HC Deb 15 March 1977 vol 928 cc216-32
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States and Canada, on which I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I apologise for the length of the statement.

This was my first opportunity of hearing at first hand the views of President Carter and the new Administration, a team which carries the heavy responsibility of guaranteeing the overall security of the Western democracies and of supervising and guiding the world's most powerful economy. It is very much a national interest to strike up a close and effective working relationship.

As my visit occurred during the British presidency of the European Community, I was able to explain to President Carter the attitudes of the Nine to some of the issues we discussed and the preoccupations of the Community.

The President has set in hand new initiatives on a number of different fronts and it was stimulating to observe a positive approach to some long-standing international problems and a willingness to take a new look at the long-term objectives and how they should be achieved. We had no difficulty in identifying the major problems facing the Western world, and we shared, to a very considerable degree, a common approach towards the way in which they should be tackled.

The President spoke warmly of the special relationship between America and Britain, and it is my intention that the Government should work closely with his Administration. We must also contribute to the maximum collaboration between the United States and the European Community, and President Carter made clear that he shares this purpose and desires to see the strengthening of the Community. The President also attached great importance to full consultation and co-operation with America's allies in the North Atlantic Alliance, and I warmly welcomed this. During my talks with Prime Minister Trudeau, who has himself recently visited Washington, I was glad to learn that he agreed generally with this judgment.

In both Washington and Ottawa the emphasis of the discussions was on economic problems, including our aims and prospects for the Downing Street Summit Conference to be held in May. I have every reason to believe that it is the intention of both President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau that the preparations for this conference, which have already begun, should be carried forward in a constructive manner, and that we should be ready to adopt a positive approach to the major issues when we meet with the other leaders of the leading Western industrialised countries.

We discussed the pressing problems—of unemployment, inflation and economic recession. I cannot claim that we discovered any panacea for these problems. But the important point is that there is an identity in our assessment. We recognised that it would take a considerable time to reduce the present high levels of world unemployment and agreed on the high priority we should give in this situation to the problem of unemployment among school leavers and among young people generally. We agreed on the need to tackle the problems caused by large and persisting imbalances in the world's external payments system. I suggested that these imbalances, particularly as they affect less developed countries, call for an expansion of the official facilities for financing balance of payments deficits. This is an area in which I look for major advances in the period ahead. President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau both agreed that this problem should be examined as a matter of urgency.

We discussed whether the prospects for the multilateral trade negotiations would be set back by the present world recession. We agreed that general protectionism could serve only to delay the world's emergence from the present economic recession.

I advanced the view that if the United States, as the largest trading nation, was unable to resist pressures for protectionism at home, this would not only slow down progress in the negotiations but would encourage others to follow.

We discussed the problems of relations between industrialised and developing countries, which are being intensively examined in various international bodies. President Carter and I were agreed on the importance of adopting an understanding and constructive approach to the aspirations and needs of developing countries, which are reflected in the issues to be discussed at the ministerial meeting of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in May. I was able to inform him of the discussions in the Community on the preparation of a common position for the negotiations. In Ottawa, too, I was able to have useful discussions on these issues in the light of the special Canadian interest resulting from their position as co-chairman of the CIEC. In both capitals there is an encouraging desire to ensure a successful outcome of the ministerial meeting.

President Carter and I discussed at length the subject of human rights, on which, as the House knows, the President feels deeply and has expressed his views in a forthright manner. It was clear that President Carter had given very careful thought to his approach to this matter, and he welcomed the speech made recently by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. In the area of East-West relations we agreed on the importance of adopting a non-polemical approach to the Belgrade Conference and I was assured that the President is anxious to work closely with the Nine and with all their NATO partners with a view to a serious dialogue with the East at Belgrade. Europe need have no doubt that the new Administration shares a desire for improved detente between East and West, whilst maintaining adequate security.

We discussed the problems of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, to which President Carter attaches high priority. Both of us subscribe to the same objectives. These are complicated issues but vitally important for the future security of the world. President Carter is well aware of the difficulties—political, technical and sometimes commercial—which lie before us in the search for solutions. But we were in complete agreement that renewed efforts must be made to resolve them.

We also discussed the situation in various parts of the world in which we have a mutual interest in helping to create or maintain stability. On the future of Cyprus, we welcomed the resumption of intercommunal talks at the meeting which is to take place shortly in Vienna. On the Middle East, President Carter informed me fully of the United States' latest ideas on the matter and I emphasised the importance of keeping closely in touch with each other over developments in this area.

In addition to the general talk I had with President Carter about Southern Africa as a whole, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had detailed talks on Rhodesia and Namibia with Mr. Vance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed them that he will visit Southern Africa during the Easter recess to have first-hand discussions with those most directly concerned.

President Carter confirmed that he is prepared to give his full support to our efforts to find a basis for a settlement, and that he will continue the co-operation with us which was begun under the previous Administration.

I took the opportunity of emphasising to the President our concern that Concorde should be allowed to land in New York. The President has indicated that he is in favour of a trial period. Judging from some of the statements which were made while I was there, it seems that American opinion may be moving slightly in our favour.

I end this report by saying that I am confident that President Carter will give a positive lead to the West in areas where American leadership is necessary and welcome and that the Administration's new ideas and initiatives are tempered by realism, and that I am confident that the President recognises the importance of fostering and strengthening his ties with America's allies by regular contacts and consultation. I look forward to welcoming him and Prime Minister Trudeau as well as the other leaders to the Downing Street conference in May.

Mrs. Thatcher

Is the Prime Minister aware that we warmly welcome his visit to the United States and that we particularly welcome his use of the phrase, special relationship between America and Britain"? I understand that President Carter also used that phrase while the right hon. Gentleman was there.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a long statement, but I shall confine myself to three points. First, on the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, did the President renew the proposal that America would be prepared to spend more on the Alliance if her partners were willing to spend more, too? Is the Prime Minister aware that, while we know that he supports the Alliance, we find some difference between what he says and his actions in the defence budget which seems to be cut constantly, whenever there is an opportunity?

Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a little more about Rhodesia? We understand from the statement that the Foreign Secretary will be visiting Southern Africa. Will he be going there with specific proposals? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House were disappointed that the Kissinger proposals did not come to fruition and that we are particularly anxious for proposals to be found that are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia?

Thirdly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the phrase about protectionism that he used on page 3 of his statement? It would seem that he had discussions with the President on this matter and, from what he said, that there was some fear of increased protection. Did the Prime Minister discuss the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers with the President, because in America these barriers are sometimes higher than in the rest of the industrialised world?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she has said. The major part of our discussion on arms was on arms control and the prospect of reducing arms expenditure rather than increasing it. There is a general feeling that the burden on the Soviet Union, as well as on Britain and other countries, is becoming too great. Therefore, the President's approach is, I believe, based on the fact that if possible we should endeavour to reduce arms expenditure. The President might want a shift in the form of expenditure, but that would be a matter for later detail. At any rate, it is on these lines that we should begin discussions.

Our stand on Rhodesia is well known, and the Foreign Secretary will be looking for any development that can arise out of that stand. He will be looking for ways in which he can make a break through. We, too, regret that the Kissinger proposals did not come to a successful conclusion but, alas—to use the right hon. Lady's phrase—so far they have not been acceptable to the people as a whole and we have to concentrate on this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which people?"] The people of Rhodesia as a whole. That was what I understood the right hon. Lady referred to. The basic principle is that of majority rule, and Mr. Smith has indicated that he is ready for majority rule within two years. If he intends to keep to that, it is possible to come to agreement, and that is the principle that the Foreign Secretary will be exploring while he is there.

As for increased protectionism, what I had in mind here is that a number of less developed countries are in great difficulties over their balance of payments. Whether the commercial banks will be able to continue to lend to them is a matter of dispute. If not, there is no way in which these countries can balance their books—unless they can get to the super tranches of the IMF—without some degree of protectionism. That was what I meant when I said that new instruments or the development of existing instruments may be necessary.

As for protectionism by the United States, we did not go into details, but I did mention one or two industries, such as specialty steels, where we would regret an extension of American protectionism.

Mr. David Steel

Is the Prime Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome his statement and congratulate him on the close personal accord that he obviously established with the new Administration?

Will the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking that he will not regard the eventual judgment by the New York authorities on landing rights for Concorde as a yardstick of British-American relationships, because those relationships are too important for that?

Will the Prime Minister give us his views, based on the talks that he had, about industrial and economic problems? What was the Prime Minister's reaction to the close and often critical questioning that he received at the hands of American Press and television, and did it reinforce his view of the appalling picture that this country has presented abroad in recent years?

The Prime Minister

While I pressed the matter of Concorde strongly and will continue to do so, I did try to put it against the background of our broader relationships, and it is right that we should continue to do that. But that in no way lessens our strong view that we have treaty rights with the United States and that we do not expect them to be overridden.

As for the appalling picture presented by American television, it is appalling but it is not a true picture. It is a headline picture, and it is one that is sometimes culled by American correspondents living in West End bars who never see anything of what is going on in the rest of the country. I was interviewed by one of these correspondents and I formed an opinion of him.

I am bound to say that in other, more informed, circles there was a different and more informed opinion about the way in which this country has gone through a period in which it has lost its Empire. Admittedly we have an industrial system that needs regenerating—that is agreed on both sides of the House—but there is a real understanding of the way in which the British people are facing the issues. I hope that anyone who goes to America—from either side of the House—will do his best to redress that appalling picture.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams

Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity of raising with the President—particularly in view of his positive attitude to NATO—the problems about AWACs, particularly in view of our own special problems in respect of Nimrod and the special requirements for British purposes that it might meet?

The Prime Minister

I discussed this, but I prefer not to go into details this afternoon.

Mr. Amery

On protectionism, does the Prime Minister agree that the objections that are being raised to Concorde have the flavour of what might be called indirect protection of a kind with which we have been familiar on many occasions in the past? Did the Prime Minister—as I hope—press this point on the President?

On Rhodesia, is the Prime Minister aware that guidance that has been given to the Press indicates that the Foreign Secretary will be going on a familiarisation visit and that he will not be visiting Rhodesia? Since the whole problem centres around Rhodesia, would it not be a good thing if the cast met the Prince of Denmark?

The Prime Minister

I am not certain what underlies the attitude of the New York Port Authority towards Concorde, but we must take into account that there are genuine environmental fears. Some of them are misguided, but the environmentalists seem to be making the running.

It would not be fitting at this stage for a British Minister to visit Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is still a colony of this country and it is in rebellion. If Mr. Smith wished to make arrangements to see my right hon. Friend, I am sure a meeting could be arranged.

Mr. Dalyell

Did my right hon. Friend discuss either in Washington or, more probably, in Ottawa the question of uranium supplies, which is bothering us and a number of our partners in the EEC?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this matter under the general heading of non-proliferation. It is a technical question which we need to examine with great care. A whole review of our policy With the United States is needed and we shall undertake it now. A number of important matters arise from it.

Mr. Townsend

Will the Prime Minister follow President Carter's example and speak out strongly and effectively against the threats to human rights in the Soviet Union, as anywhere else, or does he still feel prevented from doing so by the search for détente and agreement on strategic arms control?

The Prime Minister

I am not sure that I understand that question. I have made speeches on this subject and they are all on the record. President Carter understands that there is no need to make one's point a dozen times. Everyone knows where I, my right hon. Friends and this Administration stand. The hon. Gentleman may not know that, but he is slow in catching up with almost anything. On our approach to the Soviet Union, we have to adjust our tactics to what will get the best results for the people for whom we are concerned. That is our basic attitude, bearing in mind our concern for human rights and freedom.

Mr. Heffer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will not go unnoticed in this country that his positive defence of the Government's policies was in contrast to the statements of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, in another foreign country yesterday, which will assist misunderstandings of our policies by the Press in America and other countries?

Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of discussing with President Carter human rights in Chile—a country which America can influence a great deal because of its rôle in relation to Chile in the past? Are the Americans likely to apply pressure to get democracy re-established in Chile at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister

In speeches overseas, I always take the view of Sir Winston Churchill who said that he attacked the Government relentlessly at home but defended it abroad. However, other times, other attitudes. It is all a matter of taste.

My hon. Friend asked about Chile. There was a more general discussion on the American attitude towards the Caribbean and South America. The extensive overlying American influence in that area is, in some ways, a matter of concern to the President. Although that influence cannot be removed, I think that he wishes to see it exerted beneficially. I do not want to go further than that at present.

Mr. Pattie

May I press the Prime Minister to say something about the AWACs and Nimrod project even though we accept that there are confidential aspects to it? Does he think that it would be a good idea if this country became more of an industrial satellite of the United States and lost our high-technology skills?

The Prime Minister

I have strong views on this subject, but as negotiations are going on, I do not want to endanger them by jumping the gun. I can, however, answer the hon. Gentleman's question in principle. I have no desire to see this country become an industrial satellite of the United States. Especially in regard to our maritime protection, we should, as far as possible, although by all means in partnership with our allies, be able to look after ourselves.

Dr. Bray

Did my right hon. Friend find any movement by the United States on the UNCTAD proposals for a common fund?

The Prime Minister

It is a little difficult to define movement. For some months, especially before the election in America, United States policy was not utterly clear because of the imminence of the election. The new Administration have now pretty well reached a conclusion on their attitude and we should find it possible, as a result of their work, to reach a common conclusion between the EEC Nine and the United States.

Mr. Blaker

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome what he is reported to have said in the United States in support of the President's stand on human rights? Is he aware that in the five statements that he listed in a recent Written Answer as illustrating his attitude on this matter, he failed to make any criticism of the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Is he aware that if what he is reported to have said in the United States indicates that he is following President Carter's more robust stand, it will be welcomed on this side of the House?

The Prime Minister

We should try, even though we may not always succeed, to apply our standards and principles universally. I hope that in his pursuit of me on this subject, the hon. Gentleman will begin to extend the same condemnation to those areas of the world that have so far escaped his eagle eye.

Mr. Whitehead

I understand that while my right hon. Friend was in Ottawa there was some discussion with Premier Trudeau about the possibility of President Amin of Uganda coming to this country and that my right hon. Friend said that subsequent events, should that occur, would be a circus. What contingency plans did he discuss with Premier Trudeau should the clown actually get into the circus?

The Prime Minister

I think that we should try to keep President Amin a little off balance. I do not know that we should state our position so clearly that he will know what our response will be. I should prefer that he should wonder a little about what the position will be when he arrives. I can assure my hon. Friend that the possibility of a visit by President Amin has not gone unnoticed.

Mr. Crouch

Did the question of this being a year of opportunity for a settlement in the Middle East come up in the Prime Minister's discussions with President Carter? Did the hon. Gentleman advance the idea that Britain, in conjunction with other EEC members, could offer much greater strength and initiative in helping to solve that problem?

The Prime Minister

This possibility was raised. The President indicated clearly that he was opening a debate in his reference to the possibility of legal frontiers that were different from defensible frontiers. He did not touch upon the future of the Palestinians on the West Bank. That is a different question to be considered later. The American Administration desire that, if possible, there should be an overall settlement, though I said that I did not think that much could happen before the Israeli elections and that any efforts would have to be concentrated in the second half of the year.

As far as our rôle and that of the EEC is concerned, there are different attitudes in the Middle East. President Sadat has always said to me that he would welcome a British presence, but I am not sure that it would be so welcome in other areas. We shall have to leave that matter until we are nearer a settlement—if we get to that stage this year. We would, of course, discharge our responsibility as a member of the UN Security Council if called upon to do so.

It is clear that the major influence in the Middle East, because of armaments supplies, finance and other matters, must rest with the United States, and Europe should not therefore attempt to pre-empt the United States but rather work in support of it.

Mr. Newens

In his discussions, did my right hon. Friend indicate that he supported President Carter's attitude on human rights, not merely in regard to East-West relations but also to the Third World in general? Did he have the opportunity to discuss military aid and arms supplies to Argentina and Brazil in the light of recent statements.

The Prime Minister

I answered a question a little while ago in general terms about South America and the Caribbean. There is little that I can add to what I then said. I am sure that President Carter, who is clear about these matters, would want to see the general principle that he has enunciated on human rights and individual freedom applied throughout the world irrespective of whether the régime be of the Right or of the Left. We discussed that particular matter.

I also made clear, as I have always done in this House and have sometimes been laughed at for my pains, that it is sometimes a little difficult to carry one's principles exactly into practice. I shall do my best to live up to them, but I shall not always succeed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

In the discussions on trade, which no doubt formed a very important part of the Prime Minister's discussions with President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau, was there any common ground that it was wrong to undermine the position of a strategic industry in various Western countries in relation to the developing world? I refer particularly to textiles. Was there any common ground on the policy that the Governments of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom would take in the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and also the Tokyo Round?

The Prime Minister

We did not discuss the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, although it is of great importance. But the negotiations, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already started. I know that there is great concern in Ottawa as well as in the United States about this matter. I must warn the House that, as far as I know at the moment, the United States would prefer to see the Multi-Fibre Arrangement renegotiated without amendment. Therefore, we did not discuss it in detail, but there will obviously be great difficulties. We would like to see certain changes made in it this year.

Mr. Spriggs

Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of raising the question of unemployment among men and women aged between 45 and 55? If not, why not? What steps are the Government prepared to take to deal with this important problem?

The Prime Minister

I agree that this problem is as important as other problems that we discussed, but I cannot claim that we discussed this particular matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that there were certain limitations on our time. We did bend our attention to the overall problem of unemployment, particularly of young people. I shall take account of what my hon. Friend said in our preparations for later discussions.

Mr. Grylls

If what the Prime Minister said in Washington is true—that the standard of living of the British people has been deliberately reduced by the Labour Government over the last 18 months—will he confirm whether that was in the Labour Party's 1974 manifesto?

The Prime Minister

The Labour Party's manifesto said that we would earn our living and make sure that the balance of payments was put right after the disgraceful way in which it had been left by the Conservative Government. That meant that certain steps had to be taken, including reducing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Borrowing."]—including borrowing and reducing the money supply, which again was one of the worst features of the last Government. That has resulted—I was not able to explain it on American television in detail—in a reduction in the standard of life in Britain. I do not apologise for that. It is an essential condition for getting ourselves right and getting Britain out of the mess in which it has been for so long. We have been misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman and others and we shall be misunderstood. Nevertheless, we must fight our way through this problem. It is as much in the hon. Gentleman's interests as in anyone else's that we should do so.

Mr. Greville Janner

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Labour Members and, I should think, most people in the country appreciate the attitude that he and the Foreign Secretary have taken on human rights both in the Soviet Union and elsewhere and that we resent the attacks which have come from the Opposition on this matter? But that said, will he apply the same principles to Uganda as to elsewhere? Will he and did he express to the American President and the Canadian Prime Minister the indignation of the British people at the breaches of human rights in Uganda and the possibility of the President of that country being allowed into Britain?

The Prime Minister

This matter came up in the course of discussions in Ottawa in particular, not so much in the United States, although the United States has had some controversy with President Amin. There was a great deal of interest shown in Ottawa. I am on record on Canadian television as making clear the position of the whole House and the great indignation that is felt in all parts of this country at what is happening in Uganda. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no doubt in the minds of Canadians about that matter. Indeed, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jamieson, went on television immediately afterwards and repeated what I had said.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not unreasonable now to say that I shall call only two more questions from each side of the House.

Mr. MacFarquhar

In view of the particular interest of the new American Administration's friendly relations with Japan, did President Carter make any comments on the growing trade problems between the European Community and that country?

The Prime Minister

We did not discuss that matter in detail, because we shall have an opportunity of doing so in May. Mr. Fukuda, the Japanese Prime Minister, will be going to Washington within a relatively short time. It was always in the back of our minds that the great productivity capacity of Japan involves a serious threat to some industries in other parts of the world.

Mr. Anthony Grant

When the Prime Minister, quite rightly, raised the dangers of protectionism with President Carter, did he assure the President that this country would be setting a good example in this respect? Did he assure him in particular that it was no part of the Government's policy to impose import controls?

The Prime Minister

No. I did not assure President Carter on either of those matters, because it would not have been strictly accurate to do so. I put it rather the other way. I said that if the United States, which was under pressure, gave way to protectionism, I did not see how any other country, especially a country such as ours, could have a real answer to it, although we would all be going down the wrong road if we did it. I think that the result of the multilateral trade negotiations will to a great extent depend on how far we can ensure that there is a rapid rate of growth in the industrial world.

I think that this Government's position on protectionism is well known. We are ready to introduce protectionist practices where an industry which would otherwise be viable is being crushed out as a result of the recession. I think that is the case, for example, in one or two illustrations which I imagine hon. Members on both sides can think of. It would be foolish to deny ourselves that weapon, especially in relation to some of our industries.

Mr. Molloy

Will the Prime Minister not treat too lightly the remarkable achievements of his visit to America and Canada, because he has done much to repair the damage which has unjustly been inflicted on Britain in speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition? It was about time that the record was put right, and my right hon. Friend has done it remarkably well.

When President Carter comes to Britain, will my right hon. Friend assure him that the anti-black minority in this House is confined to a tiny segment of the Tory Party and that the overwhelming majority of Members deplore all forms of apartheid and colour bar?

The Prime Minister

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. I do not think that there will be any difference between the attitude of the American Administration and ourselves on apartheid. I hope that our attitude is universally shared in this House.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is a very worrying fact that the real position of this country is so distorted abroad. We have got into a trend now in which everything which is wrong is headlined and everything which is good is put down at the bottom of the page. In the old days we could afford the self-denigration factor. We cannot afford it any longer. We are fighting for our lives. Therefore, I think that it is beholden on all of us to try to give a fair representation of this country's position.

Mr. Wiggin

I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that the future of Rhodesia should be decided by the people of that country. But is it not a contradiction in terms that the Foreign Secretary should go to Southern Africa and consult everybody but those same people? Did the Prime Minister discuss with President Carter the substantial olive branch which Mr. Smith extended in response to the Kissinger proposals and which should and must immediately be recognised by this Government?

The Prime Minister

I realise that there is a move for it but I do not think that it is necessarily something that my right hon. Friend should do at present on his visit, although it is for him to take a decision on it. There may be later opportunities for meetings. I would not rule that out at all. There are some indications of movement by Mr. Smith, but he will have to move pretty fast if he is to live up to the declared intention to introduce majority rule within a period of two years, and the more signs we can see of that—although Mr. Smith has his difficulties, which I understand—the better prospects there will be of coming to a peaceful solution. Otherwise, the guerrilla war will intensify.