§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which was made by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday.
"Her Majesty's Government have an overriding duty to take account of present and future strategic needs of the United Kingdom and in that context a particular concern for the free passage of ships in all circumstances on the vital sea routes round Southern Africa. It was to that end that the Simonstown Agreement was negotiated. It is our intention to give effect to the purposes of that Agreement and we believe that as a consequence we should be ready to consider within that context applications for the export to South Africa of certain limited categories of arms, so long as they are for maritime defence directly related to the security of the sea routes. The Government have made abundantly clear their fundamental disagreement with the racial policies of the South African Government. In no circumstances would there be sales to South Africa 833 of arms for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid or internal repression.
"It is on this basis that the Government have naturally been concerned to consult with Commonwealth Governments and to discuss these matters with them. A number of these Governments have not yet replied and a number request further information and discussion. At the same time the South African Government is also seeking clarification of the interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement; this will need consideration with the South African Government.
"The Government propose to complete these consultations and discussions before decisions are finally taken."
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for making rather exceptional arrangements to repeat here a Statement made in another place yesterday. We should not have asked for this were it not for the exceptional gravity of the issue before us. I am bound to say—and I have some questions to ask the noble Lord—that the Statement made in another place (now repeated by the noble Lord with greater eloquence than I think he showed on the occasion of our debate) and the discussions that took place there have produced a degree of confusion that I do not recall ever arising in foreign affairs since Suez. The Government have only themselves to blame in this matter. As soon as they came into office they informed everybody, except Parliament, of their intention to start the re-export of arms to South Africa. At the same time the Foreign Secretary said—and I would refer to his Statement in another place—that he was "communicating" with Commonwealth countries. I am glad to see that that has now changed to "consultation", rather than "communication", and I can only conclude that it is as a result of the pretty dusty answers the Government have so far received.
My Lords, we still do not know how the Government are going to proceed. In another place the Foreign Secretary said that no action would be taken—and 834 he repeated that statement and attempted to clarify it on a number of occasions—with regard to the export of arms to South Africa without notification being given to the House and Parliament. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can expand a little on this point. Does it mean that while the Government may take their decision, that decision will, in the first instance, be announced to Parliament and not to anyone else, which is what I understand is the meaning, though I accept that they may wish to communicate it to other Governments? Does it mean that there will be no discussions on the types of equipment and of their use? The noble Lord knows well that there are technical difficulties, particularly with the use of the Nimrod aircraft, which, I understand, has American electronic equipment in it; and the Americans are unlikely to wish this to be used. Or does it mean, as I hope, that the Government will now think again?
The purpose of our Amendment to the humble Address was to urge the Government to think again; and I must ask that the noble Lord will now treat this matter—as I am sure personally he does—with rather more seriousness than he did in winding up the debate on the gracious Speech, when he advised us all to go home to bed. The issues had been seriously deployed then and I hope that he will take them seriously. There is one further point which I should like to ask him. We are informed, and I have no doubt that it is correct, that Mr. Vorster is on record as saying that the British Government had privately and officially promised to resume arms sales, and he was certain that that promise would be honoured. If Mr. Vorster was speaking accurately, how can the noble Lord square it with the repeated statement that no decision has yet been taken and, as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary, the possibility that argument might prevail?
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question, even though I appreciate that his right honourable friend is engaged in negotiation. What reaction have they had so far from Commonwealth countries and from friendly countries, such as the United States of America? We feel most strongly that the Government are embarking on a course which they would appreciate, if they were to 835 consider it more closely, presents real dangers both to world peace and to our national interests. I beg the Government to consider very carefully the advice they have had; and if the noble Lord cannot tell us what that advice is, could he tell us whether there are any, and if so how many, of the countries—other than possibly Malawi—who have been consulted who approve of what appears to be the Government's intention?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I know it is customary for the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party to make his observations next; but the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has practically made a speech—certainly it was much longer than the Statement— and I think it would be—
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am not complaining about it. All I am saying is that since the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has done so, I think it is right, perhaps, while it is fresh in my memory, for me to answer some of his questions, if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will forgive me.
My Lords, I am sorry that noble Lords opposite should be confused. I am sure that noble Lords on this side are not—
§ LORD CARRINGTONI must say, my Lords, that I had hoped for a rather higher standard of intelligence in your Lordships' House than in another place. I am also sorry if the noble Lord was offended by the concluding words of my speech the other day. I thought that after a debate lasting some eight and a half hours it was not very offensive to suggest that we should come to a conclusion and then go to bed; but never mind. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has asked me a number of questions. He has asked me to clarify what the Foreign Secretary said about no action being taken. He asked me whether any decisions would be taken and announced when Parliament was not sitting. I would not be prepared to say that decisions would not be taken and not announced while Parliament is not sitting. But what the Foreign Secretary said is 836 that no action will be taken with regard to these arms until a Statement is made in Parliament and there has, obviously, been an opportunity for debate.
My Lords, on the question of the Prime Minister of South Africa's speech, I am afraid I have no knowledge of that speech; and the situation is as I have stated it in the Statement. Lastly (I hope I have answered the noble Lord's questions; he will tell me if I have missed one out) he asked me what Commonwealth countries have agreed or disagreed. My Lords, some have agreed, some have disagreed and some have asked for clarification; but it certainly would not be proper to divulge in your Lordships' House the messages which have passed between Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, in our view, the best part of this Statement is the condemnation of the racial policies of the Government of South Africa. May I press the noble Lord on this matter? Is it not possible for him to give us an assurance that on a matter which is so vital to the interests of peace and the Commonwealth, both Houses will have the opportunity of debating it before irrevocable decisions are taken?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg the most reverend Primate's pardon, but I think it would be easier if we had one question at a time. What I have said—I think it is fairly clear—is that both Houses of Parliament will have the Statement before any arms are sold and any action is taken in that respect.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I think a very few words from this Bench would be appropriate. I have listened to the Government Statement with feelings of profound relief. I am relieved, above all, because the Government have declared their readiness to take time and to give mature consideration to all the facts and to the arguments, all the arguments, which Commonwealth countries are putting before them. I am particularly encouraged by the unequivocal answer to a supplementary question put in another place: that Her Majesty's Government can be influenced before a final decision is taken 837 and that they will consider all the arguments, even to the point where somebody could, by argument, break them away from their former intentions.
As a part of this process of mature judgment which has been promised, I sincerely hope that the Government will seriously reflect upon those ethical considerations which have been put to them from within the Churches, among others, a good many times, and which indeed a delegation of churchmen specifically set before the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, only last week. It was those considerations which, last week, led myself and five of my brother Bishops to support the Amendment to the Humble Address proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. My relief at the Government's present Statement goes with a strong hope that the time for reflection which the Government have given themselves will be a time for weighing again the serious ethical issues involved.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think that all your Lordships, and certainly the Government, will read very carefully and will weigh what the most reverend Primate has said. I confirm what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place yesterday: that, of course, consultation means consultation.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, perhaps I am not quite as relieved as the most reverend Primate at hearing this Statement. I am, in fact, depressed; and, as my noble friend has said, confused. I wonder whether the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government can clarify a few points about these various terms, "decision", "action", "intention", et cetera. It has seemed to me that there was on June 22 a Press conference at which certain intentions or decisions were announced to the Press. This seemed clear from the reports that appeared in the Press next morning. May I ask, as my first question, whether the noble Lord can confirm that such intention and decisions were communicated to the Press.
Secondly, may I express surprise that the noble Lord did not know of the remarks made by Dr. Vorster yesterday in South Africa? If he is not aware of them, I can assure him that both the 838 B.B.C. and the Daily Telegraph are fully aware of them, and as we have full diplomatic representation in South Africa, I am somewhat surprised that he is not also aware of them. One thing that Dr. Vorster said (or perhaps to be more accurate is reported to have said) is that the British Government of the moment are honourable men—I hope that he was not using this phrase in the same way as Mark Antony used it of Brutus—and that he hoped they would honour their public and private pledges. So my second question is: are there any private pledges to Dr. Vorster of which Parliament is not yet aware?
Thirdly, may I ask a question about the weapons which are implied in the Statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place? The Statement says, and the noble Lord has said, that there is no intention to supply arms which could be of use in advancing the policy of apartheid. I reminded the noble Lord in our recent debate that he himself had said that there could be no guarantee that any weapon could not be used for that purpose. As he did not reply to me at the close of the debate, may I ask him whether he is still of that opinion and, if so, how it squares with the statement that no arms will be sold that could possibly be used for that purpose?
Finally—I do not want to keep the noble Lord, but these are important questions—I should like to ask him whether he can clarify the situation about decision, action, intention and consultations. Is it right that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to supply these arms? Are they consulting with their Commonwealth partners or communicating with them? If they are consulting, how many Commonwealth countries have so far indicated their total disagreement with this intention? That, surely, should be a matter that the House is entitled to know. And may I further ask for a final and unequivocal undertaking that, if there is an overwhelming objection by our Commonwealth partners to the present intended policy, that policy will be changed.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think that is about six questions—
§ LORD CHALFONTFive.
§ LORD CARRINGTONI hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I miss one out or get one wrong. With regard to the question about a Press conference, I do not know whether there was a Press conference; certainly I was not there and I have not the smallest idea of what was said. I do not work in that Department and even if there was a Press conference, I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question. We are discussing the Statement which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon. With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister of South Africa, the position is as in the Statement. There have been no private pledges to the Prime Minister of South Africa.
With regard to the arms question, the noble Lord said that I had made some observation that all arms could be used for the purpose of apartheid. I remember the occasion very well. I was then in the Foreign Office and was discussing the matter with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and I said that of course all arms could be used in this way. But there is a difference when one says that and sees it in cold print. All arms could be used but, to be frank, I think it is a rather remote possibility that a frigate, armed with a 4.5 inch gun, some anti-aircraft weapons and depths charges, would be used for the purpose of internal security. I may say that I looked up some of the debates that we had on this in the past, and the predecessor but one of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in a Question and Answer we had in 1963, when I was answering for the Government, said something rather interesting. He said:
We have certain strategic defence commitments with South Africa: they are particularly naval. Would it not be quite reasonable if, apart from those commitments, the Government could interpret their Answer to-day as excluding anything else which could be used, inland and internally?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/12/63, c. 248.]That is precisely the Government's intention in this Statement.Lastly, the noble Lord asked about the number of Commonwealth countries which agreed or did not agree. I do not think that, when Prime Ministers are communicating confidentially and consulting confidentially, it would be proper for me to go any further than to say that some agreed and some did not.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, does what the noble Lord said in his last reply mean that no aircraft which could be used in an anti-personnel role will be sold?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the Statement is quite clear about the general weapons which will be sent—for maritime defence on the sea routes; but which weapons, of course, is a matter for discussion and consultation.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, aircraft do have a maritime role and they can be used in anti-personnel ways—which does the noble Lord mean?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, it is difficult in question and answer to go into what particular weapons this includes, but presumably the noble Lord is talking about the Buccaneer. If the noble Lord knows anything about the Buccaneer, he will know that it is about as unsuitable a weapon for doing what he suggests as he could imagine.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, on the question of the Buccaneer, I really must press the noble Lord. In my view he is quite wrong in saying that the Buccaneer cannot be used in this kind of role—I myself have seen it used in this role. I should like to ask him whether he is aware—perhaps the noble Lord will listen to me for a moment and then he might be able to answer all my questions at the same time—that it has been reported recently in a Sunday newspaper that the Buccaneer has already been used against guerrilla forces on the Northern Borders of South Africa? Can he confirm that that is so? If he cannot, will he make inquiries to find out whether it is so?
Before I sit down, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for assuring the House unequivocally that there are no private pledges to South Africa of which we know nothing. Perhaps also, as he has not apparently been in communication with the Foreign Office about this matter, I can assure him that there was a Press conference on June 22 and that at that conference it was announced that arms supplies would be resumed to South Africa.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, because the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, does not like my answers, I hope that 841 nevertheless he will remain courteous. I have no knowledge of the Press conference. With regard to the other question he asked me, I have no knowledge of the Buccaneer being used in an internal security role, but I will find out and let him know. The matter of the sale of particular weapons is a matter for consultation.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, who certainly has not been particularly courteous to this side of the House, will not start accusing us of discourtesy when we attempt to get answers to questions to which he refuses to give any answer at all.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, will the Minister agree that the minuscule case for the Simonstown naval base, made out so far, does not really hold water? And would he not agree that by the time we have lost our reputation and our trade with the Commonwealth—and he is a great Commonwealth man—the whole exercise will not have been worth while?
§ LORD CARRINGTONNO, my Lords, I would not agree with the noble Baroness about that. I think it is the duty of the British Government to have concern about British strategic needs.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, could somebody from this side of the House say something? Would by noble friend recollect that after the debate lasting eight and a half hours which we had the other day, the Government had overwhelming support from this House and will have it again, if they stick to their intentions.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am grateful for that welcome relief from noble Lords opposite. May I perhaps remind the House that it is a fairly well-known fact that noble Lords opposite when in Government—or at least some of them in the Cabinet—were perfectly prepared to sell arms to South Africa.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a courteous question? With his great naval experience, has he no experience of any Government in the. past using frigates to interrupt coastwise traffic of which they disapproved?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am sure that that does not seem relevant.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I appreciate that it is very difficult indeed to differentiate between arms which may be used for external purposes and those for internal purposes. But would the Government consider, when they intend to supply maritime arms, that two of the most critical areas are on the coast—Transkei and South West Africa—and that they might easily be used when in South African hands to further apartheid in those territories.
§ LORD CARRINGTONYes, my Lords. It is considerations of this sort that will obviously come into the consultations that we have about what sort of arms we sell.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he thought that I was being discourteous. May I assure him that my intense commitment to this question intends no disrespect to the noble Lord, or to your Lordships' House? May I ask him a question as courteously as I know how? If he has not yet found out whether Buccaneers have been used by the Government of South Africa in anti-guerrilla operations on its borders, will he find out? And when he has found out, will he give us an undertaking that no weapons of that type—in other words, no Buccaneer aircraft—will be sold to the Government of South Africa until Her Majesty's Government have full information about the question that I have now asked?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, of course I will find that out; and I have already said so to the noble Lord. But of course I will not give any undertaking of the kind for which he asks.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for not so far intervening. I admit that this discussion is continuing rather longer than is, perhaps, usual, but I think he will agree that when we were in Government we were fairly tolerant on such occasions. I should like to make two points. One is that it is quite clear that any aircraft can be used for internal security purposes. I do not wish to make any personal point when I say that Shackletons were so used 843 in South Arabia: this was before I arrived there myself for that purpose. But the noble Lord made one serious point which needs to be met. He said that members of the previous Government were in favour of exporting certain arms to South Africa.
§ LORD CARRINGTONSome.
§ LORD SHACKLETONSome arms?
§ LORD CARRINGTONSome members.
§ LORD SHACKLETONSome members of the previous Government. I have never underestimated the difficulty of this subject, but a time comes in all the great issues, which are frequently complex, when it is necessary to come down on one side or the other. We believe that we came down on the right side and that the present Government have leapt firmly to the wrong side.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, can the noble Lord let us know where we can best obtain some short statement of the allegedly great advantages in the context of a modern war of the Simonstown base so that we can study it during our long holiday?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, if the noble Lord will wait until the day after tomorrow he will be able to read the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Defence in another place, who will no doubt speak on the subject.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, as we have had an unusually long debate on this Statement, may I ask this? Would not my noble friend agree that in this categorising of arms it is not sufficiently recognised that South Africa, with her immense industrial strength and know-how, is now able to manufacture herself pretty well all the armaments that she would need to deal with any internal situation? Surely it would not be intelligent for the South Africans to employ for that purpose expensive arms manufactured either in France or anywhere else when they can produce them themselves.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.