---

Cyprus: Annan Plan

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for raising this important subject at the outset of our presidency of the European Union. The debate is also timely, in view of the forthcoming visit of the President of Cyprus and I am sure, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that many of the issues that have been raised today will be matters for discussion with the president during his visit. I shall do my utmost to respond to all the questions that have been raised, but I shall reply in writing to any that remain unanswered. The Government have always worked hard to foster a Cyprus settlement which is acceptable to the parties—primarily through our support for the UN Secretary-General’s good offices. The accession of Cyprus to the European Union makes us feel our responsibilities even more acutely. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who was special representative for Cyprus from 1996 to 2003. His appointment was a sign of the Government’s commitment to a solution during the critical phase leading up to EU accession. Ministers and officials—not to mention both Chambers of Parliament—continue to devote much attention to the issue, and rightly so. Although there have been no sustained hostilities on the island for decades, the legacies of conflict remain in the missing persons, in those dispossessed of their property and economic, political or other human rights, and in the presence of large numbers of troops and equipment on both sides of the island. The Government believe that the status quo is unacceptable. I reaffirm that our chief aim on Cyprus is a just, viable and lasting Cyprus settlement, brokered under UN auspices, for the benefit of all Cypriots. As prominent advocates of enlargement, we argued strongly for Cyprus’s accession, along with the other nine new member states. As well as being desirable in itself, we believed that Cyprus’s accession presented Cypriots with a unique opportunity to heal their island and to take a ““United Cyprus Republic”” into the EU. It was clearly a matter of deep regret that a Cyprus settlement eluded the parties at Copenhagen in 2002 and then in The Hague in 2003. Since accession, in practice only Greek Cypriots have been able to enjoy full participation in the EU. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is right to raise the question of the rights of Turkish Cypriots. They, too, are citizens of the European Union and have shown that they wish to play a full part in it, not least by their overwhelming support for the UN’s settlement proposals last year. We do not and will not recognise the self-styled ““Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus””. In any case, the terms of the treaty of Cyprus’s accession to the EU   make it legally impossible. In addition, UN resolutions, some sponsored by the UK, prohibit this. And yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, the EU and the international community at large needs to embrace the Turkish Cypriots. This is not just a UK position. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, discrimination against Turkish Cypriots in applying for jobs in the institutions of the EU would be illegal. But, sadly, far too few Turkish Cypriots are employed as yet in the EU institutions. To the best of our knowledge, one Turkish Cypriot is currently employed in the Cabinet of Commissioner Kyprianou and there may be a number of Turkish Cypriot stagiaires. Turkish Cypriots applying to work at the Commission face additional difficulties due to the fact that Turkish is not a recognised Community language and applicants must therefore sit examinations in two non-native languages. That is difficult for many people. The EU foreign ministers expressed their determination last April to,"““put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, and to facilitate the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community””." The UN Secretary-General echoes their call on 28 May last year in his report on his Mission of Good Offices. The Commission responded by producing a package of two draft regulations, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Astor; namely, the well-known financial aid and direct trade regulations. Let me remind noble Lords why the international community expressed these views. On a divided island where GDP per capita of the north is a bare third of the south, it is not realistic to expect that this discrepancy has no bearing on the political problem. In the south, where last year’s referendum was lost, we should reassure Greek Cypriots that reunification will not saddle their economy with a development deficit in the north; that a settlement will not be ““at their expense””. We must also recognise the historic change that Turkish Cypriot politics has undergone in recent years, turning its back on the days when it put status before a settlement and contributed so much to the Cypriot deadlock. Turkish Cypriots, first on the streets and more recently at the ballot box, have given a clear message: ““We want a reunited Cyprus within the EU””. But the more that Turkish Cypriots are left isolated by the international community, the more the elements in the north of Cyprus who oppose a just Cyprus settlement will flourish and the larger the spectre of permanent partition will loom. The international community and the EU in particular need to see the current opportunities. Many noble Lords raised the property issues, including the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis, Lord   Faulkner and Lord Dykes. The British Government maintain a dialogue with the Turkish Cypriots on all Cyprus settlement issues, including property, but we are not able to prevent property development. It is a matter of great regret that the island did not reunite on the basis of the UN Secretary-General’s proposals last year, with its system of property restitution and compensation. Naturally, however, we do not encourage British citizens to buy property in northern Cyprus and through our travel advice website and response to queries we explain the unique circumstances in Cyprus. Regarding direct flights to northern Cyprus, as reflected in the Foreign Secretary’s response to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we continue to support in principle the commencement of direct flights to Northern Cyprus. We continue to believe that direct flights between the UK and the north would contribute significantly to the prospects for reunification through reducing economic disparities between the north and the south. This is an immensely complex legal area. As yet, no decision has been reached on the basis of legal considerations. The UK Government have no intention of pursuing a policy that is in contravention of international law. I suggest that the issue of Transport for London is not one for us to answer on its behalf. However, the Government are committed to supporting measures to end Turkish Cypriot isolation and that position remains unchanged. In response to the questions from my noble friend Lord Faulkner about extradition, it is not appropriate for me to comment on any ongoing judicial matters. As he will know, extradition is complicated by the non-recognition of the north. There is a deep sense of frustration that the EU has not been able to agree the aid and trade regulations. We still hope agreement on both can be reached. Aid and trade for Turkish Cypriots are both fundamental to fulfilling the mandate from foreign ministers last year. The UK does not oppose separate adoption of the regulations. Indeed, we hope that, later this month, there will be agreement on the aid regulation. But, in doing so, we must make it clear that we are committed to finding a way for the Turkish Cypriots to be able to trade with the rest of the EU. While financial assistance is welcome and necessary to bring standards of living and of governance up towards EU levels, it is unlikely, on its own, to provide a sustainable basis for economic growth. On its own, it risks entrenching the ““dependency culture””. We have to achieve, through trade, a narrowing of the gap between the north and the south, and trade is the cornerstone of the common market, of which Cyprus is now a member. What is the UK doing? Our first priority is to persuade the Government of Cyprus of the strength of these arguments, and to bring Greek Cypriots with us, to enable the EU to carry out the full programme of aid and trade which it set itself last year. We are well aware of the strength of feeling among Greek Cypriots against direct trade; some even see it as a threat to the very existence of the republic and as a commensurate boost to the status of the authorities in the north. We are also aware that the government of Cyprus hope to use trade across the green line, via the existing EU instrument, to provide an economic outlet for their Turkish Cypriot compatriots. So this is not a disagreement about ends, but about means. We, like the Commission, strongly believe that direct trade is not about partition. Rather, it is one of the most positive contributions the EU could make, as we seek to back up the UN’s search for peace in Cyprus. We will continue, bilaterally and with our EU partners, to tackle these arguments in a frank and open manner, for our part, rejecting attempts by either side in Cyprus to reduce this issue to a zero sum game.