§ 2.44 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the following Question, of which I have given notice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will undertake not to impose a blockade or the use of force in any other way in the implementation of their policy in relation to Southern Rhodesia, without first securing the approval of Parliament.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble and learned Viscount that, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to embark upon unilateral military action, including the institution of a blockade against the illegal régime in Rhodesia. I can further assure the noble and learned 944 Viscount that, were there to be grave developments in the United Nations during the coming Recess, Her Majesty's Government would seriously consider recalling Parliament. The Government will, in any case, be at the disposal of the Leaders of the Opposition Parties in both Houses for consultations on these matters at any time during the Recess.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the Answer he has given, and if it means what I think it means I would regard it as satisfactory. There is a reference in the Answer to "grave developments in the United Nations". Am I correct in thinking—I think it is to be inferred from this Answer— that any proposal to impose a blockade would be regarded as a grave development?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, the noble and learned Viscount will realise that I am now offering my personal interpretation of a Government Statement, and I must speak subject to that qualification I am not sure that "any proposal" (to use that precise term) in the United Nations would be a grave development. After all, it might be a development that was rejected. But any imposition of a blockade would, in my opinion, appear to be a grave development.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I am sorry to press this matter a little more. But the noble Earl will appreciate that, before this country voted for, or was committed to, any such proposal at the United Nations, it would, as I think, be a widely felt desire that this House should have an opportunity of debating the matter before Her Majesty's Government were committed.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am sure that very great attention will be paid to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. He will appreciate that I cannot add to what is in the Statement, but since he interpreted it in the way favourable to his point of view, let us hope that his interpretation is correct.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I noted one word in the noble Earl's reply. As I understood it—I am asking a question, only this is preliminary to the question—he said that we would 945 not use force or a blockade unilaterally, unless Parliament was consulted first. What does that word "unilaterally" mean? Does it mean that, if we did it in combination with other nations, the Government would not be bound to recall Parliament before action was taken?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am afraid that the noble Marquess did not quite hear my statement, which I may have read too fast. I did not give an absolute pledge that Parliament would be recalled in any circumstances. But I did give a pledge that Her Majesty's Government, in certain circumstances, would seriously consider recalling Parliament and would, in any case, be accessible for discussions with the Opposition Leaders. I should not like there to be some misunderstanding on that point. If I understand the noble Marquess correctly, he would regard, as I would, any serious plan of using force on behalf of the United Nations as a grave development, which would be clearly covered by what I have read out this afternoon.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, do I understand the noble Earl aright in his answer? My noble friend, as I understood him, asked for a categorical pledge that no force would be used, by blockade or otherwise, without getting Parliamentary approval. Do I understand the noble Earl aright in saying that the answer to that is, No: he can give no such pledge; he can only declare the intention. Is that right? He has given no pledge?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I have gone a long way to meet the noble and learned Viscount, and I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, reads what I have said he will feel that I have gone further than he may have expected.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, why cannot the noble Earl give a positive undertaking that these steps will not be taken without Parliamentary approval?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am afraid that, as the noble Lord realises, we are responsible, or may be responsible, for very rapid action. But I think that taken together the two pledges I have given, of complete accessibility at all times to the Leaders of the Opposition, and a readiness to consider a 946 recall if there were grave developments, would satisfy the vast majority of Members of the House.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, is there not a technicality here which may arise from the way in which I framed the Question—namely, that it does not rest with the Government to recall Parliament; that has to be done by other machinery? I took the sentence in the last part of the Answer to be referring to that technical situation, where it does not in fact lie in the Government to decide on the recall of Parliament; other steps have to be taken. Am I not correct in thinking that that is the reason for the somewhat unusual language, perhaps, of the last part of the Answer? And am I not correct in taking it that this does in fact mean that, before there was any proposal to use force, whether by the United Nations or by ourselves, which looked like being implemented, steps would be taken through the ordinary machinery to enable Parliament to be recalled if it was thought right by the Leaders of both the Opposition Parties?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I think the noble Viscount's contribution has been entirely helpful. He has called attention to the technical point that the decision must come from the Speaker in the House of Commons and the Lord Chancellor here. In the light of that, and when this Statement is read, cannot believe that, however much some noble Lords may be critical of the Government, they are in the event likely to be critical of us in this particular respect.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, in the event of a blockade being proposed from any quarter, can we take it that Her Majesty's Government will pay some regard to the requirements of International Law?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I think that that can be taken for granted.
LORD REAMy Lords, does this matter not divide itself into three stages: first, the proposal from any quarter that action should be taken; secondly, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to follow that proposal; and, thirdly, the implementation itself? Could the noble 947 Earl say whether Parliament will be consulted on the second stage, as it presumably will not be consulted on the first stage, since any country may suggest action which will not be implemented?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I think it is rather difficult, if I may say so, to follow up the steps in that analytical way; but, of course, the noble Lord has complete access to me as Leader of this House at any time. I can only repeat that, while there may be many differences in this House on certain aspects of Rhodesian policy, I honestly do not believe that this is a matter on which any difference will, in the event, arise.