§ 11.15 a.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy 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 they have now acceded to the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 30, 1973.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSNo, my Lords. We strongly condemn apartheid and have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Convention on Apartheid, however, contains provisions which would violate the principles of international law concerning the proper exercise of international criminal jurisdiction. In our view, the problem of racial discrimination is more effectively dealt with in the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which we shall continue strictly to observe.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, apart from expressing my disappointment with that reply, may I ask the Minister this question? In view of the fact that we have made racial discrimination illegal in this country, would it not be consistent to support a Convention which would make the practice of apartheid illegal in international law?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am surprised at my noble friend's disappointment. I would have thought, on reading both Conventions, that the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would stand out as being infinitely preferable to the somewhat hurried and indefinite Convention which he seems to favour. I would add that it does seem that international opinion throughout the world supports the British view, in that 20 ratifications are needed for that Convention to be implemented and there has been only one so far, that from Hungary.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, with reference to the foreign word employed in the Question, would the Minister give his understanding of the English interpretation of this foreign word?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the best I can do is "apartness".
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, does "apartness" constitute a crime under English law?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, this is one of the questions which should have been gone into very carefully before the Convention was somewhat hurriedly put together after the Resolution; only a very few weeks intervened between the Resolution of the United Nations and the promulgation of an actual Convention. One of the reasons why we do not so far subscribe to this Convention is precisely that it is seen to be repugnant both to principles of international law and to our own law.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have read both these Conventions, and is he aware that this Convention was adopted by an overwhelming majority within the United Nations? When he says that it was reached hurriedly, is he aware that for two years it was considered by UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights and other organisations, and prepared with very great care?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, my noble friend is entitled to his view, and so are Her Majesty's Government. There is evidence that there was a somewhat short interval between the adoption of the Resolution and the pro-mulgation of the Convention. I go no 1317 further. As to the acceptability of this Convention as drafted, I would remind the noble Lord that presumably like he other people have read both drafts, and we find that while 20 ratifications are necessary so far only one ratification has been forthcoming, that of Hungary. Indeed, only 12 others have gone so far as to sign, and they are mostly confined to the Continent of Africa and to Eastern Europe.
§ Earl COWLEYMy Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the majority of us on this side of the House deplore apartheid, and long to see the day when it is brought to an end?