Late last year, from the Lords Hansard, in answer to this Cyprus Property Question (asked by Lord Monson)
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the government of Northern Cyprus having paid £32 million compensation to Greek Cypriots for their abandoned property in the North, whereas the government of Cyprus has paid no compensation to Turkish Cypriots for their abandoned property in the south which has since been compulsorily acquired; and what representations they have made to the government of Cyprus to pay reciprocal compensation in order to help reconciliation between the communities. [HL5902]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead) replied:
The Government have not made any assessment on representations to the Government of Cyprus about this matter, and maintain that only a comprehensive Cyprus settlement can fully address the complicated issue of property.
To me, this says that, some people in high places do seem to be reluctant to commit themselves to saying what they think would be 'just'. Whether that be on account of not wanting to upset one 'side' or the other (not knowing which side would be a more 'useful' ally in the future - now further complicated since Cyprus joined the EU), or whether that be because any 'just' property solution will only be effective if it is able to be enforced (there is no point in people winning judgements if they cannot be enforced - apart from any satisfaction gained by a 'moral' victory). Or whether that be because not one solution will fit all and it will of necessity be very complicated.
Because again, to me, to say that it will all have to wait until after a comprehensive Cyprus solution of the 'Cyprus Problem' is a bit of a cop out, bearing in mind how long that 'solution' has proved to be unattainable to date and doesn't look hopeful for the immediate future either.
And it does seem a bit much to penalise people for the passage of time whilst, at the same time, more or less telling them over and over that
they will have to WAIT.
Those affected seem to have been being told to 'wait it out' by all sorts of bodies and, in view of this last bit of a bombshell, that does not now look like it was very good advice. I can see why this advice to wait would have been given in the first instance, soon after 1974, because I am sure more important considerations were at the forefront of the minds of everyone concerned. I should think that, back then, most thought that they would be returning to their former homes, that the Turkish troops would be made to withdraw and whatever.
But once people started to be rehomed, given compensation and grants and property that was left by the each side being appropriated for use as homes and businesses, it must have been the case that no one saw any of it as a very 'temporary' state of affairs.
I don't see the latest ruling as such a crushing blow to original 'refugees' who actually were driven from, or fled their homes. More of an indictment of the much criticised 'refugee' status being able to be passed on down the generations.