Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there will be no advances to the Government of Mozambique on account of the £15 million allocation of funds until they are satisfied that all guerrilla training and activity there have been brought to an end and that the Government of Mozambique can show that it is their firm policy to crush any attempt to revive such activities.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it absolutely clear that we desire a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia. The Government of Mozambique accept that British development assistance is to be used for peaceful purposes only.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I had hoped for the straight answer, Yes, to my question? In my disappointment, may I ask whether it is really of no concern to Her Majesty's Ministers that this happy-go-lucky policy could lead to blood on their hands—blood of men and women, many of them our own kith and kin even if politically estranged from us now?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I simply cannot accept any suggestion that we shall have blood on our hands. The peaceful results which we all hope for and for 1788 which we, Her Majesty's Government, work, is most easily achieved by the present Smith régime in Rhodesia agreeing to reasonable negotiations and majority rule. If they do not, that is where the guilt will lie.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, will not the noble Baroness agree that the first duty of a State is to maintain peace on its borders and prevent people from breaking into neighbouring States for the purpose of committing crimes; and that if we connive in the breach of this fundamental principle we are conniving at international lawlessness and that that is a very serious matter?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am quite sure that the entire House would not agree that Her Majesty's Government were conniving at anything in the sense to which my noble friend referred. There is no question of connivance; it is an extremely complicated and tragic situation and innuendoes such as my noble friend has made are unworthy of this House.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, before we get heated about this matter and in furtherance to a question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when this matter was raised before, may I not ask the noble Baroness this: if we really do want to stop—and I do not for a moment suppose that she wishes otherwise—Southern Africa from developing into another Northern Ireland, another Cyprus, another Angola, another Near Fast, Palestine, Lebanon situation, surely she must realise on behalf of the Government that we must try to stop one country, however much one may sympathise with it, from using its territories as a base for training and exporting guerrilla warfare into another territory? Surely, when the new Foreign Secretary is appointed, she can bring home to her right honourable friend that we on this side of the House and in other quarters are deeply disturbed that we should compromise ourselves, even though the obligation to which my noble friend referred may be an obligation which is discharged under United Nations resolution. Ought we not to bring every pressure to bear on the new State of Mozambique to stop allowing its territory to be 1789 used as a base for violence in this extremely explosive situation?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I can assure your Lordships again that there is no question of compromising with what we believe to be right. It is, as I have said, difficult and complicated; and all noble Lords know that. The question of exporting violence and the rest of it does not lie on the conscience of Her Majesty's Government. My noble friend the Minister of State talked last week with the Mozambique Government and has said that any economic assistance which we give them under the framework of the United Nations must be used for peaceful purposes only. I must reiterate to the noble and learned Lord that the Government of Mozambique have accepted that and that Her Majesty's Government have accepted those assurances and are sure that they will be carried out.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I am afraid that that does not quite answer the question that I was putting to the noble Baroness. Of course, I accept the assurances she gives, that the actual money which forms the subject of this obligation will be used for peaceful purposes, at any rate so far as Her Majesty's Government can achieve that object, and she has repeated the assurances from the Mozambique Government to that effect. Surely she must accept that if we wish to stop—and we must stop if we can—Southern Africa from becoming another area of the world where the rule of the gun prevails, we must accept that it is just not enough to stop this particular fund from being used for warlike purposes. But we have to press the Mozambique Government (have we not?) not to use its territories as a base for guerrilla activities.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, I intervene only because I think I must preserve the normal course of Question Time. It seems to me that what has taken place today is transgressing the normal practices: that it is speech making and not Question Time. I hope that noble Lords will keep to our normal customs in this House.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has been perhaps a little quick off the mark on this occasion. I was putting a question perfectly properly to his noble friend. I do not believe that I transgressed for a moment the rules of Question Time. If the noble Lord wishes to take the sense of the House on this matter, I am prepared to abide by its decision.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, now the noble and learned Lord is seeking to use the strength behind him in a most unfair way. I intervened only to protect the customs of this House. If my noble friend wishes to reply to what the noble and learned Lord construes as a question, I think it is right. But I ask the House to keep to the normal format of our Question Time.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I was about to observe: is this a private fight or can anyone join in? I am perfectly prepared to answer the noble and learned Lord's question and even his speech—though that is improper—because I know the depth of interest and, indeed, moral agony in which we find ourselves on this question. Of course we agree with the noble and learned Lord. We must do everything in our power to prevent violence wherever it may be; we have enough tragic examples of it in front of us. Her Majesty's Government have been doing this and will continue to do this. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to accept that assurance from me.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, of course I accept the assurance of the noble Baroness. But is she not aware that some of us are not satisfied with the extent of the activities in this matter of the noble Baroness and her colleagues? May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to bear in mind that I was making no attempt to use the strength which may or may not be behind me, except in so far as it coincides with the opinions of your Lordships' House? The noble Lord sought to intervene in the middle of what I thought was a perfectly proper supplementary question. I must ask the noble Lord, in his capacity as Leader of the whole House—not simply Leader of 1791 his own Party—to bear in mind the strength of feeling that we have on this matter.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I hope that on reflection the noble and learned Lord will feel that he made a rather monstrous charge against me in saying that I was acting in a Party sense this afternoon. In my period as Leader of the House I have never sought to act in a Party sense. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord, on reflection, will regret what he has said. I accept that this is a matter to which the House attaches considerable concern and great anxiety. If this is a matter which noble Lords would like to debate, I will certainly seek to provide time very shortly for it. I suggest this is a matter better dealt with in debate than at Question Time.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I have no desire whatever to pursue this altercation. I hope we will both go away and reflect about this. May I ask the noble Lord to realise that we on this side of the House thought that he was making an unjustified charge against me? I have at least as much respect for the customs of this House as any Member on the opposite side of the House.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, without wanting to continue this argument, may I ask the Minister this question? Is it the case that the British contribution to Mozambique is limited to assisting it in asserting sanctions, which have been endorsed by all sides of this House and by the United Nations, but not in any military activities?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEYes, my Lords; Her Majesty's Government are providing up to £15 million over a period of years for economic reconstruction and development in Mozambique. The fact that Mozambique has complied with the United Nations Resolution, and has made sanctions more severe for Rhodesia, has made her own economic situation more difficult. The United Nations have asked all Member States to help Mozambique under those circumstances, and that is what we are doing under the normal British aid programme.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, would the noble 1792 Baroness agree that to give £15 million of our hard borrowed money—and I repeat, hard borrowed money—to what is apparently a tyrranical and racialist regime is only a further manifestation of the absurdity of the present Government?
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, arising from the reply of the noble Baroness today and her reply on 31st March, may I ask whether an instruction will be given to the Working Party, which she announced, that if they obtain agreement there will be a request for proof of no improper expenditure of the money given in aid?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that a Working Group of officials will very soon be going out to Mozambique. I am sure that they will make certain that proper use is made of any funds which are provided for Mozambique.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, has the noble Baroness any further news about the fate of the 19 Rhodesian civilians, black and white, who were seized by the Mozambique authorities?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, that is another question, but I think the news is good on that front. As I said last week, our Ambassador in Maputo has made representations on this subject and we are hopeful of the results.