§ 3.26 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the House will be aware of the purpose of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 and the need, last November, to provide for the continuation of Section 2 of the Act for a further year. I am sure that everyone, irrespective of Party, will deeply regret the need for the Order which is before us this afternoon, but I trust that the House will see fit to approve it and to renew the powers for a further twelve months. As the House will know, my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary is now in Salisbury having discussions with the Governor and, under the aegis of the Governor, discussions with Mr. Smith. I hope that the House will share my view that it would perhaps not be appropriate for us to discuss the main issue of Rhodesia in these circumstances, and I would therefore ask the House to permit this Order to be moved formally. With those few words, my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1967, laid before the House on October 31, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is not the right occasion for a full-scale debate on the Rhodesian problem. As he said, the Secretary of State is in Salisbury at this moment, and all of us in this House, wherever we may sit, must devoutly hope that he will be able to start negotiations with Mr. Smith for a settlement of this matter. Yet I do not think that it would be right just to let this Order go by on the nod.
It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that we did not support the Government in their proposal to enlarge sanctions and to support the United Nations in their imposition of mandatory sanctions. We have always maintained that this problem was a matter for the British Government alone. We expressed grave doubts about the consequences of placing it in the hands of the United Nations, and also about the effectiveness of sanctions when the British Government themselves acknowledged that it 495 was undesirable, and probably impossible, to take action against South Africa and Portugal if they ignored the mandatory United Nations resolution. I think all those misgivings have been borne out, and though I have no doubt that sanctions have had some effect upon the economy of Rhodesia there is ample evidence—confirmed not least by so impartial an observer as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that they are not having any decisive effect other than to rally Rhodesians behind Mr. Smith.
My Lords, I feel obliged to say these things. Nevertheless, I do not believe that this moment, with Mr. Thomson in Salisbury, would be the right time unilaterally to change our policy, or indeed to have a debate on the subject at any length. All I would say is that we on this side of the House are firmly convinced that a settlement by negotiation is essential, and the sooner the Government are prepared to start on the lines so explicity put forward by Mr. Heath at Brighton the better it will be.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I think that my views on sanctions are probably fairly well known to the House, and I can assure your Lordships that I have not changed those views. But I do share very strongly the view which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I warmly welcome what he has said. I hope that the Government will take note of it. It only remains for me to say that with him I do not think that this is an appropriate or even a wise moment to go in for an extensive debate. I hope very much, with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the discussions which are at present proceeding between the Commonwealth Secretary and Mr. Smith may lead to a happy solution of the unhappy differences between the two countries.
§ 3.30 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOODMy Lords, I should like to make a few comments about the renewal of this Order. I very much agree with what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said, that it is not an appropriate time for a major debate, but I think that in renewing this Order there are a few comments that might be, and should be, made. I have 496 been against sanctions on Rhodesia from the first. As a policy, sanctions were wrong and they have proved ineffective in practice. An increasing number of people in this country realise that sanctions are now more injurious to the future of Britain as every month goes by and undoubtedly a factor affecting our survival as a great trading nation. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, in his recent address to your Lordships on foreign affairs. Sanctions have cost this country a great deal of money. There are varying estimates of this amount, from £80 million to even £200 million. I do not suppose that we shall ever have an accurate figure of what sanctions have really cost Britain, either in terms of expenditure or in lost trade and good will in many quarters, not confined solely to Rhodesia.
I do not intend to speak for much longer. There are many things that could be said, but I realise that this moment is not appropriate and that your Lordships are in the mood to go on to other business. But there is one further remark I should like to make. In Africa generally, as well as in Britain, there is a rising tide of opinion that the Rhodesia issue must be settled. A number of African countries would like to see a solution, so that they can get on with more constructive trading relations. The African is above all a realist, as I have good reason and experience to know. I do not believe that all the sabre-rattling and threats that we have heard from some of the Commonwealth countries about what they will do if Britain makes a settlement with Rhodesia will have any very great consequence.
British influence, which may well be at a very low ebb in some African countries, will gain nothing by a prolongation of this conflict. And what we are doing financially to help the economies of the emergent countries is still of importance. If any member of the Commonwealth feels, for political reasons, that this support can be dispensed with, then I suggest that the British taxpayers' money could be redirected into other more friendly channels or even used here in Britain to our own social benefit.
I should like to refer briefly to something that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said the other day, when he was talking 497 in the foreign affairs debate. The noble Lord, whose influence in your Lordships' House is unquestionable, spoke his mind with conviction and with personal knowledge from his recent tour in Rhodesia and South Africa. He said many things which those of us who oppose sanctions know to be true. The noble Lord made some comment in the opening of his speech with which, if I may say so, I am very much in agreement. Referring to the countries he had visited, the noble Lord said:
Although I cannot claim that six weeks is an adequate time to enable one to speak with authority, I can say that it is a considerably longer time than has been spent in them by a good many people, in the Government and outside, who have made important decisions about them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/11/67, col. 207.]I believe that this comment from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is most valid and is the key to why there is so much ill-informed opinion about the facts of life in Africa. It has led over many years to hasty and mistaken decisions which have had disastrous consequences in Rhodesia and elsewhere.Sanctions have hurt Rhodesia to a less degree than Her Majesty's Government have expected or perhaps hoped for, but in the final analysis I hope that your Lordships will realise how much they have hurt Britain, financially and in good will and in that respect which other nations should have for us.
§ 3.36 p.m.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I should like to associate myself thoroughly with the remarks of my noble Leader, that it is desirable to-day that we should all refrain from saying anything which might in any way retard or impair the negotiations that are taking place. I would also associate myself with the natural hope of all of us that these negotiations will bring results. But the Order makes reference to sanctions, and it is with regard to sanctions, particularly on the economic side, that I should like to say a few words. With the indulgence of the House, I will give the reasons why.
First, I was in Washington this time last week and I came away with the impression that the liking of sanctions among informed persons and industrialists in the States was progressively declining. Next, I would say that any 498 of us who has been associated with the administration of economic warfare must know well that it is extremely difficult to contain the movement of commodities, and when we have an imaginative, resourceful and determined opponent it becomes more difficult.
In the last two wars I was associated with the administration of economic warfare. In the First World War, after service overseas I was brought back to act as Controller in the Ministry of Munitions under Lord Inverforth, and in the Second World War I worked in the Board of Trade under Sir Andrew Duncan. My experience has convinced me that it is extremely difficult to implement sanctions, particularly so against Rhodesia, where there are two long frontiers, one with South Africa and the other with Mozambique. It rather reminds me of former days when poachers trying to net rabbits learned that if they left the middle of the net open, the rabbits just went through it.
I hope that the Government will recognise that there is a mounting conviction in the country that sanctions are the wrong way to approach this problem. As my noble Leader urged from the start, we should negotiate. I have found myself much to the Right of my noble Leader in matters connected with Rhodesia, but I respect the statesmanlike way in which he has always presented the case from this side.
There is a second aspect to the question of Rhodesia—that is, the agricultural one. Noble Lords who are familiar with agriculture will know that diversification is progressively easy. When I was in Rhodesia in the spring of this year I travelled about a great deal and saw the extent to which diversification was taking place. In place of tobacco the farmers were growing Indian mealies, sorghum, groundnuts, cotton and wheat. And let us remember that a large part of wheat going to Rhodesia is coming from Australia. The growers of tobacco, resourceful and energetic, can turn from tobacco to other things. Therefore, on the agricultural side there is little difficulty. It is for that reason that I think the Prime Minister is entitled to the sympathy of all. He was deeply misled by his advisers in suggesting (if it was correctly reported) that within some six weeks the downfall 499 of the legally elected Government of Rhodesia might be brought about.
Moving from that, the Prime Minister has stated that he does not believe in the use of force. God forbid that that should come about! And that, at least, has been continuously and emphatically opposed by my noble Leader and by all noble Lords on this side of the House. But on this particular point I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he could make any comment—
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, perhaps I might bring the noble Lord to the point. I made it clear—and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Marquess when they spoke had the sense of the House—that this was not the appropriate moment to debate this matter. Noble Lords are entitled to express their views, but I think it is the sense of the House that the less said at this stage the better. I say only this to the noble Lord. He may ask a question, but I must make it perfectly clear that I am going to keep to what I said, and that I will not participate in a debate. There could be an opportunity later, as the noble Lord well knows, when if he wishes to raise this matter he may do so. But so far as I am concerned, I shall keep my side of this bargain and will not participate further in this debate.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I respect the noble Lord's views, but he will I hope remember that I specifically kept away from all political angles.
§ LORD BARNBYDifferent from the hour and a half or more that it was debated in another place yesterday. I was in New York last week, and—
§ LORD BARNBYOn the question of force, may I ask the noble Lord whether I may read out a paragraph from the resolution passed by the United Nations last week? It is Item 6:
Reaffirms that the only effective and speedy way for administering power in the territory is through the use of force; and calls again upon the Government of the United Kingdom to take immediately all the necessary measures, including the use of force, to put an end to the régime in Southern Rhodesia.500 I believe that was passed as a resolution only last week, and it is not inappropriate that it should be brought up in the British Parliament now. It is for that reason that I would ask the noble Lord whether he can explain how it came about that, while the representatives of South Africa and Portugal voted against the resolution, the British Government's representative did not.
§ LORD CLITHEROEMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is an inappropriate moment to make a speech. I merely want to say, as one who has always opposed sanctions, that I cannot support this Motion, and I am asked by my noble friend Lord Salisbury to make it clear that that also is his position. I wish these negotiators every success.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, is the noble Lord able to make any reply?
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.