and flagrant examples of their avoidance of what they declared in the Declaration of Human Rights? Is the noble Marquess aware that the U.S.S.R. themselves have in their constitution the very principles against which they are acting now, in the terrible manner in which they are treating these subjects? In these circumstances does he not think that some method could be found to enable nations that have signed the Declaration to join together in protesting against these actions Otherwise, what is the point of the Declaration itself?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I think, to start off with, that the Declaration was in the form of a resolution, and there were no signatories as such to it. I believe I am also right in saying that the U.S.S.R. abstained on this resolution in 1948. However, as I said in my original reply, we are willing to look at the possibilities of joint action in this matter, because I myself feel—and I hope the House will agree—that in an affair of this sort unilateral action may sometimes do more harm than good.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, may I ask the Minister to step up the condemnation of refusal of this basic human right, the right to leave and to return to one's country, in the Human Rights Committee, and to do a little self-advertising for the democratic countries who are really strong on this right?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me whether we would step up our representations in the Committee. I can assure her that what she has said will be taken into account in this matter.

LORD BURNTWOOD

My Lords, when I raised a similar Question a little while ago, an undertaking was given, as I understood at the time, that the advice of the Foreign Secretary would be taken on whether there could be some informal negotiations in this matter. Those of us who sympathise with many of the aspirations and problems of the U.S.S.R. would like to think that they might alter their policy in the light of world opinion.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I certainly undertook to inform my right honourable friend of the noble Lord's remarks at that time, and indeed I have done so. But, as he will realise, it is not very long since his last Question, and I am afraid I have no further information at the moment.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, while I protested publicly against the death sentences imposed on the hijacking Jews, subsequently reprieved, and against a denial of the right of Jews in the U.S.S.R. to go to Israel, may I ask whether we are not getting this issue a little out of proportion? And may we not be prejudicing the actual right of Jews to leave the U.S.S.R. and to go to Israel if we do not recognise that a large number of Jews in the U.S.S.R. are content to be citizens there and that the cause of peace may be affronted if we exaggerate the anti-Semitism issue?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, to some extent I agree with the noble Lord, in that the action of going in too hard lends to be counter-productive. But I also feel, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Janner, feels (otherwise he would not have asked this Question), that sometimes international opinion can be used to solve this type of problem.

LORD SLATER

My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that if it is correct, as is reported, that the Prime Minister will in all probability be making a visit to the U.S.S.R., then in the course of his talks with the President of the U.S.S.R. the Prime Minister could bring this matter into conversation, to see whether something could be done which might lead to a form of agreement whereby the position could be eased?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I will certainly take up what the noble Lord has just said on this point and will pass on his remarks.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that similar arguments were used with regard to suppressive action being taken at the time when the Nazis came into force? Is it not obvious that if the U.S.S.R. want to be regarded as part and parcel of a civilized world they must be told by the world at large that they are performing uncivilised actions? Have they released any of these people? Are they not still proceeding with trials against innocent people? And are they not at the present time preventing men and women whose parents and relatives were murdered in Nazi camps from joining their other relatives? Can any action, however strong, be too strong to protest against that kind of position?