HC Deb 04 November 1974 vol 880 cc684-7
Mr. Peter Walker (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement upon any changes he is contemplating in our defence arrangements with South Africa.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan)

I informed the House last Wednesday that the Government were reviewing the naval arrangements arising from the Simonstown Agreement, taking into account both its military value and also wider British interests throughout Africa. The House will be informed when the review is completed.

Mr. Walker

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent joint naval exercises were beneficial both to the Royal Navy and to general defence arrangements in the South Atlantic? Can he confirm that, since the 1964–70 Labour Government reviewed the Simonstown Agreement, the activities of the Soviet navy have increased substantially in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean? Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the three Ministers who were rebuked by the Prime Minister last week will not be having their own way next week?

Mr. Callaghan

There is no doubt that the situation has changed drastically since 1955. There were then only five independent countries in Africa. Those apart, the ports of the whole continent were controlled by Western Powers. Now there are some 42 independent countries in Africa.

As for activities in the Indian Ocean, there has been an expansion by the Soviet, French and American navies. All these factors must be taken into account.

Mr. Kinnock

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the last major act of piracy on the high seas was committed by the United States of America against Cuba at the beginning of the 1960s, that in the estimates of most experts the likelihood of Russian interference with our trade routes is marginal, and that a large number of people of liberal opinion throughout the country and the rest of the world take heart from the assurance given by my right hon. Friend in Cardiff a week last Friday that if our relationships through Simonstown were only a matter of marginal military importance, the likelihood is that the agreement would wither on the vine?

Mr. Callaghan

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for studying my speeches with such care. This is not a case for simplistic solutions, to use a phrase of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) yesterday. There is a balance of interests and concern—interests to this country and concern to other countries—and, of course, in our attitude to South Africa in these matters. Co-operation with that country would be much easier if her domestic policies were different.

Mr. David Steel

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there are matters wider than simply British interests at stake? However, if we are to confine the discussion to that aspect, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that the balance of British interests is now substantial in Zambia, Nigeria and other countries?

Mr. Callaghan

There are much wider interests at stake here, and our interests have changed since the 1955 agreement was entered into. That is the case for the review.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of us are deeply disturbed by the increased presence of the Russian fleet in warm waters but nevertheless do not altogether accept the strategic arguments for Simonstown? Will my right hon. Friend agree to look at this matter more in the context of some of our NATO partners and not necessarily in the context of Britain alone?

Mr. Callaghan

NATO has reached no conclusions about this. Its area of activities does not extend in this direction. This is a matter that we shall discuss with the South African Government, because in our view there are many aspects that need changing, and also with our other allies, to see what the final answer should be. But I do not intend to announce any conclusion until one is reached.

Sir F. Bennett

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether in his opinion and that of his colleagues the task of maintaining the Beira blockade would be made easier or more difficult, cheaper or more expensive, by the removal of the Simonstown facilities?

Mr. Callaghan

Probably it would be marginally more expensive. At the moment we use facilities in Simonstown to refuel ships. If the agreement is brought to an end, there is no reason, subject to the agreement of the South African Government, why a British ship should not call in at Simonstown in the future as it has in the past and as HMS "Llandaff" will during the next two or three weeks. That is different from having a defence agreement with South Africa on this issue. But in the end we shall have to weigh the marginal increase in cost against the very changed circumstances from the time that the Simonstown Agreement was concluded. In my view, the balance of advantage has changed substantially.

Mr. Hooley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for about six months we have been receiving the same argument in relation to defence, Namibia and other South African matters—to the effect that the matter is under review? Although my right hon. Friend's Department has been heavily engaged in the past six months in matters concerning Cyprus and the Common Market, our interests and those of others in Southern Africa are as vital and urgent there as elsewhere. Cannot we have some movement on this issue?

Mr. Callaghan

There is considerable movement on this issue. The question of arms to South Africa has been settled. As for the general question of the defence review, at Question Time last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he hoped that a statement would be made in the third week of November.

Mr. Wood

Whatever the events and pressures that have led to the present situation, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that abrogation would cause a very serious vacuum in the South Indian Ocean and that a number of nations are only too ready to fill it?

Mr. Callaghan

I am not aware of either. I have read reports in the newspapers—but I do not always believe everything that I see in the newspapers—about nations rushing to fill the vacuum. As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do not necessarily accept that, either.

Back to