| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.30 pm
Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): I have raised the issue of Cyprus in many previous Adjournment debates, and it is particularly appropriate to do so again today, because it was decided only yesterday that there will be a referendum on 24 April in both the Greek Cypriot republic and in the occupied part of Cyprus on the Annan plan to unite the island. If the result were yes in both referendums, Cyprus would enter the European Union in its entirety on 1 May 2004. If either side were to vote no, only the republic of Cyprus would join the EU on 1 May.
I have wanted a free, united and democratic Cyprus for as long as I can remember. Now that we are on the threshold of a decision, I should be pleased. Yet I am not. More importantly, tens of thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots are not pleased either. There is particular anger in the Greek Cypriot community in Cyprus and in this country—and for some very good reasons. I should like to mention just a few of those reasons to give a flavour of the failings of the Annan proposals.
Annan does away with the many UN resolutions against Turkey concerning Cyprus. Annan suggests that many of the cases against Turkey before the European Court of Human Rights should be withdrawn. Annan will allow a continuing Turkish military presence in Cyprus. Annan proposes an almost two-state Cyprus, as was always wanted by the putative leader of the occupied territory, Mr. Denktash. Annan allows no real freedom of movement. Annan allows decades before property and land will be sorted out for the 200,000 Greek Cypriots who fled in 1974 as a result of the Turkish occupation.
Annan does not guarantee full functionality so that the new state can function smoothly within the EU. Annan does not resolve the situation of the enclaved and does not allow voting rights for the hundreds of thousands of Greek Cypriots affected by the occupation in 1974 who now live abroad, but he does allow the voting rights of the tens of thousands of Anatolians who were imported into Cyprus from Turkey.
I have not exhausted the reasons for the genuine anger of the Greek Cypriots, and I have not noted the anger of Turkish Cypriots who feel politically emasculated by the Turkish presence. Our Government, in their rush to sort out one problem and commence on another problem—to start negotiating with Turkey for EU membership—back up all that confusion and anger. I sincerely hope that the Foreign Office will bear those difficulties in mind. I also hope that the Greek Cypriots will vote no in the referendum on 24 April.
Bob Spink: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's list and I noticed that he failed to mention that Annan also makes no proposals to provide incentives for settlers to return to mainland Turkey. That is another negative point about the Annan proposals.
Dr. Vis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That could easily be done: plans are afoot, but Annan makes no contribution.
I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a pleasant recess.
5.34 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): We have had an excellent debate. As is always the case with such debates, it showed the House in its best light, as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides raised subjects of genuine concern to them and their constituents. We have even heard about the Shrimpers, who I gather were robbed by a referee's decision—that, at least, is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).
The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) raised the subject of Cyprus, as did other Members. The whole House sends the people of Cyprus our wish that they find a way forward that unites them and enables them to join the European Union as one country.
Mr. Heald: Indeed. But the widely shared concerns that have been expressed are about the exact mechanics of the process.
There was much discussion of the situation in Wales and of the Richard commission. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) is no longer in the Chamber, as I wanted to give him some extremely bad news from a book called "Ayes to the Left", written in 1995 by the present Leader of the House, and in which he describes the future for Wales. He wrote:
- "A Welsh Parliament would begin by having its own legislative powers confined . . . But in time—and as Britain moved towards a federal structure—greater legislative and revenue raising powers could be obtained."
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) came up with a principle that found strong support on the Conservative Benches—indeed, we might even describe it in future as the Lucas principle. It was that there should be a referendum on matters that involve constitutional changes. That is a principle that finds ready acceptance among my hon. Friends and, indeed, among Members on both sides of the House—even the Liberal Democrats appear to be nodding.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the case of the Conservative party, that principle would be entirely novel?
Mr. Heald: I forget how many referendums the Government have held—about 37 so far.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): How many have the Conservatives held?
Mr. Heald: We have had the odd one or two, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, although I think in fact it was only one—[Interruption.] Yes, yes. We had one.
Mr. Heald: The Ulster border poll. Not everyone can remember that. The hon. Gentleman is clearly a strong Unionist. His attack on the National Assembly for Wales may have been slightly veiled, but he clearly was not keen that the Assembly should succeed in its ambition to have the right to make primary legislation. He was not at all keen on what the Assembly had done to the health service in Wales, and he seemed to feel that the lack of top-up fees in Wales would cause considerable difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, went all the way. He said that the bonfire of the quangos had not occurred and made it extremely clear that he would resist giving the Assembly any further powers. It would be interesting to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons—especially given his boss's position—what his perspective is on those issues. Will he follow what the present Leader of the House was saying in 1995, so that the process is more and more in favour of a devolved Parliament; or will he tell us that enough is enough and that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the Richard commission has got far too big for its boots?
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made some interesting remarks—as usual. I recall especially his comments on mobile phone masts—a subject of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I am certainly concerned; indeed, last night I presented a petition from Royston with 1,633 signatures. The petition was against a mast that NTL had to remove because it did not comply with planning permission, but the company plans to put it up again right next to a primary school, so of course parents are saying that they may have to take their children away from the school. EDF, the owner of the site, has offered to forgo the rent if NTL leaves the site, so its contractual obligations would cease. A local councillor, Tony Hunter, spent
hours looking for an alternative site, yet when he found one, NTL would not even negotiate with the land agents. The subject is dear to my heart, and I shall mention it again—that is a promise.We had some very interesting contributions about trains. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned his service in Hastings. We heard a strong plea for the Croxley link, from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). We also heard a strong plea that the docklands light railway should join up with Hornchurch.
The debate had a rural flavour, with contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I should not forget that we want Major Perkins to get his tax refund. I hope that the Minister has written that one down.
On law and order, we had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and a cameo intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). The point that they were making is that, under this Government, criminals have become quite brazen and are robbing people, even in daylight. There just are not enough police on the beat in south Essex. That is why the local paper is running the strong campaign that we heard about. However, the more general point is that policing seems to have become a very intellectual exercise these days, with intelligence-led policing and a reactive approach to policing. A lot of people believe that a strong, visible police presence on the streets is required if we are to have the firm control that we need in our society.
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) referred to terrorism and made some important points about the law. We also heard a strong plea about the war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I join in his plea to the Government about Nigeria. It is wrong that someone who is clearly a war criminal, or at least indicted as such, should be given safe haven in a Commonwealth country.
On defence, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) again raised the issue of equipment for our armed forces. It seems shocking that there are three examples in a relative small area of the country where the kit that the armed forces need simply was not available. Although he did not mention this, one of the most startling parts of the report on the issue was the reference to tanks not having the correct filters to deal with certain weapons of mass destruction. The Government's reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, so to send our boys in to fight in tanks that did not have the kit to deal with such weapons seems very irresponsible. Time should be made available to debate that issue and for the Government to make a statement about what will happen, as well as to debate the investigations issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) raised castles and conveniences, Mr. Varah's early departure from the probation service and Abbeyfield homes. I should be grateful if the Minister touched on those issues in replying to the debate.
The debate has been wide ranging, touching on subjects of importance in many areas and covering geography as far apart as Sierra Leone, Guatanamo bay and the docklands light railway. It is traditional on these occasions to wish all hon. Members on both sides of the House a very merry and happy Easter recess, and I am happy to do so, especially to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also thank all the people who do so much in the House of Commons to help Members—all the staff who work here, the Clerks and those who keep us safe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |