HL Deb 23 November 1965 vol 270 cc803-18

3.47 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)

My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat the Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just made in another place on the Rhodesian situation, following the Resolution passed by the Security Council on November 20. The words of the Prime Minister were as follows

"The House will recall the circumstances in which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary went to New York. He had to negotiate and debate against a background of almost overwhelming demand for the use of collective military force, and it was the desire of the whole House, too, that he should assert the British responsibility for Rhodesia, while seeking the fullest support for effective measures to bring Rhodesia back to constitutional rule. I believe my right honourable friend had a great success in what he set out to do, not least because he was able to claim the full support of Parliament and the country.

"It became clear that the original British Resolution would not have secured a majority, and we insisted that the opposing Resolution, supported by 36 African States, was unacceptable. In the event, a compromise Resolution which, with the explanation made by my noble friend Lord Caradon, last Saturday, was acceptable to us, was passed by ten votes to none, France abstaining.

"The text of the Resolution, Lord Caradon's statement, the earlier Resolutions and the speeches of my right honourable friend have been placed in the Library.

"There are three things to which I would draw attention: the question of Chapter 7 wording; the reference in the Resolution to the 1961 Constitution; and the question of trade relations and an oil embargo.

"On the wording of the Resolution, Lord Caradon made it clear that with regard to the operative paragraph 1, we do not regard it as falling under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations. Paragraph 7 calls upon the United Kingdom Government, as the working of the Constitution of 1961 has broken down, to take immediate measures in order to allow the people of Southern Rhodesia to determine their own future, consistent with the objectives of the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

"I cannot see any difficulty here. Manifestly, the 1961 Constitution has broken down. In so far as Mr. Smith and his colleagues purport to be a Government, they have replaced it by an entirely new so-called Constitution. But the House must accept that the Constitution had in fact already broken down as a result of the ordinances and decrees signed on the 10th November, which amounted to the destruction of all safeguards for the rule of law, for human rights in the 1961 Constitution and earlier legislation.

"This certainly does not mean we have abrogated it. It remains the law of Rhodesia, together with the new laws made last week under the powers created by the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965. While we have power to revoke or amend sections of that Constitution, we have said we have no present intention of revoking it as a whole, and I cannot at this stage foresee circumstances in which we would do so. I will come to its rôle in the resettlement period in a moment.

"Now, Sir, with reference to paragraph 8 of the Security Council Resolution, on the 12th November, dealing with further economic sanctions, I said: 'We shall certainly have to review the situation in the light of the discussions in the United Nations and elsewhere, because in our view it is important that, whatever measures are taken, they will fall a long way short of some of the measures which may be urged in the United Nations.' "Our position was explained by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. We are committed to doing what is in our power to implementing this Resolution. But although we insist this remains a British responsibility, we shall not follow a unilateral policy. For this reason, as my right honourable friend said, we shall take counsel with other Governments on the best methods to pursue.

"For one thing, unilateral action on our part could not be effective if other nations were to fill any gap we created. So far as oil is concerned, there are many technical and economic factors to be examined if an oil sanction is to be made effective. I will of course make a further Statement to the House when I am in a position to do so. The same considerations apply in the case of other goods entering into Rhodesian trade.

"The test to be applied, as I explained to the House on November 12, is the effectiveness of the measures to be applied as a means of contributing to the return of Rhodesia to constitutional methods of Government. For the reasons I then explained, this issue cannot be burked. The measures must not be vindictive, but they must be effective if we are to continue to discharge our continuing responsibility for Rhodesia, and not have that responsibility taken out of our hands by others, and possibly by methods which would involve lasting damage for Rhodesia and indeed far beyond Rhodesia.

"In judging the effectiveness and the rightness of any measures we propose to the House, I hope honourable Members and right honourable Members will recognise that action which is speedily effective will do less lasting damage to Rhodesia's economy, and to the possibility of a reasonable settlement, than pressures which are long-drawn-out and inflict a continuing agony on Rhodesia. I hope the House will recognise, too, that while we must continue to assert our special and continuing responsibility, this is a matter of world concern. What is at stake here is the future of our multiracial Commonwealth. What is at stake—has been at stake—is the possibility of our virtual isolation at the United Nations. What is at stake, too, is whether the Afro-Asian bloc will continue in a substantially neutral posture, or will be attracted by the pressures from other nations—not least China—who are in a position to turn the Rhodesian situation to their advantage.

"I repeat our aims: as speedily as possible to turn Rhodesia back into constitutional channels, and to do this constructively without recrimination. When the Governor is able to report that the people of Rhodesia are willing and able to work on constitutional paths we are prepared to work together with their leaders to make a new start. For this purpose, the 1961 Constitution remains in being, though the House will realise the need for those amendments needed to prevent its perversion and misuse, such as we have seen in the last fortnight, and those amendments, too, which are needed to give effect to the five principles to which all parties in this House have subscribed."

My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.

3.55 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, as I am sure the House is, for communicating to us the very long but very important Statement that the Prime Minister has made in another place. I have had the opportunity of seeing this Statement for only a few moments, and I am sure the whole House will want time to consider it and very probably to debate it. But there are a number of questions which I should like to put to the noble Earl, as Leader of the House and, of course, as a member of the Cabinet, sharing responsibility for these matters, which I trust he will be able to answer.

The first, I think, is not of a controversial character in any sense. There is a reference in this Statement to reservations made by Lord Caradon. Will the noble Earl give an assurance that those reservations, which have not as yet been made public, will be made available to Members of your Lordships' House immediately? The Statement begins by recognising the desire of Parliament that British responsibility for Rhodesia should continue to be asserted. My Lords, the United Kingdom could presumably have abstained from voting on this Resolution. Does the noble Earl not agree that, by voting for this Resolution, it at least appears to involve or to imply recognition in some degree by the Government of the jurisdiction of the United Nations?

I would ask the noble Earl if he would answer this question, too: how does he reconcile voting for this Resolution with the statements made by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government to Parliament only a very short time ago? The Statement he has just read refers to paragraph 7 of the Resolution, and, if I might, I should like to remind your Lordships of its terms. It calls upon the United Kingdom Government, as the working of the Constitution of 1961 has broken down, to take immediate measures in order to allow the people of Southern Rhodesia to determine their own future consistent with the objectives of General Assembly Resolution 1514. There is a reference at the end of the Statement to negotiations with the leaders of the people of Rhodesia, and I would ask the noble Earl whether the Government are prepared to reopen negotiations on the basis of the 1961 Constitution. This Resolution apparently goes so far as to call upon us to recognise that that Constitution has broken down and gone, and to allow the people of Southern Rhodesia to determine their own future consistent with Resolution 1514.

Now may I come to paragraph 8? That calls upon us to do our utmost in order to break all economic relations with Southern Rhodesia, including an embargo on oil and petroleum products", and the Statement which the Prime Minister has made says that we are committed to doing what is in our power to implement this Resolution. May I remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister told us that in applying sanctions—and I quote from column 632 of the Commons HANSARD of November 12: Every measure has been judged and must be judged against this ability to restore the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic Constitution in Rhodesia. I would ask the noble Earl how he reconciles this commitment, for which we voted, to do our utmost in order to break all economic relations with Southern Rhodesia… with the application of the test adumbrated by the Prime Minister.

The Resolution goes on—paragraph 9 is connected with this—to call upon the United Kingdom Government to enforce urgently and with vigour all the measures it has announced, as well as those mentioned in paragraph 8 above, which are all economic relations…including an embargo on oil and petroleum products. I put to the noble Earl, does not voting for this Resolution on the authority of Her Majesty's Government show a very considerable change in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to this problem? We were told by the Prime Minister that he did not contemplate any national or international action for the purpose of coercing even the illegal Government of Rhodesia into a constitutional posture. Could not these measures that we have been committed to implement be regarded as coercive? If they are not coercive, what are they intended to do?

I would finally ask (I am afraid that I have asked the noble Lord a great many questions, but it is important) for an assurance that this House will be given the opportunity of considering any steps that Her Majesty's Government propose to take to implement the Resolution of the Security Council.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, perhaps I could answer these questions at once, before I forget them. I think I might try to answer every question that was put to me, although I may not remember all the questions put by the noble and learned Viscount. Naturally, he was not able to give me notice; just as I was unable to give him much sight of the document; but I assume that he would like me to answer them now. The House will forgive me if I miss one or two of them, in which case the noble and learned Viscount will recall me to the question.

I think the first question that he asked was whether the House would have the opportunity of studying the speeches made, including one or two reservations, by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, at the United Nations. As, in fact, was made plain in the document—and I am glad to repeat it—the text of the Resolution, Lord Caradon's statements, the earlier Resolutions and the speeches of my right honourable friend, Mr. Michael Stewart, have been placed in the Library. So on that point I can give the noble and learned Viscount—

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I hope they are in the Library now. I asked for an assurance that they would be made available to Members of your Lordships' House. I do not think that they were available a few moments ago.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I feel that if I can satisfy the noble and learned Viscount to that extent I shall not have done so badly.

He then went on to ask whether acceptance of this Resolution meant that we had ceased to insist on this being treated as a British responsibility. There, again, as I said in the Statement, although we insist that this remains a British responsibility we shall not follow a unilateral policy. I think that any of us who want to make scanctions effective (and I know from his fine speech last week that the noble and learned Viscount wants to see sanctions made effective) must agree that if they are to be of any use at all, they must be collective. So the answer is that, although we do not abrogate our responsibilities, we are collaborating with other countries. Indeed, it would be impossible simply to keep this entirely to ourselves. It has obviously become an issue of major world concern. Whatever we said or did not say, the world intends to take an acute interest.

The noble Viscount then asked me—and I appreciate that this was an important question—to explain the meaning of the word "immediate": the Resolution talks of taking "immediate measures" in order to allow the people of Southern Rhodesia to determine their own future. This is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, made clear when he made his reservations clear in his statement. He made it clear that the word "immediate" in this phrase must be interpreted by us to mean that measures would be taken as soon as possible. He made that explicitly—may I just finish this sentence?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

It was not a question that I asked.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I think the House would like to have this answer. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said that the word "immediate" meant that these measures must be taken as soon as possible.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I had not asked the noble Earl any question about that. I know how hard it is to take down the questions. But I should like an answer to the question I did put: in view of the terms of that Statement, is it or is it not the case that the Government are prepared to reopen negotiations on the basis of the 1961 Constitution with such leaders of Rhodesia as may emerge? That is what I asked.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I know the noble and learned Viscount asked that question; but I had the other down as an additional one. I cannot give any pledge about the nature of the leaders with whom Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to talk; but I must confine myself to the Statement that was actually made.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I am sorry to interrupt—

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

May I finish? The noble and learned Viscount is giving me a rough time. I am anxious to answer the questions, but I must be allowed to finish a sentence every now and then. May I return to what I was saying? When the Governor is able to report that the people of Rhodesia are willing and able to work on constitutional paths then we are prepared to work together with their leaders to make a new start. I cannot add anything further. I know that the noble and learned Viscount, who is an experienced statesman, will not expect me to say more. What he asked was whether the 1961 Constitution would be a sufficient basis. May I repeat what the Statement said: For this purpose"— that is, in the event of any talks— the 1961 Constitution remains in being, though the House will realise the need for those amendments needed to prevent its perversion and mis-use…and those amendments…which are needed to give effect to the five principles to which all Parties in this House have subscribed. So you can call it a basis or call it based on the 1961 Constitution, amended in the way I explained. That, I feel, answers the question, so far as I can take it this afternoon.

The noble and learned Viscount then asked whether it was fair to say whether we are committed to the Resolution. Well, clearly the Government are committed to it. Some of these measures—some of the most important, such as any oil sanctions that might come to be imposed—would require Affirmative Resolutions and it would be for both Houses to pass them or not to pass them. I hope that both Houses would pass Affirmative Resolutions to give effect to the relevant Orders. One could not, of course, say, until any particular step taken is confirmed by the Affirmative Resolution, that Parliament was committed; but certainly the Government, by voting for it, are committed.

There may be at least one or two questions that the noble Viscount has asked which I have missed out. I hope he has remembered his own questions; but if there was one that I have not answered then perhaps he will tell me now.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I will put the questions again, if the noble Earl wishes. So far he has not answered some of the questions I put. I asked a question about paragraph 8 of the Resolution. That is what we are committed to. It is to do our utmost in order to break all economic relations with Southern Rhodesia. I put it to him that this is a complete change from the test that the Prime Minister adumbrated. We are now committed to these economic relations, including an embargo on oil. I asked the noble Lord to reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statements.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot see any inconsistency at all. It was only last week, in the course of that fine speech, to which I have paid tribute more than once, and which the noble and learned Viscount, I think, will not mind my referring again, the noble and learned Viscount said: I agree that we should seek to restore the rule of law and the end of this illegal régime as soon as possible; and in considering sanctions now proposed and others,—we must, it seems to me, apply the test suggested, by the Prime Minister: Are they likely to be effective, and effective quickly?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 270, (No. 4) col. 255, 15/11/65.] Only last week the noble and learned Viscount was extremely determined to see quick and effective sanctions introduced. What we are doing is to try to give effect to the ideas he expressed, in common with so many others in your Lordships' House, last week when the enabling Bill was passed by the whole House without anybody casting a vote against it.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I am sorry to pursue the matter, but really the noble Earl is not facing up to this problem. I do not resile from what I said last week. We were going to consider the sanctions, and we were told that the sanctions proposed by the Government would be adequate for the purpose. As yet, there has hardly been an opportunity for them to be applied. But, my Lords, it is one thing to take, as the Prime Minister asked us to agree to do, a piecemeal application and consider sanctions one by one and see how they work. It is surely quite a different thing for Her Majesty's Government to vote for a Resolution calling upon the united Kingdom to do its utmost to break all economic relations without regard to how the proposed sanction is going to work. That seems to me to involve a considerable change of position. That is why I asked the noble Lord to see whether he could reconcile it with what we were told last week. I asked him, and I press him again, to give an assurance that in steps to break all our economic relations, in addition to the steps already adumbrated, this House at least shall be given an opportunity to consider them before they are brought into force.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I cannot agree at all that there has been any change in our attitude. For the first time this afternoon, or in these discussions, and no doubt without any intention, the noble and learned Viscount distorted what the Government had in mind. He said just now, in effect, that we appeared to be going ahead with measures, extreme sanctions, without considering their effect. That, of course, is quite wrong. We are not taking any immediate steps except that of study and consultation, so it would be quite wrong to imagine that this week, for example, a lot of new steps of a physical kind are being taken in response to the Security Council Resolution. In that respect, I am sure inadvertently, the noble and learned Viscount completely misrepresented the Government. We are studying these matters and consulting. May I repeat the words of the Resolution: That they should do their utmost in order to break all economic relations including an embargo on oil and petroleum products. Therefore, undoubtedly it does leave a considerable measure of discretion.

May I, finally, answer the question of the noble and learned Viscount, whether we in the House would be given an opportunity of discussing these severe measures which may loom ahead before steps are actually taken? As the noble and learned Viscount knows, if he wishes to discuss anything—if the Leaders of the Parties in this House wish to discuss anything—it is not in the least difficult to organise a debate. So, speaking for the moment as Leader of the House, may I say that I am sure the usual channels will find no difficulty about arranging debates on these matters. But if the noble and learned Viscount is asking me a kind of constitutional question—could all these steps be taken without Parliamentary approval?—the answer is that some, no doubt, could be; a whole lot of measures might be involved, and some, the most important, could not be. Certainly oil sanctions would require an Affirmative Resolution from both Houses. To the best of my ability I have answered all the questions of the noble and learned Viscount. It was an unusually long list to have thrown at one, but I do not complain about that. I cannot help feeling that when the noble and learned Viscount thinks over the answers, he will come to the conclusion that he and I are still together, as we were last week.

LORD MCNAIR

My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House will be glad to know that I do not propose to put a series of questions to him. I wish on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches to make clear that we associate ourselves most emphatically with the action of the Government in invoking the interest and responsibility of the United Nations in this matter. Article 34 of the Charter places on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. There can be no question whatever that the action of Mr. Smith and the members of his late Cabinet constituted a threat to the peace of the world. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government are perfectly right in seizing the United Nations of the matter. Above all, it is necessary that the world should realise that this difficulty is not a private quarrel between the United Kingdom and certain people in Rhodesia. It is a grave threat to the peace of the world, and it is absolutely right that the appropriate organ, the United Nations, should be seized of it.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, for what he has said and not least for his excusing me from any further interrogation. To be cross-examined by an ex-Lord Chancellor and the greatest international lawyer of the day in the same afternoon would be too much of an experience.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, would the Leader of the House think that it might be helpful at this stage (since it has been mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, who at the moment is acting as Leader of the Opposition) to give some clarification of why it might not have been possible for our representative at United Nations—after giving the fullest explanation, which would certainly have been justified—to follow the lead of France and abstain from voting?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I think that the shortest answer would be that we want to control the situation. I could speak at greater length, but I think that it is best to put it shortly.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, the noble Earl is aware that I do not wish to debate this issue and that my intent is to put questions. Two questions I wish to ask are these. In the consideration of any international oil embargo, will the particular problem of Zambia be considered; and, also, will consideration be given to the fact that Portugal and the Republic of South Africa might import oil into Rhodesia and that any international action might thereby involve them as well?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

As regards Zambia, of course the noble Lord will be aware that this problem has been intensively studied for a long time. I imagine that everything which he has in mind would be in our minds also. His other question seems to go rather wide. I do not want to imply this afternoon that action of that sort is contemplated.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I wish to ask only two questions. Naturally most of us in the House will wish to study this very grave Statement with care before making any detailed comment. My first question is a very simple one. Will the Government lay the new Rhodesian Constitution in the Library? The noble Earl and the Prime Minister have referred to it, but, so far as I know, most of us have never seen it. Will he give an assurance that it will be laid as soon as possible, in order that we may see how far, if at all, it differs from the original 1961 Constitution?

Secondly, up to now the Prime Minister has claimed that there is complete national unity in favour of his policy. I think he repeated that claim in the Statement that was made to-day. Will the noble Earl make it clear to him that, now that the Government have come out in favour of far-reaching penal sanctions on Rhodesia, that is no longer true and responsibility for this policy forthwith shall rest and must rest with him and his colleagues alone?

LORD BOWLES

And on Mr. Amery as well?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I was approached about the 1961 Constitution, as it happens, by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, a day or two ago and I promised to-day to obtain it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What I want is the new Constitution.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I am sorry. I promised to try to obtain it. I assume that it has not arrived yet, but I was given to understand when I made an inquiry that the changes are very slight. Essentially it is an interim Constitution. It is not intended to be a long-term Constitution. It is adapted from their point of view to the immediate situation.

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to inform the Prime Minister that national unity has now been broken. I do not know why I should do so. I think he would soon send me to the right-about if I did such an impertinence. I cannot imagine why I should tell him that national unity had been broken. Only last week an enabling Bill, giving very wide powers indeed, was passed in this House, and even the noble Marquess did not vote against it. Let that go on record. The noble Marquess knew what was coming and did not vote against it. I am certainly not going to tell my right honourable friend, until I have much stronger evidence, though I would not question the good authority and high individual standing of the noble Marquess, that unity between the Parties has been broken.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? I understand that what he is trying to get is the terms of the Constitution passed by Mr. Smith. That is not what we wish to see. What the Prime Minister still apparently says is that he is willing to settle, I hope as soon as possible, on constitutional terms, which I hope means reasonable terms and terms which we are prepared to support. That is different from what has been said to-day. He has said that he stands by the 1961 Constitution, subject to certain necessary amendments. Would the noble Earl, in answer to a Written Question, make public in this House what must be well known to the Government, if they have considered what changes they are going to make, what amendments in the 1961 Constitution would have to be made in order to make it acceptable as a basis of negotiation with men of good will in Rhodesia? Surely we want to know how we can reach a settlement much more than how we can attack.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, certainly a request from the noble Earl, with his vast experience in these matters, will be conveyed to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. And may I also respectfully say that any request of the noble Marquess, except the one about national unity, which seems to be too much of a good thing, will also be conveyed to my right honourable friend? I cannot hold out hope of an immediate answer to the noble Earl this afternoon, but I will certainly place before my right honourable friend what he has said.

LORD COLERAINE

My Lords, arising out of what the Lord Privy Seal said on the studies which were to be made as to the feasibility of an oil sanction, may I ask him this question? Does he remember that thirty years ago the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States sought to impose a total embargo on the export of oil to Manchukuo? Does he remember that that effort broke down because of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, called the "Chicken-run Judgment", the effect of which was that the Government of the United States had no constitutional authority to prevent the oil companies from exporting to Manchukuo or anywhere else in the world? Can he say whether that judgment of the Supreme Court has ever been reversed or the United States Constitution amended? If not, are we not going to be in a rather ridiculous position?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer regarding the point of history he raises, but, as he can well imagine, we have discussed all these matters with the United States in recent months and, to the best of my belief, this particular difficulty has not been raised. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may have other information. But this does not appear to be the main obstacle at the present time.

LORD COLERAINE

My Lords, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will look into this matter, because it seems to me extremely relevant to the whole problem?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord what I said to the noble Earl and the noble Marquess, that anything he asks the Government to look into will certainly be dealt with.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, in view of the constitutional matters just discussed, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is able to make any comment on the reports in the Press that in Holland it is constitutionally impossible for them to apply the necessary powers to do it?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I saw the report in the Press to that effect, but perhaps I could get in touch with the noble Lord and tell him whether it is correct.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, in view of the fact that all the questions have been put from the other side, surely it is relevant that questions should be put from this side. I was going to ask my noble friend whether he had not also seen the report in the Press that the Government of Persia, from which the greater part of the oil imported by Southern Rhodesia comes, has decided to place an embargo on the export of that oil?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I did see that in the Press and I imagine it to be correct.