| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while everyone can see the advantages to this country and to all third countries in adopting an even-handed stance between the two sides in all conflicts everywhere in the world, is it not rather obvious that the greatest single contribution to the solution of the Cyprus problem at the moment would be for the Turkish Government to heed the repeated declarations by the Security Council and remove their army of occupation so that the peaceful settlement between the communities which we all desire could begin?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no. It is not as simple as the noble Lord implies. The most sensible decision would be for both sides to take measures which reduced rather than increased tension. There is no doubt about that. A significant reduction in Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus would improve the climate for negotiations. The only sensible direction is for the number of arms and troops on both sides to go down. That is what we have to work for.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, while I express some surprise that the deployment of a purely defensive
system can be regarded as provocative, has the Minister any information to judge upon what threat assessment the Greek Cypriots thought it necessary to deploy sophisticated missile systems such as the SAM 10?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that I cannot tell the noble Lord upon what threat assessment their decision was based. There is a great deal of threat making going on at the margins. Although it will take some 18 months before there is a delivery of these SAM 10 missiles, we should in no way underestimate the seriousness of what is going on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say to what extent, if any, Russian intervention has exacerbated the situation? Generally, is there some hidden Russian policy in this area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend highlights a suspicion held, I know, by many, but we have no evidence to support what he suggests. We know that these SAM 10 missiles are available. The fact that they came from Russia was no surprise, but we have no evidence at present that it is part of Russian policy.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may strongly endorse what the Minister said about the need for restraint on both sides in what is turning out to be a very unfortunate military escalation in Cyprus. Will the Minister say what is the timetable now for trying to bring the two sides together in talks to negotiate the kind of long-term settlement to which she referred earlier in her response?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the way in which we are going about this matter. The Security Council has of course been unanimous in calling for a cessation of the arms build-up in Cyprus. We have had a determined and active role. We are working closely with others in the international community to support the work that the UN is doing. The Foreign Secretary was in Cyprus in December. While there, he identified 10 elements as a basis for a solution, but it will ultimately be up to both sides to make compromises if there is to be a successful negotiation. The security concerns of both sides will be a key element in any comprehensive settlement. At present we have to go on working. Our own special envoy to Cyprus will be back there shortly. We have others working on the matter. I understand that the UN special representative, Professor Han Sung Ju, is going there shortly on behalf of the new Secretary-General.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, given our understanding of what the Minister has said, does she accept that for the past 23 or 24 years there has been almost continuous provocation on the part of an intransigent Turkish Government? Does she further accept that the Turks have ignored scores of UN regulations and resolutions and statements from Her Majesty's Government, who act as a guarantor? What confidence can we have that
they will take any more notice of what she has said this afternoon, when we know that the population of the occupied territory has increased from 104,000 to something over 200,000 during the same period, and for one reason only: they are trying to establish that that occupied portion will become a permanent factor? We all know that. Everyone knows that. Why do the Government not refer that to the UN for serious discussion?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the whole House knows that both sides in this dispute are capable of ignoring the UN, the EU and practically anyone else who tries to bring about a settlement of this long running dispute. I do not expect the Turkish Cypriots or the Greek Cypriots to take any particular notice of what I say this afternoon, but they should be taking a great deal more notice of what the people of the island are saying: that is, that they want a resolution to this situation. Whatever the rights and wrongs on both sides--it will only be through patient negotiation at the UN and bilateral envoys that we can make a change. We regard the situation with the utmost seriousness, and we shall be doing all that we can to ensure that recent events are not allowed to escalate further.
Prisons: Identification of Visitors
3.36 p.m.
The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are the present requirements for visitors to prisons to prove their identity when an appointment with a prisoner has been arranged.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, all visitors to prisons are liable to be asked to prove their identity. All visitors to Category A prisons whether official or social must show proof of identity. For Category B or C prisons all official visitors must show proof of identity, and for family and friends visiting prisoners that is also increasingly required.
In order to improve consistency the security manual is being revised and will make it clear that all visitors to all closed prisons must provide adequate identification.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that those who visit prisons will think that hers is the most astounding Answer given during the course of these past few years? I have visited prisons for over half a century. I have visited twice a week. I visited three times last week. Is the Minister aware that one is not always asked to prove one's identity? I can speak from personal experience only. Is she aware that one is sometimes asked to do so? One may be asked to produce a bus pass with a picture of oneself--beautiful or otherwise--on it. That may or may not be sufficient. In some cases, yes; in some cases no. In one case the governor of a prison that I had visited for many years had to be called in before I was allowed into the prison. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister, with the greatest
possible respect, that were she to make a few inquiries she would find that she has been talking absolute nonsense this afternoon.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be the first time that the noble Earl has accused me of talking nonsense across the Dispatch Box. This is a serious point. Identifying people entering prisons is a serious matter. From time to time not everyone will recognise the noble Earl, although he has an impressive and long record of visiting prisons. Not all prison officers will know him by sight, and therefore they will ask for identification. One of the issues is that each governor is allowed local discretion as to how that is to be done in practice. Therefore sometimes people will be asked for identification. Sometimes it will be a bus pass that will be looked at, and sometimes they will need corroborative evidence; in other words, another form of identification will have to be provided as well. Perhaps I may refer the noble Earl to my first reply. I said that it is a requirement at Category A prisons. It is also carried out, although not in every case, at other closed prisons. The intention is that it should be a requirement at all closed prisons.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as far as I can understand it, the Minister has advised the House that it will be up to the local governor's discretion as to what is required to prove identity. It is surely likely to cause problems for people visiting prisons if they do not know beforehand what is likely to be required. Surely it would make much more sense were there to be a centralised national list of the type of things that could be used to prove one's identity when visiting prisons.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about consistency. We believe that there is a case for consistency and that is why the manual is being revised. We believe that there is probably too much discretion at governor level. It is not always the case that an individual visiting a prison understands precisely what is required of him. We believe, first, that people should be made aware of what is required of them when they visit a prison in order that they can be better prepared and, secondly, that there is a case for more consistency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister's indication that the manual is to be revised is good news. However, would it not be sensible during that revision to ensure that, for example, probation officers and members of boards of prisoners are provided with identification which will be instantly acceptable and recognised? Furthermore, although my noble friend's Question is about proof of identity, does the Minister accept the concern in particular of probation officers about the extraordinary degree of searching of official visitors such as probation officers and prison visitors?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page