HL Deb 23 April 1985 vol 462 cc1010-2

2.57 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards Indonesian policy in East Timor and whether the Prime Minister made representations on it during the recent visit to Indonesia.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, East Timor was one of a number of issues which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised with President Soeharto during her recent visit to Indonesia. The content of the discussions is of course confidential, but I can assure the noble Lord that the Indonesian Government are well aware of our position on East Timor.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on East Timor? Does he agree that the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor is as serious a breach of international law as was the invasion by the Argentine of the Falkland Islands?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we believe that the problem of East Timor is best resolved between Indonesia and Portugal, the parties directly involved, and the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government hope that a fair solution, acceptable to all concerned, can be found by diplomatic means.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there are two problems in regard to East Timor? One is the abuse of human rights; there is also the failure to achieve self-determination. Is it not the case that the right honourable and learned gentleman the Home Secretary in January said that Her Majesty's Government were in fact in favour of human rights in East Timor? Did the Prime Minister press these two matters?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we deplore abuses of human rights wherever they occur, and the Indonesians are well aware of our position on that matter. We believe that this problem, as I said, is best resolved by discussions between the parties principally concerned; and those discussions have our blessing.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in addition to the repression of self-determination in East Timor, the Indonesian Government have one of the worst records in the world on the suppression of human rights? Does not the attitude of the Government on these issues, compared with the commendable protest which the Foreign Secretary made in Poland, indicate that these principles are subordinate to whether a country supports the West or the East in their confrontation?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that is not so. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we deplore abuses of human rights wherever they may occur and we lose no opportunity of expressing our views in appropriate cases.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the negotiations of which he speaks have now been going on for at least 10 years without result? If he and the Government are so concerned about human rights, how is it that this Government continue to supply the Indonesian Government with arms, including the Hawk fighter, and abstain when the issue goes before the United Nations?

Lord Trefgame

My Lords, it is true that the negotiations between the Indonesians and the Portuguese have been going on for a long time. That is why we so much welcomed the move of the United Nations Secretary-General in this matter, which was of course much more recent, and we hope that this will lead the way to a solution.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords—

Viscount Whitelaw

No, my Lords. I was very generous to the noble Lord. Last Thursday when he was not present—I wish that he had been—there was a debate on the report of the Procedure Committee which concerned Starred Questions. That stated that there was no automatic right of the noble Lord who asked the first Question to speak again at the end. Being in a very generous mood, I gave the noble Lord the opportunity to ask his next question but it was against my better judgment. My better judgment would have been to stop him beforehand. I allowed him to go on, and having allowed him to do so I really do not think that I should allow him to go on any more.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, on a point of order, will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House agree—and I was present for part of the debate last Thursday—that it was a widely expressed view, though not a universally expressed one, that those who had tabled Questions should be allowed to pursue a Question if the original Answer was not satisfactory, and that that view was expressed on various sides of the House during that debate?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord will read the report of the debate last Thursday, as a whole, he will find that the decision of the House was that there was no automatic right for a Member to have a second question. I think that that was clearly expressed on all sides of the House. Despite that, I gave the noble Lord the opportunity to ask his second supplementary question. I think that a lot of noble Lords might have thought that I was much too kind to the noble Lord. I thought that I was very kind to him. I hope that he will not try my patience further because if I am too kind the next time I shall know that the best way to proceed will be to be much less kind.