SOUTH AFRICA (Hansard, 27 March 1973)

§ Q7. Mr. Leslie Huckfield
asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of his administration on visits to the Republic of South Africa by Cabinet Ministers.

§ The Prime Minister
We welcome them. These visits, on a suitable occasion, provide contact which is better than boycott as a means to promote change.

§ Mr. Huckfield
Does the Prime Minis-tea" appreciate that any such ministerial visits are seen by the South African Government as giving tacit approval to their system of apartheid? Does he not understand that there is a widespread belief throughout the world, particularly following the release of recent figures, that it is British investment which is 1093 keeping apartheid going in Africa? Will he do something to stress to Cabinet Ministers the importance of not visiting South Africa and being seen to keep their system going?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's view. It has been the policy of Ministers in successive Governments to visit other countries when they are in disagreement—and in serious disagreement—with policies pursued by Governments in those countries. We have often been pressed by the Opposition to make visits of this kind. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) made a visit to the Republic in the autumn of last year? If so, what is the difference?

§ Miss Joan Hall
Has the Prime Minister had any discussions lately with the South African Government about security of shipping in the Indian Ocean, particularly with regard to tankers around the South African coastline, which is very important to this country?

§ The Prime Minister
We have not recently had any discussions with the South African Government about this matter but, as the House knows, we have said we will carry out our undertakings under the Simonstown agreement.

§ Mr. David Steel
Given the Government's views on the visits of Cabinet Ministers to South Africa, does the Prime Minister think it right that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science should have shrugged aside the harassment of student leaders in South Africa when it has been condemned by the vice-chancellors of the universities? Was not this a chance for the Secretary of State to have spoken firmly on the matter?

§ The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was on a visit concerned with scientific matters, and in many instances it is right that a Minister should not comment on the internal affairs of other countries.

§ Captain W. Elliot
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the West had ostracised Russia at the end of the Second World War, we would probably by now 1094 have had a third world war? Does he not agree that the more visits made by Ministers and by members of the public to all countries the better, and that such visits are an excellent thing?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, that is my view. I suppose historically many people might say that if a different approach had been made directly after the Russian Revolution in 1917, the history of the 1920s and 1930s and all that followed might have been very different.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
If the Prime Minister feels that he can do nothing to preserve the good name of this country by giving advice to Cabinet Ministers visiting South Africa, can he at least do something immediately to deal with the British firms engaged in large-scale exploitation of South African labour? When will the Government do something about this situation?

§ The Prime Minister
Members of the Cabinet act quite properly in these matters, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science acted perfectly properly in South Africa. On the question of British firms, it has already been made public on many occasions and in this House that the Department of Trade and Industry advises British businessmen of their rights and obligations in South Africa and their opportunities to improve the conditions of those who work there. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his enthusiasm for this cause is being unfair to many British firms which have deliberately taken action to improve the conditions of workers in South Africa.

§ Mr. Foot
If the Prime Minister thinks that I have been unfair to any British firm in this respect, will he undertake to publish in Hansard the replies which each firm has given to inquiries directed to firms by the Department of Trade and Industry?

§ The Prime Minister
What I said was that the Department of Trade and Industry had informed all these firms of their ability to improve conditions for workers in South Africa. The Department has not directed inquiries to firms; it has informed firms of these matters. This information is freely made available to the British firms in South Africa. This 1095 is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry and it has quite rightly carried it out.

§ Q9. Miss Lestor
asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.

§ The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

§ Miss Lestor
But bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said about not boycotting South Africa, bearing in mind the theory consistently advanced by the Conservative Government that British involvement in South Africa would be a way of undermining apartheid, and also bearing in mind recent disclosures in The Guardian and other newspapers that this is blatantly untrue and that investment in South Africa means investment in apartheid, will he reconsider his plans not to visit South Africa? Will he visit South Africa and test for himself the theory that British investment in that country upholds and supports the apartheid régime?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. But I welcome the decisions announced by British firms which invest in South Africa to take further action themselves to deal with these matters.

§ Mr. Hastings
Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition could make up their minds whether they want more or fewer Cabinet Ministers to go to South Africa?

§ The Prime Minister
That difficult question should be put to the Opposition.

§ Mr. Richard
Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is widespread concern, which is not confined to one side of the House of Commons, about the recent disclosures in The Guardian? Why on earth will not the Government accept that people would very much like to know precisely the facts about British firms in South Africa and how they treat their African labourers? Why does not the Prime Minister therefore use the machinery of this House to institute some kind of inquiry into the ways in which our firms are carrying on in South Africa?

§ Mr. Michael Foot
Because he does not give a damn.

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman, who usually interjects from a seated 1096 position, is quite wrong about this matter. There is concern in this country about the conditions of those who work in South Africa. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is himself casting doubt on the report in The Guardian by suggesting that somebody had better be sent there to find out whether this is the true situation. If the House of Commons wants one of its Committees to go there, it is for the House to arrange, not for the Government. What the Government do, through their Departments, is to inform all British firms of what they can do to improve conditions in South Africa.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
In view of what appeared to be the rather helpful remarks by the Prime Minister in answer to that last question, may I ask whether he will now therefore take the necessary steps to put down a motion on the Order Paper to give a Select Committee of the House locus standi to inquire into this question? Surely that was what he meant. Will he now go ahead with it?

§ The Prime Minister
The affairs of Committees of this House are under their own jurisdiction, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well. If one of the Committees of this House deems it right and appropriate to investigate these matters, it is for that Committee to take the necessary action.