HL Deb 14 May 1968 vol 292 cc241-55

4.27 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD)

My Lords, with permission, I would now reply to the Private Notice Question which was asked earlier in the afternoon. Last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I would make a further statement in regard to Sir Frederick Crawford. I could give no firm undertaking at that stage, but I now think it would be right for me to acquaint the House of the events of the past few days.

As I told the House, Sir Frederick Crawford would be received at the Commonwealth Office if he so wished, and it was subsequently arranged for him to see a senior official last Friday. Having considered what Sir Frederick said on that occasion my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary thought it best to see him personally. The meeting took place to-day. In the course of the meeting my right honourable friend sought certain assurances from Sir Frederick, namely, that he regards the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, as the Queens' true and lawful representative in Rhodesia, and not Mr. Dupont, who claims to hold that position; that he does not accept the illegal declaration of independence as valid nor Mr. Ian Smith and the other members of the régime as lawfully holding offices which they have assumed; and that he will in future do nothing, particularly in respect of various posts which he holds in the public life—and I stress public life—of Rhodesia, which would give the impression that he regards or accepts Mr. Dupont or Mr. Smith and his colleagues as being entitled to the marks of recognition and respect which are customarily paid to lawfully constituted authorities, which, in Rhodesia, means the Governor. Had these assurances been given then I am sure that his passport could have been returned to him.

Sir Frederick told my right honourable friend that his initial reaction was that he could not give these assurances. The Commonwealth Secretary asked him to take time to consider this. The Commonwealth Secretary has now heard from Sir Frederick that he cannot give the assurances asked for. There are no doubt many people in Rhodesia who are anxious to avoid becoming involved in the grave political problems of the country in which they are living, but, as my right honourable friend has explained in another place, Sir Frederick's whole course of action since the illegal declaration of independence has been such as to throw the whole weight of his influence on the side of the illegal régime. Sir Frederick told my right honourable friend that he wished to remain neutral in the present Rhodesian situation. I do not myself believe this is the right posture for a man in his position to adopt, but in any case I cannot accept that he has in fact remained neutral. He has given positive support to the members of the régime. The only way he can cancel that out is by giving the undertakings the Commonwealth Secretary asked for. My right honourable friend tried to draft these in a way that would make it as easy as possible to regain the position of detachment which Sir Frederick professes to wish to occupy.

I really do not think that a simple affirmation of basic loyalties should present so much difficulty. This was not a political declaration, still less a request for support for the present British Government. Sir Frederick has claimed that his loyalty lies to the Queen. In Rhodesia to-day that statement can be made good in one way and in one way only, namely, by a simple demonstration of respect and support for Her Majesty's lawful and undoubted representative, Sir Humphrey Gibbs—coupled with the avoidance of demonstrations of respect and recognition for the usurping régime. In these circumstances my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary sees no grounds to change his decision regarding the withdrawal of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for making this Statement at this hour. I realise that there has been some inconvenience, since it must necessarily be a paraphrase, at any rate, of some of the Commonwealth Secretary's speech. I do not think that I should like to comment this afternoon on what has been said by the Commonwealth Secretary about Sir Frederick Crawford and on what he himself has said. I think one wants to study that most carefully before one makes any comment about it. I suppose there is some doubt about what impression would be given if Sir Frederick Crawford, for example, shook hands with Mr. Dupont at the Bulawayo Trade Fair, and that sort of thing, which no doubt has had to be taken into consideration by Sir Frederick Crawford.

But I would ask the noble Lord whether he could amplify the phrase he used, which I think was something to the effect that Sir Frederick has thrown the whole weight of his influence on the side of the illegal régime. I imagine that this was amplified in the speech of the Commonwealth Secretary, and if the noble Lord could do so I should be grateful. On the broader issue, I would ask the noble Lord what is the object of withdrawing the passport of Sir Frederick Crawford? I understand that there have been some others that have been withdrawn. What is the purpose of it? Surely pin-pricks of this sort are likely only to exasperate the Rhodesians and people who hold British passports and live in Rhodesia; and it will not do any good. It is the sort of action which only annoys people.

There are some of us, at any rate on this side of the House, who view with some misgivings the sort of administrative action which has led to this Statement and the debate in another place. There seems to be an increasing tendency towards administrative action of this kind. Here was a man who had no redress for what had happened. He could not do anything about the removal of his passport from him. Had he not been a distinguished public servant probably nobody would have known that it had been removed from him; it was the accident of his position that made it known. I understand, however, that there are other people who have had their passports removed. Have they been asked by the Commonwealth Secretary whether they will give the same undertakings? Are they going to have their passports given back if they will? These are the kind of questions to which this sort of administration gives rise. I must say that it fills me, and I think most noble Lords on this side, with a great deal of misgiving.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would permit me, I think it would be as well if I were to answer the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, first. I appreciate his desire carefully to consider what I have just said and what my right honourable friend has said in another place. In view of the reaction of noble Lords opposite and others last Thursday, I am bound to say that when they sprang immediately to attack the Government with words such as "mean and despicable action", they might have reserved their judgment until some information could be made available to them, either by Her Majesty's Government or by Sir Frederick. It is not merely a question of shaking hands with Mr. Smith or Mr. Dupont.

I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would like some of the reasons which have been given by my right honourable friend in another place, and perhaps therefore I could use his words. In the course of his speech he said this: Since I.D.I. Sir Frederick has refrained from signing the Government Housebook on occasions such as the Queen's birthday, when thousands of Rhodesians have made a practice of demonstrating their loyalty through the Governor, but not Sir Frederick Crawford. As a former Colonial Governor, Sir Frederick has had his own book and is well aware of the significance of this gesture. Sir Frederick no longer calls the Governor 'His Excellency', but reserves this title to Mr. Dupont. He has been active in promoting social and charitable occasions, innocuous and sometimes worthy in themselves, but used to promote the positions of Mr. Dupont and Mr. Smith, who are regularly invited by Sir Frederick Crawford as guests of honour or to act as patrons. His behaviour as the President of the Bulawayo Trade Fair is only a particular example of a course of conduct which has certainly had the appearance of giving active support to the régime, the test which the House accepted in 1966 as giving grounds for the withdrawal of passports. The House ought to understand that since I.D.I. it has been made the object of the Trade Fair to turn it into a propaganda weapon against the policy of sanctions. Sir Frederick Crawford, who must have known what he was doing, lent himself to this policy. Its literature, presumably issued with the President's authority, says that with the advent of independence Rhodesia has become the greatest market potential in Africa. A significant step in the development of the Fair for propaganda purposes against sanctions was when, in 1966, after I.D.I., Sir Frederick invited Mr. Smith to open the Fair, in circumstances when the Governor had shortly before dismissed Mr. Smith from the Premiership. This invitation was a politically significant act. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Governor thought it necessary to resign his vice-Presidency of the Fair. In welcoming Mr. Smith to the Fair, Sir Frederick Crawford boasted that the burdens placed upon Rhodesia from abroad had not only failed but had enabled Rhodesia to enter new markets not hitherto thought of. In 1967, a year later, apparently unaffected by the Governor's resignation, it was Mr. Dupont whom Sir Frederick chose to invite to open the Fair and whom he formally welcomed. This May, immediately before coming to Britain, Sir Frederick Crawford was to be observed busily taking the Duponts, that is Mr. and Mrs. Dupont, and introducing Mr. Dupont to guests as 'His Excellency'. To put it as charitably as I can, Sir Frederick apparently feels that the pressures on him in Rhodesia to conform with an illegal régime are too great to be resisted. Others have found it possible to do so. But surely they do not compel Sir Frederick to attend a reception here in London last November in honour, if that is the right word, of the second anniversary of the illegal declaration of independence. As he must have expected, his attendance was publicised in Rhodesia, and once again his eminence in the life of Rhodesia gave his action an importance which would not attach to the attendance of others, even perhaps of right honourable Gentlemen opposite"— those are throw-away words of my right honourable friend in another place. But this and other matters clearly show that Sir Frederick Crawford has thrown his full weight, his public position, behind the illegal régime in Salisbury. That is the reason why it was decided to take away from him his passport.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, speaks of pinpricks. There are many people in Rhodesia, white and coloured, who are to-day giving support to the Governor. The noble Lord himself said—I well remember his words—on the first debate on Rhodesia after I.D.I., that whatever we do we should give them comfort and support. These people need to be supported in the line that they take in Rhodesia. Sir Frederick, by his activities, has given comfort to the illegal régime and brought dismay to those who support the Governor. Therefore it is right and proper that we should, by our acts, support those who stand for right and justice in Rhodesia.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he would answer my question, whether the other people who have had their passports taken away will receive the same treatment as Sir Frederick Crawford?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, Sir Frederick Crawford has received perhaps special treatment because of the activities of the Opposition in another place, by emotion and sentiment. We have looked into this and, as the noble Lord will remember, I said last Thursday that in the last 12 months four passports have been taken away. If any of those people feel aggrieved, feel that we have taken a wrong action, I will give the noble Lord the assurance that if they will make their case in the same way as Sir Frederick has been given the opportunity of doing, we will consider it.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, the views on Rhodesia which are held on these Benches are ell known, and if the activities which the noble Lord has described are correct, I would not seek to defend them. But beyond that there is a great question of human rights. What concerns us, and worries us very much indeed, is that a Government and civil servants should be allowed to decide after the event that an offence has been committed, when there is no description available to the public as to what constitutes an offence. I would plead with the Government that until we have a proper procedure, until people know what is and what is not legal, what is expected and what is not expected, no action should be taken against any individual at all.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, first of all, decisions of this nature are not taken by civil servants; they are taken by Her Majesty's Ministers, and they are answerable in Parliament, as I am answerable to-day. I have done my research, and it is clear that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Macleod, when he was Colonial Secretary, used the time-honoured phrase that it is not the practice of Governments to give their reasons for actions of this kind. But as I said to the noble Lord last Thursday, he is raising a wider issue, not merely in terms of Rhodesia but a wider issue in respect to passports and the withdrawal of them. Certainly we have considered it, but the noble Lord must be aware that if such an inquiry was possible it would have to be of the strictest confidence, because clearly there are occasions when you cannot possibly divulge the source of your information.

LORD BYERS

That is the refuge which every Government takes when a matter of human principle and human freedom is at stake.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord will see what I have said. In the case of Sir Frederick Crawford, we provided an opportunity. He was not able to take it. If the noble Lord wishes to raise the wider issue in this matter, then I will be prepared to discuss it. Certainly I would see that my colleagues in the Government considered it, but there are considerable difficulties involved which all previous Governments have acknowledged, perhaps regretfully.

VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, whether, even in the cloistered calm of Westminster, he realises the extraordinarily difficult position in which honourable people are finding themselves in Rhodesia to-day?

LORD SHEPHERD

Yes, my Lords.

VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON

My Lords, they are difficulties which lead legally appointed judges to take up a certain line, as noble Lords know full well. May I also ask the noble Lord one or two very brief questions, because I was the Secretary of State to whom for over five years Sir Frederick was responsible, first as Deputy Governor and then as Governor. In the interests of Sir Frederick's reputation, and for the record, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that few Governors did more for African advancement in their territories and to encourage them to be able to stand on their own feet? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he realises that since Sir Frederick ceased to be a Governor and joined a Corporation—and before, in the lives of these Corporations—both Anglo-American and Selection Trust have done an immense amount of work to help racial harmony, and, as I know very well, in the face of bitter opposition from white trade unions have insisted on African technical education and advancement. Is it not a tragedy that a representative of a firm like this should be treated in an arbitrary way, and will it not lead still further to depress the liberal people in Central Africa whose numbers have, in recent months, been so tragically and, I think, unnecessarily eroded largely by the actions of Her Majesty's Government?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in giving credit to those in Rhodesia for taking a particular line, a difficult line in many cases: the judges and some servicemen, who have carried out their duties but have never in any way raised the question of where their loyalty lay. It is true of Sir Frederick that he has given great service to two colonies. He is a respected figure. That is all the more reason why his actions at this present moment are of such special significance in Rhodesia.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a tragedy. I wish it could have been avoided. I think it could have been avoided if Sir Frederick had realised that the assurances for which we asked were nothing special, but that they would have removed some of the impressions that he created, deliberately or otherwise, in Rhodesia. He could have returned to the position he claims he would wish to be in, that of neutrality. It is a tragedy, but none the less it is a fact, and I think we have to recognise it.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that, in view of the commitment of this country peacefully to secure a constitutional settlement of the Rhodesian problem, and of our constant refusal to use force, it is not the more important that if necessary firm action should be taken even in respect of a distinguished ex-Colonial Governor, if there is a charge which can be sustained of aiding and abetting the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, there has been a consistent policy, and a policy I think the House will recognise as one that has been adopted by all three Parties in this House and in another place, that Rhodesia must, by one way or another, be brought back to constitutional rule. We have rejected the use of force and, therefore, there are only certain ways available to us. It is regrettable that we should have to do it. We have not closed the door, and I still hope that there will be a public opinion in Rhodesia at some date which will make it possible for Rhodesia to return to constitutional rule, and for us then to be able to discuss how that country can develop, and where all the peoples of that country can live in peace and harmony.

4.47 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, last Thursday the noble Lord referred to Sir Frederick's having "given comfort to" the illegal régime. To-day he has (and I am grateful to him) elaborated upon that, and I think he will not deny that, in substance, Sir Frederick has been accused of disloyal or, perhaps, treasonable activities. What some people—and I am one—object to is that the Government should be the sole judge of those matters and should pass an arbitrary sentence. May I ask the noble Lord this question? If that conduct is as he has said, have the Law Officers been consulted to see whether any offence has been committed?—because if charges of that kind are to be brought, the proper place for investigation, where a proper defence can be made, is in the courts of this country. And if the Law Officers have not been consulted, would the noble Lord undertake to consult them with regard to the matter?—because I believe that what many people object to is the fact that there should be condemnation without trial, and a sentence which is unrelated to a proper sentence for disloyalty—if indeed it exists.

May I also ask the noble Lord to answer the question (he has not yet done so) which was put by my noble friend Lord Carrington: what purpose is the withdrawal of the passport intended to serve? Is it intended to prevent people from leaving this country, or is it intended to make it difficult only for them to enter other countries? It cannot stop them entering other countries if other countries are willing to receive them.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this is clearly a matter to which no doubt Law Officers have from time to time given consideration. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount himself gave it consideration in 1960 when the Colonial Secretary of the time withdrew the passports of two Kenyan Africans, one of whom has since been a Cabinet Minister in Kenya and is now the Leader of the Opposition. It was in reference to that occasion that I used the words of Mr. Macleod, that it was not the practice to give this information. This has been the policy in regard to this matter throughout. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, if there were a case for this to be looked at in its wider aspects, then I certainly would be ready to discuss it with Lord Byers, or any other noble Lord. I did not say that Sir Frederick had committed treason. I said that he had given comfort to the illegal régime in Rhodesia. I have set out facts this afternoon which, I think, show beyond a peradventure that he has given comfort to the illegal régime.

May I say to the noble and learned Viscount that in terms of sanctions and the withdrawal of this particular passport, of course it is to make life difficult in Rhodesia. We have never hidden the fact. That is the purpose of sanctions, which I believe the noble Viscount himself has supported in this House on previous debates on Rhodesia.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, as the noble Lord has attacked me, may I reply to him? I was not seeking to attack him or to make Party points. But there is a point of real substance here. When the noble Lord seeks to distinguish between treason and giving aid and comfort to an illegal régime, to most people that last formula means treason. I used the word disloyalty. Let us forget about earlier years; I do not remember what advice I gave all those years ago. But since that time we have passed certain Acts, and I asked the noble Lord whether the Law Officers had been consulted about this, on the facts which the noble Lord had mentioned; and, if not, whether they could be consulted. I submit to the noble Lord that it is much better, when charges of disloyalty of any kind are made, if conduct is contrary to our law, that the matter should be investigated in the courts.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I said—and I repeat it and will not change it—that our complaint of Sir Frederick was that he had given comfort. This is a decision which clearly is within the competence of the Commonwealth Secretary. I do not know whether these is a court of law to which this matter could be taken; the noble Viscount will know more about this than I. But in the wider context I repeat my offer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while one does not challenge this in any way, there is a vital matter of principle here? The noble Lord has read out all these very damaging activities, all of which may be true; and which I would not defend; but they ought to be proved in a court of law so that people know that it has been through a legal procedure. What we have here is a clash of opinion between the Government and Sir Frederick as to whether he was neutral or whether he was giving support.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I see the point which the noble Lord is making. I gave these reasons because I was asked to do so. We are giving these reasons in another place, exceptionally, because of the circumstances of a Motion of Censure, and the Government are entitled to defend themselves. I think that, regretfully, Sir Frederick has made our case by an unwillingness—a refusal—to give an undertaking, and an undertaking which most of us in this place would not find difficult to give.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this very strong defence of Sir Frederick Crawford by noble Lords opposite implies a tacit acceptance of I.D.I. in Rhodesia, and that this is a very serious thing in the whole problem of Rhodesia in the world to-day?

LORD ALPORT

My Lords, while it is possible that those people who have remained loyal in Rhodesia during the last two and a half years will believe that the withdrawal of the passport from Sir Frederick Crawford was well merited, I should like to ask the Minister to answer the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Carrington; namely, what is the purpose of this particular action on the withdrawal of passports? Where is it going to lead the Government, and are they prepared to follow it through to its logical conclusion? Surely the logical conclusion can only be that the question put to Sir Frederick Crawford must now be put to every Rhodesian who wishes to come to this country using a British passport. If that is the case, and if the object of the exercise is that men and women in Rhodesia should stand up and be counted, would it not be fairer, not to pick on individuals at random, however distinguished or undistinguished they may be, but to give a full warning of a time limit of, say, three months so that Rhodesians concerned who value their British passport can choose. They can answer in the affirmative the question put to Sir Frederick Crawford, and have their passports confirmed, and those who do not answer in the affirmative will have made their declaration that they are supporting the illegal régime. In this way there will be no discrimination between individuals, and the Government's policy, for what it is worth, will be carried through to its logical conclusion.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have tried to explain the policy of sanctions and also the policy which was announced in 1966 in regard to passports, particularly in regard to those who have given support to the illegal régime in Rhodesia. This policy is known in Rhodesia. One gets many inquiries in the course of a year as to whether "So-and-so" is likely to have difficulty. This policy is known. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that there are many Rhodesians who have already shown by their acts where their loyalties lie, and I do not think they need to be given three months in which to declare them.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, while I endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, has said about the administration of Sir Frederick in his later years in Uganda, and about his encouragement of skilled opportunities for Africans in Lusaka, I would ask my noble friend if he is aware that the questions which have been put to Sir Frederick have shown quiet clearly that he has no loyalty to the Government of this country, or to the representative of the Crown in Rhodesia, and that therefore in this particular case the action which the Government have taken is justified? But I would also ask my noble friend, in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, whether he does not regard this issue as showing the need for a reconsideration of the whole question of how passports are refused. Are not passports an inherent right of British citizens? And, just as Commonwealth immigrants now are to be allowed to appeal against a rejection of their plea to enter this country, ought not any British citizen to have the right to make an appeal beyond a decision of the Government when a passport is refused?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this Statement and the discussion upon it are taking a long time, and we are getting slightly repetitious. My noble friend will remember that I gave him an assurance in regard to the last part of his question. I stressed the difficulty, but I said that we should be prepared to look at it. We recognise the concern which is felt in this matter, but there are considerable difficulties. If they can be overcome, well and good.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I ask this question of the Minister? I appreciate that the noble Lord is doing his best in very difficult circumstances.

LORD SHACKLETON

He is doing very well.

LORD CONESFORD

I am not saying that in a depreciatory way; everybody appreciates that he is trying to tell us all he can. I am speaking from memory, but I think that when U.D.I. was originally declared Her Majesty's Government in this country said that their object was not to cause chaos in Rhodesia, and they appealed to Rhodesian civil servants to carry on with their work. Any Rhodesian civil servant who carried on with his work is ipso facto probably having to show some signs of respect to all these officials. He has certainly given comfort to the Rhodesian régime by carrying on. That Rhodesian régime is the sole de facto government of Rhodesia. Am I to understand, therefore, that any of those civil servants who visits this country runs the risk of having his passport taken away?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will know, there are many thousands of civil servants who have carried on their duties in the administration of the Civil Service of Rhodesia. Many of them have carried on as the British Government suggested they should carry on in 1965. Many of them come to this country for leave and, as the noble Lord will remember, I said that last year only four passports were taken away. Therefore I do not think there is any implication that because you continue to serve in the administration in Rhodesia you are open to the course of action taken in the case of Sir Frederick Crawford. Sir Frederick Crawford has not just carried out a duty; he has given his wholehearted support to the régime, and it is that which we seek to control.

I wonder whether, because there is much other business and we shall shortly be debating Rhodesia on an Order which may well have considerable association with what we have been discussing this afternoon, we could now leave this in matter and deal with it when the Order is before the House.

LORD COLERAINE

My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the Order will be before the House?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I cannot say that, because the Security Council has not yet dealt with the resolutions before it.

LORD COLERAINE

My Lords, should I be wrong if I suggested to the noble Lord that this business about Sir Frederick Crawford is primarily directed to strengthening Lord Caradon's hard at the United Nations and to persuading other Governments to take the same arbitrary action that this Government have taken?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this decision in regard to Sir Frederick Crawford was taken in June of last year. It has nothing in the least to do with the present situation.

LORD COLERAINE

My Lords, if the decision was taken in June of last year, and Sir Frederick Crawford attended a party in honour of the second anniversary of Rhodesia's independence in November of last year, why was his passport not impounded in November of last year?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I understand that he may have slipped through the immigration authorities without their being aware that he had arrived.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords—

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, it is customary, as my noble friend said, to give way when the Leader of the House gets up to help the House. I am very sorry, but I rather get the impression, from nods and messages I have had, that your Lordships would like to get on with the business. I can only appeal.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords, I think I am entitled to ask one question. The noble Lord was very long in his reply. Would he be good enough to read the first letter in The Times to-day from Mrs. Elspeth Huxley, who brings out the point that the Government's attitude to this legality question is both pompous and hypocritical, which is a view shared by many people? I merely ask him to give that letter his attention and to answer the question at the foot of it. Will she have her passport taken away for writing the letter?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should waste the time of the House, because he had already asked me to read that letter before we came into the Chamber and I said that I would.