§ 3.10 p.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 how their delegation at the United Nations General Assembly voted on the 215 Charter of Economic Rights and Privileges on 12th December 1974, and what the reasons were for their vote.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, a substantial proportion of the Charter was unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government and, in company with a number of other countries, the United Kingdom delegation voted against the resolution incorporating the text of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, when the Minister says, "in company with a number of other nations" is it not the case that in fact this Resolution was carried by 120 votes, with only six against, and unfortunately the British vote went against? Is it not the case that the object of this Charter was to affirm the right of every State to choose its own form of society without outside interference, coercion or threat? Should not the British vote have gone in favour of that principle?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the figures given by my noble friend Lord Brockway are subject, perhaps, to addition, in that apart from the six who voted against, 10 abstained. The number of votes for the Resolution was 120, among them not only members of the Third World but other members such as the OPEC countries. On the second point raised by my noble friend, that this Charter sets out to ensure that member-States have control over their own economic destiny, I am afraid this is not the interpretation which I and, indeed, Her Majesty's Government, place on this document. Its fundamental flaw, so far as we are concerned—and we have a good record in these matters in the United Nations—is that in toto it seems to be at variance with the rules of international law.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it is not time for us to express our honest view in the United Nations on these matters, and not dedicate ourselves to a phoney consensus?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I entirely agree that it is time for frankness. Among the countries which found it impossible to vote for this 216 Charter, however well meaning, were not only the United Kingdom but countries like Canada, Israel, Ireland—a number of countries whose votes count for one but whose opinions, one would hope, carry certain weight in the committee stages and certainly in the full debate in the General Assembly.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, while recognising the necessity for some change in the United Nations so that votes represent peoples rather than small States, is it not the case that this Charter sought to define the right of each State to determine its own kind of society, and is that not a principle which the British Government should have supported?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that right is already very adequately enshrined in a number of other Charters, and indeed in the central statement of the purposes of the United Nations. With all respect, I do not see that that is the purport of this document. No doubt my noble friend has read it, as I have, and it might be useful if he and I were to discuss our very varying views on what it sets out to do.
§ Earl COWLEYMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any of the industrialised Powers voted in favour of the Charter?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I find great difficulty in thinking of an example on those lines. I will look at the list. I do not think an industrialised Power outside the Communist group voted for it.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, would it not be better if the nations of this world kept to the Charters they have already signed, instead of inventing new ones?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I quite agree. This country has as good a record as any in keeping to the Charters to which it has acceded. We want to see a Charter on this subject to which we can honourably accede.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has repudiated my interpretation of this Charter, is it not the case that these are its terms:
Every State has and shall freely exercise full permanent sovereignty, including possession, 217 use and disposal over all wealth, natural resources and economic activities, and has the right to regulate and supervise the actions of trans-national corporations.Is that not a principle which a Labour Government should have supported?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it was not in dispute in regard to this document, and never has been in dispute. What is in dispute is how that is translated in relation to the rules of international law. I will not go into detail, but I think that in due course the British view will be found to be well founded by a number of well-meaning countries who, indeed, put their signatures to this Charter.