§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
§ Q16. Mr. SANDYSTo ask the Prime Minister, whether he will make a statement about the cost of sanctions against Rhodesia and the related aid to Zambia and their direct and indirect effect upon Great Britain's balance of payments.
§ The Prime MinisterWith permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q16.
It is not possible to give a precise and reliable estimate of this kind. So far as trade sanctions are concerned, exports to Rhodesia last year fell by £29 million compared with the previous year, but this was partially offset by an increase of £13 million to Zambia and Malawi.
The cost to the Exchequer, of which only a part falls on the balance of payments, is now estimated at £15 million for the period from I.D.I. to 6th February, 1967, including payments by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of Rhodesia's defaults on World Bank loans. Forward commitments under the agreement signed in Lusaka earlier this month were £13.85 million.
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the information I have given, as his Question asks, relates to the cost of 1434 sanctions and aid to Zambia. He will know that the wider cost of the illegal action taken by Rhodesia includes other items, one of the main ones being through the effect on copper supplies which had an effect on our balance of payments. It is impossible to quantify this or to relate it to the cost of sanctions, which forms the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, since this is the consequence, not of sanctions, but of illegality, and it is, of course, impossible to say how much copper supplies would have been interfered with and copper prices raised, perhaps very much more, if Her Majesty's Government had tamely accepted the action of the illegal regime without protest and without counter-measures.
§ Mr. SandysHow can the Prime Minister go on pretending that no reliable estimate is available when he has given to the Commonwealth an estimate of around £100 million? Is he not deliberately concealing the facts from Parliament?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman chooses to adopt that tone he will get the reply that he deserves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am going to answer his question. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman was issuing to the Press references to a document which he has got hold of. I hope that he is going to tell the House how he got hold of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope, in particular, that he will confirm that he did not get it from Rhodesia House, with whom we know he is in touch—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—because we know that Rhodesia House last autumn was going round trying to bribe junior members of Commonwealth delegations to let it have the set of Commonwealth documents. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman got his document by more reputable methods.
Now, the answer to the question is that there is no pretence and no misleading of the House. What I told the Commonwealth Prime Ministers was the best estimate available of the cost of the whole Rhodesian situation.
§ Mr. SandysThat is what we want to know.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman's Question relates to sanctions 1435 against Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between those two? If there had been no sanctions, we would still have had to give aid to Zambia. If there had been no sanctions, my guess is that copper prices would have risen a great deal more and that our supplies would have been more difficult to get. But there is a difference between the two. The right hon. Gentleman knows enough about this situation, and has enough responsibility for it, not to confuse them.
§ Mr. SandysI have to ask this in an interrogatory form. Is the Prime Minister aware that I have received no confidential information of any kind from Rhodesia House?
§ Mr. SandysIf the Prime Minister wishes indirectly to threaten me in any way with the Official Secrets Act, may I ask him to remember what happened to another Government about 30 years ago when they tried to do the same and got their fingers burned?
§ The Prime MinisterI was not responsible for the Conservative Government of 30 years ago with whom the right hon. Gentleman was then in conflict, as he is in conflict with his own Front Bench today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] So far—
§ The Prime MinisterHon. Members should be sitting below the Gangway if they are cheering the right hon. Gentleman. So far as the Official Secrets Act is concerned, this is, if there were any breaches of it, not a matter for me, though my impression would be that the document the right hon. Gentleman has been hawking about, being issued—[Interruption.] I am referring to his Press statement last week. My impression is that this was issued by the Commonwealth Secretariat and, therefore, does not fall within the Official Secrets Act, anyway.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House from where he got this confidential document. I asked him. I expressed the hope that he would say that he did not get it from Rhodesia 1436 House. I would like him to tell the House where he got it from and to confirm that it has not been directly or indirectly in connection with Rhodesia House bribery.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Heath.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Prime Minister tell the House what he told the Commonwealth was the cost of the complete operation?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. It was not an estimate of the cost of the operation, if by "operation" the right hon. Gentleman means sanctions, but the cost to Britain, including the forward costs of aid to Zambia, was then estimated at something like £100 million. Later estimates suggest that this was too high. I have given some of the details. For example, we underestimated the position regarding exports, of which I have now given the full figures to the House since the end of the year. But the figure of £100 million, the cost to Britain of the illegality, the illegal action, is very different from the cost either to the Exchequer or to our balance of payments of the sanctions policy approved by this House. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between the two, he might leave it to the rest of us who do. It is not the same as the cost of the sanctions policy, which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was at pains to tell us he has always supported.
§ Mr. WhitakerIs my right hon. Friend satisfied that right hon. Gentlemen opposite recollect that their Suez operation cost this country £469 million in a few days, plus worldwide condemnation, whereas what we are doing in facing the problem of Rhodesia is the minimum to comply with worldwide indignation?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is probably a fair calculation. The other difference is that in our Rhodesia policy we have the full support of the Commonwealth, instead of having the Commonwealth against us, and the full support of the United Nations. Even more remarkable is that on that occasion the right hon. 1437 Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the then Chief Whip were in full support and agreement with the Suez policy.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserWill the right hon. Gentleman now be good enough to lay before the House the document which seems to have had a wide circulation? Second, will he say whether in his calculations he has brought into account (l) the military expenditure, (2) the loss of invisibles and (3) the cost of substitute materials, which I calculate are very large sums indeed?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the first point, I do not think that there is any obligation on me to lay a document before the House. The document which, I understand, the right hon. Member for Streatham has got hold of represents a transcript or the minutes of an oral statement I made to the Commonwealth Conference. The fact that wholly improper means have been used in some parts of London to get that circulated instead of being treated as confidential is no reason for me to lay the document on the Table.
On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, in the full computation of the cost of the Rhodesia situation, such as I tried to make in the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference, the effect on invisibles has to be taken into account both ways—I referred to the World Bank—and, as regards substitute materials and the high cost of copper, which are closely related, these are, as I said, part of the consequence of the illegal act. If we had tamely gone along with the illegal act, I believe that our supplies of copper from Zambia would have been gravely affected and the price rise very much more.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister refers to a document which sets out a speech which he has made, is it not usual to place such a document before the House when it is referred to in the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf this was an official document and the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from it, it would be in order to ask for it. I understand that such is not the case.
§ Mr. ShinwellIn view of the doubts expressed by my right hon. Friend the 1438 Prime Minister about the integrity of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), does he think it advisable that a member of Her Majesty's Government should speak tomorrow night on the same platform with the right hon. Gentleman?
§ The Prime MinisterI was not casting doubts on the right hon. Gentleman's integrity. I was casting reflections on his inability to tell the House the full facts of where he got the document. I was certainly casting reflections on the unsavoury methods which are sometimes used in the fight which he is having not merely with this Front Bench but with his own.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The original Question was about Rhodesia, not about Europe. Mr. Thorpe.
§ Mr. ThorpeWill the Prime Minister agree that, whatever the adverse economic effects upon Zambia have been, they have not been of Zambia's creation, and will he agree that the attempts to build a non-racial society in Zambia are well worth the support of this country, and, further, will he agree that sometimes in politics principles can be expensive but they are none the worse for that?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, I agree with all three statements. As regards Zambia, these effects were not caused by any action of Zambia's, and, even if there had been no sanctions involved at all, we would have had a clear duty to help Zambia repair the damage to her economy caused by this irresponsible action.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.