HC Deb 20 July 1970 vol 804 cc49-63
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House. I wish to make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government have an overriding duty to take account of present and future strategic needs, of the United Kingdom and, in that context, a particular concern for the free passage of ships in all circumstances on the vital sea routes round South Africa. It was to that end that the Simonstown Agreement was negotiated.

It is our intention to give effect to the purposes of that Agreement and we believe that, as a consequence, we should be ready to consider within that context applications for the export to South Africa of certain limited categories of arms, so long as they are for maritime defence directly related to the security of the sea routes.

The Government have made abundantly clear their fundamental disagreement with the racial policies of the South African Government. In no circumstances would there be sales to South Africa of arms for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid or internal repression.

It is on this basis that the Government have naturally been concerned to consult with Commonwealth Governments and to discuss these matters with them. A number of these Governments have not yet replied and a number request further information and discussion. At the same time the South African Government are also seeking clarification of the interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement; this will need consideration with the South African Government.

The Government propose to complete these consultations and discussions before decisions are finally taken.

Mr. M. Stewart

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having afforded me the usual courtesy of allowing me to see the statement in advance.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions? First, is he aware that his statement is not quite as definite as it might have been—[Interruption.]—though, indeed, it may be better for that? In particular, in relation to the phrase at the end. "The Government propose to complete these consultations and discussions before decisions are finally taken", does the word "decisions" mean decision about a particular request for arms, or does it mean a decision in principle on whether or not to supply certain categories of arms to South Africa?

Secondly, if a decision in principle has not yet been taken, will the right hon. Gentleman and his collegues remember that we were given clearly to understand that an announcement about this decision would be made to the House soon, which we all took to mean before we rise for the Summer Recess? As we have not yet had a clear statement of decision, may we be given an undertaking that no such decision will be taken while the House is in recess?

Thirdly, we are told in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a number of Governments have not yet replied. Could we be given at any rate some indication of what Governments have replied and whether any of them—and, if so, how many—have expressed definite approval for the principle of selling arms to South Africa? In particular, could we be told whether or not the report that the Tanzanian Government have informed Her Majesty's Government that a decision to sell arms to South Africa would mean Tanzania leaving the Commonwealth is true?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I will answer first, the right hon. Gentleman's question about a statement being made to the House and no action being taken before the House has been informed of a final decision. That assurance I can give.

As to the intention in the statement, that is clear and it is the intention of the Government that we are discussing with Commonwealth countries. We are, of course, open to be influenced in our decision by their opinions, although we have stated our intention clearly. Some have replied and have said that they disagree. Some have replied and have said that they approve. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Some have said that they want further elucidation.

The reason why I am not able to make a final statement today—I believe the House would approve—is that there are 14 Commonwealth countries which have not yet answered the question which was put to them by my right hon. Friend, and we thought, therefore, that it would be courteous and right that these countries should be given a chance to reply before Her Majesty's Government announced their final decision.

Mr. M. Stewart

Was the right hon. Gentleman about to reply to my question concerning Tanzania?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

The report from Tanzania was a Press report. I think it likely that another statement will be made this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]

Mr. M. Stewart

I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. True it was a Press report, but the question I was asking the right hon. Gentleman was whether it was true—that the Tanzanian Government had so informed Her Majesty's Government? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know the answer to that one.

I must also press the right hon. Gentleman on the other question I asked. Is he telling us that a decision in principle to supply arms to South Africa has not yet been taken and that Her Majesty's Government could be influenced on this by the representations of Commonwealth Governments? Is that the position?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Her Majesty's Government can be influenced before a final decision is taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] That is quite clearly so, otherwise consultation would mean nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, I would be less than frank with the House if I did not say that we have stated to the House our intention. If, however, anybody can, by argument, break us away from that intention, then, well, we shall consider all the arguments. [Interruption.]

The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about Tanzania. Communications between individual Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries with the Prime Minister of this country are, as he knows, confidential. I think that he should wait for a statement that may be issued in Tanzania later on.

Mr. Sandys

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people simply cannot stomach the sanctimonious sermonising by Tanzania, which keeps Arab leaders indefinitely in prison and subjects them to the vilest torture, which maintains an oppressive police state in Zanzibar and which blatantly discriminates against its Asian inhabitants? Will my right hon. Friend take steps at the United Nations to expose the humbug of these double standards?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

My right hon. Friend knows that I have often protested against double standards at the United Nations and, sometimes, elsewhere. I am not prepared to comment on the policy of a Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Faulds

Has the Foreign Secretary no comprehension at all of the damage that his intention will do both to the Commonwealth and to long-term British interests in Africa? In view of the idiocy of this decision, is there no way that the House can have both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister safely put away?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman would have to put away a few others as well because, for example, his right hon. Friends have been conducting joint exercises with the South African Navy. [Interruption.] I find that another has been arranged by the former Secretary of State for Defence for 5th August. Apparently they are prepared to have joint manœuvres—[Interruptionl.]—with French submarines but not with British ones.

Mr. Nigel Fisher

As the Government's policy is causing genuine, though I believe groundless, fears in Africa north of the Zambesi, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider inviting Mr. Malcolm MacDonald to pay a visit to these African countries with a view to explaining the Government's policy to the Presidents of those countries?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I believe that the Government have to explain their own policy. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has been a very good servant and very good friend of Asians and Africans alike, and I do not rule out the possibility that at some future date he may be able to serve this Government, as he has served so many Governments in his time. I gather that we are likely to debate this subject. I do not know whether there is any more that I can add at the moment to what I have already said.

Mr. Healey

Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that independent African countries have accepted that a very clear distinction can be drawn between the type of defence co-operation with South Africa which is involved in the Simonstown Agreement and a breaking of the ban which was imposed by the United Nations on the export and sale of arms to South Africa?

Secondly, is it not the case that of all our allies in N.A.T.O. who share our interests in the security of the Cape route and without whom we could not conceivably engage in hostilities with the Soviet Union, not one, except Portugal, believes that there is a threat to the Cape route which could be properly met by supplying arms to South Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I would not accept that from the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have not had time to go to the N.A.T.O. Council to discuss these matters. We can debate this subject later in the week. [Interruption.] I am entitled to my own view, which is that the co-operation of South Africa is essential for the protection of these trade routes.

What is more, the right hon. Gentleman made arrangements that the South African Navy should come under British command in the event of war. In other words, there is co-operation; and I believe that it is necessary for South Africa to have arms to acquire a navy if a British officer is to command it.

As to the United Nations, there is no breach of a United Nations resolution. The United Nations resolutions were not mandatory. They were recommendations to Governments and, when the recommendation was made to the last Conservative Government, we expressly said that we accepted it in so far as arms were concerned in relation to internal strife. We did not accept it in relation to arms for external defence.

Mr. Healey

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not use the veto to prevent a mandatory resolution from being passed by the United Nations?

Secondly, is he telling the House that he envisages the possibility of fighting a maritime war round the Southern Cape of South Africa without our N.A.T.O. allies? If not, has he not consulted our N.A.T.O. allies already about his decision to change a policy which the overwhelming majority of our NA.T.O. allies not only approve but are carrying out themselves?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

The right hon. Gentleman ought to be more accurate. The N.A.T.O. writ does not run in that area. Britain and South Africa have a defence treaty which concerns the supply of arms. He should not make these very inaccurate statements.

No British Government could say in advance that it would not veto a resolution of the United Nations; the resolution has to be seen first. I do not think that the Labour Government ever gave an assurance in advance that they would not veto a resolution.

Mr. Prentice

As the Security Council may shortly be discussing a possible mandatory resolution on this subject, to what extent are the Government prepared to hold up their final decision until that discussion has taken place? If the Government are not to be influenced at all by the proceedings in the Security Council, how do they reconcile that policy with the statement in the Gracious Speech that they support the Charter of the United Nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Although we have great respect for the United Nations and will consult it and take notice of its recommendations, if by any chance it were to try to put over a resolution which was blatantly against British interests the British Government would have to veto it.

Mr. Harold Wilson

I was not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I was not quite clear whether the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be an announcement before the House went up or, as I think, that no decision would be taken in the absence of the House being told, meaning that if there were no decision by next Friday, when the House goes up, the Government would not take a decision to supply arms to South Africa until the House came back in October. Did I understand him aright?

Secondly, he has just referred to the fact that no Government could give an assurance in advance about the veto. Is he aware that the Labour Government would never have had to answer this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "You would not answer."] I would have answered if the question had been asked—because the Labour Government were never in any doubt about their utterly loyal adherence to the United Nations resolution, which we carried out within days of taking office. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Gibraltar?"] I am talking about the Security Council resolution on arms to South Africa. That issue was not in doubt.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman resisted the proposal that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald should be sent out to Africa to sell this policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the distinguished record of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald on behalf of successive Governments, we would not want him to be the honest man to sell the bad penny of arms supply to South Africa? It would be an insult to all that he has done for successive Governments in this country.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I cannot say to the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no decision before the House reassembles. There would certainly be no statement. The first statement would be to the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds

He is not responsible for his words.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Faulds

He is not responsible for his words.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was heard in quiet. He must extend the same courtesy to other hon. Members.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

No Government can say when it will take a decision. A statement about the decision will be reserved for this House.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Hastings

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Harold Wilson.

Mr. Harold Wilson

That did not seem to me to be what the right hon. Gentleman said. In answer to my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Hastings

On a point of order. I may be mistaken, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that I heard you call my name.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member was not mistaken, but it is the practice of Mr. Speaker to change his mind occasionally.

Mr. Harold Wilson

I am trying to clarify what the right hon. Gentleman said. What he has just said seems to me, and apparently to many of my hon. Friends, to be in ill accord with what he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. My right hon. Friend asked in very clear terms for an assurance. The right hon. Gentleman gave that assurance. The assurance seemed to be that there would be no announcement, no decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—before the House came back.

If he is now saying that there may be a Government decision but no announcement, I must ask him something else. Will he give an assurance that if there is to be no announcement there will be no Press briefing on it? Despite what he told the House a fortnight ago in answer to my question, does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he briefed the Press, before his own Cabinet had met for the first time, that there would be arms for South Africa? Did he say that to the Press or did he not? In view of the importance of that question, will be now give an assurance to the House that there will be no decision before the House is here to hear it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

The right hon. Gentleman knows more about briefing the Press than I do.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Answer the question.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

If the Prime Minister will listen—[Laughter.] I hope that my right hon. Friend is listening. It is important to get the answer right.

Hon. Members

Try again.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

No action in regard to the sale of arms will be taken without a statement to the House. I think this is what I meant to say and what I hope the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) understood. No action would be taken until a statement had been made to the House.

Mr. Healey indicated assent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. No action as regards the sale of arms will be taken before a statement to the House.

Mr. Hastings

As we are concerned with Soviet naval infiltration of the Indian Ocean and with the position of the Commonwealth, would my right hon. Friend confirm that his decision will be all the more pertinent in view of the agreement between Mauritius and the Soviet Union on naval facilities, reached, apparently, without the knowledge of, let alone any consultation with, the British Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

These are matters which we should debate in the general context of the threat of the Soviet Union and the general context of the defence of the Indian Ocean.

Mr. James Johnson

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of discussions with Commonwealth Governments. Is he fully aware of the loathing and disgust which the Heads of African States feel for the policy of Her Majesty's Government in sending arms, or even thinking of sending arms, to South Africa? Will he not think again about sending one of his colleagues from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to talk with Commonwealth Heads of State, particularly Tanzania and Zambia, which are so closely involved and which are so near to South Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

This may happen as part of our programme of explanation.

Sir F. Bennett

Could my right hon. Friend elaborate on an earlier answer he gave? Did I hear him say that in fact Her Majesty's Government had committed this country to join in naval manoeuvres with the South African Navy starting on 5th August? If there should be such a mockery about the possibility of a Soviet threat in the South Atlantic to our trade routes, for what purpose were those manoeuvres to be carried out?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Right hon. Members of the Opposition should answer that question because they agreed to the manoeuvres. Very simply, it would be for some purpose of security.

Mr. David Steel

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that many Governments have represented that a decision to sell arms to South Africa would be the biggest blunder in British foreign policy since Suez? Will he confirm that many Governments differ about the strategic judgment that has been made and that the increase in Communist influence in the rest of Africa would be very substantial following such a decision?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I do not think there is a single Government which does not admit that it is the right of this Government to decide her own defence policy. Some do not like what may be the final decision, but for different reasons, and some want more explanations.

Mr. Braine

In order that this issue should be clarified, will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not a fact when the party opposite were in power it declared more than once that the Simonstown Agreement was vital to British maritime interests? If that Agreement is vital to safeguard British maritime interests, is it not utter hypocrisy that we should deny to the South Africans capacity to carry out their part of the joint Agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

This is one of the matters we could debate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has talked about sharing the defence of these routes with the South African Government. Sharing must mean something.

Mr. John Morris

Does the statement made by the Foreign Secretary that no action would be taken before a statement is made to the House mean that no contracts will be entered into and no heads of agreement and no sales representative go to South Africa with the blessing of the Minister of Defence? Does the statement mean that there will be none of these things until a statement has been made to the House?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

In respect of the sale of arms, no licences would be issued or anything of the sort before a statement.

Mr. Harold Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman gave, I think, a clear assurance which I accepted. It is not a question of licences for contracts which have been entered into. Will he now say that before the House comes back we will be informed, unless there is a statement made this week, and that the South African Government will not be told in principle that Her Majesty's Government intend to supply arms?

I thought that he gave an answer that seemed satisfactory about this question. He said "no action", but it is action to tell the South African Government that this Government will supply the arms requested. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be no decision in principle to inform the South African Government, or anyone else, before the House reassembles and we can hear that announcement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I have said that no action will be taken and I say no action before a statement is made to the House. I think that is fair. The South African Government can read this statement like anyone else.

Mr. Iremonger

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to debate all this on Wednesday as well?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a question for the Chair. The Chair is as ignorant on that as hon. Members. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Harold Wilson

It is important to get this clear before Wednesday, before the House rises for the Recess. The right hon. Gentleman gives alternatively good and alternatively bad replies. We want to know where he stands. Apparently there were to be only export licences issued. When I questioned him he said that no action would be taken, but it would be action, I hope he will agree, if a decision were taken in principle to tell the South African Government that this Government will entertain their shopping list and supply items on it which the previous Government refused to supply. When he says "action", will he confirm that there will be no supply to South Africa before the House is sitting and able to receive a statement on such a change?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

The right hon. Gentleman surely understands that no Government can be limited as to the time it takes to make a decision. What I said, and said quite properly, is that no action will be taken until I have made another statement to the House.

Mr. Wilson

I am sorry to have to press the right hon. Gentleman, but he has given so many apparently contradictory replies, despite the fact that the Prime Minister is shaking his head. He has shaken his head on alternative replies and we want to know what are the real ones. It is of course understood that a Government can take a decision and keep it to itself before it is time to give it to the House. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he said that no action will be taken before the House comes back. It is action to inform the South African Government that Her Majesty's Government will entertain arms supplies, so does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that, whatever secret decision the Government take and have in their bosoms, there will be no action taken in respect of communications to other Governments, including the South African, of a decision to supply arms to South Africa? Can we have a clear answer for the first time this afternoon?

Sir A. Douglas-Home

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is in fact asking me practically not to consult with Commonwealth countries, for example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We must reserve the right to discuss with other countries, with Commonwealth countries and with South Africa. I think I cannot go further than to say that we will certainly come to this House before action is taken. That surely is the right place to make the next statement.

Mr. M. Stewart

It was clear from the answers the right hon. Gentleman gave me that the Government have at present an intention to supply certain arms to South Africa, but the right hon. Gentleman went on to make it clear that that intention could be modified or changed as a result of the consultations proceeding and they had not gone from intention to decision in principle. What the right hon. Gentleman is being asked now is quite simple. If they do reach a decision in principle do they undertake not to communicate that decision to anyone until they come to their final decision—not to communicate it to the South African Government before they have made it known to this House? That is the question.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

When a final decision is taken I will take the earliest opportunity to announce that final decision to this House. No Government can bind itself—

Hon. Members

Answer the question.

Mr. M. Stewart

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when he had taken the final decision he would take an early opportunity to tell this House, but does he give us an undertaking or not that he will not have told the South African Government either?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

No more than I could give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I would not tell some of our Commonwealth friends.

Mr. Harold Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] We had a perfectly satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman a quarter of an hour ago, since when he had diminished it and derogated from it, but at least he has promised that there will be no action before the House is told. Does that cover an assurance by him that there will be no veto in the United Nations on the Security Council?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

We do not know when the United Nations is to meet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am going to answer. If the Prime Minister would listen for a change instead of carrying on a running commentary—[Laughter.] If the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption]

Mr. Molloy

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I suspect what the point of order is about. Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Molloy

As we see that the Foreign Secretary is in some difficulty, would it help him if we were all to change sides?

Mr. Speaker

I suspected that that was the bogus point of order. The Foreign Secretary.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I think that it is important to get this matter clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore repeat this once more, because the Leader of the Opposition has asked that this should be clarified. There will be no action before a statement is brought to the House and I will take the earliest opportunity that I can of making such a statement. We cannot bind ourselves not to take such a decision. We cannot bind ourselves that other people will not be told about the decision, because what about our Commonwealth friends? They may easily want to know. So the first statement will be made to the House.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Faulds

What a shower.

Mr. Emery

On a point of order. Will you consider, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Faulds

What a shower.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) cannot contain himself, I will have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Emery

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider the fact that during questions on this statement, you have seen fit—at no time do I wish to question your right to recognise whoever you wish—to call three separate members of the Opposition Front Bench, some as many as four separate times, all to put a large number of varying questions. This seems to be a greater amount of questioning from the Opposition Front Bench, which has precluded a number of other hon. Members on the back benches from being able to put questions to the Foreign Secretary. Would you consider that this should not be a principle on which you would act when further statements are made by Ministers?

Mr. Longden

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will deal with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) next.

What the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has said is a fact. There were a large number of questions from the Opposition Front Bench, I imagine because the Opposition Front Bench thought that the matter was important. It is not within the power of Mr. Speaker to shoot down either the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, even if he were tempted to from time to time.

Mr. Longden

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I heard you calling me earlier. It is rather hard to be kept out by seven Members of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have full sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclennan

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the difficulty that, although three members of the Opposition Front Bench spoke with one voice on this issue, the Foreign Secretary spoke with at least three voices?

Mr. Speaker

That is most ingenious, but not a point of order.