SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS) (Hansard, 14 December 1967)

§ Q18. Sir DINGLE FOOT
TO ask the Prime Minister what request has been received by Her Majesty's Government for the export of armaments of any description from the United Kingdom to the Republic of South Africa; and what reply has been returned.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q18.
The South African Government have indicated an interest in buying certain items of mainly naval equipment. No reply has as yet been sent.
Our policy on these matters remains as I stated it to the House on 17th November, 1964.
In view of the widespread interest in this matter I will undertake that the House will be given a fuller statement next week.

§ Sir Dingle Foot
May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and ask him for an unequivocal assurance that in no circumstances will the export of arms not already contracted for be permitted to the Republic of South Africa?

§ The Prime Minister
I would have hoped to have been able to make a full statement this afternoon, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is very much concerned with these matters and should have been back this morning, was prevented by weather conditions from 629 getting back. I think it right that these matters should be the subject of consideration when he is here, and then I will make a fuller statement in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend.

§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
Would the Prime Minister confirm that this order would be worth £100 million in foreign exchange, and that if it does not come to us it will go to the French? What sort of effect does he think this decision to refuse this order would have on the foreign exchange market at present?

§ The Prime Minister
I have nothing to say at this stage about the possible size of any orders which might be placed, or, indeed, on who else might supply them, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the United Nations' resolution in this respect, which all the other major Powers are following.

§ Mr. Judd
Would my right hon. Friend agree that renewed export of arms to South Africa would strike at the roots of freedom and democracy on which our entire political structure is based?

§ The Prime Minister
I have on past occasions explained our reasons for that statement in November, 1964, in support of and adherence to the United Nations resolution. As there is to be a fuller statement next week, I do not think that I could add anything to this statement today.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
We shall await the Prime Minister's statement next week with interest, but will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance which he attaches to the Simonstown Agreement with South Africa?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes. It is, of course, of importance in the defence arrangements in that part of the world, but I have never accepted the right hon. Gentleman's claim that to have signed the Simonstown Agreement committed us to any form of arms supply beyond those which were specified under the agreement —and Simonstown was some years ago.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
But does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Charter of the United Nations allows for both the export and reception of arms for external defence? What would be the good to any African if the French got orders for submarines?

§ The Prime Minister
This is a matter, as I have said, which the right hon. Gentleman did not take quite so seriously, of the United Nations resolution, and, as I have said, all major countries have signed that resolution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should ourselves break away from that resolution and join the very—[An HON. MEMBER: "External defence."] The resolution did not make a point about external defence. The right hon. Gentleman was quoting the Charter, not the terms of the United Nations Security Council's resolution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should join the very, very small group of nations which are in breach of that Security Council resolution.

§ Mr. Faulds
Would my right hon. Friend not agree that any reconsideration of this arms embargo to South Africa involves the moral credibility of the Labour Government?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that there is a difference between a Government who carry out the terms of the United Nations resolution and the previous Conservative Government who, of course, broke the terms of that resolution, but I have no more to say than what I have already said, that our policy on these matters remains as stated on 17th November, 1964.

§ Sir C. Osborne
Would the Prime Minister agree that no United Nations resolution has a right to impose unlimited unemployment on our own people? When he is considering this very difficult, delicate problem will he remember the position of the men employed in making these types of goods?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, but I do not think that with these items involved there is any question of serious unemployment being caused, particularly now, in view of the very large number of civil orders which are available to our shipyards and the very big improvement in shipbuilding orders over the past two or three months.

§ Mr. Shinwell
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has received any request from the South African Govern-men for arms, and, if so, have they indicated for what purpose they require 631 them? Are they apprehensive of external aggression? Moreover, in spite of the fact that the Government may be confronted by very great difficulties, is it not extremely important that we should have in this country a Government who do stand by their principles?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, and we have; and, to be fair, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in these matters stood by their principles, too, such as they were.
On the early part of my right hon. Friend's question, I cannot go beyond what I have already said, namely, that the South African Government have indicated an interest in buying certain items of—mainly—naval equipment; not exclusively but mainly naval equipment.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Since the Government's policy on this matter has been perfectly plain and unequivocal in the past, why do we have to wait till next week for a policy statement? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman simply get up and say the Government have no intention of changing their policy?

§ The Prime Minister
I have nothing to add to what I have said. There will be a fuller statement next week. The right hon. Gentleman will then be able to make the most of that statement. I hope, and I am sure, that he will enjoy the statement when he gets it.

§ Mr. Murray
Would my right hon. Friend agree that a statement next week will be superfluous? Could he not give us the answer today, and should it not be "No"?

§ The Prime Minister
I have already said that I shall be making a full statement next week.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
When the Cabinet is agreed on the statement, and so that the House should be able to judge it, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm as a pure matter of fact that, since the ban was imposed by his Government on the provision of ships and naval equipment to South Africa, South Africa is not being deprived of a single ship, and that the only deprivation has been that this country has lost the orders?

§ The Prime Minister
We have carried out the United Nations resolution in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] 632 As far as I understand, the South Africans were not at that time in the market for very many more ships. A new situation has arisen. I say that subject to correction, and I will make sure that it is stated correctly next week. We cut off certain of the Buccaneers, as is known, after fulfilling the original order. What has now arisen is a new situation in which they are thinking of more arms required for several years ahead.

§ Mr. Wyatt
Is it not the quintessence of hypocrisy and wrong thinking to be happy to have South Africa as our third largest customer, taking £260 million worth of goods a year, and yet to refuse to sell her naval equipment which can have nothing to do with apartheid when, if a similar inquiry were made by Portugal or Russia, it would be hailed as an export break-through?

§ The Prime Minister
Despite the warnings that we had that the announcement of 1964 would cut off our civil trade, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that our exports to South Africa have increased since 1964. But, on the latter part of his Question, the United Nations has a resolution on this matter which we support. There is no resolution relating to the supply of arms to the Soviet Union, except for the Comecon regulations.
With regard to Portugal, it has long been the position of Her Majesty's Government that we do not supply arms to that country for use in her dependent territories.

§ Mr. Woodnutt
In view of the fact that the submarines which we refused to build for South Africa are now being built by the French, would the Prime Minister not agree that, if we turn down this order, it will be supplied by the French as well?

§ The Prime Minister
There is a lot of speculation about what would happen if we did not fulfil these orders. I am sorry that I am not in a position today to make the fuller statement that I shall be making next week. I think that it would be wrong to give a definitive answer to this today, as I had hoped to do, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, who has the responsibility for dealing with South Africa. But I have promised the House that I will make a fuller statement next week. I hope then to be able 633 to answer more of the supplementary questions.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
When the Foreign Secretary returns, will my right hon. Friend make clear to him the sense of the questioning today, making it particularly clear that, to find any support for a change in this policy and a resumption of this trade, he would have to cross to the other side of the House?

§ The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is perfectly capable of seeing and reading in HANSARD everything said at Question Time when he gets back, when travelling conditions permit. I should be surprised to feel that my right hon. Friend needed to read a single word of it to know the strong feeling on this side or" the House on the question.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Malcolm MacMillan.