HC Deb 16 June 1976 vol 913 cc521-3
6. Mr. Gwilym Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on steps being taken to curb the involvement of British mercenaries in Rhodesia.

Mr. Crosland

For the present, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State told my hon. Friend on 5th and 17th May.

Mr. Roberts

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent inaction in this area—although there are promises of action—is causing great concern in the House? Will he at least at this stage make quite clear to the House and the country in what sort of offences Britons who take up service with Rhodesian forces could be involved?

Mr. Crosland

I cannot accept that, unless my hon. Friend is willing to define more closely what he means by "inaction". Perfectly clear sanctions have been laid down concerning Rhodesian recruitment, under the Rhodesia sanctions legislation. There was some discussion in the House last night on whether there was a loophole in this matter. This is under very close study in the Department. But I cannot accept that there is inaction. The Director of Public Prosecutions conducted four successful prosecutions in 1974, for example, against magazines which, possibly through ignorance, carried advertisements encouraging immigration into Rhodesia.

Mr. Stanbrook

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under British law—except in the rather special circumstances laid down in the Foreign Enlistment Act—and under international law, it is not a crime to be a mercenary, as such? At a time when British subjects are on trial for their lives because, in a certain country, it is said to be an offence, would it not be bad for the law in this country to be changed?

Mr. Crosland

The hon. Gentleman refers to mercenaries in another country. About them, obviously, the less said at this stage the better. I can confirm that although in that case they went out against the strong advice of Her Majesty's Government, as the House knows, under British law it is not a crime to be a mercenary. But there is nothing in British law to stop anyone leaving the country, with or without a passport.

Mr. Whitehead

In view of the fact that some people who may be recruited for service under the illegal régime in Rhodesia could be sent out by the same agencies that sent these unfortunate and misguided men to Angola, ought not my right hon. Friend to say something about the procedures that allow these people to send men out there—a matter that has been raised in their trial?

Mr. Crosland

I have examined these procedures closely, and there is no doubt that, as the law now stands, nothing incorrect occurred. In other words, they were not allowed out in some fashion suggesting complicity on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Far from that, they went out against the advice of the Government. But nothing incorrect occurred, because, under British law, anyone can leave the country, with or without a passport.

As for the more general future, I should not like to be drawn into a general definition of what is or what is not a mercenary. It was because of uncertainties in the present law that the Diplock Committee was set up, and I think that it will be sensible for us to await the report of that committee.

Mr. Maudling

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his firm reassertion of the right of an individual British citizen to leave the country if he so wishes, and that we also welcome his clear distinction between serving as a so-called mercenary or volunteer and committing war crimes in the course of that service?

Mr. Crosland

Perhaps I might make it clear that there is one exception to the right of anyone to leave the country, with or without a passport, namely, if a person is suspected of having committed criminal offences. In the case that is in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members, a number of those who wished to leave the country were prevented from doing so by the police because they were wanted for or suspected of criminal offences.

As for the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the definition, I should prefer not to be drawn into fundamental discussions until we have the report of the Diplock Committee.

Forward to