HC Deb 06 November 1974 vol 880 cc1039-45
1. Mr. Farr

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the South African Government on the future role of the Simonstown Agreement.

7. Mr. Teddy Taylor

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy on the Simonstown Agreement.

14. Mr. Wall

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-South African Simonstown Agreement.

21. Mr. Carter

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African Government on the future of the Simonstown Agreement.

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

The naval arrangements arising from the Simonstown Agreement are being reviewed and we shall report to the House in due course.

Mr. Farr

What consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had in this respect with Commonwealth leaders, and what views have been represented to Her Majesty's Government by Commonwealth leaders in the Far East?

Mr. Callaghan

It is not customary to disclose that kind of information, but, of course, it would be my desire that there should be consultations with all those primarily concerned. That is one reason why discussions will begin shortly.

Mr. Taylor

In these negotiations, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that the maintenance of good relations with South Africa could play a significant part in bringing about a settlement with Rhodesia, which is very important?

Mr. Callaghan

The attitude of South Africa towards Rhodesia has always been that it is not her problem and that she refuses to intervene in the affairs of other countries. For that reason, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is correct. Even if it were, our relations with South Africa could be very much improved by a change in her domestic policies.

Mr. Luard

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation is that, over the years, we have had an increasingly marginal military benefit from the agreement and that, against that, we have paid heavy political costs, especially in relation to the black countries of Africa? If it is true that the United States and other Western Governments are concerned that we should retain our military facilities at Simonstown, would not it be better for one of those Government to take over the military asset and political odium of retaining those facilities?

Mr. Callaghan

My hon. Friend sums up the position perfectly in the first part of his question. As regards the second part, I have no indication that the French Government or the United States Government have the slightest desire to take on this matter.

Mr. Wall

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of Soviet ship-days in the Indian Ocean has increased fourfold in the past three years? Will he confirm that one of the parties whom he will be consulting is the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic? Finally, will he say which African countries actually objected to the Simonstown Agreement?

Mr. Callaghan

I cannot confirm that we shall be consulting SACLANT. This is not within his sphere of responsibility. We shall take account of all the necessary considerations, balancing—as I said at Cardiff on 25th October—the political disadvantages, which are great, against the military advantages, which are small.

Mr. Kinnock

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, without complacency, that the Soviet Navy does not carpet the Indian Ocean from wall to wall and that there are many Commonwealth leaders who share his and my opinion that a significant breakthrough could be made in our relations with Rhodesia with South African assistance but that the only way to secure that assistance is by showing South Africa that we really mean business on racialism?

Mr. Callaghan

My hon. Friend referred to the Soviet Navy. There has been penetration by all navies over the past 12 months and, indeed, earlier. But some of the reports are seen to be grossly exaggerated when they are looked at in detail. As for South Africa's position in relation to Rhodesia, I repeat what I said before, which is that I believe that South Africa will judge her position in relation to Rhodesia in her own interests and will take what steps she considers necessary.

Mr. Rippon

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Simonstown Agreement cannot be terminated unilaterally? Does he agree that it is of importance not just to us but to our allies, and does he agree, also, that a strong allied naval presence is essential both in the South Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean and that British naval forces should remain part of it?

Mr. Callaghan

According to the last clause, the agreement is terminable by mutual consent, but, as it involves a number of considerations which affect both countries, it is proper that there should be discussions between both countries. We shall continue to do that. As regards the presence of the Royal Navy or of any other navy in the South Atlantic, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, because it is clearly part of the defence review.

3. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Gov- ernment's policy has changed regarding the withdrawal from all relationships resulting from the Simonstown Agreements and the termination of all military exchanges, visits and technical arrangements; and what discussions have been held within NATO for extending its activities south of the Tropic of Cancer.

Mr. James Callaghan

My hon. Friend knows that we are reviewing the naval arrangements arising from the Simonstown Agreement. Studies are made of the possible need to protect allied shipping lanes beyond the NATO area, but there has been no suggestion that the Alliance's treaty obligations should be extended beyond the Tropic of Cancer.

Mr. Allaun

Was there not a United Nations report earlier this year to the effect that Admiral Cousins had been instructed to study military collaboration between NATO and the South African Government, which is contrary to what the Foreign Secretary has just mentioned; namely, that NATO is limited to areas north of the Tropic of Cancer? Would not such involvement between Britain or NATO and the South African Government be deeply resented by the British Labour movement?

Mr. Callaghan

I am responsible for the whole of Government policy in this matter, to the Labour movement and beyond. I do not know Admiral Cousins, or of any studies that he has made. I repeat what I said in my original answer to my hon. Friend: studies have been made, but there is no commitment on the part of NATO members to engage collectively or individually in activities outside the NATO area.

Mr. Fell

Does the Foreign Secretary not yet realise that, in view of the imperative need for Britain to be able to export to every counry in the world, it is absolutely monstrous for him to indulge his liking for or dislike of the internal policy of other countries and to base his foreign policy on that? That is absolute nonsense, and he must know it.

Mr. Callaghan

If the hon. Gentleman continues in this way he will be rivalling the new Shadow Leader of the House. I suggest that he carries his studies a little further, and more broadly.

Mr. Fell

Why not join the Left?

Mr. Callaghan

The day that I do that they will welcome me as somebody returning to the fold. I do not think that is likely to happen for some time. I beg the hon. Gentleman to come up to date with some of his studies on the changing pattern of events in Africa. He may then find that the attitude that he used to adopt in 1945 is a little outdated.

Mr. Newens

May we take it from what my right hon. Friend said that the British Government will oppose any future proposal for the extension of the NATO sphere of influence to the South Atlantic? We know that studies have taken place and many hon. Members on the Government benches would feel happier if my right hon. Friend would repudiate any suggestion that we will support them in any way whatsoever.

Mr. Callaghan

There is no suggestion to this effect now. I do not propose to discuss hypothetical questions which have not arisen, and as far as I know there is no intention that they should arise.

Mr. Rippon

The Foreign Secretary is right in saying that NATO activities are limited to the North Atlantic. Will he now answer the question that I put to him earlier and confirm that in certain events our allies have a direct interest in the terms of the Simonstown Agreement?

Mr. Callaghan

I cannot confirm that, because I do not know the answer. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question. I am not aware, from recollection, that the Simonstown Agreement covers allied navies, except in one particular—namely, where, by permission of both Governments, they are entitled to use certain facilities. I think that is the limit of the interest. I should prefer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put down a detailed Question.

6. Mr. McCrindle

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to maintain diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa and to adhere to the Simonstown Agreement.

Mr. James Callaghan

We shall continue to have businesslike dealings with South Africa. As to Simonstown, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) earlier today.

Mr. McCrindle

I welcome that reply by the Foreign Secretary. Just as trade used to follow the flag, is it not at least quite likely that trade in future may follow a country's security? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will at least weigh that in the balance when considering the Simonstown Agreement? Whilst Simonstown exists, does he not think it a little petty to criticise British sailors visiting South Africa because they do not engage in social apartheid?

Mr. Callaghan

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with me. I have never made any comments on that kind of thing. Having once served on the lower deck, I regard it as too trivial to bother about. [Interruption.] I regard it as too trivial to bother about. I hope that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is not getting deaf as well as lacking understanding. I regard these as minor issues. I have always been concerned with the broad question of what our policies should be regarding Simonstown and our relations with South Africa. What the hon. Gentleman has said in the first part of his supplementary question could be argued both ways. I am not sure that I would go all the way with him in what he has said.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Cape trading route is probably the furthest from any current Soviet naval base? Does he agree that as long as we maintain our base or some kind of connection there it is a big incentive for the Soviets to establish a base in the area as well?

Mr. Callaghan

We should try to avoid assuming that other nations necessarily react to what we do. Both South Africa, in relation to her attitude to Rhodesia, and the USSR, in relation to its presence in the Indian Ocean, will make their own decisions in their own interests. It is for us to consider that against our future defence policy.

Mr. Mather

If it is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to continue with the Beira patrol, how will it be serviced without the Simonstown base and how will the fleet auxiliary tankers operate without Simonstown?

Mr. Callaghan

That is a question for the Secretary of State for Defence, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it has not been ignored.