I join in paying tribute to what has already been done in the past week. I must not overdo that tribute—otherwise, it will be grossly misunderstood—but I shall make one reference to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, as Chairman of the Labour Party, is the custodian of its policy. I am sure that he must be well aware of the resolution which was passed unanimously by the National Executive of the British Labour Party outlining, in my view, Majority opinion throughout the Labour movement on what should now be done, and outlining what the British contribution should be in the talks to come. It is on that aspect that I wish to make two or three very brief points.

But I refer, first, to the United Nations and to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) about the sovereignty of the island and the presence of British troops and naval and air force participation. Did Ivor Richard at the United Nations enjoy my right hon. Friend's confidence when he made the accusation against the Soviet Union that its Intervention was purely mischievous and for ideological purposes? I should have thought that some of the comments that were made, by Mr. Gromyko particularly and by others who spoke on behalf of the Soviet Government, were making a contribution to the discussions throughout the world as to the inevitable de-nuclearising of the Mediterranean area. Surely, it is a dominant part of British Labour foreign policy to speak realistically about de-nuclearising the Mediterranean and starting to reduce the military presence not only of Britain but of other nations taking part in all sorts of naval and air force exercises throughout the Mediterranean area.

The situation is complicated by disagreements about Aegean Sea oil agreements and so on between Greece and Turkey, but it is further complicated by other military strategic necessities brought about by the presence of Soviet ships, British ships and United States ships. But, above all, there must be recognition of the part to be played by NATO in this situation.

I come now to the question of the size of the United Nations forces. It was welcome news to hear the Foreign Secretary announce the considerably increased contribution that the United Kingdom is about to make towards the size of the United Nations forces in Cyprus. But there is one important question here. What is the function of the United Nations. The question has been raised by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on previous occasions—quite rightly, in my view—as to what is their function in the present situation, when we recognise that the purpose of our policy should be to establish clearly the sovereignty of Cyprus and the sovereignty and independence of the Cypriot people.

Two points have arisen from the Foreign Secretary's statement which I believe to be of considerable importance to all of us in the House concerning the hardening of the idea of segregation of the communities. We all recognise that the future of Cyprus is impossible unless there is communal harmony on the island. It cannot function economically if segregation takes place. Therefore, those people who talk about the future being based upon two autonomous communities are doing a disservice and are playing into the hands of those who want to create maximum havoc for the future economy and well being of the island and the prosperity of its people.

Because we have said that the most important aspect is harmony among the Cypriot people we must say in clear terms, as, indeed, the British Labour Party has said, that President Makarios must be involved in future discussions. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary to make sure that that point is made and to invite President Makarios to take his rightful place.