§ 3.45 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like now to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
§ "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the latest developments in relation to Rhodesia and Zambia, and in particular the imposition of an embargo on oil shipments to Rhodesia.
§ "As I have repeatedly stated in the House, Her Majesty's Government were not willing to take action unilaterally on oil supplies; our position was that an oil embargo must be multilateral and likely to be effective. In addition I referred to our very special concern for the safeguarding of oil supplies to Zambia.
§ "Discussions on both points were in fact being actively pursued, and 899 agreement with the United States Government was well advanced before I left for Washington last week. In my first talk with the President on Thursday afternoon we were able to set the seal on these arrangements, and as the House knows a mission headed by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations was discussing the organisation of emergency oil supply arrangements with the Government of Zambia.
§ "When we were clear on both points, the embargo and the airlift, that is by Friday afternoon, it became possible to make the Orders in Council, prohibiting British subjects from supplying oil to Rhodesia and prohibiting the import of oil by Rhodesia. The United States Government welcomes and supports our decision; fully recognises the authority of Her Majesty's Government in this matter and is advising all United States citizens and enterprises to comply with the terms of the Order in Council. We have also taken diplomatic action to seek the co-operation of the other main oil exporting countries.
§ "I should add that I have heard to-day that the Governments of France and of Italy are co-operating fully in the arrangements to stop the flow of oil.
§ "Simultaneously, the Minister of State's mission has reached agreement on detailed arrangements to provide Zambia with alternative supplies of oil and on equitable arrangements for the financing of the agreed contingency measures. These consist primarily of an airlift of oil supplies to Zambia—and we have been assured of all appropriate support from the United States to make it effective—with the result that, when the illegal régime in Rhodesia took the expected step of refusing to maintain oil supplies to Zambia, the first British aircraft carrying oil supplies to Zambia was able to fly in yesterday, Sunday, to Lusaka. The airlift will build up rapidly in the next few weeks, but its success will depend on our receiving full co-operation both from Zambia's neighbouring African states and from other countries who are in a position to help with the 900 transport of essential supplies to Zambia. It was for this reason that I was particularly glad to hear from the Prime Minister of Canada during my visit to Ottawa yesterday that the Canadian Government will be considering very urgently how far they can supply aircraft to reinforce the British and American effort.
§ "Sir, I repeat these measures are directed to one purpose only, the return of Rhodesia to constitutional rule, and are essential to that end. They will mean great inconvenience and hardship, but they are essential if we are to get the quick solution which is needed to avoid much greater dislocation and hardship, and if we are to avoid, too, the immeasurable dangers of outside intervention, whatever form they might take—dangers which I was able to sense and assess as a result of continuing exchanges with Commonwealth and other African countries, and as a result of the almost irresistible pressures which are building up for still graver and more far-reaching measures in the United Nations."
§ That concludes the Statement by the Prime Minister.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating that very grave Statement. May I ask him three questions? The Prime Minister has constantly said that the test of oil sanctions is their effectiveness. Can he give us an estimate of how effective these oil sanctions will be and of how quickly he thinks they will work? Secondly, are the Government satisfied that oil supplies to Zambia can be maintained and guaranteed? Thirdly, the Prime Minister is reported on the tape as having said that if certain other countries do not cooperate in the oil embargo further measures will have to be taken. May I ask the noble Earl exactly what that phrase means, and what it implies? Does this mean that the Prime Minister is contemplating a blockade of Beira or South Africa?
LORD REAMy Lords, before the noble Earl answers those questions, I should like to put this question to him. The Prime Minister says that these measures are directed, as we all know, to one 901 purpose only; namely, the return of Rhodesia to constitutional rule. Could the noble Earl say, or could he ask his right honourable friend to make clear, again what exactly are the terms? Are they the original five points, or any further points, or any fewer points? In any case, should they not be repeated often, so that they reach the ears of loyal Rhodesians?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for receiving this grave Statement in that way. Perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I do not think that to-day the Prime Minister will be adding anything further to what he said on the subject of a basis for return to constitutional rule. He spoke at considerable length last Friday week in another place, and I do not think he will be adding anything further to-day on that aspect. I agree with the noble Lord that this point of view needs to be continually re-emphasised, and no doubt it will be developed as time goes on.
May I now deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington? He asked me whether I feel that these measures will be effective. I am myself sure that they will be ultimately effective, but I should not like to put an estimate on the time it will take. I notice that the Daily Mail to-day—and the Daily Mail cannot be accused of being particularly favourable to the Government—seems satisfied that this is the kind of measure that will be effective.
As regards the supply of oil to Zambia, the noble Lord asked me whether I am satisfied that it will be possible to supply Zambia. I am certainly hopeful that it will be possible to supply Zambia adequately; but how great the cost will be is something that one would not like to estimate at this time.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me a question relative to something which I gather has just appeared on the tape about possible future steps. I cannot indicate any future steps to-day. I should not like to give the impression that the Government reach a certain point, and do not look beyond, but I cannot begin to-day to indicate future measures.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, perhaps I might ask one further question. 902 I do not think the last answer given by the noble Earl is very satisfactory. Presumably, the noble Earl is in the confidence of the Prime Minister, and he is in the Cabinet. Surely he must know what the Prime Minister means by this sort of statement; and, presumably, the Prime Minister would not have said it unless he wanted it to be fairly clearly known what he meant. All I am asking is what it means.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I hope that I enjoy a reasonable measure of the Prime Minister's confidence. The noble Lord will realise that I have not had much opportunity of speaking to the Prime Minister, though I have seen him this morning and I know something of what is in his mind. But if he does not wish to say any more about any contingency planning going on, then it would hardly be for me to go further than he wishes me to go.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he is opposed to the use of force. The use of force may involve the use of a blockade. Cannot the noble Earl say that a blockade is still excluded? I would ask him if he would re-emphasise that statement at the present time, in view of what has appeared on the tape. May I also ask one further question? Is the noble Earl aware that on November 23 the Prime Minister said, in dealing with the oil embargo, that he would
need a lot of satisfying on the technical and economic consequences of this embargo, if this is applicable and effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Vol. 721 (No. 673), col. 253. 23 /11 /65]—and then he was interrupted. The Statement we have just heard (and we are grateful to the noble Earl for reading it) does not deal at all with the technical and economic consequences of the embargo. Presumably, the Prime Minister is satisfied about them. May we have some time soon a further statement, or indeed a White Paper, giving the Government's estimate of the economic consequences, so that we also might perhaps be satisfied, as he appears to have been?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I will certainly take note of anything suggested by the noble and learned Viscount. However, I think he is testing 903 me rather high if he expects me to comment impromptu on something which has just appeared on the tape. One cannot come to this House equipped to deal with something which has just appeared on the tape; and, quite frankly, I think it would be astonishing if the Prime Minister wished me, or if the House wished me, to add to this Statement something about future steps. But I will repeat, clearly and definitely, that the Government have no intention of using force in any way. I have already given that pledge several times in this House, and will give it again.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, would the noble Earl the Leader of the House answer one question, dealing with something not on the tape, but with the Prime Minister's visit to Washington? The noble Earl emphasised the co-operation of the United States in this, and as they are the largest oil supplier, that must be of enormous importance. But is it or is it not a fact (this is a point raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in an earlier discussion) that without special legislation the President of the United States has no power to order any United States individual or oil company not to trade in oil?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I think that that may well be so. I looked into the point when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and although his version of history, as it happens, did not entirely harmonise with the information I was given, I think that is broadly the position. But the United States are clearly bringing strong influence to bear on the oil companies.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do not want to embarrass the noble Earl about tape reports of what the Prime Minister has said, because I realise that the Prime Minister has only just returned from Canada and the noble Earl has not had much opportunity of having a conversation with him. But it is really unsatisfactory if the Prime Minister says something in Washington (I am not sure where it was said) which is then reported on the tape, and it goes much further than what he is prepared to say to the House. It leaves the House in a difficult situation. I hope the noble Earl realises this.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am afraid I did not quite follow the noble Lord's account of what was said on the tape. As I understood it, the Prime Minister said that if these measures were not sufficient, then other measures would come under consideration.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, what the Prime Minister said (I am open to correction) was that if certain other countries do not co-operate in the oil embargo, further methods will have to be taken. I asked the noble Earl: what other measures; and what does the Prime Minister mean? The noble Earl says that he has not had much opportunity of speaking to the Prime Minister, and I appreciate that. But all I am saying to him is that it is an unsatisfactory situation when the Prime Minister goes much further in the United States, or Canada, or wherever it was, than he is prepared to go in the House.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I gather that the Prime Minister did not make these remarks in Canada or America. I gather that he has just made them.
§ LORD CARRINGTONThat makes it that much worse, if the Prime Minister is prepared to state something outside this House and is not prepared to tell us inside.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I think the noble Lord, who is fairness itself, is making a great deal of something which hardly seems to be in front of us. I gather that the noble Lord has seen something on the tape which I suppose relates to something the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago.
§ LORD CARRINGTONNo.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDThen I wonder why it is on the tape now. Surely this is getting rather confused. The Prime Minister has made certain observations, which were fully reported in the papers, about what would occur if there was what he called a leakage and seepage. That is not something which has just appeared on the tape. It is in his statement. He has made it plain what he would have to do in the event of leakage and seepage. Frankly, there is nothing more that I can add this afternoon.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I want to get away from this Statement. I want to get one thing clear, because I think it is important that it should be made clear, and that is the question whether or not a blockade is excluded. I would ask the noble Earl—perhaps he cannot do it to-day—to say whether or not it is contemplated that, in certain circumstances, a blockade will be imposed, because in considering these oil sanctions it is very material to know what is in mind, if anything, with regard to that. If that has been considered, and the possibility of it is excluded, then it is important that that should be known, too.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot proceed on a series of guaranteed exclusions. I understand that the Prime Minister himself, when this question was raised—and, if I may say so, I do not think we are getting into a very satisfactory relationship with another place if we have to comment on reported statements that have been made elsewhere while I am actually on my feet; I cannot think that that is the best way of doing business, and that is what we are dealing with now—
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMay I finish?
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEIt was made in Washington, not in another place.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMay I finish? I think we are getting into rather an unsatisfactory condition at the moment, whether or not through my fault. At any rate, I can only inform the noble Viscount that I believe the Prime Minister has described that class of question—the one the noble Viscount has put—as hypothetical, and I cannot improve on that language this afternoon.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us will agree that the immensely important questions raised by oil sanctions cannot conceivably be debated by question and answer this afternoon? I think the noble Earl referred in his original Statement to an Order in Council that has already been made. If that is an Order under 906 the recent Act, will he confirm that that Order will require an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses; and can he say when it will come before either House for consideration?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, it will in fact be brought before both Houses for Affirmative confirmation, but the question of when it will be brought is under consideration in both Houses through the usual channels.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, the Minister, on another point in his Statement, spoke about full American co-operation. Can he say that that does not include the use of American aircraft or American air crews for the airlift?—because that would be bringing in a third party.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I cannot give any guarantees as to the form that American co-operation will ultimately take. I cannot exclude anything of that kind in the future.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, the noble Earl has repeated a pledge which he gave to this House the other day that force would not be used in any offensive way and which is at variance with what the Prime Minister said in another place. If I may say so, this seems to me to be more double talk. Could he explain what he means by using force inoffensively?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am criticised by quite a number of noble Lords because I allow these discussions to go on rather longer than we should without suggesting that we draw to a close. I cannot think that that particular discussion arises this afternoon.