HC Deb 02 March 1971 vol 812 cc1391-4
Q2. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Prime Minister if he will now ask the Prime Minister of South Africa to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister

I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Davis

Is the Prime Minister aware that the representations made by his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about the use of South African police in Rhodesia have been totally spurned by the Union Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in the very week that he announced his squalid arms deal with the South African Government, that Government have embarked upon a policy of persecuting Anglican clergymen? If the South African Prime Minister visited this countries, could not the right hon. Gentleman discuss these matters with him?

The Prime Minister

It is not necessary to invite the Prime Minister of South Africa here to do that. We have been carrying on a discussion of these matters through diplomatic channels, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has informed the House. As for the position of British citizens in South Africa, these questions are always taken up by the Ambassador.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Would not it be a very good idea to invite Dr. Vorster to visit this country for an exchange of views? Is not South Africa an indispensable ally for the defence of the Indian Ocean, and would not some hon. Members opposite do well to take notice of what a number of French-speaking and English-speaking African leaders are saying, that the way to deal with South Africa is by dialogue and not ostracism?

The Prime Minister

I think that there is a deep division of opinion as to whether the problems of apartheid in South Africa should be dealt with by ostracism or by trying to influence the South African Government to change their policies. This difference of view was clear at the Commonwealth Conference. It is a difference not only between former French and former British countries in Africa but between the former British countries in Africa themselves. But, as I have said, I have no plans to invite the South African Prime Minister here at present.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Are we to take it that, following the statement last week by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, there have been formal protests by Her Majesty's Government about the treatment not only of the Dean but also of other clergymen who were harried? Are we also to take it that the Government have formally protested about the expulsion of the priest who was thrown out of South Africa on Thursday or Friday of last week?

The Prime Minister

Some of these cases have been discussed by the Ambassador, obviously, on the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. There have been some cases in which British citizens were not involved and, in the circumstances, we have not been able to take action. If the right hon. Gentleman wants information about specific cases, I will gladly let him have it.

Mr. Harold Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my question clearly. [Interruption.] I have not had an answer yet. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have wanted to give me an answer if he had heard me properly. I did not ask whether the cases had been taken up with the South African Government. I asked whether there had been any formal protest. In view of the Prime Minister's declaration that he opposes apartheid, which no one questions, did he not feel it appropriate to protest either himself or through his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, about the harrying of clergy, even though they be not of British origin?

The Prime Minister

This is not a procedure which is customarily followed through diplomatic channels. In the case of a Government which follows their own legal process, we have certain consular advantages, which we have used fully, and we are entitled to use them. But we cannot make a formal protest when another sovereign State follows its own process of law.

Mr. Thorpe

If the Prime Minister is not at the moment envisaging extending an invitation to Dr. Vorster to visit this country, is he aware that he himself would receive a very warm welcome in South Africa were he to visit that country? Since he and Dr. Vorster were on different sides in the last war, will he realise that, with the authority of his own very distinguished war record, he would be able to tell Dr. Vorster how wrong he was in his Nazi sympathies in the war and how wrong he is to perpetuate them now?

The Prime Minister

We are also on different sides on the question of apartheid, and I have always expressed my own views about it publicly. In private, my views are the same. However, a great deal is to be gained by closer contact with South Africa, and this was borne out by the recent visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr. Paget

When the World Council of Churches proceeds to finance armed rebellion in South Africa and the invasion of her frontiers, can one really complain about the results of thereby converting dissent into treason? After all, the first Elizabeth in similar circumstances was even rougher with dissident parsons.

The Prime Minister

While I do not dispute the hon. and learned Gentleman's historical references, I prefer not to make a generalisation about the situation in South Africa. It is also true that it depends on one's view of the best method of dealing with apartheid whether one supports freedom fighters. There is great wisdom in the advice which has been given by others outside politics, that one cannot expect freedom fighters to overthrow South Africa. On the other hand, the disadvantages which accrue to other African countries from the activities of freedom fighters do them considerable harm.