Madrid Conference on Security and Co-operation (Hansard, 13 December 1982)

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

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the conference resumed on 9th November. Together with our partners and allies, we have drawn attention to violations of the Helsinki Final Act, particularly by the Soviet Union and Poland, and have stressed the need for a balanced and substantive concluding document covering all areas of the Final Act. To this end, we have jointly put forward amendments to the draft concluding document tabled by the neutral and non-aligned countries.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that informative, if somewhat depressing, reply, I should like to ask whether the continued refusal of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries to honour the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement in so far as contact between peoples is concerned, does not make total nonsense of the claim by Mr. E. P. Thompson and other leaders of the so-called peace movement that their organisation has serious ramifications on the other side of the Iron Curtain?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, we have continually pressed the Soviet Union and its allies on human rights, and. of course, CSCE is concerned largely, but not exclusively, with that subject. I would agree with my noble friend that there are considerably greater human rights in the western part of Europe than in the eastern.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I think the noble Lord on the Front Bench might perhaps agree that the peace movement in this country does not, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, have serious ramifications in Eastern Europe. What it has sought to do is to make contacts in that area. Is it not the case that peace cannot be assured unless such contacts are established, both officially and unofficially?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I would say that that was exactly the point of a conference such as is currently being held in Madrid. Talks cannot be anything but good. The question is whether what the noble Lord called unofficial talks will have the desired effect, and will effectively do better than the official talks. I rather doubt it.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, bearing in mind the last question and answer, does my noble friend not think that it would be a good idea if the activists at home were to hold their horses until they have made their contacts abroad and they look like producing something equivalent?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, it is an undeniable human right in this country, and I think I am right in saying in the whole of Western Europe, that people should be allowed to make their views known with all the force at their command. It is possible, of course, to go off at a slight tangent. So I would agree with my noble friend, at least as far as he goes, that one should think very carefully before demonstrating, or whatever, for or against a particular point of view.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, can he say whether the Government are pressing for amendments to the final draft on the subject of human rights? If I may refer to a specific case, can the noble Lord say what the response of the British Government is to the appeal by the three wives of the dissidents in Russia who are suffering under the Soviet Government, one of whom I think is Doctor Orlov? Can the noble Lord say what we are doing about that specific case?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's specific point, but I shall of course take the opportunity to write to him. As regards the amendments which are still required to the draft final document, there are, in fact, five of them, four of which concern human rights. Amendments are required, first, on human contacts; secondly, on experts meeting on human rights in the future; thirdly, on the position of trade unions; and fourthly, on official monitoring groups for the Helsinki Final Act. Last but by no means least, there is a conference on disarmament proposed in the draft Final Act and one of our objectives is to seek a real mandate for this and also agreement on the zone of its application.

Lord Broekway
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that during these long discussions the non-aligned nations have sought to bring agreement between the two sides? Is he aware that, while one denounces passionately the denial of human liberty in the Soviet Union, there have also been charges against the western countries? Is it the case that the communiqué of the neutral nations is of such a character that agreement is likely to be reached? Also, what is the Government's attitude to the proposal for a European disarmament conference?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Broekway, that without the non-aligned nations the current draft document would not be on the table and the Government are extremely grateful to them for that. However, it is also true to say that both sides need an amplification of it and want to make changes to it. I am afraid I have lost the other point that the noble Lord raised. Perhaps he would care to repeat it.

Lord Elvvyn-Jones
My Lords, is it perhaps possible to generate more action by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in this field? They have the power at any rate to inquire, and possibly even to interpose from time to time.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the possibility is always there.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, would my noble friend agree with my experience in the United Nations, that it is difficult to come to any terms on human rights with the Soviet Union, who do not recognise that there is a problem of human rights?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I do not have the experience to which my noble friend refers; I was not in her place at the time. However, I should think that on balance she is probably right.

Lord Broekway
My Lords, while appreciating the Minister's reply to me, I should like to repeat the question which he apparently missed. What is the attitude of the Government to the proposal at this conference for a European disarmament conference?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier supplementary question—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broekway, for repeating his own—we very much take the point that it should be there, but with the provisos that I mentioned earlier; namely, that there must be a real mandate and there must be agreement on the zone of application before it can become effective.