§ 3.2 p.m.
§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether, in view of the recent meeting between President Bush and the Dalai Lama, the Prime Minister will now agree to meet the Tibetan leader.
§ Baroness Ewart-BiggsMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, disappointing though it was. In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government loyally follow the United States' Government down so many avenues—in some cases some of us feel wrongly—will he agree that this is an initiative which we might safely and rightly emulate? Can the Minister say what discussions took place and what representations the Foreign Secretary made to the Beijing Government when he recently visited China? Further, can the noble Lord give the House an idea of the number of political prisoners in Tibet and the number of prisoners held without trial by the Chinese authorities in that country?
§ Lord ReayMy Lords, I am not aware of any current plans by the Dalai Lama to visit the United Kingdom. Therefore, the noble Baroness's question is hypothetical. At what level he would be received on any future occasion would be a matter for decision at that time. With regard to his recent visit, as the Dalai Lama is a political as well as a spiritual figure, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State decided 753 that it would not be appropriate for them, or any Foreign Office Minister, to meet him. In our view such a meeting would be open to misconstruction.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to clarify the Government's policy on Tibet? For example, do the Government believe in self-determination for Tibet and, if so, what action are they taking to promote it? Further, why are the Government treating the Dalai Lama who, as the noble Lord just said, is the political and spiritual head of Tibet, differently from leaders from Lithuania and the Baltic countries? Will the Minister tell the House precisely how they propose to deal with the problem?
§ Lord ReayMy Lords, as regards our policy towards Tibet, successive British Governments have regarded that country as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities in the area. That continues to be the Government's view.
§ Lord Wyatt of WeefordMy Lords, are the Government being so wet about Tibet because they are afraid that the Chinese will make even more difficulties over Hong Kong? Are they not aware that weakness in the face of the Chinese is always a disaster, but that strength brings rewards?
§ Lord ReayMy Lords, of course we wish to have a co-operative relationship with China. We have a responsibility for 6 million people in Hong Kong and it is important to maintain a dialogue with China on Hong Kong if we are to achieve a smooth and successful transition in 1997. However, it would be wrong for us on that account to ignore human rights abuses in Tibet; nor do we do so.
During the recent visit which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State paid to China, he emphasised our concern about Tibet, and human rights generally in China, both to the Chinese Foreign Minister and to the General Secretary. He spoke of the strong feelings in Britain about the situation in Tibet.
§ Baroness StrangeMy Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Prime Minister has shown a stalwart, splendid and statesman-like attitude in all his dealings with the Kurds in Kurdistan? Therefore, would it not be very good in every way for Britain if he were at least to have the courtesy to receive the spiritual head of Tibet when he next visits this country?
§ Lord ReayMy Lords, I take note of my noble friend's observation. However, I believe that I have already answered that question.