CONFERENCE OF COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (Hansard, 26 January 1971)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
322 I left London on 6th January to travel to the Conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Singapore, stopping on my way in Cyprus, Pakistan, India and Malaysia.
In Cyprus, I visited the British Forces in the Sovereign Base Areas. I should like to tell the House how greatly I was impressed by the outstanding services being rendered by the Army and the R.A.F. I also took the opportunity to have discussions with the President of the Republic and to call on the Vice President. In addition I met the Commander of the United Nations force in Cyprus and the Secretary General's representative.
In Pakistan I had discussions with President Yahya Khan and Pakistani Ministers.
During my three days in Delhi I had meetings with Mrs. Gandhi and her Ministers; I also had an opportunity of speaking to the Indian Council of World Affairs.
In my visit to Kuala Lumpur, I had discussions with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and members of his Government. Here, as also in Pakistan, I was greatly touched by the gratitude expressed to me for the contributions which the British Government and people had made to the relief of the distress caused by the recent floods.
Both in Singapore where I visited units of Her Majesty's Forces, and in Malaysia, I found a warm welcome for our decision to keep a continuing British presence in the area, as part of the five-Power arrangements which are shortly to be concluded.
In all these countries, I took the opportunity of meeting members of the British communities and representatives of British business and other interests. I was much impressed by the British investment and aid contribution to economic development in the area.
I am glad to be able to report to the House that bilateral relations between Britain and each of these countries are now close and will, I hope, become more fruitful.
The Heads of Government of the Commonwealth met in Singapore from 14th to 22nd of January, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Singapore. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was present with 323 me throughout the Conference. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the texts of the Communiqué and the declaration agreed by the Heads of Government.
In addition to the normal reviews of the international, political and economic scene, the agenda included items on the implications for the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom's negotiations for entry to the E.E.C.; on the future of the Commonwealth in the next decade; on the situation in Southern Africa; on the security of the Indian Ocean; on comparative techniques of government; on various items connected with schemes of technical co-operation and on the Commonwealth Foundation; and the Secretary-General's report.
The problems of Southern Africa overshadowed the Conference and dominated the discussion. But, important though these problems are, there are many other questions, concerning other continents, both in the political and the economic spheres as well as in the whole field of Commonwealth co-operation, to which we could usefully and constructively have given more time.
In the discussion of Southern Africa 1 took the opportunity of explaining why we think that there is a threat from growing Soviet naval power in the Indian Ocean, as elsewhere. I explained why we thought that the issues of apartheid, which, with the other Heads of Government, we condemned, and the sale of arms were two separate questions. And I explained why we considered it necessary to retain our right to use the facilities granted us under the Simonstown Agreements, and therefore to discharge our own obligations under those Agreements. I set out fully the grounds on which, for reasons of practical commonsense and straightforward dealing, it has seemed to us that it would be in the spirit of these joint arrangements, which remain valid and relevant, and which no Commonwealth Government asked us to abandon, to continue to supply the limited categories of equipment needed to enable South Africa to play her part.
I also made clear the nature of our legal obligations under the Simonstown Agreements——

Hon. Members
What are they?

§ The Prime Minister
These obligations arise under the Agreement for the defence of the sea routes round Southern Africa. I am advised that the obligation is to permit the export of equipment and spare parts required to keep operationally efficient the vessels purchased under the terms of that Agreement. The obligation extends to licensing the purchase of Westland Wasp helicopters to equip three antisubmarine frigates that were purchased under the Agreement and were, with our agreement and assistance, converted to carry helicopters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General——

Hon. Members
Where is he?

§ The Prime Minister
—proposes to advise Parliament on these legal obligations in a White Paper to be published shortly.
I explained clearly the views of Her Majesty's Government; I listened carefully to the views of other Commonwealth Heads of Government on these matters; and I undertook to convey all those views to my colleagues.
One of the anxieties expressed by Commonwealth leaders concerned the future intentions of the South African Government towards them. To allay these anxieties I informed the Conference of the assurances we have had from the South African Government that they will not use any items of maritime equipment which we may supply to them, for purposes other than the protection of the sea routes. I made it clear that I did not expect the South African Government to breach this assurance, but that, if they did, we should at once refuse any further supplies of equipment or spares.
I accepted the proposal for a group to study the defence of the trade routes in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic, since this clearly showed the importance which many Commonwealth countries attached to the trade routes in those areas. We will play our part in the work of this study group. At the same time, I have fully reserved the right of the British Government to take such action as they think necessary in defence of British interests. These words mean what they say, no more no less. Our position is quite clear and straightforward, and there are no secret understandings.
It was on the same basis that we were concerned to ensure that the declaration 325 of principles explicitly recognised that each country is responsible for its own policies.
This was not an easy meeting. For the first time there were 31 Commonwealth countries represented, including three new members from the Pacific. Inevitably much of the old intimacy of discussion has disappeared. Regrettably, the public release of statements seems to have become a regular practice, thus detracting from the freedom and frankness of the discussions. I think that all the Heads of Government were aware of this weakness and we shall all be giving thought to this and other problems connected with our Commonwealth discussions in the seventies and beyond. I was deeply impressed by the strength of feeling, which this Government fully share, that the Commonwealth, with its distinctive tradition and procedures, if they can be preserved, has a vital role to play in helping to promote better relations and closer understanding between the nations of the world.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this side of the House, who also have reason to know how tough a Commonwealth Conference can be, most strongly criticise the right hon. Gentleman because in this case it was he who laid the strains on the Conference, and indeed on the Commonwealth, by his obsession about supplying arms to South Africa? He was quite right to remind Commonwealth colleagues, as I had to do in almost exactly the same terms—[Interruption.]—as I had to do in almost exactly the same terms, and I am very glad that he borrowed my words, that this country is also sovereign and independent, just as the rest of the Commonwealth countries are, and that we are right to pursue British interests—we had to tell them that, as he did. But his doctrinaire insistence on arms to South Africa is not a British interest but is detrimental to British interests, totally against British interests, including British commercial interests, and is only in the interests of further Soviet and Chinese penetration of the African continent.
Is he aware that we welcome his announcement that the Attorney-General will lay a White Paper on the legal obligations under the Simonstown Agree- 326 ment, which we understand and have studied as fully as the right hon. Gentleman or his Attorney-General have? Will he today, in advance of the White Paper, point to the exact paragraph or clause in the Simonstown Agreement which places any obligation on Britain today to supply arms asked for by South Africa in 1971 over and above the obligation in the Agreement to supply arms due for shipment between 1955 and 1963? Will he tell us where he can find the Clause requiring us, as he said in Singapore and in public in Ottawa, to supply British arms today, apart from the spares to which he has referred? Will he tell us that today, because we understand that he said that in Singapore and in Ottawa?
Does the Prime Minister recall his own words and those of his right hon. and hon. Friends at the end of the 1969 Commonwealth Conference in London about the success of that Conference, to which he paid tribute? Is he aware that but for his South African obsession the Commonwealth Conference in Singapore could have moved forward from the 1969 achievements instead of back? We recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill about the liquidation of the old Empire. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud to think that if he goes on with his reckless course—and no one so far has been able to persuade him to change his mind—he will go down in history as the British Prime Minister who, because of his own insistence and his own policies, presided over the liquidation of the Commonwealth of Nations?

§ The Prime Minister
Such strains as there were at the Conference were imposed on it by an attempt to bind certain countries over their own policies. This attempt was in no way disguised but was openly and frankly declared. It was that attempt which I resisted in British interests, in contrast to the right hon. Gentleman, who inevitably gave way at every Commonwealth Conference and then found himself bound by N.I.B.M.A.R,. which he knew was impossible and which was against his will.
The White Paper of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will set out in detail the considerations on which he advises Parliament about the legal obligations under which we find ourselves.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
The Prime Minister has not answered three of my questions. He prefers to falsify the facts of a previous Conference rather than answer the questions. Will he now answer my question about legal obligation? Since he wants to falsify the facts about 1966 will he now, with my full agreement and willingness, look up the records of that Conference? I hope that he will do that. Will he note that at that Conference it was not for two days that we were subjected to pressure on British policy, on Rhodesia, but eight days, and that what I did was to reject a demand made over eight days that we should use force in Rhodesia? In those circumstances, how can the right hon. Gentleman talk about giving in to Commonwealth pressure?
After nearly wrecking the Singapore Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman have the decency to admit that that is what he set out to do?

§ The Prime Minister
I heard all about those Conferences in Singapore, and anything which Heads of Government may have said about me was nothing compared with what they said about the right hon. Gentleman.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's specific points, I should have thought that he would prefer to see the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to Parliament in full.

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman also misquoted what I said both in Ottawa and Singapore. I checked very carefully the script of what I said, and he is misquoting it.
As to the specific question of spares and helicopters to which I referred, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recall that his own Minister, the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), told the House on 26th January, 1965, that it was an accepted principle that a contract to supply equipment carried with it an understanding that the necessary spare parts would normally be provided.
That is a continuing obligation, and that is the obligation which I have quoted.
What is more, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, informed the South African Government, or they were informed on 328 his behalf, that the specialised aircraft to which I have also referred are integral parts of a complete anti-submarine weapons system supplied to South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement. It is a continuing obligation. Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegations.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to withdraw. Everything he has stated is what we did and what we honoured, but what I asked him to answer was not the question of spares, which, as I said in my original question, we accepted as part of the Simonstown Agreement, but to tell me what clause in the Agreement requires him to supply not spares for the 1963 arms but new arms. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has not answered and what he refuses to answer because he cannot answer it.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman really might have done me the courtesy of reading the statement, of which he had an advance copy, which is in accordance with everything I told the Heads of Government in Singapore and have stated in every Press statement thereafter.

An Hon. Member
Answer the Question.

§ The Prime Minister
I will answer the Question again. There are legal obligations which I have stated to the House.

Hon. Members
What are they?

§ The Prime Minister
They are for spares and helicopters, which I have described. [Interruption.] Of course, if it is a new helicopter it is a new arm. What is the right hon. Gentleman arguing about? If he reads my statement he will see that I describe very carefully what we believe to be the practical consequence of Simonstown and the means of keeping that arrangement in operation. Those are the two categories in which we have always discussed this subject. The right hon. Gentleman went out on a limb and made a totally misleading statement, and he should withdraw it.

§ Mr. Turton
Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that it is the Government's policy to continue the Labour Government's policy of conducting joint naval exercises with the South African Navy 329 and to supply live ammunition for these purposes?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, I did indeed, and I pointed out to the Heads of Government that they were not asking us to give up the Simonstown Agreement; they were not asking us to give up the use of the base; they were not asking us to abandon manoeuvres which are carried on and which were carried on by both Administrations. The difference was as to whether we should carry out the legal obligations concerning spares.

Hon. Members
What are they?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) has just said that he carried out that obligation. Why then is he objecting to our carrying out the obligations?
Second, the difference was as to whether what is required to carry on those naval activities should be supplied to South Africa or not.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Is there any legal obligation to supply anything other than the spares and the Wasp helicopter to which the Prime Minister referred? Since some of us have grave doubts about whether there is a legal obligation even to supply those, will he be prepared to test the Attorney-General's opinion by submitting it to the Privy Council so that the matter can be decided by an impartial body at the highest level?

§ The Prime Minister
I have always described the legal obligations as I have described them today. That is how they were described to the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth meeting in Singapore. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman's shaking his head. He was not there, and he is not a Head of a Commonwealth Government.

§ Mr. Richard
I am a lawyer.

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman may be learned. I just take leave to doubt his legal qualifications. He can read my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper when it is published. As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, he had better await the White Paper.

§ Mr. Braine
In view of the line now being taken by the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that despite the 330 one obvious difference in Commonwealth relations—and it really was only one difference—the Commonwealth remains what it always was, a vitally useful and beneficial network of trade and investment, and of professional and indeed parliamentary relationships, which it is in the interests of all of us to preserve?

§ The Prime Minister
When we discussed the Commonwealth in the 1970s—in, I regret, all too short a space of time —many Heads of Government said that they feared there was a danger that the Commonwealth was developing into a mini-United Nations, and there was no point in having an organisation like that when there was already a complete United Nations. Therefore, they wished the Commonwealth to adopt a different form of conference and to change the way it conducted its meetings. As a result, the Secretary-General was asked to obtain the views of Governments as to how that could best be done.
When I concluded my statement, I emphasised that if the Commonwealth can maintain its own characteristics and enable free and frank discussion and exchange of views between its members it can go on being not only a very valuable organisation but a unique kind of organisation. That we fully support, and I believe now that it is what most Heads of Government want the Commonwealth to become.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I should like to make it clear that I do not necessarily call right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench when they rise. I mean no discourtesy to them by this, but try to call as many other hon. Members as possible who may have risen earlier. I will call the right hon. Gentleman in due course. Mr. Grimond.

§ Mr. Grimond
As the Prime Minister will remember, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party twice asked if he would extend the defence conversations in the Commonwealth to cover the Indian Ocean. He replied that they ware concerned only with Singapore and Malaysia. Do we understand now that he is agreeing that the defence of the Indian Ocean is a Commonwealth matter and so is the defence of the coast of Africa? 331 Furthermore, he says he believes that the South African Government will not use arms supplied to them on matters other than the protection of their country, but did he discuss the situation of Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that South Africa is supplying or lending arms to the rebels in Rhodesia at this moment?

§ The Prime Minister
The five-Power arrangements came into being because the five Commonwealth countries concerned specifically wanted it. There has been no desire that 1 know, and it was not shown in Singapore, by countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, other than those four and ourselves, to extend the defence arrangement. This is understandable because they are non-aligned. There was no proposal at Singapore that there should be a similar defence arrangement of that kind. What they did say was that they were interested in the problems of the Indian Ocean and Southern Atlantic. These problems were specifically mentioned by some Heads of Government. I explained the situation to them and it was agreed to set up a study group to look at the matter further and I willingly agreed to it. So far as the assurance in regard to South Africa is concerned, this was based on the understanding that the equipment was not to be used other than for purposes specified by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, the definition is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

§ Mr. Dodds-Parker
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that among our Commonwealth friends, particularly in Indonesia, there was great satisfaction in the strengthening of our interests in the five-Power conference and in the stability of South-East Asia.

§ The Prime Minister
I received an invitation from the President of Indonesia to go to Jakarta for talks with him, but unfortunately I was unable to accept it. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot give immediate first-hand information about the views of the President of Indonesia on the five-Power arrangement, but so far as I know Indonesia welcomes every move to help to keep stability in the area.

§ Mr. James Johnson
Although not forgetting the Prime Minister's stubborn and inflexible behaviour which so antago- 332 nised the African leaders, it is obvious that they gained by meeting him and discovered what he is like. Is he prepared to educate himself by going out to Africa, which I understand he has visited only for a few short days in the past? Will he go to middle Africa and meet Kaunda, Kenyatta and Nyerere and take the opportunity to discuss with them what they feel on the spot about the dangers and difficulties of South Africa?

§ The Prime Minister
I have had an invitation from President Nyerere to go to Tanzania. I have indicated that I would gladly accept this invitation as soon as it is possible to do so. When the hon. Gentleman said that I had been to Africa for only a few days, I would point out that I was there for some three months, although it was 15 years ago, but I have had the opportunity of discussions with all the African leaders at the Commonwealth Conference and also in London and in New York.

§ Mr. Tapsell
In addition to the establishment of the Commonwealth Study Group, has my right hon. Friend any plans to initiate talks with the United States and Australia and our other friends in the area with a view to establishing a South Atlantic Treaty Organisation which will effectively protect our sea routes in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that it is known that the United States Government are now studying the problems in the Indian Ocean, and perhaps we could wait their conclusions. So far as Australia is concerned—and of course today is Australia Day—Australia is well aware of the problems of the Indian Ocean and appreciates the actions we are taking in dealing with it, but she herself is committed to her own defence and also to the five-Power arrangement in the Far East.

§ Mr. Strang
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if the Government were to announce a decision to sell arms to South Africa while the Commonwealth Study Group was looking at this question, it would be an intolerable affront to those Commonwealth countries who are members of that Study Group? Will he now have the elementary courtesy to give an assurance that, in the absence of unforeseen developments in the 333 Indian Ocean, the Government will not announce a decision to sell arms to South Africa while the Commonwealth Study Group is investigating the matter?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's thesis, and I am not prepared to give such an assurance. It was made plain to the leaders in Singapore that this assurance would not be given, and it was specifically stated in the Conference itself in what was called the plenary session, and also to the Press, by the Secretary-General that so far as British defence interests and the carrying out of our legal obligations under the Simonstown Agreement were concerned, the British Government were free to take what action we decided right to take whenever we so decided.

§ Mr. Walters
When discussing Europe was my right hon. Friend able to persuade the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that Britain joining Europe on the right terms would be in the long-term interests of the members of the Commonwealth, both of the rich and also of the poorer Commonwealth countries?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that many Heads of Government appreciated this and fully agreed with what my hon. Friend has said—in particular the Prime Minister of New Zealand who, before he left for the Conference and indeed at the Conference, stated that if we were able to carry through a successful negotiation he had no doubt that it was in the interests of the whole Commonwealth in the long term.

§ Mr. Healey
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Malaysia and Singapore are no less non-aligned since they attended the Lusaka Non-Aligned Conference, as did Nigeria and India, and as the Prime Minister of Singapore made clear in rejecting the attempts of the British to exploit the presence of two Soviet ships in the Straits of Malacca during the holding of the Conference, which many of us saw on television? On the question of our legal obligations, is he aware that the Opposition welcome the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to break what the Prime Minister has defined as our obligations under the Simonstown Agreement if the South African Government use equipment for purposes of which Her Majesty's Government do not approve? Is he further 334 aware that the South African Government differ from Her Majesty's Government in their interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement because on 10th July last year, after the General Election, following the refusal of the then Labour Government to supply Wasp helicopters in December, 1969, Mr. Botha, the South African Minister of Defence, stated—I quote a speech on 10th July— The Simonstown Agreement can be interpreted by alternative British Governments as it suits them.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the former Secretary of State for Defence will recall that twice in 1970 before the June election the South African Government protested to them that they were not carrying out their obligations under the Simonstown Agreement and the aides mémoire were sent in February and again in May. This answers the question as to why, if the Agreement was not carried out, South Africa took no action on it. The South African Government protested formally on two occasions through aides mémoire to the British Government.
In regard to any understanding about the use of equipment, that assurance is quite clear. It is not open to two views and does not refer to any particular part of the Simonstown Agreement. It says, "For purposes specified by the British Government." Therefore, the definition which we give is quite clear. As for the Russian ships, it shows how singularly ill-informed the right hon. Gentleman is, because I specifically told the Conference that we did not attach any importance whatever to this manoeuvre.

§ Mr. Healey
We understand the Prime Minister's embarrassment that the Soviet Government should be so keen for the British Government to go ahead with the supply of arms to South Africa and should have provided him with visual aids for the Conference. On the earlier question, is he aware that he is totally incorrect in what he said and that in fact when we were in power the South African Government twice asked for a revision of the Simonstown Agreement precisely in order to impose obligations which the present Prime Minister now claims were already imposed on Her Majesty's Government.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman would have done better to have stuck to his own plan for supplying all arms to South Africa.

§ Mr. Healey
Is the Prime Minister aware that his loutish disregard for serious argument is one of the reasons he is regarded in the Commonwealth as a one-man walking disaster area? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] But the fact that he has already refused —[Interruption.]— to make clear Her Majesty's Government's policy on arms to South Africa is itself proof—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If I could hear, I think the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) wants to raise a point of order.

§ Mr. Onslow
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you were earlier this afternoon kind enough to indicate some wish to accede to the natural desire of back benchers to share in these exchanges. Could I now invite you to tell the Opposition Front Bench that if they have lost the argument, they must not presume on the House by trading in insults in this way?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. Mr. Healey.

§ Mr. Healey
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think possibly the last words you heard were that the Commonwealth regarded the Prime Minister as a walking one-man disaster area. What I said following those remarks was that the fact is that the Prime Minister has already revised a "decision" into an "intention" and "informing" the Commonwealth into "consulting" the Commonwealth. We welcome his decision to further delay a decision on the South African arms and we hope that he will take account of opinions in the Commonwealth and will not take a decision until after the Study Group has reported, and that he will then in fact take a negative decision.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman should not confuse hopes he may have with actualities.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is quite clear to me that the time has come for us to move on. Mr. Alexander Lyon.

§ Mr. Barnes
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I had down for answer by the Prime Minister Question No. 2 on the subject of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and I did not seek to put a supplementary question at that point. I had hoped that I would have had an opportunity to raise that matter. I do not wish to detain the House any further now.

§ Mr. Speaker
In these special circumstances, if the hon. Member wants to put a supplementary question he can do so.

§ Mr. Barnes
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the matter has run on long enough.

§ Mr. Speaker
So do I.